Transit Minibus Fees Raised
D~
~<k~
MEMORANDUM
November 29, 2004
c.
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Transit Board Recommendation to Raise Minibus Fares
On March 11, 2004, the Transit Board listened to concerns expressed by Transit
Manager Mark Munson over difficulties the minibus staff was experiencing with capacity
constraints on the minibus service. Specifically, staff was experiencing difficulty
scheduling next-day service requests, late day appointments and reasonable response
times on return rides. The capacity constraints were attributed to a 35% increase in
minibus ridership over the last two years and a lack of capacity to expand service
without additional funding.
After the meeting, Human Rights Director Kelly Larson and her staff conducted an
extensive review of the minibus service as it related to the service criteria established
for public transit services under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Review
confirmed that the service was nearing capacity and that there were valid concerns over
constraints to the service. Specifically, the areas of capacity concern involved denials
for next day service requests, return ride times and wait times in excess of one hour and
a lack of service for appointments scheduled in the late afternoon. The report also
raised concerns over the number of Age-only eligible riders using the service and how
that usage may be contributing to the capacity constraints experienced by ADA eligible
riders.
The Transit Board approved the following recommendations of the Paratransit Review
conducted by the Human Rights Department:
1.
Adopt stricter eligibility determinations that to be ADA paratransit eligible a
person must be unable to use the fixed route service.
2.
Establish a time limit on eligibility and require recertification, particularly for
applicants who indicate the nature of their disability is temporary.
3.
Utilize a comprehensive computer routing system to improve efficiency.
4.
Increase the number of buses available to the paratransit service.
5.
Assure the staff promptly and consistently checks their answering machine and
sends passengers information on what information a voice message needs to
contain when leaving a message (name, address, time of appointment,
destination, and return number).
6.
Log all phone calls to track ride denials.
The Transit Board and Transit Manager Mark Munson are recommending an increase in
the minibus fares from $1.00 to $1.50. The 50Ø per ride fare increase is expected to
generate approximately $31,000 additional revenue per year for the minibus service.
The additional revenue will be used to expand service up to 1,200 additional hours
annually to accommodate the peak demands identified in the ADA Review conducted
by the Human Rights Department.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
U
~\ ,I
/ 1.t( l; !<t1ßtf '~
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM/jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Mark Munson, Transit Manager
Bill Baum, Economic Development Director
D~
~<k~
MEMORANDUM
October 25, 2004
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Transit Board Recommendation to Raise Minibus Fares
Transit Manager Mark Munson is recommending that a public hearing be set for
December 6, 2004 regarding the minibus fares.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
t.~{/~A'-~
Mic ael C. Van Milligen
MCVM/jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Mark Munson, Transit Manager
Bill Baum, Economic Development Director
-tßS:J
I;:) /çj~y
KeyLine Transit
2401 Central Avenue
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-3302
(563) 589-4196 office
(563) 589-4340 fax
(563) 690-6678 TDD
i5~6tE
~<k~
MEMORANDUM
October 15, 2004
FR:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Mark Munson, Transit Manager f1 ft\
Transit Board recommendation to raise Minibus fares
TO:
Subject:
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the process followed by the Transit
Board to recommend raising Minibus fares and to adopt other recommendations
from the Human Rights ADA Paratransit Review conducted last summer by the
Human Rights Department
BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2004, the Transit Board listened to concerns expressed by the
Transit Manager over difficulties the minibus staff were experiencing with
capacity constraints on the minibus service. Specifically, staff were experiencing
difficulty scheduling next-day service requests, late day appointments and
reasonable response times on return rides. The capacity constraints were
attributed to a 35% increase in minibus ridership over the last two years and a
lack of capacity to expand service without additional funding. The board voted to
recommend increases in the minibus fares from the current rate of $1.00 for all
riders to $1.50 for ADA eligible riders and $3.00 for Age-only eligible riders and
riders outside the ADA mandated service area of % mile either side of the fixed
route service. A public meeting was to be scheduled in May. Prior to the public
meeting I visited with Human Rights Director Kelly Larson about conducting an
internal review of the minibus service to ensure that there were no other areas of
service deficiencies other than the capacity constraint issues. At the same time, a
minibus patron lodged a complaint with the Human Rights office claiming the
minibus service did not comply with the minimum ADA criteria for service. The
s"'";c,
People
lntegoily
R"pon,ibility
lnnov,tion
r"mwmk
Transit Board agreed to postpone any decision regarding minibus fares until the
review was complete. Over the months of July and August, Human Rights
Director Kelly Larson and her staff conducted an extensive review of the minibus
service as it related to the service criteria established for public transit services
under the ADA. 'On September 9, 2004 the Transit Board received a final copy of
the KeyLine Paratransit Review.
DISCUSSION
The summary and recommendations in the Review confirmed that the service
was nearing capacity and that there were valid concerns over constraints to the
service. Specifically, the areas of capacity concern involved denials for next day
service requests, return ride times and wait times in excess of 1 hour and a lack
of service for appointments scheduled in the late afternoon. The report also
raised concerns over the number of Age-only eligible riders using the service and
how that usage may be contributing to the capacity constraints experienced by
ADA eligible riders. The Transit Board considered the following
recommendations from the Paratransit Review to address capacity constraints:
Recommendation
Adopt stricter eligibility determinations that to be ADA para transit eligible a
person must be unable to use the fixed route service.
The ADA Review raised concerns about the number of age-only eligible people
being allowed to use the minibus and how that may be impacting people with
disabilities who cannot access the fixed route. To address this concern, the
board recommended staff review the current ADA Eligibility Certification
Application and revise the application wherever necessary so as to identify age-
only eligible passengers who could access the fixed route service but instead use
the minibus as a matter of convenience. The board also recommended that staff
re-certify all minibus users and issue eligibility cards that distinguish age-only
eligible riders from ADA eligible riders. Staff Reported on the use of priority
practices by the, Cedar Rapids transit service that prioritize ADA mandated rides
over non-ADA rides wherever capacity constraint was an issue. The Cedar
Rapids service also schedules non-ADA mandated rides outside the ADA service
requirements to avoid causing constraints. Under this practice non-ADA
mandated rides could be scheduled more than 1 hour before their requested time
and could wait more than 1 hour for a return ride and could be denied service is
no capacity is available for a particular request. The board recommended that
staff adopt similar practices as used by the Cedar Rapids service as necessary.
Recommendation
Establish a time limit on eligibility and require recertification/ particularly
for applicants who indicate the nature of their disability is temporary.
The ADA Review recommended that the board impose a time limit on the period
of eligibility once an applicant is approved. While the current system at KeyLine
does impose time limits on applicants who indicate the nature of the disability is
temporary, there has not been a re-certification of permanently disabled
applicants since the certification process was implemented in 1997. The re-
certification of all applicants for the purpose of distinguishing age-only eligible
riders would accomplish this recommendation. Staff have been updating the ADA
Eligibility Certification Application and will be re-certifying all current minibus
riders over the next few months.
Recommendatiön
Utilize a comprehensive computer routing system to improve efficiency.
The Transit Division has purchased a computer assisted software system from
RouteMatch that has been in various stages of implementation over the past
year. Difficulties arising out of the software upgrades themselves and constraints
on staff time to fully deploy the software have delayed implementation. Recently
RouteMatch has been awarded a statewide contract in Iowa and has assigned a
full time staff person in Iowa City to provide support services to the software
users. KeyLine dispatchers have been working with this staff person and have
made significant progress in setting up the software with the minibus users and
schedules. It is expected that the system will be live by the end of the year. While
staff believe the software will bring efficiencies to the dispatch office with respect
to preparation of schedules, record keeping, billing and reporting, RouteMatch
staff have tested the software against the manual schedules created by KeyLine
dispatch and found no significant optimization of schedules as a result of the
computer assisted features.
Recommendation
Increase the number of buses available to the paratransit service.
The ADA Review felt it was "next to impossible" for the current number of staff
and fleet to fully satisfy all the regulatory requirements as they relate to capacity
constraint, and recommended decreasing ridership, increasing staff and fleet
equipment or some combination of the foregoing to improve the system's
capacity. With respect to increased service, the transit board felt a fare increase
to ADA eligible riders would generate revenue necessary to expand the service
during periods of peak demand. While the ADA allows transit systems to charge
up to twice the regular fixed route fare, the board was sensitive to the limited
incomes most of the minibus users and recommended a $0.50 increase to
expand service and reduce capacity constraint. Staff stated the additional
$31,000 in revenue would fund approximately 1,500 hours of service that would
significantly increase capacity during peak loads. Based on the current delivery
of an average 4 rides per hour, 1,500 hours additional service would relieve
6,000 rides from the current system. Asked whether this increased capacity
would completely address the issue of capacity constraint, staff felt stricter
policies or practices on eligibility would still be necessary in addition to the
expanded service to not only address immediate constraints but to also ensure
that the demand would not quickly outgrow the expanded service.
Recommendation
Expand the number of subscription rides allowed to improve efficiency.
In addition to str'icter eligibility determinations, use of technology to improve
capacity and an increase in the number of buses available to the paratransit
service, the review recommended possible expansion of subscription service for
regular and frequent users to improve capacity and efficiency. Subscription
service, otherwise known as "standing orders" are the practice of permanently
scheduling reoccurring ride requests so as to eliminate the need for a regular
customer to call in reoccurring ride requests every two weeks excluding standing
orders. The ADA limits riders from calling in ride requests any further than two
weeks in advance to limit capacity constraint. The ADA also limits the practice of
standing orders to 50% of the available schedules at any given time on the
service when the service is experiencing capacity constraints. KeyLine currently
has a maximum of 23% of the available schedules dedicated to standing orders
and is still experiencing capacity constraint. For that reason staff did not
recommend consideration for additional subscription service until after other
measures to improve capacity have been prQven to actually improve the service.
Recommendation
Assure that staff promptly and consistently checks answering machine and
send passengers information on what information a voice message needs
to contain when leaving a message (name, address, time of appointment,
destination, and return number).
Current scheduling practices generate 3 phone calls to the dispatch center for
every individual ride request. A rider calls initially to schedule their ride and again
to confirm their pick up time the day before their appointment. The rider also calls
to request a ride home when they are finished with their appointment. Excluding
standing orders, the dispatch office receives upwards of 100,000 calls per year
for the minibus service. The dispatch office has two telephone extensions and
voice mail. The office is staffed with 1 dispatcher from 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 2
dispatchers on duty from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 1 dispatcher on duty from
2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m, Based on some of the comments received from the phone
survey conducted by the Human Rights Department during the ADA review, the
review cited instances where callers needed to make multiple attempts to reach a
dispatcher because they did not wish to leave a message on the voice mail
system. Callers were either uncomfortable or confused over what information
they needed to leave on the voice mail when calling to schedule an appointment
or requesting a return ride. Staff confirmed that callers often left insufficient
information on the voice mail system to identify the caller or schedule an
appointment. Merrill Crawford has been informed of the phone and voice mail
issues in the dispatch office and is working with staff to develop a holding system
that would limit the number of calls going to voice mail when the dispatchers is
on another call or using the two-way radio system. Staff are also incorporating
information into the minibus guidelines that specifies what information a caller
needs to leave when leaving a message on voice mail. Staff already access
voice mail in between calls and radio dispatching and will continue to monitor the
phone system for future improvements.
Recommendation
Log all phone calls to track ride denials.
In order to adequately measure the effectiveness of any changes to the minibus
service and to adequately track patterns of service constraint, the ADA Review
recommended that staff log all instances where a ride request was denied or a
ride schedule was negotiated outside the required ADA scheduling window of 1
hour before or l' hour after the requested time. Staff have been informed of this
practice and have begun logging all trip denials. The Transit Manager will
maintain and monitor the logs for appropriate adjustments in the service.
With the exception of increasing the number of subscription rides allowed, the
Transit Board voted to accept the recommendations of the Paratransit Review
that addressed capacity constraints and recommended a fare increase on the
Paratransit service to fund the Review recommendation to increase the number
of buses available to the paratransit service. Under the proposed changes, fares
for all ADA eligible rides would increase from $1.00 to $1.50 and fares for all
Age-only eligible rides (over age 65 with no disability) would increase from $1.00
to $3.00. The Transit Board scheduled a public meeting September 30, 2004 at
4:15 p.m. in the.Councii Chambers at the Carnegie Stout Public Library for the
purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed fare increase and other
recommendatio(1s of the Paratransit Review that address capacity constraints.
This notice of the public meeting was published in the Telegraph Herald
Wednesday September 15th and again on Sunday September 19th. The notice
was also posted on all minibuses and directly mailed to agencies using the
paratransit service. Approximately 350 copies of the notice were distributed to
minibus patrons as they rode the service prior to the meeting. A press release
was sent to the Telegraph Herald and to the local radio stations. The Telegraph
Herald published an article on Monday September 27,2004 and interviews were
conducted with local radio and television news.
On Thursday September 30, 2004, the Dubuque Transit Trustee Board
conducted the public meeting. All 5 Transit Board members and 35 citizens
attended the meeting. The meeting opened with a brief Power Point presentation
to explain why the board was considering a fare increase. At the end of the
presentation comments received by phone prior to the meeting were read to the
board. In addition, copies of letters sent to the transit office concerning the fare
increase were provided to the board. Eight citizens presented comments to the
Transit Board at the meeting. Four of the eight speakers at the public meeting
were agency representatives from Stonehill Care Center, Sunnycrest Manor,
Area Residential Care and Scenic Valley Area Agency on Aging.
Comments could be summarized into two categories of concern. The first
concern was confusion over application of the $3.00 fare and how the board
would define eligibility for the $1.50 fare. The second concern was a general
discomfort over paying for any fee increase on limited incomes. All parties
agreed that the service was an excellent service to seniors and persons with
disabilities and commended staff for their customer service.
The Transit Board voted unanimously to recommend raising the fare from $1.00
to $1.50 across the board for all riders and to abandon the $3.00 fare proposed
for Age-only eligible riders in favor of directing staff to prioritize service to ADA
eligible riders over Age-only eligible rides as necessary to avoid capacity
constraint. The board also abandoned the $3.00 proposed fare for riders outside
the ADA manda~ory service area because % of a mile either side of the fixed
route already covered the entire city limits. The $0.50 increase would be used to
add service to address capacity constraints identified by staff and the ADA
Review conducted by the Human Rights Department. The board also directed
staff to re-certify all riders and issue eligibility cards distinguishing ADA eligible
from Age-only eligible and Temporary or Seasonally eligible riders.
Action Requested
The Transit Board is requesting that the City Council approve the board's
recommendation to raise the minibus fare from $1.00 to $1.50 and to set a time
and place for public hearing on such proposed fare increase.
Cc:
Bill Baum, Economic Development Director
MINUTES
DUBUQUE TRANSIT TRUSTEE BOARD
PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER MINIBUS FARE INCREASE
DATE:
Thursday September 30, 2004
TIME:
2:30 P.M.
PLACE:
Carnegie Stout Public Library Auditorium, 11 th & Bluff
Streets, Dubuque, Iowa
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bemis, Stedman, Lightcap, Enderson, Sand
None
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mark Munson, Transit Manager
At 2:30 p.m. Transit Board Chair Harry Bemis called the public meeting to order
and asked Transit Manager Mark Munson to present a staff presentation
explaining the purpose of the meeting and the reasons for the fare increases
being considered by the board.
Munson provided a Power Point presentation explaining the purpose of the
meeting, the ADA requirements for public transportation, the City's current ADA
transit service, the reasons for the capacity constraints and the available options
and recommendations to address the constraint issues. At the conclusion of the
presentation Munson read a summary of public comments he had received over
the phone from consumers in the two weeks prior to the public meeting. Munson
Also provided Transit Board copies of written comments he had also received at
KeyLine prior to the meeting.
Public Comments received bv phone prior to public meetinQ:
Deb Ostrander
$1.50 fare doesn't beginto cover cost; very supportive of service improvements
especially improvements in return ride times and late day service. Expressed
some confusion as to applicability of $3.00 fare for Age-only eligible riders.
Mrs. Fullbriaht
Use to ride Green Line when it traveled on Rosemont but needed to switch to
minibus dl,Je to distance and hills she would need to walk to get to nearest bus
route on Pennsylvania. She is 84 years old and has difficulty breathing when
walking that distance and on hills. She also has concerns she would be subject
to $3.00 fare because she doesn't have a disability, just age.
Caller unknown
Caller is over age 65 and volunteers at Mercy Hospital. Uses fixed route
wherever possible but not always able to use fixed route due to weather. If fare
increased to $3.00 per ride she would not be able to afford to volunteer at Mercy
Hospital.
Dorothv Grant
Expressed concern and confusion over who is subject to which fare increase.
Has a health problem that prevents her from using fixed route but thought she
may be subject to Age-only fare of $3.00.
The board invited public comment from the approximately 35 people in
attendance for the public meeting.
Public Comments received at the public meetinq:
Geri Rea. Stonehill Adult Davcare
Expressed confusion about how the board and the minibus service will define
eligibility especially as it relates to ADA eligible versus Age-only eligible riders.
Reminded board how most of their riders are on fixed incomes.
Munson explained how eligibility is currently determined by answers to questions
asked in the ADA Eligibility Certification application all minibus riders are required
to complete. Application asks questions about how a person's mental or physical
disability prevents them from accessing any part of the fixed route. Application
also has a release of information section for those applications where additional
information from a physician or counselor is necessary to make an eligibility
determination. With respect to affordability, explained how the City of Dubuque
would still have one of the lowest ADA fares in the state even if the fare was
increased to $1.50.
Marian Williams
Wanted to know where there was a problem with capacity because she notice
there was always available seating on the minibuses when she was riding. Asked
several questions about whether the drivers were employed by the City or Project
Concern, whether the service still provided transportation to Head Start students,
and what was meant by stricter eligibility requirements? Noted seeing some
passengers waiting 2 Yo hours for a return ride. Wondered if trolley service could
assist minibus and wanted to know how to qualify for ADA eligibility.
Munson explained how the incident Ms. Williams was referring to when she saw
a passenger waiting 2 Yo hours for a return ride was an example of capacity
constraint. Explained how the City owned the equipment, employed most of the
drivers and managed the service since the service was brought in house from
Project Concern two years ago. Explained there were no Head Start children
riding on the minibus but that if any child was ADA eligible they would be eligible
for the service. Referred to earlier explanation on eligibility given to Geri Rea and
noted that the trolley, though accessible, was part of the fixed route system and
not the minibus service.
Beth Houseloq, Sunnvcrest Manor
Wanted to know if expanded hours meant more hours of service during the day
or if it meant the service would go beyond 6:00 p.m.
Munson explained how the expanded hours would be within the current times of
day mandated by the ADA for the minibus service. Those hours of service are
based upon the current fixed route schedules of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday.
Mary Kav Patters. Scenic Vallev Area Aqencv on Aqinq (SVAA)
SVAA purchases tickets in bulk from a grant and that any fare increase would
require them to shift funds from other programs for the elderly to pay for
transportation as transportation is a critical service to the elderly. Noted that they
would work to use the fixed route wherever possible.
Jon Romain. Area Residential Care
ARC represents about 200 people with disabilities and wanted to know what
percentage the current ADA fares were of the actual cost for the service on both
the minibus and fixed route and how those percentages compared for the
respective services especially if the board approved increasing the minibus fares.
Munson explained how this information was not available for the meeting but that
the fares are the smallest portion of the funding for the cost of both the fixed
route and paratransit service and that both services rely on federal, state and
local support. Munson also explained how fixed route ADA fares by law are half
the regular fixed route fare and that minibus ADA fares are up to the local system
to establish and can be up to twice the regular fixed route fare. KeyLine currently
charges only half the limit allowed for minibus ADA fares and even with the
proposed increase to $1.50 would still be under the legal limit of twice the regular
fixed route fare of $1.00.
Deb Ostrander
Wanted to know what the prospects were to expand the fixed routes.
Munson explained how all fixed routes are almost completely stretched to their
limits of 1 hour headways and that in most instances any expansion of the route
would require a corresponding reduction of service somewhere else in the route.
Sarah Davidson
Explained how affordability was different for different people and that she could
not afford an increase in minibus fares and would use the fixed route more if
minibus fares were increased. Noted that the fixed route was extremely
constrained with hour long headways and limited service areas and that
increasing minibus fares to move people off minibus to fixed route could not be
done without addressing constraints on the current fixed route system. Noted that
the issue of capacity constraint on the minibus has been a problem for a long
time. Asked if the fare increase would also affect subscription riders. Also
suggested having a physician sign off on all applications.
Munson explained how the fare increase as proposed would affect all users of
the ADA minibus service including those being provided subscription service.
Explained how KeyLine already refers certain applications to physicians for their
recommendation and that staff should further investigate ADA regulations before
requiring physician sign-off on all applications.
Beverlv Kedlev
Indicated she rode minibus to work to clean houses.
Transit Board Chair Harry Bemis closed the public meeting and return the
discussion to the Transit Board. George Enderson noted that the primary
responsibility of the minibus service is to provide transit service to riders
protected under the ADA. Enderson asked Munson whether the $1.50 fare
increase would be enough to fund needed expansion of service. Munson
indicated that the $0.50 increase would generate approximately 1,500 additional
hours of service that would greatly reduce the current capacity constraint.
Munson also noted that he was not able to speculate on how much additional
revenue would be generated by increasing the fares to $3.00 for Age-only eligible
riders as he did not know how many riders this would affect. Suggested staff
proceed with re-certification to identify those Age-only riders currently using the
service. Munson reminded the board how the City of Cedar Rapids require all
riders to pay the same fare and that ADA eligible rides are prioritized over non-
ADA rides wherever necessary to stay in compliance with ADA requirements
regarding capacity constraints.
George Enderson motioned to increase minibus fares across the board to $1.50
and for staff to re-certify all riders and to adopt scheduling policies similar to
Cedar Rapids regarding prioritization of ADA eligible ride requests. Motion
seconded by Don Stedman and unanimously approved by the Transit Board.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Sands, Secretary
Proposed KeyLine Minibus Service
Improvements
Public Meeting September 30, 2004
-
Mark Munson
Service KeyLine Is Required To
Provide under the American's
With Disabilities Act
" Service Area
" Response TImes
" Fares
"Trip Purpose Restrictions
" Hours and Days of Service
" Capacity Constlâints
" Additional Service
Why Is the Transit Board
Considering Changes?
" Staff concerns over capacity & eligibility
standards and concerns over ability to
meet commitments to riders with
disabilities
" Results from a voluntary review of
palâtransit service by the Dubuque
Human Rights Department
Purpose of the Public Meeting
" Explain City's Public Transit oommitment under
the Americans With Disabilities I>ct
" Identify capacity oonœms on the Minibus
Service
" Identify alternatives to address conœms
" ~~~~~~~;Wb~~~ ~d~~nœms
" ~=&:~~si=~=n~~~the
COundl
Service KeyLine Currently
Provides Under the American's
With Disabilities Act
lIB Service Area - Oty Umits
lIB f\eSponse TImes - I hour poio,r to appointment
time; 30 minute pick"up WIndow
lIB Fare - $1.00; haWaiiowed under ÞDA
lIB Trip Purpose Restrictions - None
iii Hou,.¡Days Service - Same as fixed route
iii ~=,,=i~~ -~~ ~e ~, ~
lIB Additional Serviœ - Age-<>nly eligibility
Staff Concerns
III FY 2002 minibus ridership 40,000 rides
III FY 2003 minibus ridership 46,000 rides
III FY 2004 minibus ridership 62,000 rides
(35% increase)
1115 bus peak FY 2002, 2003 & 2004
Staff Concerns
" Service hours FY 2003 to FY 2004
outpaced ridership growth.
"The effect of the growth slowed down
performance and limited scheduling
choices for dispatchers and riders
" Stricter eligibility requirements
" Technology improvements
" Increase number of buses in service
II Increase subscription service
" Improve communication
systems/procedures
" Log trip denials and monitor pattems
Recommendations In Process
D Revised ÞDA eligibility Application
D Automated phone o~s aJrrentIy being
explored by city staff
D Deployment of computer assisted
dispatch/scheduling software
D Fixed route information provided to paratrans~
requests on fixed route
D Poii<:\' and procedure for logging trip dentals
Human Rights ADA Review
" Voluntary review requested by Transit
Manager May 2004
" Conducted by Human Rights Department
summer 2004
" Primary areas of concern - Trip denials
for next day service, late day
appointments and return ride times
Available
0 ptionsj Reco m mendations
II Trip purpose restrictions on Non-ADA
rides
II Cedar-Rapids prioritized service for Non-
ADA rides; same fare as ADA rides;
scheduled as spac;è and time permits;
waiting lists; trip denial If necessary
Recommendations Pending
D tncrease """"augmenlse>Viœ "needed """"'"
_coostn>"",
. ~i:800 ~ .=r., ~~..='"
_maœ!y 1,200-1,500 additona "°"" se>Viœ
. ~~a;5'~~~and
. -œ!y shift - - -"'" se>Viœ"
fiXed rout>
2
ff
Public Input
Ii State your name and address
Ii Please be mindful of time, as others are
waiting to provide their comment
Ii Try not to repeat what has previously
been shared by other speakers
Thank you
3
-
Dubuque Transit Trustee Board:
You requested rider imput on the Keyline
Minibus. AI! realize the value of the service,
but raising a round trip ride from 2 dollars
to six dollars is not only a shock but unaccep-
table for most riders.
Who determines as we got on or off the bus
what a walker pays? Many not driving a car
anymore take such transportation. Many have
poor eyesight. Is that a physical handicap?
Many use a cane for security. How do you define
physical handicap for only $1.50 ride, just
wheelchairs or walkers? What about the person
ridin~ with a handicapped person. What does
he or she pay?
I am sure you will have many questioning the
costs proposed and I think $1.50 for all riders
would be simpler and a sufficient raise at
this' time for all.
We all appreciate the city service and the
scheduled bus routes, while available, are
not as valuable for seniors, most years past
age 65, always. walking blocks for a bus, no
help and weather concitions a concern.
Let us divert funds for the Keyline minibus
sevice as they have been for many years.
Yours truly,
~~
~r
¥ó(O; c?OOf
" ' 'JZ~L'
f)~ 11( 1:. '~ - '. , 'If'
':~.if::;;C.'~~",~1 ,,' ,
, <!1!!:t!£:!i ~7~
, ' ~'.p do'¡.d¥.ls8 Uo.L "
, ,<f/#¡;~& xl :;;J;!~:! f 1f ,', . '
" ' j;f¿f::;:1{~~~P' '.', '
,,-,,&!-v3' ~.~ 4,Þt-, ~,>w'-
'~if-i~5¥~'If.P;tð) -.L k ,,-, . '
,,'. .tfZ;i;'ii~,,'
" ,',' "f$š~!Iif~~~:,'
r~~~~~diL'
"',~,,', r; h,'?,'~,,';Ja,",""'¿',.,,'."'~,M,'ø;:~, ',".. ',."
~f¡E1b~ 1ræ) :
, ~)
, '
«> M'."'" .."'. 'M., "',
.' ~cf¡F!::~4=~ttl.
,.... fa,',',' "".,,,"~,'~,"',,~~, ¿,',.r/,~,'jp;-~
",. ",' '/.>rr,~/
V-- ok' '," ,,'
.,,' ,j¡;.~/"'" ,-,.,".,.".~,,--
.' """.".",,~._L,"~"'"
",,",' ÍI1~D~ff'....--\"',
.' ',," ,', "', '".'.-~¡/~
- r -' ~ " '- .
.' I
. -
,. .
-'
-
~~
[þ~di'&ù~~
cA;..J~ ~r~~~'h
M L,vmJ ~ to ~ ~J¡J)) ~
~"::~Þkr~
IJ~~ :f}~~~
~ ~~(~hð->~~
~~r'~~~~
& ~4~r .::d- ~
~ ~ .ilÞvv '
ìi1\~ )?~
~áD1LJ ~
~
5~o ?' ":l
óZcJ-- :;~)d--
" "':'."';'"
Proposed KeyLine Minibus Service
Improvements
Public Meeting September 30, 2004
----i!!IIO--
Mark Munson
~
Service KeyLine Is Required To
Provide under the American's
With Disabilities Act
11 Service Area
" Response TImes
" Fares
" Trip Purpose Restrictions
" Hours and Days of Service
" Capacity Constraints
11 Additional Service
" Staff concerns over capacity & eligibility
standards and concems over ability to
mæt commitments to riders with
disabilities
" Results from a voluntary review of
paratransit service by the Dubuque
Human Rights Department
Purpose of the Public Meeting
" Explain Oty's Public Transit commitment under
the Americans With Disabilities Act
" Identify capadty concerns on the Minibus
Service
" Identify alternatives to address concems
" ~%"~~~~~;?i~a13~a~d~~~cems
" ~,,: £':.~~si~~~~~~ tg,gu!:t the
Council
Service KeyLine Currently
Provides Under the American's
With Disabilities Act
Ii Service Area - Oty Umits
II) Response limes - I hour pricJr to appointment
time; 30 minute pick-up wmdow
II) Fare - $1.00; ha~ allowed under ÞDA
II) Trip Purpose Restrictions - None
II) Hours/Days Service - same as fixed route
Ii âW~~n:'~i~d-~~~=' late
Ii Additional Service - Age-only eligibility
Staff Concerns
. FY 2002 minibus ridership 40,000 rides
l1li FY 2003 minibus ridership 46,000 rides
. FY 2004 minibus ridership 62,000 rides
(3S% increase)
l1li5 bus peak FY 2002,2003 & 2004
"'-
r:
Staff Concerns
Human Rights ADA Review
" Service hours FY 2003 to FY 2004
outpaced ridership growth.
" The effect of the growth slowed down
performance and limited scheduling
choices for dispatchers and riders
" Voluntary review requested by Transit
Manager May 2004
" Conducted by Human Rights Department
summer 2004
" Prtmary areas of concern - Trtp denials
for next day service, late day
appointments and return rtde tjmes
" Stricter eligibility requirements
" Technology improvements
" Increase number of buses in service
" Increase subscriptjon service
" Improve communicatjon
systems/procedures
" Log trip denials and monitor patterns
" Trtp purpose restrictions on Non-ADA
rides
" Cedar Rapids prioritjzed service for Non-
ADA rtcles; same fare as ADA rides;
scheduled as space and time permits;
waiting lists; trtp denial if necessary
Recommendations In Process
Recommendations Pending
" Revised ADA eligibility Applicaöon
" Automated phone olt"'ns rurrentJy being
expiored by city staff
" Deployment of computer assisted
dispatch/scheduling software
" Fixed route information provided to paratrans~
requests on fixed route
" Policy and procedure for logging trip denials
. Increase fa... In ....ment """"" os needed In ocId""
ca,,"ty "">Su....
. ~i~o&~.=rm~~~..='"
.""roXtlnotelyl,200-1,500ocIdltion¡¡l """""""""
. =fa",'oaæse""""""""'lneJ'Oibility
. . oowou",ocIdocldltlonoltrouo>"""""""""
some demand.
. ~telyShlft_"'from"'_'1Str""","1n
2
Public Input
II State your name and address
II Please be mindful of time, as others are
waiting to provide their comment
II Try not to repeat what has previously
been shared by other speakers
Thank you
3