DC ParaTransit Info received this response from Candace Smith, WMATA’s Public Relations Officer, to our recent question to WMATA regarding their policies and statements over the “Door to Door” vs “Curb to Curb” debate in light of the FTA’s own ADA guidelines on ParaTransit.
According to Pamela Wilkins, assistant general manager of customer contract services, the curb-to-curb service meets ADA requirements. We want drivers to stay within sight of the vehicles for safety and security reasons. For example, there are some MetroAccess passengers who have mental disabilities and could wander from the vehicles.
We expect passengers to be at the curb to meet their ride. Drivers are expected to assist passengers into the vehicles and call out to visually impaired customers. Outside of that, there is room for common sense exceptions. Drivers are expected to access the situation and make decisions about the necessity to go beyond those guidelines in very limited cases. We’re reviewing the pros and cons of providing door to door service.
We would offer as one of the pros of going back to the informal “door to door” service the thought that such a system actually cuts down on the “dwell time”, the amount of time a driver needs to wait at a location before leaving and moving on to their next trip.
The “door to door” service, absent any of the reasonable accomodations that WMATA characterizes as “common sense exceptions”, would to our minds increase the efficiency of the service by removing those actions that cause cumulative delays in trips later on, such as time spent waiting for an obvious no-show, time spent orbiting a location trying to see if you can spot someone from the curb, and so forth.
The “cons”, such as the very good point Ms Wilkins raises in WMATA’s response regarding leaving the vehicle unattended, would need to be addressed, but we are encouraged that WMATA appears to have taken the unheralded move of allowing drivers to use their best discretion. DC ParaTransit Info has long advocated that the number of drivers (and riders) that abused such things in the past is minimal, compared to the benefits inherent to allowing drivers to use their initiative.
We would also suggest that Reservationist’s scripting for taking bookings be changed to take this into account, and that riders be asked at the time of booking if they have any special needs that would be facilitated by this policy change. This means that drivers can be forewarned of those needs, and be able to act accordingly, such as giving them advanced notice so they can park and prepare their transport in advance to optimize the pick-up, reducing the time to begin a trip in many cases.
It might be possible, if such a system is implemented, to adjust the database so that regular riders with the same needs each trip can have those needs recorded, saving time going over those details at booking.
We hope that the drivers themselves have been made aware of this shift in policy, and would also hope that WMATA will take the opportunity to promote that they have reversed an unpopular policy change from the beginning of the new contract to one which is more adaptive to the ever-different individual needs of the community.
Whilst WMATA might not feel it good PR to “officially” announce such a reversal, doing so would show that the concerns of riders are being listened to and acted upon, and may go some way towards beginning to restore the relations between WMATA and the ridership.
