Many advocates will notice that the federal review says many things that we have been suggesting for years, for example:

• MATA should answer the telephone
• MATA should put a map in the dispatch office
• MATA needs to hire more staff
• MATA should send reminders for re-certification before the expiration (not every year)
• MATA should include customer's requests on the manifest

Some of the major findings of the FTA include:

• There are capacity constraints on the system
• Next day rides are discouraged
• MATA is understaffed at peak times
• The phone system fails customers
• There are few call-backs

The FTA review team found that MATA procedure called for confiscating discount cards when a rider was issued a MATAplus ID. MATA claims to have stopped this practice, but the misinformation MATA distributed to hundreds of riders still limits certified riders use of the system. Apparently MATA will require rider's who had their discount card illegally seized to make a trip to the MATA office to reapply for the discount.

You may have both a MATAplus ID and a discount for the fixed-route card. MATA administration says that you may use your MATAplus ID to obtain the discount rate on the fixed-route; however, to date, this has not been verified.

MATA has responded to many of the observations of the FTA suggesting that they will solve the evident problems. Some of the remedies MATA says that riders can expect from MATAplus are:

• More buses (We have heard that one before)
• More staff
• "Read Back" reservation information to customers
• Call back if your reservation time changes more than 15 minutes
• "Under no conditions will passengers be denied a reservation to day before travel." - James Anglin

Many of MATA's responses do not deal with the critical issues of administrative responsibility that is the cause of the problem in the first place. Overall the report shows a system operating with little or no supervisory review and with no knowledgeable person able to make executive decisions to monitor and improve the paratransit system.

MATA responds only to the particular observations made by the Federal Transit Administration and does not purpose changes that may avoid problems and react to changing needs that will arise in the future.

Problems of staffing levels today, for example, may be solved by MATA's increase in staff. How poor staffing evolved and why no executive noticed the simple performance failures are questions that are not answered by MATA.

MATA has created a new position in the customer service department, possibly a meaningful change. This individual however will be supervised by the same administration that discouraged next-day trips, and had a policy to deny discount cards to legitimate customers.

Will the federal government have to be called every few years because MATA administration abdicates its responsibilities?

The constant problems that MATAplus has are written large in the report. Riders in the past have complained about unsafe and illegal ramps, yet MATA administration was too impotent to make simple remedial actions to avoid lawsuits and government intervention. MATA spends more money and "...still appears to be capacity constrained during peak hours. [FTA Summary]." MATA responds that they are getting more buses. The individuals that failed to effectively run the system in the past, however, will still manage the system.

New buses are needed, yet in 1995 MATA reports having 25 paratransit buses, yet the ridership was around 500 more trips per month than today. The current bus fleet is at 33 and will increase to 41 active vehicles. Riders welcome the new buses, yet are concerned that Memphians will accept that as solving the problem, when the true dilemma is MATA's management of the buses they have.

The same is true for more money poured into the system. MATA seems proud to say that the budget for MATAplus has doubled from less than $900,000 in 1993 to $2 million in 1999; yet, MATAplus transported about 1000 more people per month in 1993 compared to last year.

The question that concerns riders is that there is no executive authority over the system. MATA seems to suggest that the executive staff shares this responsibility, and provides the name of Lawson Albritton as the point man.

But Lawson Albritton's title is Director of Marketing. The question advocates are asking is "what executive will take responsibility for the system and make it work?" MATA has no Director of MATAplus, although they claim it is a separate "division" so MATA can make contracts that pay MATAplus operators less than operators on the fixed-route. MATAplus, whether a division or not, must have a leader who will fight for reasonable pay for employees, efficient budgeting priorities and monitor customer satisfaction.

For many years, advocates have pressed MATA to change its focus - to be more consumer oriented and to end the caretaker-dependency model of service evident at MATAplus. In 1998 a paratransit consultant said the same thing. The consultant stressed the "lack of leadership" as the prime cause of MATAplus' failure. Unfortunately, even after an extensive federal review of the system, MATA still is unable to see the big picture. Leaderless, MATAplus has put more band aides on its wounds and will stagger on briefly until it requires attention never attempting a cure.

- Tim Wheat