MATAplus Capacity Constraints - Part 2

Part Two - Charting a Course to Improved Service at MATAplus

Read Part One - MATAplus Capacity Constraints: https://mciljournal.blogspot.com/2025/04/mataplus-capacity-constraints.html

By Tim Wheat

In the previous post, Disability Connection delved into a critical challenge: the capacity constraints of MATAplus. We explored how trip denials are part of the system and ultimately, a less reliable and capacity constrained service for those who depend on it most.

But identifying these hurdles is only part of the road to a solution. Today, we're shifting our focus to explore potential answers – ways we can work towards a more robust and responsive paratransit system for Memphis.

Determining the necessary size of the MATAplus vehicle fleet hinges on understanding the daily demand for paratransit services. The core principle should be that every eligible rider in Memphis who needs a trip on a given day should be able to schedule it the day before. This demand-responsive element is the primary driver in calculating the required capacity. 

While the total number of daily ride requests will naturally fluctuate, the system's fundamental capacity must be built around accommodating these next-day requests. To ensure this responsiveness, a crucial operational guideline should be to dedicate a significant portion of the fleet – ideally, no more than half – to "subscription services," those regularly scheduled trips for eligible passengers with disabilities. The remaining capacity is what directly addresses the fluctuating, day-to-day demand. A paratransit system functioning effectively should prioritize having sufficient vehicles available to meet these next-day requests, even while allocating up to 50% of its fleet to the predictable needs of subscription services. 

Unfortunately, MATAplus appears to operate in a counterintuitive manner, prioritizing the establishment of subscription service and then limiting next-day reservations. While subscription services inherently offer scheduling advantages and the potential for efficient shared rides due to their predictability, the primary determining factor of capacity should be the ability to meet the needs of the demand-responsive passengers who have a right to a ride the next day. 

Demand-responsive services may be more difficult to schedule. John Lewis, however, reported to the MATA Board Service Committee that MATAplus was avergering just one person per trip. It does not seem that MATA is effectively using the technology they have or efficiently scheduling subscription trips as well as the three-day in advance trips. The solution seems to be returning to providing eligible riders with next-day service and making efficient and effective use of subscription service. 

Solving the capacity constraints at MATA should also include examining the effectiveness of the procedures and the hardware, software and training that MATAplus uses. For instance, modern software can obviously refine routes and schedules instantaneously, not requiring three days. MATA seems to have this software to schedule the “Ready Ride” an on-demand service they offer in parts of the area. The data held within MATAplus should be invaluable in a realistic assessment of the capacity of the system. 

Analysis of the process to be effective use of vehicles and real-time vehicle tracking, dynamic rerouting, and efficient dispatching must be part of the change at MATAplus.It seems simple to also explore the potential for intelligently grouping and consolidating trips for passengers heading in similar directions around the same time. Shared trips will more efficiently align with the travel patterns of riders and minimize wasted mileage. This will also increase the average passenger per trip that the TransPro CEO reports. 

Finally, the flow of communication between dispatchers, drivers, and passengers seems to be very poor. While most people use the phone for scheduling and trip information, there are some MATAplus riders who would benefit from modern communication. A MATAplus app that allows scheduling, cancelling, ETAs and real time GPS data could move the paratransit system into the  Twenty-First Century.  That app does not exist, but each bus has GPS data and it does not seem to be a stretch that those functions could be included. Online scheduling, text ETAs and reminders are all part of basic technology without a dedicated app. 

Ultimately, addressing the capacity constraints is a civil right. People with disabilities are dedicated and quality customers of MATA. Many, because of their disability, are not using other transportation methods and rely on the public transit system to meet the responsibilities of the federal law. By strategically optimizing the existing resources, making informed and data-driven enhancements to the fleet, exploring complementary technologies, and planning for the future needs of Memphis, we can collectively work towards a more reliable and responsive paratransit system for our community. 

What innovative solutions or best practices have you witnessed in other paratransit systems facing similar capacity challenges? Your insights and ideas, specifically in the context of Memphis, are invaluable, and we encourage you to share them.

MATAplus Capacity Constraints

Part One - MATA transportation service for people with disabilities not meeting the federal requirements.

By Tim Wheat

Now that TransPro is looking closely at MATA, it is time they turn some attention to the paratransit service. In past meetings, MATA has reported that the fixed route is struggling to match the standards of other transportation systems while MATAplus reports 97% on-time performance with only 3% denial rate.

Most critically, Disability Connection believes that those reported numbers do not give an accurate picture of the paratransit service. Very simply, the paratransit service is capacity constrained because a certified rider with a disability can be confident they will not receive a ride when they request one the next day. MATAplus riders know they must call three days in advance to have any hope of getting a ride. 

To use the fixed route, you only need to go to a bus stop, paratransit riders must be certified and must schedule rides one to three days in advance. This difference in the service is allowed in the thirty-five year-old Americans with Disabilities Act, but the paratransit service still has a responsibility to be comparable to the fixed-route. And the standard is that a rider must be able schedule a trip for the next day. 

The ADA requires transportation service to have a capacity that will meet the needs of riders that request a ride the day before they need it. It also makes clear that half of the capacity should be retained for the flexible schedules of people with disabilities. The maximum amount of time is to make a reservation three days in advance, but MATA begins booking trips three days in advance, fills to capacity and rarely takes requests one or two days prior to travel. 

This past summer and fall, DCM sampled MATAplus and asked riders to call and request a trip the next day. Not one caller was able to schedule a trip. Although the MATAplus Rider’s Guide says “Customers can make a reservation for trip(s) from one (1) to three (3) days in advance,” riders know that if you do not call early, three days prior to your trip, you will be told that there are no scheduled times available.

While MATA reports a minimal denial rate, they have not been taking next-day reservations and have trained the ridership to call three days in advance of a needed trip.

 This problem is not new. We want TransPro to know that MATAplus has had issues with this in the past. Twenty years ago the FTA found Capacity Constraints and five years ago, during the heart of COVID, the FTA found:

MATA is denying a significant portion of trip requests for MATAplus service, and is undercounting its denials, either by mis-coding certain denials or not tracking them.

More specifically, the report notes how MATA reservation agents are denying and underreporting denials. First, the agents directly denied trips, according to the 2020 ADA Paratransit Compliance Review, MATAplus denied customers, “...particularly for trip requests made one or two days in advance (p. 37)…” These direct denials were theoretically counted, however, the report also notes that some denials were not documented. This process was made simple because once denied, the reservation agent could simply move on to the next call. 

Secondly, the caller may accept a trip scheduled beyond the sixty-minute reservation window and it was not noted as a denial. The MATAplus Riders Guide provides a explanation:

A rider may still accept an alternative pick-up time that is more than one (1) hour from the requested pick-up time will be considered a trip denial. (p. 13)

Because the rider accepted the trip, the FTA found that MATA was just not considering these late reservations a denial.

MATA reservation agents were also accepting a trip request to a location, but stating directly that they could not book a return trip. Rather than this being logged as a trip denial, it was considered a “trip refusal” and a trip denial. This bureaucratic trick diluted the number of denials while not providing anyone with transportation.

The report further says that the software was not properly set up and MATA agents were not able to see all the trip possibilities. The obvious result is that people who called were denied trips when MATAplus had ride options. MATAplus riders also were not provided with a full range of potential trips and either took reservations that were not ideal to the rider or they declined the ride. The FTA report additionally states that MATA staff only searched for that specific time and did not negotiate further with riders for a time within the reservation window. MATA agents also used the term advanced cancellation rather than denial. 

Finally, the report notes that MATA agents directly told riders that they had to call three days in advance to get a ride. The training of MATAplus riders to call three days ahead began five years ago and clearly continues at this time. When DCM sampled MATAplus rider’s request for next-day trips, this was misinformation that the MATA agents continued to use. 

Riders of the system also feel that there is a very obvious operational capacity constraint. MATAplus riders are often picked up in vehicles that advertise the “Ready Ride,” service at MATA. People in the disability community cannot help but feel that the reason there are no buses to give people with disabilities rides is because those vehicles are used for other services. 

John Lewis' voice resonated at the MATA board meeting as he illuminated the profound meaning of the Community Commitment score. It's not simply about buses running on schedule, he insisted, but about acknowledging the very real impact on individuals when MATA cannot even get a bus on the road. For Lewis, this score serves as a stark reminder of unmet needs and the daily challenges faced by those who rely on consistent and reliable transportation.

We ask the MATA and TransPro not to exclude MATAplus from this Community Commitment philosophy. Refusing attempts to schedule trips one and two days in advance should be scored like a bus not even leaving the yard. We would give MATAplus a Community Commitment score of roughly 33 percent, like not having two out of three buses even leaving the yard. A truly effective MATA demands a functional paratransit system, and rectifying this inequity must be a priority before TransPro concludes its work.

NEXT WEEK: Disability Connection Midsouth offers solutions

Read Part Two: https://mciljournal.blogspot.com/2025/05/mataplus-capacity-constraints-part-2.html

 

ADA Racket in Memphis?

Lawsuit Raises ADA Questions

Four Oregon businesses have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging a nationwide "racket" of fraudulent disability claims. The businesses claim they were targeted for disability access violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that two Tennessee-based law firms are involved in extorting money by filing fake ADA complaints.

This lawsuit highlights a concerning issue: the potential for misuse of the ADA, a law designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities. While the ADA is crucial for ensuring accessibility and preventing discrimination, these Oregon businesses claim that some entities are exploiting the law for financial gain.

The lawsuit mainly contends that the method of finding ADA violations was flawed and may have even used people with disabilities in the process. The complaints also stem from parking, and accessible routes outside the businesses. Violations that can be seen from the street or from computer mapping and not necessarily a complaint from a person with disabilities personally experiencing a barrier. 

The staff at DCM has had good conversations about peculiarities of the ADA. First, the ADA allows for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs, but people with disabilities who sue are not entitled to any monetary damages. The ADA as Civil Rights law does not have “ADA Police.” The law is to be enforced by private attorneys and the lawyers are awarded money, but many people do not see much enforcement and are not motivated to sue over the daily violations that they see. 

What does this mean for the disability community?

It's important to remember that this lawsuit is about alleged fraud. The ADA remains a vital piece of legislation that protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination. Disability Connection Midsouth remains committed to advocating for the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities and ensuring legitimate ADA claims are addressed.

This case does, however, raise awareness about the importance of understanding your rights and responsibilities under the ADA, both as a person with a disability and as a business owner.

Resources:

• For more information on the ADA, visit the ADA National Network.

• If you believe you have experienced ADA discrimination, you can find resources and file a complaint through the Department of Justice.

• For local resources and support, contact Disability Connection Midsouth.

Disability Day on the Hill 2025

Disability Day on the Hill 2025: Advocating for Change in Tennessee

On March 11th, staff from Disability Connection Midsouth traveled east on I-40 to Nashville to participate in Disability Day on the Hill (DDH). This annual event, hosted by the Tennessee Disability Coalition, brings together the disability community and advocates from across the state to engage with legislators on critical issues impacting their lives. Each year, key legislative priorities take center stage, and this year was no different. Below, you’ll hear from two of our newest staff members, Kendra Brown and Leo Manriquez, about their first experience at DDH, along with insights from Allison Donald on the legislation that brought us to the Capitol.

First-Time Experiences at Disability Day on the Hill

As newcomers to DDH, Kendra and I were unsure of what to expect. We anticipated a gathering of dedicated advocates, but the scale and enthusiasm of the event far exceeded our expectations! People from all across Tennessee—and even beyond—came together in a powerful display of support and solidarity. The welcoming atmosphere, eagerness to share stories, and commitment to learning from one another made this an unforgettable experience.

DDH provided an invaluable opportunity for advocates, organizations, and families to connect and strengthen the movement for disability rights. For our team at Disability Connection Midsouth, it was particularly rewarding to meet others who share our mission to advocate, educate, and unite our communities. Learning about different advocacy approaches and resource-sharing strategies will help us better serve the people of Memphis and beyond.

Beyond networking, DDH underscores the importance of presenting a united front. The phrase “Nothing about us without us” was a recurring theme, reminding us that decisions impacting the disability community must be made with direct input from those affected. Engaging with legislators, sharing personal experiences, and witnessing government processes firsthand reinforced the necessity of showing up and making our voices heard.

For those considering attending in the future, we wholeheartedly encourage you to get involved! We are already looking forward to what Disability Day on the Hill 2026 will bring.

Kendra Brown and Leo Manriquez

Legislative Focus: The Family Caregiving Act (HB712/SB1178)

A key legislative priority at this year’s DDH was the Family Caregiving Act (HB712/SB1178), a bill designed to address the barriers preventing family members from being paid caregivers for their loved ones. For years, TennCare’s policies have prohibited family members from being hired as Direct Support Workers (DSPs), exacerbating financial strain on families and contributing to the statewide caregiver shortage. This bill seeks to change that.

Family caregivers play an essential role in supporting individuals with disabilities, yet the existing restrictions deny them compensation, even when the state fails to provide necessary services. The Family Caregiving Act aims to recognize and support these caregivers by ensuring they have access to employment opportunities and financial relief.

Key Goals of the Family Caregiving Act:

• Ending Discriminatory Hiring Practices: Removes barriers preventing family caregivers from being employed as DSPs by provider agencies.

• Creating Clear Employment Pathways: Requires TennCare to provide guidance on how agencies can hire and supervise family caregivers.

• Providing Financial Relief: Allows family members to be compensated for caregiving, reducing financial hardship.

• Laying the Groundwork for Future Legislation: Establishes a foundation for additional reforms that enhance caregiver training and compensation.

Advocate Katrina Guber emphasized the significance of this bill, stating, “This legislation acknowledges the role of family caregivers and provides a much-needed pathway for them to be fairly compensated. It’s not just about financial relief—it’s about restoring dignity and fairness to the caregiving process.”

The Family Caregiving Act is part of a broader movement to reform TennCare policies and create a more equitable care system. Additional legislative efforts, including the TennCare Network Reporting Reform and the Katie Beckett Part A HRA bills, further aim to expand care access and flexibility for Tennessee families.

These policy changes are crucial in addressing the financial and systemic challenges faced by family caregivers. By passing the Family Caregiving Act, Tennessee can take an important step toward valuing and supporting those who dedicate their lives to caring for their loved ones.

Looking Ahead

Our participation in Disability Day on the Hill reaffirmed the power of advocacy and the importance of collective action. As we continue to push for meaningful policy changes, we encourage everyone to stay informed, engage with their legislators, and be part of the movement for disability rights. Change happens when we show up, speak out, and demand better for our communities.