handyDART info

history

The details

TransLink has contracted handyDART operations in Greater Vancouver and some neighbouring areas. The system was operated under eight contracts roughly corresponding to the various municipalities. Most of the contractors were unionized with one of three unions (CAW, ATU and BCGEU).

After a debacle with the City of Vancouver contract held by Pacific Transit Cooperative [click here], TransLink decided to amalgamate the system into three areas with one contract for each, and to centralize registration and reservation functions in a subsidiary instead of including them in the individual contracts [click here].

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued for each the three areas: North of Fraser [click here], South of Fraser [click here] and Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows [click here]. Each RFP had one unique feature; the invitation to propose an alternate service model.

There were a number of proposals made for each contract [click here], but only two companies applied for all three areas, neither a current contractor. One of them was selected for all three areas: MVT Canadian Bus, a subsidiary of MVT Transporatation (MVT), a large American company. TransLink's CEO recommended entering into a single contract for all three areas [click here]. TransLink's announcement indicated that a significant reason for this decision was MVT's intention to consolidate all three contract areas into one integrated operation [click here].

TransLink did not disclose its preference for such consolidation to the proponents in the RFP process.

As of September 1, 2008, TransLink had not inked a contract with MVT. It may not be too late to correct the situation that has occurred.
 

Now

The selection of MVT has pleased user advocates such as the BC Coalition of People with Disabilities because it promises to provide a single seamless transportation system without boundary transfers. But that advantage is likely to be overshadowed by other problems that will adversely affect users and the public alike.

The selection of MVT raises a number of questions:

• Was MVT a good choice for the system and its users?
• Was selection on an undisclosed criterion fair and proper to all the proponents?
• Was this choice of proponents fair to handyDART employees?

Unfortunately, the answers to all three questions is no.
 

MVT

Given the number of experienced handyDART contractors, most of whom have been very successful in providing excellent service within the terms of their contracts, it is surprising that TransLink would select an American company with no prior experience in BC. TransLink stated that MVT "has established a reputation for strong customer service, innovative operations and on-time performance." However, there are troubling reports that contradict that impression. Here are some of what has been alleged in a large number of reports:

• An advisor to the state of California who handled complaints in Santa Rosa said of MVT "We have had unbelievable battles with these people. They treat the disabled like they're cattle." A transportation planner at the federally designated planning agency for the D.C. metro area, called MVT "the Wal-Mart of paratransit." Many MVT horror stories are recounted from cities across the USA. [click here]
   
  
  • An MVT driver exposed himself to a strapped in female passenger and asked her to perform oral sex on him.
     
    
  • An MVT driver who makes a passenger endure unbearably long trips refuses to stop to let her use a bathroom or return home if ill.
     
  • In California, MVT started cutting services as soon as it got the contract.
     
  • A wheelchair passenger was left at a bus stop by an MVT driver who said he didn't have time to help him board.
     
  • On another occasion, the same passenger was left stranded for an hour and a half after the MVT driver damaged his wheelchair by fastening it improperly, and the bus that was supposed to pick him up didn't come.
     
    
  • A deaf and mute wheelchair passenger was pitched face first to the ground and suffered multiple injuries when the MVT driver failed to properly engage the wheelchair lift and did not go to the back of the van to help her.
     
  • An MTV passenger died after falling down a flight of stairs when left at the wrong address.
     
  • Both Chicago and Fresno experienced rough transitions when MVT took over their paratransit operations.
    
    
• A 78 year old man died of injuries after falling down a flight of stairs at a house (the wrong address) where he had been mistakenly dropped off by an MVT paratransit bus. [click here]
   
  
• A woman died when her scooter fell from an MVT bus. [click here]
   
  
• East African immigrants sued MVT for discrimination based on nationality and religion. [click here]
   
  
• Disabled Chicago commuters dominated the first half-hour of a Pace Suburban Bus Company board meeting calling MVTs service to the disabled slow, rude and unsafe. [Click here]
   
  
• A subcontractor of MVT in Washington DC retaliated against an employee for speaking out in a forum, making him "functionally unemployed." [click here]
   
  
• MVT ran up a $.5 million operating deficit for Fresno's paratransit system in 2007. [click here]
   
  
• In New York, MVT and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) engaged in a strike that left their disabled clients stranded during the weeks leading to Christmas last year. The ATU blamed MVT and other operators for refusing to bargain. [click here]

 
Fairness to proponents & users

The unsuccessful proponents included Farwest handyDART Services (all four areas); OPTIONS: Services to Communities Society and South Fraser Custom Transit Association for South of Fraser; Crosstown Accessible Transit and Pacific Transit Cooperative for North of Fraser; and Diversified Transportation Ltd. and D-W Services Ltd. for Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows. (Crosstown is a wholly owned subsidiary of GVCSS [click here].) Of these, all but Farwest and Diversified Transportation Ltd. are current TransLink handyDART contractors.

It is entirely possible that one or more of the unsuccessful proponents would have made a qualified bid for all three areas with a plan for combining them into one integrated operation. Surely it would have been preferable for TransLink to have such a proposal from a current contractor with successful experience in operating part of TransLinks system. It would also have been advantageous for TransLink have a contractor with direct knowledge of a substantial number of clients, routes, routines and employees in at least part of the entire handyDART system.

This obviously would also have been advantageous to handyDART users by reducing the learning curve and transition difficulties. Current operators must cooperate on a daily basis to manage the routing connections among the eight areas. Those relationships mean that a current operator would be more likely to get the full cooperation of other operators in managing transitional issues.

Unfortunately, the only information available to proponents was the decision to consolidate the current eight area into three. The invitation to include proposals for alternate service delivery models could not reasonably have been expected to convey a preference for a single system wide consolidation. Rather, it would have been interpreted as a variation on the plan to centralize the registration and booking function in Coast Mountain Bus.

By failing to disclose its preference for a single contractor to take all three areas, the proponents who would have been most desirable for both handyDART users and TransLink were effectively shut out of competing on that basis.
 

Fairness to handyDART employees

There is a strong likelihood of a major labour dispute across the entirety of TransLink's handyDART system early in 2009. [For details of why this is and the labour relations complications involved, click here]

This is not a good prospect for employees or users. Both will lose. And when a collective agreement is finally reached, who will pay for the cost overruns? Will TransLink (ie. the public) pick up the bill again as it did with PTC, or will the employees pay through layoffs and the users pay through more "efficient" but poorer service?
 

What now?

handyDART is at a crossroad. If it continues down the MVT path, the consequences are likely to be highly undesirable if not disastrous. The unsuccessful proponents will have been treated shabbily, the users will be let down and the employees will face a major labour dispute [click here].

Is there a viable alternative? The best course for TransLink is to reject the current selection and give the original proponents an opportunity to revise their proposals and submit additional proposals. This would be accompanied by a clear expression of preference for a bid on all three areas with a service model that combines and integrates them. When any revisions and additional proposals have been recieved, the selection process should be carried out again on the basis of the proposals as they then stand. This would be fair to the proponents, fair to users, fair to handyDART employees and fair to the public. It also is more likely to produce good results.