The Utah Transit Authority has announced a major realignment of routes effective in late August. This is going to do some good in many areas, but some important areas are being grossly neglected in the matter, and this post details one of these.
There is a major road, sometimes it has four lanes, but largely it has just two and maybe a center turn lane in spots, that runs to the west of I-15. This road is for the most part 900 West although access to 700 West and maybe on occasion 500 or 600 West is found necessary in spots until the road picks up again further down. This road services alot of industrial locations on its north end, some housing throughout, and some high-tech businesses on its south end. It curves around at times following the contour of the freeway at times although almost always there are businesses and houses between it and the freeway, and in places it changes name several times, and other things before it ends somewhere past 106th South.
This is a serious flaw in the plan to not service this road. There was a bus route that was discarded, the route 81, that ran as far down as 39th South. But that was the problem, not enough of this road was serviced in the right way for it to do any good for either UTA or the ridership.
Here is the gap analysis audit for this deficiency.
Suggested route numbers: 107 (south end), 109 (north end).
ISO QPMS and EMS categories: SD 1, SD 14, SP 25.
Difficulty: Moderate.
Other needs: Half-hour service, six buses will be needed.
Time of day service required: 530am-8pm.
Needed: Immediately
Implementation required by: November change day 2007.
Routing should run from Downtown via North Temple, down 900 West as far as it goes, if necessary use parts of 700 West or where that does not exist use whatever major road runs directly to the WEST side of I-15 to 106th South at least. Go over on 106th South to State, go to 100th South and EOL at Sandy Civic Center TRAX station.
Benefits: Significant benefit to many businesses along the entire route, including UTA itself, meaning their employees can now get to work via public transit. Residences in those areas will benefit by allowing residential connections to other buses in an area where there is about a 3-mile gap between major east-west routes. Remember, the block spacing in Salt Lake County is deceptive, there are only six to the mile versus the traditional eight to ten blocks to the mile many other places, which explains why it's so far from State Street to Redwood Road.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
UTA does not have an ISO process for ADA compliance and coordination
I have just found that the Utah Transit Authority does not have a process either in the Service Delivery area or the Support Processes area, that adequately addresses Americans with Disabilities Act compliance and coordination between departments.
I propose two new categories be added, and in future posts will reference them by their numbers.
Service Delivery:
17. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance and Coordination.
Support Processes:
16. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance and Coordination.
These two ISO QPMS and EMS categories will address the needs and expectations of riders who do not qualify for paratransit services and therefore are able to use fixed-route services, which is a fairly substantial number. Includes the elderly who have issues with mobility and are unable to drive to and from destinations within the UTA fixed route system, and do not need Paratransit services.
There are already four ISO QPMS and EMS processes for the paratransit system. See the document I posted a link to earlier.
One of those that reports of issues should go to is UTA's ADA coordinator. Department heads will need to be trained in how to address issues that come up via the customer concerns unit at UTA's call center as well as reports from drivers out on the system. Many at the telephone call center do not fully understand the needs of the disabled simply because of the nature of most call centers. Having worked in one I can see that without a specialist on duty whenever the call center is open to handle concerns, most of the issues brought up will not be properly addressed.
Managers in other departments at UTA will need to coordinate any changes, such as the moving or removal of stops, planning routes, setting up stop amenities, etc., should go through a centralized process to identify issues and where necessary, work with disabled riders, individual drivers, and others such as disability rights advocates, to come up with a workable solution to any given problem. This applies to fixed-route systems only along with TRAX, and does not include fare and pass issues, save for providing convenient locations to procure passes where it is convenient for the disabled to do so.
I propose two new categories be added, and in future posts will reference them by their numbers.
Service Delivery:
17. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance and Coordination.
Support Processes:
16. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance and Coordination.
These two ISO QPMS and EMS categories will address the needs and expectations of riders who do not qualify for paratransit services and therefore are able to use fixed-route services, which is a fairly substantial number. Includes the elderly who have issues with mobility and are unable to drive to and from destinations within the UTA fixed route system, and do not need Paratransit services.
There are already four ISO QPMS and EMS processes for the paratransit system. See the document I posted a link to earlier.
One of those that reports of issues should go to is UTA's ADA coordinator. Department heads will need to be trained in how to address issues that come up via the customer concerns unit at UTA's call center as well as reports from drivers out on the system. Many at the telephone call center do not fully understand the needs of the disabled simply because of the nature of most call centers. Having worked in one I can see that without a specialist on duty whenever the call center is open to handle concerns, most of the issues brought up will not be properly addressed.
Managers in other departments at UTA will need to coordinate any changes, such as the moving or removal of stops, planning routes, setting up stop amenities, etc., should go through a centralized process to identify issues and where necessary, work with disabled riders, individual drivers, and others such as disability rights advocates, to come up with a workable solution to any given problem. This applies to fixed-route systems only along with TRAX, and does not include fare and pass issues, save for providing convenient locations to procure passes where it is convenient for the disabled to do so.
How does one become ISO 9001 certified? Some basic answers.
Some may wonder what it takes to become ISO 9001 certified, like UTA has done. I found a website that has some free downloads that will give some basic answers on how the process works.
http://www.9001resource.com/iso_9001_stepbystep/step_by_step_iso_9001.php?gclid=CNfvpfyAzYwCFRoRYQodJCRqtQ
This will give you a general idea how companies and organizations implement ISO 9001 and become certified. Or as UTA puts it on the sides of their buses, a 'quality endorsed system'.
http://www.9001resource.com/iso_9001_stepbystep/step_by_step_iso_9001.php?gclid=CNfvpfyAzYwCFRoRYQodJCRqtQ
This will give you a general idea how companies and organizations implement ISO 9001 and become certified. Or as UTA puts it on the sides of their buses, a 'quality endorsed system'.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
UTA ISO QPMS and EMS Categories referenced and defined.
Here are the ISO QPMS and EMS Categories that will be referenced most commonly in this blog, plus the differences between what UTA defines them as and what the rider expectations of them are, where applicable.
Service Delivery:
1. Service Delivery and Preservation.
12. Rail Service Delivery and Preservation.
14. Service Plan Development
15. Operating Plan/Defining Implementation Requirements.
16. Service Change Implementation.
Support Processes:
1. Customer Comment
25. Connection Protection
On SP 25, UTA uses the term too narrowly, they only use it to define protecting the connections that riders need to make regarding transferring from TRAX trains to buses at the various TRAX stations, largely during rush hour. But it goes far beyond that, it is what any rider expects, to be able to effectively and conveniently connect with other routes and facilities UTA manages in a timely and efficient manner, even if that means some intertwining of routes is needed to allow for a connection. Examples are crosstown connections where most of the routes travel one direction but only a few routes in a given region cross many of those. The other example would be where a route ends very close to another, but without altering the first route to connect to the second at the end of the other which can in some cases be less than a mile away, the rider would have to travel a significant distance and waste valuable time in getting to his/her destination even though the two may be only a couple of miles apart.
Service Delivery:
1. Service Delivery and Preservation.
12. Rail Service Delivery and Preservation.
14. Service Plan Development
15. Operating Plan/Defining Implementation Requirements.
16. Service Change Implementation.
Support Processes:
1. Customer Comment
25. Connection Protection
On SP 25, UTA uses the term too narrowly, they only use it to define protecting the connections that riders need to make regarding transferring from TRAX trains to buses at the various TRAX stations, largely during rush hour. But it goes far beyond that, it is what any rider expects, to be able to effectively and conveniently connect with other routes and facilities UTA manages in a timely and efficient manner, even if that means some intertwining of routes is needed to allow for a connection. Examples are crosstown connections where most of the routes travel one direction but only a few routes in a given region cross many of those. The other example would be where a route ends very close to another, but without altering the first route to connect to the second at the end of the other which can in some cases be less than a mile away, the rider would have to travel a significant distance and waste valuable time in getting to his/her destination even though the two may be only a couple of miles apart.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
UTA presentation on ISO 9001 found.
I have found a presentation online in .pdf format that details UTA's implementation of ISO 9001.
http://www.apta.com/conferences_calendar/transitceos/documents/presentations_07/john_inglish.pdf
Highlights: Reveals some UTA internal management titles and responsibilities, but not in much detail to determine who the proper contact person is, just that there is a title and a job involved.
Found a list of categories they use internally. All future posts will detail which category deficiencies I find or have already found will be considered as being in. Earlier posts will eventually be updated to reflect the appropriate categories.
There are other things in the pdf which is a version of a Powerpoint presentation that John Inglish gave to a national audience of transit system management people at the American Public Transit Association meetings at some date not given. Once those are sorted through those will be implemented on this blog as well.
http://www.apta.com/conferences_calendar/transitceos/documents/presentations_07/john_inglish.pdf
Highlights: Reveals some UTA internal management titles and responsibilities, but not in much detail to determine who the proper contact person is, just that there is a title and a job involved.
Found a list of categories they use internally. All future posts will detail which category deficiencies I find or have already found will be considered as being in. Earlier posts will eventually be updated to reflect the appropriate categories.
There are other things in the pdf which is a version of a Powerpoint presentation that John Inglish gave to a national audience of transit system management people at the American Public Transit Association meetings at some date not given. Once those are sorted through those will be implemented on this blog as well.
ISO 9001 Gap analysys: Routes 811, 816
ISO 9001 Gap analysis for routes 811 (TRAX Connnector) and 816 (Utah County Night Service)
ISO QPMS and EMS categories: SP 1 (Customer Comment), SP 25 (Connection Protection), SD 14 (Service Plan Development), SD 16 (Service Change Implementation), SD 1 (Service Delivery and Preservation), SD 15 (Operating Plan/Defining Implementation Requirements).
Issue 1. South EOL Route 811.
Issue 2. Service and convenience issue Route 811.
Issue 3. Sham hearing February 2005 Route 811, relates to issue 1.
Issue 1. Route 811 from its original inception as Route 1 in 1985 has always historically served the East Bay area of Provo. For many years it might not have made sense because there was not much down in that area of town. Novell, the old Sears building (now vacant again) and both East Bay's shopping area on the east side of University Avenue and especially the new Provo Towne Center Mall have arisen since the original 811 routing was created.
Modifications for convenience of riders in northern Utah County have been made, but those are not at issue at present. Namely these were brought about in January of 1990 after the cities there voted to have UTA service them.
However, this balance was upset in April 2005 when UTA decided without considering public input (see issue 3 below) to end the route at 300 South in Provo.
Solution for issue 1: Restore segment for route 811 between 300 South in Provo and at least Provo Towne Center. This will provide a very convenient and one-bus path for those wishing to go from mall to mall in Utah County. This includes the Meadows in American Fork, and University Mall. This may, with proper publicity, help to mitigate traffic issues around all three as one could use this route as a quick way to get to all three. Right now it is only possible with route 850 but that takes at least twice as long as that one takes the old highway almost all the way between the three malls.
Issue 2. Service and convenience issue: The statements above indicate there is a serious service and convenience issue. The above would increase ridership on the route and also free up additional space on other routes serving the same areas for local residents to use to get to the same places. That would increase the efficiency of all routes involved, one of the goals of ISO 9001.
Service issue route 816: 1051pm bus eliminated with little public input allowed, may become equal access issue for the disabled as well, because that limits them from attending major events in Salt Lake including symphony concerts, concerts at Temple Square, and even red-hot Jazz games that are very close. You would have to leave some of these events early to catch the 951pm bus back that exists right now and was renamed 811 in 2005.
Issue 3. Sham public hearing on this matter: In February 2005 a public hearing was held prior to discontinuing service on route 811 beyond 300 South in Provo.
However, that was nothing more than a sham to say they held one. The decision was already made to eliminate the route section. Same for the 2006 drop of the last trip on 816 except no hearing was held as required probably by law and definitely by UTA's own internal procedure because that affected more than half the route.
I was there, and had the entire room other than the UTA officials there turned against the elimination of the route section named in issue one of this analysis. That was not the first time I have seen such outrage and it going unheeded by present UTA senior managers and the board.
They also advertised the hearing would last from 6pm to 9pm. I can verify that it started on time as I was there. However, I went to find someone who wanted to speak there, but he was not home. But I went to the hearing location, the room in Academy Square in Provo where it was held about 815pm that night and found they had left early, contrary to legal requirements.
Solutions to 811 and 816 route and scheduling issues,
Difficulty level: easy to moderate.
Route 811 issue: Extend south end of route to at least the Provo Towne Center stop used as an EOL already for 830 and 832. Or use EOL that the 850 uses by the empty Sears bulding on 1600 South.
Route 816 issue: Restore both 951pm and 1051pm trips weekdays, renaming the 951 trip and using State Road and American Fork Main Street to Orem rather than the freeway provides needed night service to nearly 100,000 residents who do not otherwise live near enough to a bus to use it. If you include the northern 2/3 of Orem that figure goes up to 170,000.
Northbound restore trips at the times they previously were listed as beginning on the south end of Provo.
ISO QPMS and EMS categories: SP 1 (Customer Comment), SP 25 (Connection Protection), SD 14 (Service Plan Development), SD 16 (Service Change Implementation), SD 1 (Service Delivery and Preservation), SD 15 (Operating Plan/Defining Implementation Requirements).
Issue 1. South EOL Route 811.
Issue 2. Service and convenience issue Route 811.
Issue 3. Sham hearing February 2005 Route 811, relates to issue 1.
Issue 1. Route 811 from its original inception as Route 1 in 1985 has always historically served the East Bay area of Provo. For many years it might not have made sense because there was not much down in that area of town. Novell, the old Sears building (now vacant again) and both East Bay's shopping area on the east side of University Avenue and especially the new Provo Towne Center Mall have arisen since the original 811 routing was created.
Modifications for convenience of riders in northern Utah County have been made, but those are not at issue at present. Namely these were brought about in January of 1990 after the cities there voted to have UTA service them.
However, this balance was upset in April 2005 when UTA decided without considering public input (see issue 3 below) to end the route at 300 South in Provo.
Solution for issue 1: Restore segment for route 811 between 300 South in Provo and at least Provo Towne Center. This will provide a very convenient and one-bus path for those wishing to go from mall to mall in Utah County. This includes the Meadows in American Fork, and University Mall. This may, with proper publicity, help to mitigate traffic issues around all three as one could use this route as a quick way to get to all three. Right now it is only possible with route 850 but that takes at least twice as long as that one takes the old highway almost all the way between the three malls.
Issue 2. Service and convenience issue: The statements above indicate there is a serious service and convenience issue. The above would increase ridership on the route and also free up additional space on other routes serving the same areas for local residents to use to get to the same places. That would increase the efficiency of all routes involved, one of the goals of ISO 9001.
Service issue route 816: 1051pm bus eliminated with little public input allowed, may become equal access issue for the disabled as well, because that limits them from attending major events in Salt Lake including symphony concerts, concerts at Temple Square, and even red-hot Jazz games that are very close. You would have to leave some of these events early to catch the 951pm bus back that exists right now and was renamed 811 in 2005.
Issue 3. Sham public hearing on this matter: In February 2005 a public hearing was held prior to discontinuing service on route 811 beyond 300 South in Provo.
However, that was nothing more than a sham to say they held one. The decision was already made to eliminate the route section. Same for the 2006 drop of the last trip on 816 except no hearing was held as required probably by law and definitely by UTA's own internal procedure because that affected more than half the route.
I was there, and had the entire room other than the UTA officials there turned against the elimination of the route section named in issue one of this analysis. That was not the first time I have seen such outrage and it going unheeded by present UTA senior managers and the board.
They also advertised the hearing would last from 6pm to 9pm. I can verify that it started on time as I was there. However, I went to find someone who wanted to speak there, but he was not home. But I went to the hearing location, the room in Academy Square in Provo where it was held about 815pm that night and found they had left early, contrary to legal requirements.
Solutions to 811 and 816 route and scheduling issues,
Difficulty level: easy to moderate.
Route 811 issue: Extend south end of route to at least the Provo Towne Center stop used as an EOL already for 830 and 832. Or use EOL that the 850 uses by the empty Sears bulding on 1600 South.
Route 816 issue: Restore both 951pm and 1051pm trips weekdays, renaming the 951 trip and using State Road and American Fork Main Street to Orem rather than the freeway provides needed night service to nearly 100,000 residents who do not otherwise live near enough to a bus to use it. If you include the northern 2/3 of Orem that figure goes up to 170,000.
Northbound restore trips at the times they previously were listed as beginning on the south end of Provo.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Preparing an ISO 9001 audit gap analysis for route design issues.
I think now it's time to prepare a gap analysis, which is part of the ISO 9001.2000 certification review and/or internal audit, on the matter of route designing and customer service related to this.
If you noticed my first few entries, you can see why such an analysis is necessary. The gap analysis is designed to catch problems in this case, rider satisfaction with convenience and necessity being the paramount rule in organizing and maintaining route structures over the entire UTA system.
The best thing is to document the problem, note the deficiency, and solve the issue. UTA does not truly qualify for ISO 9001.2000 certification because it does not have this balance in place in route design and structure. There are routes that could be more efficient if they tied into another route at the other end such as one I have seen in Ogden. I'll write on that when I have more info, or a route that services two parts of a major university campus there that would be more efficient if it were a true loop and not the 3/4 loop it is now. Now it takes alot longer to get between the two campuses ont he same route and also service other areas that generate ridership to the two schools, thus actually discouraging ridership.
When doing the analysis on a route, it needs to be based on connections, frequency of service, and convenience to the rider, not the driver or what the manager thinks will work, although some factors such as length of time 'in the saddle' for the driver should always be considered.
I will write these analyses and post them here also.
If you noticed my first few entries, you can see why such an analysis is necessary. The gap analysis is designed to catch problems in this case, rider satisfaction with convenience and necessity being the paramount rule in organizing and maintaining route structures over the entire UTA system.
The best thing is to document the problem, note the deficiency, and solve the issue. UTA does not truly qualify for ISO 9001.2000 certification because it does not have this balance in place in route design and structure. There are routes that could be more efficient if they tied into another route at the other end such as one I have seen in Ogden. I'll write on that when I have more info, or a route that services two parts of a major university campus there that would be more efficient if it were a true loop and not the 3/4 loop it is now. Now it takes alot longer to get between the two campuses ont he same route and also service other areas that generate ridership to the two schools, thus actually discouraging ridership.
When doing the analysis on a route, it needs to be based on connections, frequency of service, and convenience to the rider, not the driver or what the manager thinks will work, although some factors such as length of time 'in the saddle' for the driver should always be considered.
I will write these analyses and post them here also.
Routing issue North Utah County: 850 and the two park and ride lots
Now for a routing issue, the two North County Park and Ride lots.
ISO QPMS and EMS Categories: SD 16 (Service Change Implementation) SP 25 (Connection Protection) .
Route: 850
Location 1. Lehi Park and Ride Lot, just southwest of State Road (Pacific Avenue, US 89) and I-15, Lehi.
Location 2. American Fork Park and Ride Lot, west side of I-15 at 900 West and Main Street, American Fork.
Problem: Lots not served, route 850 used to serve the American Fork Park and Ride lot, but they took it away from that due to a two-lane bridge for American Fork's Main Street over I-15 being so heavily clogged with traffic especially during rush hour. Hugh Johnson promised they would go back there again once UDOT put a light at the ramps to/from southbound I-15, but the promise was broken.
The Lehi lot is very new, it was only opened in April 2007. Presently the route ends over a half mile from this lot.
Solution: Easy fix. Route would simply go west to the American Fork Main Street lot, then backtrack to State Road to continue to Lehi.
Route would be extended the about 1/2 mile more from present north EOL to service the Park and Ride lot in Lehi, essentially that lot might serve as the new north EOL. Would allow for 2-way service through Lehi without an end loop as 850 does now.
Minor time adjustments to schedule, total time needed to be added would be around five minutes if even that much.
Benefits. Additional ridership on 850 in North Utah County, would attract new users to the Park and Ride lots.
ISO QPMS and EMS Categories: SD 16 (Service Change Implementation) SP 25 (Connection Protection) .
Route: 850
Location 1. Lehi Park and Ride Lot, just southwest of State Road (Pacific Avenue, US 89) and I-15, Lehi.
Location 2. American Fork Park and Ride Lot, west side of I-15 at 900 West and Main Street, American Fork.
Problem: Lots not served, route 850 used to serve the American Fork Park and Ride lot, but they took it away from that due to a two-lane bridge for American Fork's Main Street over I-15 being so heavily clogged with traffic especially during rush hour. Hugh Johnson promised they would go back there again once UDOT put a light at the ramps to/from southbound I-15, but the promise was broken.
The Lehi lot is very new, it was only opened in April 2007. Presently the route ends over a half mile from this lot.
Solution: Easy fix. Route would simply go west to the American Fork Main Street lot, then backtrack to State Road to continue to Lehi.
Route would be extended the about 1/2 mile more from present north EOL to service the Park and Ride lot in Lehi, essentially that lot might serve as the new north EOL. Would allow for 2-way service through Lehi without an end loop as 850 does now.
Minor time adjustments to schedule, total time needed to be added would be around five minutes if even that much.
Benefits. Additional ridership on 850 in North Utah County, would attract new users to the Park and Ride lots.
Stop placement issue: Route 850, Provo, Utah.
Here's the first issue that needs to be addressed. It involves the elimination of a stop in Provo Utah.
ISO QPMS and EMS Categories: SD 17 (Bus Stop Relocation).
Where: Between 500 and 800 North both directions on 500 West, Provo Utah.
Route: 850
Problem: needed stop between two other stops eliminated without public input, unacceptable gap between stops.
Stop was eliminated 2/07, was about 600 North or so. Provo blocks are 500 feet apart. This means the two stops at 800 North and 500 North without the interim stop are 1500 feet apart, that's close 3/8 mile. Stops should be at spacing maximum 2 blocks apart where blocks are eight or ten to the mile except in American Fork and in Salt Lake Valley where the blocks are 6 2/3 to the mile, where the spacing maximum for best service should be at most should be 1 1/2 blocks apart.
How to fix: Place a stop both directions at about 650 North. That will resolve the spacing issue. However, placing a stop at either 700 North or 600 North is also acceptable.
There may even be a Federal requirement that where safe to do so, no two transit stops may be more than 1000 feet apart. I remember seeing something about this in the 70s but don't know if it is still in effect today or not. If any reader has confirmation and can tell me where to find this information, please post it via a comment.
ISO QPMS and EMS Categories: SD 17 (Bus Stop Relocation).
Where: Between 500 and 800 North both directions on 500 West, Provo Utah.
Route: 850
Problem: needed stop between two other stops eliminated without public input, unacceptable gap between stops.
Stop was eliminated 2/07, was about 600 North or so. Provo blocks are 500 feet apart. This means the two stops at 800 North and 500 North without the interim stop are 1500 feet apart, that's close 3/8 mile. Stops should be at spacing maximum 2 blocks apart where blocks are eight or ten to the mile except in American Fork and in Salt Lake Valley where the blocks are 6 2/3 to the mile, where the spacing maximum for best service should be at most should be 1 1/2 blocks apart.
How to fix: Place a stop both directions at about 650 North. That will resolve the spacing issue. However, placing a stop at either 700 North or 600 North is also acceptable.
There may even be a Federal requirement that where safe to do so, no two transit stops may be more than 1000 feet apart. I remember seeing something about this in the 70s but don't know if it is still in effect today or not. If any reader has confirmation and can tell me where to find this information, please post it via a comment.
Read this blog too.
Be sure to read this blog too. I'm going to let them know they can be involved here as well.
http://whereisuta.blogspot.com/
I found it on a flyer on 400 South in Salt Lake the last time I was up there, I was crossing to catch a TRAX train when I discovered it.
http://whereisuta.blogspot.com/
I found it on a flyer on 400 South in Salt Lake the last time I was up there, I was crossing to catch a TRAX train when I discovered it.
Welcome, and how this blog will work.
Welcome to the Utah Transit Authority 9001 Compliance blog. Here's why it was created and how it will work and what it will cover.
The '9001' in the title refers to International Standardization Organization Standard 9001.2000 and its eventual successors. This is often abbreviated ISO 9001.2000. You can find information on this standard, but not the standard itself, at http://www.iso.org/
The standard is available, but it often costs over $100 to procure a copy, so I have not been able to do so yet.
However, this blog will address issues that UTA has forgotten are required for the standard to work for the customer. These include customer service interaction with riders, stop placement issues, route construction and planning issues, service time of day issues, compliance with generally accepted practices in holding public hearings and making decisions that affect riders, and other service related issues as those things affect the ridership.
Much of what you will see here will involve Utah County as I live in Provo, Utah, part of the Timpanogos Division of the Utah Transit Authority and the division headquarters are located in Orem. However, as I travel in the system, including the Meadowbrook (Salt Lake City, Utah) Division), and the North Davis County/Weber County (Ogden Utah) division, I will note any issues that might be discovered in those areas that need rectification in order to meet customer and rider expectations for quality customer service and rider needs.
At times ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and other matters affecting the disabled will be discussed too. These matters do come up with regularity at times, most are small, easily fixed things, but some may require more effort and work to resolve.
Feel free to post a comment on anything I place here. I also welcome any UTA driver, manager, or senior official including public relations team members, to respond to any issues posted to this blog. Media responses are also welcome from any Salt Lake Metro media outlet.
I will even let everyone know when something good happens too, even if it is not the direct or indirect result of the discussion on this blog. The Utah Transit Authority service area is one of the largest in the United States, and so the entire system is very complex and there are many factors and issues that must be considered in managing it.
The '9001' in the title refers to International Standardization Organization Standard 9001.2000 and its eventual successors. This is often abbreviated ISO 9001.2000. You can find information on this standard, but not the standard itself, at http://www.iso.org/
The standard is available, but it often costs over $100 to procure a copy, so I have not been able to do so yet.
However, this blog will address issues that UTA has forgotten are required for the standard to work for the customer. These include customer service interaction with riders, stop placement issues, route construction and planning issues, service time of day issues, compliance with generally accepted practices in holding public hearings and making decisions that affect riders, and other service related issues as those things affect the ridership.
Much of what you will see here will involve Utah County as I live in Provo, Utah, part of the Timpanogos Division of the Utah Transit Authority and the division headquarters are located in Orem. However, as I travel in the system, including the Meadowbrook (Salt Lake City, Utah) Division), and the North Davis County/Weber County (Ogden Utah) division, I will note any issues that might be discovered in those areas that need rectification in order to meet customer and rider expectations for quality customer service and rider needs.
At times ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and other matters affecting the disabled will be discussed too. These matters do come up with regularity at times, most are small, easily fixed things, but some may require more effort and work to resolve.
Feel free to post a comment on anything I place here. I also welcome any UTA driver, manager, or senior official including public relations team members, to respond to any issues posted to this blog. Media responses are also welcome from any Salt Lake Metro media outlet.
I will even let everyone know when something good happens too, even if it is not the direct or indirect result of the discussion on this blog. The Utah Transit Authority service area is one of the largest in the United States, and so the entire system is very complex and there are many factors and issues that must be considered in managing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)