MARTA, transit union in standoff over privatizing paratransit operations

Workers say plan could lead to poorer performance; officials say move could save tens of millions of dollars

Image

  • <a href”http://www.flickr.com/photos/pdxjeff/28620846/>PDX Jeff/Wikimedia Commons

In the increasingly heated contract standoff between MARTA and union workers, the seniors and people with disabilities who use the transit agency’s Mobility paratransit service are stuck in the middle.

MARTA is moving to privatize Mobility, which the perpetually cash-strapped transit agency says could save tens of millions of dollars. But privatized paratransit here has failed before, and has a track record of lower-grade performance than in-house versions, says the Amalgamated Transit Union’s Atlanta chapter.

Mobility provides curb-to-curb assisted service by car or van to qualified riders. It operates within three-quarters of a mile of transit routes. Its budget is around $25.9 million, and in Fiscal Year 2014 it provided more than 580,000 rides.

Transit agencies are required to provide paratransit under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, so Mobility is sticking around no matter how the union battle ends. But there is plenty of leeway on what form it will take - and how well it will work.

? ? ?
MARTA must “deal with providing paratransit service without breaking the bank,” says agency spokesman Lyle Harris. And it looks ready to do that by privatizing it, with plans to issue a request for proposals from third-party vendors in December. But the MARTA board recently delayed a vote on that plan so the ATU could suggest other ways to save money instead.

“MARTA’s invitation to the union to submit a proposal is still open, but at some point, we must move forward,” says Harris, adding that the labor group’s recommendations haven’t materialized yet. Otherwise, he says, MARTA expects the board will approve the privatization RFP.

ATU Local 732, which reps many of Mobility’s 369 workers, didn’t respond to CL questions. But in an Oct. 13 Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed, union president Curtis Howard unloaded on the privatization plan as a “dismantling and selling off of MARTA.”

“It means endangering riders aboard unsafe vehicles operated by overworked and underpaid part-time employees driving over 30 hours per week,” he wrote.

Both sides of the debate are using studies as dueling pistols. MARTA has a 2012 report from auditing firm KPMG that predicts big cost savings from Mobility privatization. ATU has a 2010 Federal Transit Administration-sponsored study that says outsourced paratransit sometimes has more employee turnover and thus worse service.

The KPMG study found that Mobility’s cost per trip - then around $51 - was 27 percent above-market. The projected budget savings of outsourcing could range from $15 million to $43 million over five years, it said. The report also warned such a move could have labor and legal complexities, and savings could vary with market conditions.

The ATU-touted study looked at ways to best retain paratransit employees, a field known for high turnover and staffing shortages, which in turn impacts customer service. It found that 50 percent of in-house paratransit programs surveyed operated with full staffing, while only 29 percent of third-party contractors did. Private paratransit companies tend to pay drivers less and offer them fewer benefits, it said. The ATU has gleefully noted that current MARTA General Manager/CEO Keith Parker was on the large committee that oversaw the commissioning of that study.

Neither study is the final word on what works best, but KPMG’s has had way more political juice, with MARTA already adopting some of its suggestions in its “MARTA Transformation Initiative.” Last year, state Rep. Mike Jacobs, R-Brookhaven, who chairs the Gold Dome’s MARTA Oversight Committee, filed a bill to require the outsourcing of Mobility, among other study-inspired moves.

Such activist groups as disABILITY LINK criticized the idea, and state Sen. Jason Carter, D-Atlanta, was among those questioning it. Jacobs eventually dropped the Mobility privatization bit, but only because MARTA’s board agreed to consider it.

ATU points out that MARTA has traveled the outsourcing road before and found it to be rocky. Paratransit was outsourced for a decade until 1997, when MARTA decided to bring it in-house again.

Harris admits that its foray into paratransit outsourcing failed because “we were getting poor results from the contractor and an unacceptable amount of customer complaints, which led us to bring the service in-house.” He blamed that on MARTA’s lack of dedicated staff overseeing the contractor - a mistake it would not repeat, he said.

MARTA notes that in-house service isn’t problem free - chronic absenteeism from some Mobility staffers needs fixing, Harris says. And the agency promises that if Mobility is outsourced, it will retain ownership of the vehicles and expects many employees would transfer to the private company.

The goal, Harris says, “is to find the most customer-focused, cost-effective business model for Mobility, regardless of whether the service is being managed by MARTA or a third party.”