Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities

Members and Staff

Quarterly Meetings

Contact Information:
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW,
Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice
202-272-2074 TTY
202-272-2022 Fax

Comments and Feedback:
ncd@ncd.gov




	The Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the United States National Council on Disability 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20004 202-272-2004 Voice 202-272-2074 TTY 202-272-2022 Fax This report is also available in alternative formats and on the award-winning National Council on Disability (NCD) Web site (www.ncd.gov). Publication date: June 13, 2005 The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration as this and all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process. Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am very pleased to submit this report entitled The Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the United States. The report was developed with the input of individuals with disabilities and transportation professionals from around the country. The purpose in undertaking this project was to develop a better understanding of access to transportation and mobility for people with disabilities, including access to traditional public transportation systems, private transportation services, alternative transportation initiatives, and the pedestrian environment; to identify transportation barriers as well as promising practices and models; and to develop recommendations in keeping with the goals of the New Freedom Initiative to “expand transportation opportunities for people with disabilities.” There have been many advances in America’s transportation systems and services for citizens with disabilities, particularly since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the nation’s public transportation industry are to be applauded for their part in bringing about this progress. However, research reveals that many barriers to transportation continue to exist that prevent the full inclusion and full participation of people with disabilities in society. This report highlights many best practices and successful initiatives that can serve as models for other communities for enhancing transportation and mobility for people with disabilities. This report also sets forth a variety of recommendations for service improvements and for additional research that will lead to greater options for the 6 million Americans with disabilities who have difficulties obtaining the transportation they need to live independent and productive lives. NCD hopes the information in this report will serve as a useful resource for individuals with disabilities, transportation professionals, and lawmakers working to improve access to transportation and mobility for people with disabilities. NCD looks forward to working with this Administration and Congress to continue to develop and support laws, policies, and practices that will ensure that every person with a disability is able to participate fully in all aspects of American life. Sincerely, Lex Frieden Chairperson (The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.) National Council on Disability Members and Staff Members Lex Frieden, Chairperson, Texas Patricia Pound, First Vice Chairperson, Texas Glenn Anderson, Ph.D., Second Vice Chairperson, Arkansas Milton Aponte, J.D., Florida Robert R. Davila, Ph.D., New York Barbara Gillcrist, New Mexico Graham Hill, Virginia Joel I. Kahn, Ph.D., Ohio Young Woo Kang, Ph.D., Indiana Kathleen Martinez, California Carol Novak, Florida Anne M. Rader, New York Marco Rodriguez, California David Wenzel, Pennsylvania Linda Wetters, Ohio Staff Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director Jeffrey T. Rosen, General Counsel and Director of Policy Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications Allan W. Holland, Chief Financial Officer Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor Joan M. Durocher, Attorney Advisor Martin Gould, Ed.D., Senior Research Specialist Geraldine Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Program Analyst Mark Seifarth, Congressional Liaison Pamela O’Leary, Interpreter Brenda Bratton, Executive Assistant Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant Carla Nelson, Office Automation Clerk Acknowledgments The National Council on Disability (NCD) wishes to express its appreciation to Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and Richard Weiner of Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates for conducting research into the current state of transportation for people with disabilities and for drafting this report. NCD also wishes to express its appreciation to the many individuals with disabilities and transportation professionals across the country who provided the input and personal experiences that were essential for the development of this report. Table of Contents Section 1: Executive Summary Fixed-Route Public Transit Paratransit Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements on Public Transit Public Rights-of-way Private Transportation Flex Service and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service Transportation in Rural Areas Section 2: Introduction Section 3: Fixed-Route Public Transit Bus Transit General assessment Low-floor ramped buses and other features of universal design Problem areas Stop announcements Bus equipment maintenance Lift maintenance problems in Detroit But is it really broken? Securement of mobility devices Ensuring proper securement Wheelchairs that are difficult to secure, and should wheelchair securement be optional? Resolving securement problems Oversized wheelchairs Rail Transit Rapid rail, light rail, and commuter rail Access to train stations Key station enforcement Elevator maintenance and information on outages The rail gap Commuter rail and platform accessibility Stop announcements Amtrak Section 4: Paratransit General Assessment Policy Issues That Impact Service Availability and Quality Eligibility Use of fixed-route versus paratransit service Recent trends in paratransit eligibility Trip-by-trip screening Best practices in assessing eligibility Immediate needs certification Service area Trip denials Court-established right to next-day service Hidden impact of trip denial rates On-time performance Factors affecting on-time performance The one-hour window and the importance of the desired arrival or appointment time The on-time pickup window Negotiated time versus scheduled time Trip length Other operational issues Factors outside the transit agency’s control Other operational practices to enhance on-time performance Agreed-upon time should appear on driver’s manifest Consistency of daily tours Monitoring Callouts Information technology Lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints Subscription service Cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies to manage costs No-show policies Late cancellations Door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service Travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to fixed routes Fare incentive programs Travel training in the context of IDEA Equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers Feeder service Chain trips Low bid versus service quality in contracting Seniors with disabilities are not necessarily eligible for ADA paratransit Serving individuals who need dialysis treatment Serving individuals with dementia Use of taxis in paratransit Case studies Best practices in Broward County, Florida Best practices in New York City, New York Section 5: Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements on Public Transit Disability Community Involvement ADA Administrative Complaints to the Federal Transit Administration Federal Transit Administration ADA Assessments Litigation Ballot measures Information technology Section 6: Issues for All Modes of Public Transit Department of Justice ADA Requirements and Their Relationship to Public Transportation DOT’s 1991 regulation under section 504 The D.C. Circuit statement on the same issue in Burkhart v. WMATA DOJ’s amicus brief in Burkhart Federal Transit Administration reliance on DOJ regulation Contrary Fifth Circuit decision in Melton v. DART In conclusion, the DOJ regulation applies to transit agencies Service Animals Discrimination based on service animals Must one say the magic words? Barriers to People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Section 7: Public Rights-of-Way Section 8: Private Transportation Taxi Service General assessment Accessible taxi service Portland, Oregon Seattle, Washington Boston, Massachusetts Las Vegas, Nevada Chicago, Illinois San Francisco, California New York, New York Other locations Issues and concerns Keeping the vehicles in use and available Accessibility and nondiscrimination Training Enforcement Vehicles and costs Greyhound and Other Intercity Bus Service Airport Shuttles and Other Airport-related Services Social Services Transportation and Coordination Tour and Charter Service Section 9: Flex Service and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service Route Deviation Service Community Bus Routes Section 10: Transportation in Rural Areas Section 11: Other Publicly Funded Transportation Initiatives Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Other Work Transportation Programs Volunteer Driver Programs Section 12: Conclusion Section 13: Appendices Appendix A: Recommendations (in order of their appearance in this report) Fixed-Route Public Transit (from Section 3) Stop announcements Bus equipment maintenance Securement of mobility devices Oversized wheelchairs Rail transit Paratransit (from Section 4) Eligibility Trip denials On-time performance Lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints Subscription service Cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies to manage costs No-show policies and late cancellations Door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service Travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to fixed route Equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers Feeder service Chain trips Low bid versus service quality in contracting Serving individuals who need dialysis treatment Serving individuals with dementia Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements in Public Transit (from Section 5) Disability community involvement ADA administrative complaints to the Federal Transit Administration Federal Transit Administration ADA Assessments Litigation Ballot measures Information technology Issues for All Modes of Public Transit (from Section 6) Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public transportation Service animals Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities Public Rights-of-Way (from Section 7) Private Transportation (from Section 8) Taxi service Greyhound and other intercity bus service Airport shuttles and other airport-related services Social services transportation and coordination Tour and charter service Flex and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service (from Section 9) Transportation in Rural Areas (from Section 10) Other Publicly Funded Transportation Initiatives (from Section 11) Job access reverse commute (JARC) and other work transportation programs Volunteer driver programs Appendix B: Recommendations (organized by the entity to which they are directed) To Publicly Funded Transit Agencies General Stop announcements Bus equipment maintenance Securement of mobility devices Rail transit Paratransit––eligibility Paratransit––trip denials Paratransit––on-time performance Paratransit––lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints Paratransit––subscription service Paratransit––cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies to manage costs Paratransit––no-show policies and late cancellations Paratransit––door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service Paratransit––travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to fixed route Paratransit––equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers Paratransit––feeder service Paratransit––low bid versus service quality in contracting Paratransit––serving individuals who need dialysis treatment Paratransit––serving individuals with dementia Flex and other nontraditional forms of transit service Public rights-of-way Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public transportation Service animals Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities Information technology To Providers of Privately Funded Transportation To Airport-related Transportation Providers Tour and charter service Service animals Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities Information technology To the Federal Government Specific recommendations to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transportation in rural areas ADA enforcement Public rights-of-way Rail transit Vehicle standards Paratransit Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public transportation Airport transportation Greyhound and other intercity bus service Social services transportation Volunteer driver programs To State and Local Governments/Municipal Leaders To People with Disabilities/Advocates/Riders/Disability Organizations General Paratransit Greyhound and other intercity bus service To Wheelchair Manufacturers To Schools and Departments of Education To the Public Rights-of-Way Industry To Planning and Design Curricula at the University Level To Airports To Researchers Appendix C: Methodology Appendix D: List of Focus Group Participants, Interviewees, and Consultants Focus Group Participants, August 31, 2004 Persons Interviewed or Consulted Appendix E: Mission of the National Council on Disability Overview and Purpose The Current Statutory Mandate of NCD Includes the Following: International Consumers served and current activities Statutory history Section 14: Endnotes Section 1: Executive Summary A national study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2002 found that 6 million people with disabilities have difficulties obtaining the transportation they need.¹ Research in the year 2000 conducted by the Harris Poll and funded by the National Organization on Disability established that nearly one-third of people with disabilities report having inadequate access to transportation.² Behind these statistics are many personal stories of lives severely limited by the lack of transportation. Some people with disabilities who are willing and able to work cannot do so because of inadequate transportation. Others cannot shop, socialize, enjoy recreational or spiritual activities, or even leave their homes. And some individuals with disabilities who need medical services must live in institutions due solely to the lack of safe, reliable transportation to needed medical services. This paper analyzes existing transportation systems in the United States with the acknowledgment that these systems are inherently inadequate due to a chronic lack of funding. As the United States focuses its resources on travel by automobile, all other modes are neglected in comparison. As a consistent theme in most transit systems across the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has spawned great improvements, but many compliance gaps remain that pose significant problems to transportation for people with disabilities. Additionally, because the ADA merely requires that, where public transportation is provided, it must be made accessible for people with disabilities, where there is no public transportation, it is likely that no transportation exists at all for people with disabilities. In some sectors, such as in rural areas, grossly insufficient funding imposes harsh gaps in the transportation grid. In other sectors, such as accessible taxis, a lack of requirements has meant very uneven progress. As a result, people with disabilities are still at a significant disadvantage compared with the general public. Fixed-Route Public Transit The ADA has significantly expanded service for people with disabilities on publicly funded transit bus and rail systems, but there are many gaps in ADA compliance that create significant obstacles. Many transit agencies fail to comply with the ADA requirement to announce bus stops, to the great disadvantage of many visually impaired and cognitively disabled people in particular. Some transit agencies have relied on automatic stop announcement systems on the bus, which are not always problem-free. Additionally, problems persist with the maintenance of accessibility equipment, such as bus lifts, and with bus drivers simply passing by people with disabilities who are waiting to ride. Wheelchair and scooter securement are too often inadequate. Train travel has improved greatly for people with disabilities, but the ADA’s limited key station requirement has meant that some of the large, old East Coast rail systems, in particular, have few accessible stations. A significant barrier on some rail systems is the failure to maintain elevators in working order and to inform riders when elevators are out of service. The gap between the train and the platform, and the second-rate accessibility of mini-high platforms on commuter rail systems, still impose barriers. Paratransit Paratransit ridership has soared under the ADA, and costs have similarly expanded. Although far more individuals are being served, riders in many cities continue to experience significant and complicated problems using their local paratransit systems. Many transit agencies have tightened their eligibility procedures in an attempt to get a handle on costs and on paratransit dependence by riders who could use the fixed-route system. But not all transit agencies are observing best practices in their eligibility screening, sometimes causing problems when service is denied. Some paratransit systems are still plagued by trip denials. As a result, riders are unable to obtain the next-day rides guaranteed them by law. The way denials are calculated can mask their true impact. Many paratransit riders experience great problems with the timeliness of the service—vehicles arrive sometimes too early, often too late, and riders cannot reach their job sites, medical appointments, and other important engagements when they need to. Other problems can include long telephone hold times and the lack of subscription service for regular riders. Sometimes, this lack of subscription service stems from transit agencies’ misunderstanding of the ADA regulation. These problems are compounded as some transit agencies cut back paratransit service to the ADA-required minimums, sometimes creating difficult transportation barriers for people with disabilities that are not necessarily violations of the ADA. Some paratransit systems have punitive no-show and late cancellation policies, or fail to comply fully with riders’ rights in these areas. Some have tried using paratransit as a feeder service, without the necessary structure and supports to make feeder service successful. Many of these difficulties can be caused by multifaceted operational problems, for which best practice solutions are suggested in each section of this report. Some transit agencies provide travel training and other incentives to attract paratransit riders to the fixed-route service. While these programs can be very successful, they also have their share of difficulties. Other solutions to paratransit problems are discussed in this report, including equalizing pay between fixed-route and paratransit drivers, pursuing service quality goals in contracting rather than accepting the lowest contractor bid, and developing special methods of serving individuals who need dialysis or who have dementia. Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements on Public Transit This report explores many approaches to improving public transportation, including disability community involvement, the filing of ADA administrative complaints with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the use of FTA ADA assessments, the use of ADA lawsuits, ballot measures to increase transit agency funding, and the use of information technology to improve service delivery. Public Rights-of-way Accessible streets, sidewalks, and other public infrastructure are crucial to viable transportation for people with disabilities. The lack of enforceable standards under the ADA remains a significant problem, as communities across the United States erect barriers, including inaccessible bus stops, intersections without curb ramps or with improperly constructed ramps, street crossings and pedestrian signals that are inaccessible to visually impaired people, and phone poles and other barriers blocking sidewalks. Private Transportation Travel by taxicab, depended on by many people with disabilities, can pose real barriers to individuals who use service animals or wheelchairs. Accessible taxicabs generally are not required by the ADA. In the void created by this lack of a legal mandate, most cities have attempted to establish wheelchair-accessible taxi service. These efforts, which are described in all their variety in seven major cities, are hampered by numerous difficulties. Some cities have imposed accessible taxicab mandates without providing the necessary incentives for drivers and cab companies, or without the necessary monitoring and enforcement. Often, accessible taxis are not available in neighborhoods for use by people with disabilities; they are busy providing paratransit rides on contract with the local transit agency, or waiting at the airport for nondisabled passengers with golf clubs and bulky luggage, or even parked and not in use. Services for people with disabilities by Greyhound and other intercity carriers, as well as airport shuttles, social services transportation, and tour and charter services are also explored in this report. Flex Service and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service Alternative, flexible services, such as route deviation service, can frequently provide workable alternatives in a variety of community contexts. Yet these programs may provide less service, sometimes substantially less, to people with disabilities than would a traditional fixed-route service with complementary paratransit. They may also fail to provide equivalent service to people with disabilities as required by the ADA. Transportation in Rural Areas Although some model programs have been established in rural areas, a significant discrepancy in funding to such areas means that public transit in general, much less accessible public transit, is in grossly short supply. The human cost is great, resulting in many problems, including institutionalization of people with disabilities solely as a result of the lack of adequate transportation to medical appointments. While public transportation in this country has made great strides since the passage of the ADA, significant gaps remain for many sectors of the disability community, including people who live in rural areas, those who rely on paratransit to get to work or medical appointments, and those with visual impairments who rely on bus stop announcements. This report reviews how well a great variety of surface transportation systems serve people with disabilities. The assessment is based on anecdotal evidence from riders and advocates, the viewpoints of transit operators, and research conducted by experts in the field. For more details about the methodology used in preparing this report, see Appendix C. This research reveals that ridership on fixed-route public transit and paratransit systems has increased dramatically in the past decade. Use of other systems such as rail, taxis, and other privately funded transportation modes has also increased. Flexibility in bus service planning has resulted in the implementation of hybrid services that may provide more options for people with disabilities in rural and suburban communities. Progress has been made on many fronts, and successful practices for providing various modes of transportation are identified in this report, which can serve as models for other communities. This report documents some of the regulatory changes that affect the mobility of the disability community, and the impact that disability involvement has had on achieving changes in the transportation environment. This report also sets forth a variety of recommendations for service improvements and for additional research that will lead to greater options for the 6 million Americans with disabilities who have difficulties obtaining the transportation they need. The continued underfunding of public transportation, however, directly limits the mobility of large sections of the disability community who are unable to use a car, and this problem will not be fully addressed without a fundamental shift in funding priorities to support a comprehensive, accessible public transportation system. Section 2: Introduction Transportation enables us to work, choose where to live, pursue an education, access health care, worship, shop, and participate in recreational activities. A national study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2002 found that 6 million people with disabilities have difficulties obtaining the transportation they need. Four times as many disabled people as nondisabled people lack suitable transportation options to meet their daily mobility needs.³ Research in the year 2000 conducted by the Harris Poll and funded by the National Organization on Disability established that nearly one-third of people with disabilities report having inadequate access to transportation.⁴ And the Community Transportation Association of America reports that nearly 40 percent of the country’s transit-dependent population—primarily senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals—reside in rural areas. Yet in many of these communities, public and community transportation are limited or absent.⁵ More than half a million people with disabilities cannot leave their homes because of transportation difficulties.⁶ For many people with disabilities, life is severely limited by the lack of transportation. Some people with disabilities who are willing and able to work cannot do so because of inadequate transportation. Others cannot shop, socialize, enjoy recreational or spiritual activities, or even leave their homes for the same reason. Some individuals with disabilities must live in institutions solely because of the lack of transportation to medical appointments. The transportation difficulties faced by people with disabilities occur in a broad context of inequitable funding that forms the backdrop to all discussions of transportation programs in this country. The United States dedicates enormous amounts of funding to infrastructure and other functions that facilitate transportation by automobile––some $118 billion was authorized during the 1998 reauthorization of federal highway legislation, compared with $36 billion for public transportation.⁷ These priorities inherently disfavor large sections of the population, including people with disabilities. Research and anecdotal information indicate that people with disabilities who cannot drive, who cannot use cars, or for whom cars are unavailable participate less in all aspects of society. Publicly and privately funded transportation systems and programs are intended to address this gap. But the United States neglects adequate support for publicly funded transportation; subsidies and incentives for increased privately funded transportation; and resources to make our streets, sidewalks, and the rest of the pedestrian environment more conducive to the needs of travelers with disabilities. Meanwhile, far too many public dollars are spent without regard to whether people with disabilities can take advantage of the benefits offered. Everything from county fairs to organizations specifically intended to serve people with disabilities, such as vocational rehabilitation centers and independent living centers, are sometimes located outside the reach of public transit that fully serves people with disabilities. Despite the fact that, as our population ages, there will be a dramatic increase in the number of people with disabilities in the years to come, there are no current efforts to make any significant changes in this basic picture. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), despite the crucial role it plays and the many positive results it has brought about, may ultimately be able to do little to resolve the overall problem, because the ADA’s purpose is only to ensure that existing public transportation services are accessible and do not exclude or otherwise discriminate against people with disabilities. The ADA alone cannot create the additional systems and programs that people with disabilities need. As a result of the ADA, the past decade has brought about some real improvement in access to transportation for people with disabilities, and access to public transportation has improved significantly since implementation of the ADA transportation provisions. Additionally, 70 federal programs fund some aspect of community transportation services.⁸ These options have unquestionably resulted in greater mobility for many, although they continue to serve just a subset of the overall population of people with disabilities. Although changes resulting from the ADA have had a significant positive impact, there is still a considerable gap between the status quo and full ADA compliance by transit systems of all kinds across the United States. Input from people with disabilities indicates that significant barriers remain in achieving independent mobility and access to transportation, including barriers to fixed-route systems, paratransit services, private transportation services, and public rights-of-way. The National Council on Disability commissioned this examination of access to transportation and mobility for people with disabilities––including access to traditional public transportation systems, private transportation options, alternative transportation initiatives, and the pedestrian environment––to identify transportation barriers, as well as promising practices and models, and to develop recommendations for improving mobility options for people with disabilities. The scope of this paper is surface transportation. It does not address transportation by air carriers or passenger vessels, although those are important areas that merit further examination. Section 3: Fixed-Route Public Transit Bus Transit General assessment It is widely acknowledged that, before the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),⁹ public transportation in the United States that was accessible to people with disabilities was, at best, as Dr. Rosalyn Simon reported in 1996, “always varied and uneven. Uniform accessible transportation did not exist until it was required by [the ADA].”¹⁰ But the ADA’s transportation requirements did not evolve in a vacuum. A vigorous, vocal nationwide movement of people with disabilities fought hard to obtain the right to ride buses through the late 1970s and 1980s. Led by ADAPT, a national grassroots disability rights organization, this campaign targeted all parts of the transit industry that resisted such a change––individual transit agencies, the transit agencies’ trade association, the American Public Transit Association, Greyhound Lines, Inc., and many others. The movement acted in many arenas: from the halls of Congress to the federal courts to the streets. While this long effort was not the first time the public had seen people with disabilities engage in political protest, it firmly established that people with disabilities would use every means at their disposal, including direct action and civil disobedience, to obtain their rights. The transit industry, like the disability movement itself, would never be the same. And the culmination of this campaign, the ADA’s transportation requirements, was a significant victory.¹¹ Although some public transit agencies had already provided accessible bus service because of political pressure and prior mandates,¹² the ADA greatly accelerated this trend. In 1989, before passage of the ADA, 36 percent of the national bus fleet was accessible.¹³ By 2002, 13 years later, 91 percent of public transit buses were ADA lift or ramp equipped.¹⁴ Capital and operational improvements resulting from the ADA include not only a significant expansion of lift- and ramp-equipped buses, but also partial success in making fare collection technology more accessible, and increased availability of formats for disseminating accessible information. Because of increased regulation, vehicles are of higher quality and travel has become more efficient.¹⁵ Due to these improvements, as well as increased accessibility throughout society, there is general agreement that public transit bus use by people with disabilities has greatly increased, and that service has greatly improved.¹⁶ Jonas Schwartz with Advocacy, Incorporated, says this about the Austin, Texas, bus system, considered a national model: 100 percent of the system is accessible, and has been for many years. The equipment seems to stay in good repair; the system is very reliable. 100 percent lift-equipped, the buses use a combination of drivers and automated systems for calling out stops. On the few occasions where a bus isn’t accessible or a lift is not working, there is always another bus coming in 15 minutes. David Newburger, a lawyer in private practice in St. Louis and a person with a disability, reports, “all of our buses finally have lifts . . . [and they] are working with remarkable frequency. . . . I do think that the drivers are stopping and are lowering their lifts and are serving people in wheelchairs, so. . . I feel like the bus system is working better.” However, many problems remain with fixed-route bus service¹⁷ for people with disabilities in cities across the country. This fact is underscored by the experience of Ann Guerra, the executive director of FREED Independent Living Center in Grass Valley, California, who points out that, even though paratransit is universally seen as a second and unquestionably more expensive choice than fixed-route bus and rail systems, her transit agency, concerned about the time it takes to serve people with disabilities on the bus, actually encourages people with disabilities to use paratransit instead. In a preliminary injunction against the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA),¹⁸ U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. gave a moving statement expressing the importance of resolving the problems that people with disabilities still face in fixed-route public transit, despite the requirements of the ADA. In the ruling, Judge Thrash remarked, Plaintiffs and other members of the disabled community . . . are making heroic efforts to overcome the daily obstacles they encounter in their quest for independent living and economic self-sufficiency. They must rely on MARTA for their daily transportation needs if they are to live active lives in the community, to work and pay taxes and avoid complete dependency upon the public dole or private charity. The ADA embodies a national policy that encourages self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Pursuant to the ADA, plaintiffs are entitled to receive a level of service which is comparable to that MARTA provides to the nondisabled. Plaintiffs have convinced this Court that MARTA is not providing that level of service to the disabled. It should do better.¹⁹ Some of these problems, which occur in many cities, will be explored in the rest of this section. Low-floor ramped buses and other features of universal design Low-floor buses with ramps have become an accessibility option widely preferred over conventional lift-equipped buses by both riders with disabilities and transit agencies, even though these buses are somewhat smaller than conventional buses and offer less maneuvering space at the bus entry area. The bus floor is close to curb height, often allowing riders to go directly from the curb onto the bus without having to ascend. In contrast, conventional buses have three steps that must be navigated before ambulatory riders enter the aisle of the bus. Riders using wheelchairs can board low-floor buses more quickly, and ramp mechanisms are cheaper to maintain than lifts. In Champaign-Urbana, studies found the boarding time difference between lifts and ramps ranged from 30 seconds to one minute faster. And repair frequency was found to be lower for accessibility equipment on low-floor buses. In Champaign-Urbana, repair costs were $2,400 lower per year for a low-floor than a conventional lift bus.²⁰ Low-floor buses also make it easier for people carrying packages, luggage, children, or strollers to board. They are one example of how universal design can be applied to ease transit use for all passengers, not just for people with disabilities. Other examples of universal design include larger destination signs, floor markings, additional grab bars, audible stop announcements for passengers on the bus and those waiting at bus stops, and onboard computer monitors that flash upcoming stops and destinations. According to Marty Mallera, alternative fuel engineer with the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni), Muni has installed all of these features on 75 percent of its buses. However, some features that enhance accessibility can be irrelevant to particular locations. For example, some regions cannot use kneeling buses because of the local terrain, such as in Grass Valley, California, according to Ann Guerra. Transportation providers must become familiar with the full range of accessibility options and be willing to invest in finding the optimal combination of features for their system. Problem areas Stop announcements Adherence with the ADA’s requirements for calling out the names of bus stops remains a problem on many systems. A transit rider in Kentucky reported that the bus drivers in his area are “very adamant about not” calling out stops and that the transit operator does not take penalties seriously. Yet stop announcements have great value for riders. As an individual with a visual impairment from California explains, “The audible announcement system not only helps the visually impaired, seniors, visitors, and youngsters, but people with cognitive . . . disabilities too.” Others in the disability community benefit as well. A woman living in the same California city describes her experience: I am living with MS [multiple sclerosis] and other congenital deformities. I cannot walk a far distance at all because of vertigo. It was really bad when stops were not being announced on our buses. Even when they were announced, depending on where you sat, it may be hard to hear the stop called out. I was taking night classes and had to get off at an unusual stop. I would miss the stop because I couldn’t see it and the stop was not announced. So I had to get off at a later stop, which meant crossing one of the busiest intersections. For me, the less walking the better. By the time I got to class, I was late, angry, and [fatigued]. The ADA requires that stops be announced at transfer points, major intersections and destinations, and at intervals along a route sufficient to permit individuals with disabilities to be oriented to their location.²¹ Also, any requested stop must be announced.²² In a number of cities, riders have addressed transit agencies’ failure to provide stop announcements by using ADA enforcement actions. For example, after administrative complaints were made to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) against Suffolk County Transit in New York, FTA’s Office of Civil Rights ordered the transit agency to report the rate at which stops are announced by drivers, the number of drivers receiving discipline for not complying, and the nature of that discipline.²³ In many locales, transit agencies have responded to this problem by purchasing and installing automatic stop announcement technology. In some locations, this solution has worked well. Kevin Irvine, senior advocate at Equip for Equality, the Protection and Advocacy organization in Illinois, explains that in an enforcement action against the Chicago Transit Authority, Stop calling was a huge issue. We got the transit agency to agree to install automated stop calling equipment on every single bus. The deadline is January 1, 2005, but nearly all buses were equipped by the end of 2003, and so far it’s working pretty well. We also got them to add a bunch of disciplinary categories including failure to call out stops and failure to use automated stop calling equipment when it’s working. Education is always important. I heard that some bus operators actually have a fear of getting germs from using the microphone in the bus. However, automated stop announcement technology should not be seen as a panacea. It is a technology in development, with much potential for assisting with stop announcements. But like any new technological system, this technology must be tested, monitored, updated, and sometimes modified to ensure effective performance. Stop announcement systems are subject to a variety of problems. For example, drivers on some transit systems reportedly disable the automated voice system, despite directives from management and their union not to do so. These and other problems are illustrated by looking at the transition to automatic annunciators in a California city where riders experienced problems with stop callouts both before and after the technology was implemented. In response, the transit agency spent approximately $1 million on the equipment, at a time of significant budget cuts. Yet problems continue. One individual pointed out that “It’s important for [the technology] to be used as it is intended to be used. Some bus drivers turn the volume down, which makes it hard for many passengers to hear the announcements.” And the student described above is still experiencing difficulties, although she feels the situation is much better. She states, “The problems with bus operators turning off the technology or fiddling with the volume remain unchanged.” Further, the visually impaired person quoted above, adds the following: The system as it currently operates today is in need of modification for it to operate properly. The trigger boxes need to be moved so they will activate the announcements when it’s proper. Now, some announce the next stop while the bus is stopped at the present stop. Consequently, a person would not know if he or she were at the proper stop. It is incredibly easy for a person to get off at the wrong stop with the buses programmed as they are today. This could be very dangerous—if a person expected to get off the bus at a certain stop anticipating a cross walk, and they got off the bus at the wrong place where no cross walk existed, it could be fatal. And, I still have to travel up and down the aisle at the Metro Center asking other bus riders “which bus is that,” which shows the system of announcing the bus route doesn’t work. I addressed the Board of Directors at the July Board meeting to let them know the problem was not resolved. And this is not the only city where bus drivers interfere with the functioning of automated stop calling technology. A disability advocate for Goodwill Industries in North Carolina pointed out that, on her bus system, bus drivers continue to turn the automated stop calling system off. Not all fixed-route buses are equipped with automatic stop announcement technology. Even for those that are, because the equipment doesn’t always work, bus drivers should be trained to make the announcements themselves, according to Russell Thatcher, senior transportation planner at TranSystems, who co-taught the National Transit Institute’s course on Comprehensive ADA Paratransit Eligibility in April 2004. Furthermore, on many if not most systems on which the equipment is installed, the equipment doesn’t announce every stop. Because the ADA requires drivers to announce any requested stop,²⁴ drivers need to be ready and able to make these announcements.²⁵ Success in stop announcements has been attained in some locations without recourse to high-tech solutions, according to Barbara Toomer, corporate secretary of the Disabled Rights Action Committee in Salt Lake City, Utah, and member of ADAPT. She states, “We have found that our stop announcements work, with no technology but a voice. . . . I think we’re up to about 85 percent or 90 percent compliance.” Russell Thatcher advises transit agencies that are trying to improve their stop announcement compliance to undertake a variety of steps, including involving drivers in identifying the stops; providing drivers with a list of the stops; installing equipment to facilitate stop announcements, such as a gooseneck microphone; and, most important, undertaking progressive discipline. Discipline will ideally involve secret monitoring, but it is important that the drivers’ union first agree on the approach. Only after monitoring is established and drivers are accustomed to it should the secret monitoring be the basis for progressive discipline.²⁶ In an important decision on an ADA transportation complaint, an FTA letter drew the conclusion that, where there is a systemic problem with calling out bus stops and therefore a low rate of doing so, an individual with a disability who needs the stops called in order to use the bus must be granted paratransit eligibility.²⁷ Recommendations: 3.1. Transit agencies that do not have high success rates in stop announcements should–– involve drivers in identifying the stops; provide drivers with a list of the stops; install equipment to facilitate stop announcements, such as a gooseneck microphone; undertake progressive discipline; and use secret monitoring, after reaching agreement with the drivers’ union. 3.2. Transit agencies that use automated stop announcement technology should educate staff on the technology’s use, test the system regularly, monitor it closely, and make changes as necessary to attain effective results. 3.3. Transit agencies should train bus drivers to make stop announcements themselves, even when buses are equipped with automated stop announcement technology, because the equipment does not always work and does not announce every stop, and because the ADA requires drivers to announce any requested stop. Bus equipment maintenance Maintaining the accessibility equipment on the bus––the lift, the ramp, and the kneeling feature––is a critical aspect of a good bus system. As Kevin Irvine explains, Whenever you’re waiting for a bus and everyone else gets to board and you can’t because a lift isn’t working, it’s humiliating, frustrating, embarrassing. Lift maintenance problems can affect health if people are forced to wait in severe weather, heat, cold, or rain. It can be very frustrating if you don’t know if the lift is really broken or if the bus driver just doesn’t want to deal with it—it’s hard to know whether to trust the bus driver or not. Depending on the route, you could wait 5–45 minutes or more for the next bus—hoping the next one is working. If too many aren’t working, people can become dependent on paratransit or too discouraged to travel at all. The ADA’s regulations call for the following: Regular and frequent maintenance checks of access equipment, Buses with malfunctioning equipment to be removed from service before the next service day and repaired promptly,²⁸ and Accessibility equipment to be made available to any person with a disability who wishes to use it, including ambulatory riders (standees) whose disabilities can make climbing the bus steps a problem.²⁹ These requirements establish that access features are to be viewed as essential parts of the bus that need to be kept operational. Yet riders in some cities are told all too frequently that they cannot board the bus because the lift is broken. Lift maintenance problems in Detroit An unusually extreme example of systemwide malfunctioning of bus lifts is occurring in Detroit, Michigan. On August 17, 2004, the Detroit News reported that half of the 525-bus fleet operated with broken lifts and ramps.³⁰ On January 6, 2005, the Daily Oakland Press described how— Willie Cochran . . waited six hours for a Detroit bus . . last winter while trying to get home after kidney dialysis treatment. Cochran, 59, has had both legs amputated. “I watched bus after bus go by,” he says. “The drivers would stop, open the door and tell me that the lift didn’t work. Sometimes, drivers don’t even stop . . . That happens all the time. I’ve been so cold that what limbs I do have felt like they were burning.³¹” Former Detroit bus drivers’ union president Arthur Vardiman reported that he couldn’t remember a time the wheelchair lifts worked properly since the ADA passed. On July 25, 2004, the Detroit News reported the following: Vardiman, who retired on June 30 after 31 years with [the Detroit Department of Transportation, or] DDOT, said the broken lifts are indicative of a broken system. Months pass before parts needed to fix wheelchair lifts arrive, and DDOT has no preventive maintenance or troubleshooting program, he said. Having too few mechanics compounds the issues.³² Jack White, general manager of DDOT, promised a purchase of 121 new buses for January 2004, and then for August 2005. A December 2004 memorandum from White to the Michigan Department of Transportation acknowledged the city had 185 buses with inoperable wheelchair lifts. Community advocacy in Detroit over the summer and fall of 2004 brought about a lawsuit, new state regulations, a commitment from the FTA for a compliance review in winter 2005, and a visit by attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice, who interviewed some of the affected community members.³³ But is it really broken? In other cities, a significant component of the problem can be bus drivers who allege that lifts are broken to avoid boarding the individual with a disability. For example, an enforcement action in Denver resulted in a Consent Decree, which was quite favorable to disability advocates, as attorney Tim Fox explains, after we were able to show that drivers often did not report . . . purportedly broken lifts. . . . Thus either the lift was broken but the driver did not report it, or the lift was not broken and the driver falsely claimed it was to avoid having to board a person with a disability. In either event, it was a violation of the ADA.³⁴ A similar circumstance was discovered in St. Louis in 2001 when the transit agency, Bi-State (now called Metro), commissioned an ADA assessment of its operations after a series of investigative articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about problems experienced by riders with disabilities. The assessment stated, To ensure that lift failures are not being reported erroneously by operators who want to avoid using the lifts in service, Bi-State should require an immediate maintenance check at the end of the run or shift of all lifts that are reported to fail in service. Records should be maintained of instances where failures are reported and no problems are found. If this is shown to be a pattern for a particular bus, more extensive diagnostics should be run on that lift. If it is shown to be a pattern for a particular operator, a “spotter” check of the performance of that operator should be scheduled. Bi-State should vigorously and consistently follow through on disciplinary policy for drivers found to erroneously report lift failures, to fail to attempt to operate a lift when requested, or to by-pass customers who use wheelchairs. Union support for strict discipline for these violations should be sought when the violations are thoroughly documented.³⁵ In some locations, lift breakdowns are blamed on older buses with outdated lifts that are difficult to maintain or take a long time to fix because replacement parts are not readily available. However, as Kevin Irvine of Equip for Equality pointed out, the problem can be that transit agencies keep buses in service far too long and, when allocating available capital dollars, give priority to rail systems or other transportation needs while letting the buses age and become dilapidated. Sometimes engines and transmissions are replaced and other maintenance short of full remanufacture is performed, but the lifts are not replaced. According to Russell Thatcher, if a transit agency decides to keep buses in service beyond the FTA-defined 12-year useful life, at which point they become eligible for replacement, it is considered best practice and is also consistent with the spirit of the ADA to consider replacing the lifts as part of any maintenance or remanufacture. If structural difficulties with installing new lifts into older buses are alleged, advocates can ask that these difficulties be verified by an engineering study. A related problem that still occurs in some cities is buses that simply do not stop for travelers using wheelchairs. This circumstance has occurred in Boston, according to testimony at a public hearing in September 2004.³⁶ In this situation, sometimes referred to as a “drive-by” or a “pass-by,” a would-be rider with a disability is left without knowing whether the lift is damaged, the securement locations on the bus are already in use by other disabled riders, or the driver is simply denying the ride for other reasons. Generally, intentional bus pass-bys of people with disabilities are violations of the ADA. Recommendations: 3.4. Transit agencies should–– establish a robust accessibility equipment maintenance program consistent with the ADA’s requirements and industry best practices; conduct an immediate maintenance check at the end of each bus run or shift of all lifts that are reported to fail in service. Records should be maintained of instances in which failures are reported and no problems are found. If this becomes a pattern for a particular bus, more extensive diagnostics should be run on that lift. If it is shown to be a pattern for a particular driver, a “spotter” check of the performance of that driver should be scheduled; vigorously and consistently follow through on disciplinary procedures for drivers who erroneously report lift failures, fail to attempt to operate a lift when requested, or pass by customers who use wheelchairs. Union support should be sought for strict discipline in cases of documented violations; and replace lifts as part of any maintenance or remanufacture, if transit agencies are keeping buses in service beyond the FTA-defined 12-year useful life. Securement of mobility devices The use of tie-downs to secure mobility devices on public transit vehicles is a critical safety issue for both transportation providers and for many people with disabilities. Significant issues with tie-downs are ensuring proper securement, securing certain mobility devices, and making securement optional. Ensuring proper securement Charles Tubre, systems advocate with the Advocacy Center in New Orleans, describes the problems people with disabilities have faced in his community and describes a solution that worked well for them. The problem was failing to put on the four-point tie-down system [we use] here in New Orleans, four points on the chair and a lap belt or a shoulder belt. . . .It’s been many of the drivers, because they don’t want to take the time to secure all four belts, for reasons that range from just complete indifference to feeling like they’re losing headway time, and passengers, they feel, are being irate because they’re late and they’re on the express bus, and so for a number of reasons the drivers will put on two belts, one belt, or no belts. I personally experienced getting on the bus and the driver will simply walk away from me, and I say, “Sir, will you please secure my chair?” He’ll say, “Lock the chair,” and sit down and take off, and I insist. But that’s still a problem. We had a group of people, it was called Rides of March. We got a bunch of volunteers to go out and test the system to see: one, just how the drivers’ attitudes were towards the users; and two, if they followed the securement procedures. These were mostly students and some used wheelchairs, some used walkers, and some used crutches, along with a few volunteers who were disabled. But the outcome was that there was a very high percentage of noncompliance with securement procedures and we see that a lot more on the fixed route than we do on the paratransit. However, recently, visual monitoring has been installed on all the buses and also there’s a secret rider, a mystery rider program where the riders are reporting noncompliance issues and they’re documented on tape now, so they can go back and see the incident and validate it and then take disciplinary action for correcting behaviors like that. . . . We’ve seen some great improvements. Wheelchairs that are difficult to secure, and should wheelchair securement be optional? Another significant issue, unwanted or inappropriate securement, can result from mobility devices with no exposed securement points or other difficult-to-secure structures. In Denver and Chicago, securement has been made optional to some degree, in part to avoid damage to certain difficult-to-secure wheelchairs.³⁷ While making wheelchair securement optional on buses is a legitimate policy choice, it is recommended that securement be required on smaller vehicles such as vans, because the physical forces in smaller vehicles make lack of securement considerably more dangerous. As Dennis Cannon, senior transportation/facility accessibility specialist at the U.S. Access Board, stated, “Securement in vans is much more critical, especially since vans are apt to roll over.” Other transportation experts have pointed out that securement in vans is at least as important as wearing seatbelts for the general public, which is usually required by law. Although transit agencies have sometimes considered securement of three-wheeled scooters more difficult than other wheelchairs, the ADA requirements³⁸ are the same, and transit agencies are expected to be able to secure these mobility devices. Resolving securement problems The disability community and the transit industry alike have expressed interest in working with manufacturers of mobility devices to resolve securement problems. For example, Charles Tubre states, “I’ve been advocating for years for the transit companies, and the bus designers and engineers, to get with wheelchair designers and engineers to come to some sort of standards and develop securement systems to overcome those incompatibilities.” But people in the transit field have a general impression that manufacturers have been unresponsive. Dennis Cannon puts it this way: In the past, before the ADA, wheelchair manufacturing companies didn’t see making changes to wheelchair design for public transit securement as having any market viability for them, because of the small percentage of wheelchair users with this need. This is quite possibly true even today, in that public transit users may represent an insignificant portion of wheelchair sales. Yet wheelchair manufacturers may be getting the message on their own. Larry Guevara is an experienced wheelchair technician in Emeryville, California, with 15 years of experience. He reports that, after ignoring the issue for many years, at least two manufacturers, Invacare and Quickie, began “just last year or this year” to provide what they call a Transportation Package option on some chairs. For an extra charge of “$200 or $300,” some models are equipped with four metal eyelets that are usable for tie-downs. The Web site product description for an Invacare motorized wheelchair for children, the Pronto M71 Jr., states, “Complete with four securement points and an occupant restraint belt, the M71 Jr. Transport Ready Package is a standard feature of the chair.”³⁹ To reach the same goal for the overwhelming majority of wheelchairs that are not so equipped, some transit agencies have turned to voluntary programs such as that of AC Transit in the Oakland, California, area. The AC Transit Wheelchair Marking/Tether Strap Program was initiated in May 2002. The program examines individual wheelchairs to identify and mark each one’s best securement points. Standard wheelchairs, which usually fit stock securement systems, are marked with yellow tape that shows bus drivers where the proper tie-down attachments should be made. Wheelchairs that are irregular in size or shape are fitted with yellow tether straps at securement points.⁴⁰ Recommendations: 3.5. Transit agencies should use training and disciplinary measures where needed to ensure that drivers provide securement consistent with the ADA’s requirements. Transit agencies should use secret rider programs to monitor compliance, in addition to installing visual monitoring on buses when possible. 3.6. Transit agencies should not make securement of mobility devices optional on small vehicles such as vans. 3.7. Wheelchair manufacturers should provide securement points on all wheelchairs. Oversized wheelchairs The ADA defines “common wheelchairs,” which must be transported in vehicles covered by the law, as those that do not exceed 30 inches in width by 48 inches in length measured 2 inches above the ground, and do not weigh more than 600 pounds when occupied.⁴¹ At the time the ADA regulations were developed, this “wheelchair envelope” encompassed more mobility devices than had previously been accommodated on many of the then-common bus lifts. In the intervening years, as wheelchairs, scooters, and similar devices have become more varied, and as Americans’ body sizes have continued to increase, increasing numbers of individuals are no longer accommodated by the ADA definition. Although the unaccommodated group is still relatively small, it includes more disabled individuals every year. There is a need to revisit these standards, just as other ADA technical standards are periodically revised, to ensure that as many people with disabilities as possible continue to enjoy the protections of the ADA, which should ensure their right to public transportation. Recommendation: 3.8. The U.S. Access Board should revisit the ADA vehicle standards and the “common wheelchair” definition in light of the increasing use of larger mobility devices by people with disabilities. Rail Transit Rapid rail, light rail, and commuter rail Access to train stations Passenger trains in the United States that serve a single city or region are classified as either rapid rail (also known as heavy rail or subways), light rail (streetcars), or commuter rail. The ADA requires all three to provide accessibility at all new stations and at key stations.⁴² Key stations include those with the most traffic, transfer stations, major interchange points with other transportation modes, most end stations, and stations serving major activity centers. Like other transportation modes, rail operators must also provide accessible communications, including stop announcements, and ensure nondiscrimination in all their services.⁴³ A glance at government data on accessible rail stations quickly reveals a pattern that has stymied many travelers with disabilities, although this pattern could be perfectly legal under disability rights laws. In relatively new train systems, such as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in Washington, D.C., and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in California, all stations are relatively accessible to people with mobility impairments. But some of the older subway systems, such as New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, and the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, have only a minority of their stations accessible and, thus, very limited locations to which many people with disabilities may go, in comparison with the general public.⁴⁴ This situation renders the system unusable for wheelchair riders and other individuals who need structural access at stations. At best, it can mean an individual must travel three or four stations out of his or her way, then board a bus to go back in the right direction, rendering any trip so lengthy as to be impractical. Jim Weisman, general counsel with the United Spinal Association (formerly Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association), has a long history at the forefront of disability transportation rights. His work in New York and Philadelphia on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,⁴⁵ an important disability rights law preceding the ADA, became the models for the ADA’s key station requirements. Weisman was also deeply involved in the development of the ADA’s transportation provisions. His comment on the paucity of accessible stations in some of the older rail systems because of the key station approach is that, in the ADA, Key stations is all we could get. . . . [Regarding the New York MTA], with only about 51 stations currently accessible [out of more than 400 stations in all], rail usage is terrible because travel is difficult. The commuter rail system (Long Island Rail Road and Metro North) is much better, about one in every three stations with elevators and ramps. Commuter stations renovated in the ordinary course of business get made accessible far more often than non-key subway stations renovated in the ordinary course of business, because the 20% disproportionality rule for ADA alterations eliminates elevator installation in subway renovations because costs are so high. . . . The key station concept is outdated and should be eliminated; i.e., all stations should ultimately be made accessible, since to do otherwise is to permit discrimination. In short, all passenger rail stations should be made accessible, ending the fragmented access provided under the ADA’s limited key station requirements. A rail success story comes from New Orleans, in the form of an innovative light rail project to provide modern accessibility in a historic style that has become quite popular. According to Charles Tubre, We recently restored to Canal Street a five-mile streetcar line from the river down to the cemeteries, and they’re state-of-the-art streetcars, air conditioned, two wheelchair lifts per car. They’re built here in New Orleans according to a design from the 1920s, based on cars that ran on St. Charles Avenue. There are some issues there that are mostly noncompliance with securement, but they’re bound and determined to correct that. It’s very popular with the tourists and it’s become a very, very popular trunk line for people with disabilities. We’ve seen a very rapid increase in use by people with mobility devices, because one, it’s fun to use; and two, the equipment is a little wider in its dimensions to be able to board and get down the aisles. Key station enforcement The ADA required key stations to be accessible by 1993, unless they needed extraordinarily expensive structural changes, such as the installation of elevators or the raising of the entire passenger platform. In those cases, the ADA allowed the U.S. Department of Transportation to extend the deadline 20 years in the case of commuter rail, and 30 years in the case of rapid and light rail.⁴⁶ When not all key stations were completed by the 1993 deadline, FTA entered into a series of voluntary compliance agreements (VCAs) and other monitoring measures. According to Clarissa Swann, rail manager for the FTA Office of Civil Rights, out of 685 key stations identified in 36 transit agencies across the United States, 195 key stations were considered ADA compliant prior to initiating the latest VCA in 1998. The 1998 VCA, which ended in 2001, covered 352 key stations. 138 key stations were covered by time extensions approved by a former FTA Administrator “out to the year 2020.” Furthermore, as of today, all but 96 of the key stations are compliant. A total of 11 transit agencies account for these remaining key stations. FTA’s current monitoring of outstanding key stations requires transit agencies to submit quarterly reports on their status and closeout reports after each element or milestone is completed. FTA conducts key station assessments; if a deficiency is found, the transit agency must submit an action plan to resolve it, which is followed up by more FTA assessments. Clarissa Swann states, As long as you show reasonable good faith and make real effort to make progress. . . . We see progress all the time. But we’ve always said that if we don’t see progress, we will take enforcement action, including referring the transit property to the Department of Justice. In the past, people with disabilities did not always share FTA’s perspective of its own key station enforcement efforts. Mike Muehe, executive director and ADA coordinator of the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts, describes his view of the history of key station compliance in the Boston area by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in this way: The MBTA has certainly done a lot since the passage of the ADA; they’ve made quite a few key stations accessible; but they have a ways to go. . . . In the original key station plan, MBTA set all these rather ambitious timetables. Then when they started to fall behind, they would go back to FTA with a revised timetable and FTA would rubberstamp it. I’m not sure how far behind they are today, but for a long time, they would keep going back to FTA saying “we need to revise our time frame” and FTA would say, “OK, no problem.” Elevator maintenance and information on outages Elevator maintenance appears to be the operational issue that imposes the most significant barriers at rail stations already designated as accessible. John Gaffney, a wheelchair user, has worked as a transit manager in Boston, Miami, and Palm Beach. He has also traveled widely as a consultant for transit agencies, and has particular expertise in the area of rail. He observes that the biggest problem is elevator maintenance, across the board. Particularly when they’re not right on normal paths of travel. The fact that they’re misused as toilet rooms. It should be standard practice that every time station personnel arrive at, and leave, a station, they must actually ride the elevator in all directions and check it for cleanliness and operation. David Newburger of St. Louis agrees, stating that “As far as light rail is concerned, our major problem is they spent too little money on the elevators, and so there are constant maintenance problems.” Melissa Kasnitz, managing attorney for Disability Rights Advocates in Oakland, who worked on a lawsuit brought because of elevator outages on the BART system, provides a success story. “Prior to our case, routine maintenance on the elevators was consistently neglected, leaving them in bad shape and subject to breakdowns. [Afterwards,] maintenance was given a high priority, improving the reliability of the system as a whole.” Even a well-maintained elevator system will have service outages sometimes for maintenance and repair. Therefore, it is important that information on elevator outages be communicated in a widely accessible manner. Melissa Kasnitz describes the features now in use on BART. BART has a centralized phone system that reports on out-of-service elevators, so people can check in advance to make sure they can use their desired station. BART also maintains signs at each station regarding elevator service throughout the system, and makes systemwide announcements over the public address system when an elevator goes into or out of service. The rail gap Another problem on some rail systems is the overly wide gaps between the car and the platform. These gaps, both vertical and horizontal, can pose difficulties and even danger in boarding and disembarking. The Boston Herald reported on testimony at an MBTA hearing on September 14, 2004: The first time Billie Tyler rode the MBTA it turned out to be her last. Tyler, who uses a wheelchair after losing her right leg, found herself on her back after the chair’s front wheels wedged in the 6-inch gap between the train and platform and the chair flipped. “I don’t take the train now at all,” she said. “Now I’m scared to death to ride the train, and I live a block from South Station.” ⁴⁷ The Boston Globe also recounted evidence of gap problems at the same hearing. For John Kelly of Fenway, 4 or 5 inches constitute a huge drop. He uses a wheelchair, and recently took the Orange Line to get downtown. When the train stopped and the door opened at Downtown Crossing, he faced what appeared to be a 5-inch drop from the train to the platform, he said. “I took the plunge,” he said. “What else could I do? It ripped up the electronics under my chair. I wasn’t able to recline or tilt after that.” ⁴⁸ Commuter rail and platform accessibility Regarding the general situation on commuter rail, John Gaffney comments further: It’s very different depending on where you are. In Providence/Boston on MBTA, I was more pleased about work that had been done there than I had been in a very long time. MBTA commuter rail was good—staff was well trained, equipment was good, everything was done. Some of the older systems like New Jersey Transit have more problems. Newer systems are coming online rather well. CalTrain [in northern California] has done a pretty good job. Washington State has a new system that has done a pretty good job. However, Gaffney adds, Are trains consistently stopping at mini-high platforms? Everyone else has a covered area but, often, the mini-high platform is 30–40 yards down the station with no shelter and unshoveled snow in the winter. A friend once called them monuments to the idea of accessibility. This issue of how to provide access on commuter rail—whether with fully accessible train platforms that provide level boarding to each railcar, mini-high platforms, or another option—has become an important policy issue. The ADA requires full platform access in new commuter rail stations unless not structurally or operationally feasible,⁴⁹ most often due to oversized freight traffic on the same rail lines. However, even in such cases, other design options, such as a passing siding or gantlet track, are often possible to provide full platform access. Dennis Cannon of the U.S. Access Board explains these alternative designs: A passing siding is a set of tracks offset from the main track where a train can pull off to stop and allow another train to pass on the main track. A gantlet (or gauntlet) track is an offset track parallel to the main track that allows a train to pass a fixed object, such as a high-level boarding platform. A freight train with a wide load takes the gantlet track, which is further from the platform, so it won’t scrape the platform. The reason for the ADA’s emphasis on full platform access derives from the considerable disadvantages of another often-used option, mini-high platforms. Although “mini-highs” are used to good effect in light rail, their use in commuter rail is disparaged by experts such as Dennis Cannon, who listed their many problems. Mini-high platforms put the person with a disability out of the general public way, sometimes out in the rain or snow, and what’s worse, necessitate that the train move in small increments to align its cars, one by one, with the mini-high platform, which is difficult and time-consuming.⁵⁰ In 2004, this issue received a great deal of attention when FTA delayed funding for a new light rail system in Nashville for months over the issue of platform access.⁵¹ A bulletin put out by FTA in July 2004 emphasizes the ADA requirement that any mini-high platforms on commuter rail, like other accessible elements, be covered by a regulatory mandate “to minimize the distance that passengers with disabilities must travel.” The bulletin encourages transit operators planning to construct or alter a station to consider relocating elements for this purpose.⁵² Stop announcements People with disabilities face stop announcement problems on trains as well as on buses. This problem particularly impacts people with visual and cognitive impairments. Mike Muehe comments, The “T” likes technical solutions. Train drivers weren’t making announcements, so they got automatic annunciators. But even electronic systems don’t always get it right. As I was leaving Kendall station recently, the annunciator came on and said, “Next stop, Kendall station.” Transit agencies should take care to test these systems regularly, monitor them closely, and make changes as necessary to ensure that they function properly. Amtrak The other form of passenger rail in the United States is intercity rail, provided by Amtrak. Amtrak can claim some of the earliest progress on accessibility of any transit system in the United States—years before the ADA, Amtrak was used extensively along the eastern seaboard by people with disabilities who had no other options. More recently, in 1998 and 1999, Amtrak undertook an extensive self-training effort on the ADA and service to people with disabilities. Maureen McCloskey, director of advocacy for Paralyzed Veterans of America, lauds this program, which involved face-to-face training between individuals with disabilities and Amtrak staff across the country. Trainers included people with visual impairments, hearing impairments, mobility impairments, epilepsy, cognitive impairments, and people of short stature. Amtrak personnel included conductors, redcaps, and managers. One particularly helpful feature of the training program was a pocket guide to help Amtrak staff deal with new situations in the field. Amtrak workers responded enthusiastically, and the training enabled frank dialogue between Amtrak staff and trainers with disabilities. In the wake of the training, McCloskey believes many service improvements have been seen. Regrettably, the training program eventually fell victim to budget cuts. According to John Gaffney, The effectiveness of Amtrak . . . varies greatly, depending on which region of the country. In the northeast, it works really well and access is greatly improved. New cars are good and the general coaches in the northeast are all very good. That’s also my impression of California. Some other coast-to-coast trains such as Florida to Los Angeles are more problematic. But for the northeast and California, a lot of progress has been made. Amtrak has also posed some problems for people with disabilities. According to Linda D. Kilb, an attorney with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) who has handled a number of transportation access cases, Over the last few years, DREDF has addressed several issues in litigation with Amtrak. One involved access to overnight train services, resulting in a nationwide settlement that corrected discriminatory pricing on Amtrak sleeper cars, implemented a reservation system to help ensure that people with disabilities could actually book rooms designed for their use, and improved Amtrak communication with customers regarding critical issues such as availability of electricity to run respiratory equipment. In another case, DREDF negotiated with Amtrak to ensure that Amtrak’s Thruway Bus Service in California would provide safe securement for scooter users as well as wheelchair users. These cases were settled amicably, with Amtrak addressing problems and working to improve access for travelers with disabilities. Sometimes an administrative solution is useful in addressing operational problems. Dr. Rosalyn Simon, president and chief executive officer of Simon & Simon Research and Associates, was formerly senior director for customer advocacy at Amtrak, a position that included Amtrak Access, for several years ending in 1999. In Dr. Simon’s view, Amtrak needs a single centralized office with accountability for all disability and accessibility issues. Once Access Amtrak was dismantled, it was not a good thing. Now it’s all spread out and you don’t have anything to ensure that access delivery is adequate and equal because there is no central office. There is a need for a point of accountability with knowledgeable people about service and disability policy. Recommendations: 3.9. The Federal Government should provide funding to make all passenger rail stations accessible, not just key stations. 3.10. The Federal Government and commuter rail operators should ensure that commuter rail stations provide full platform access. Mini-high platforms should not be used. 3.11. Rail transit agencies should–– communicate information on rail system elevator outages in a widely accessible manner. For example, a centralized phone system should report out-of-service elevators. Signage at each station should provide information on elevator service throughout the system. Systemwide announcements should be made over a public address system when an elevator goes into or out of service. Riders should be able to find out about elevator outages before leaving home such as through an accessible Internet site and an up-to-date telephone message accessible by voice and TTY; ensure compliance with the ADA requirements for vertical and horizontal gaps between rail platforms and vehicles; make it standard practice that every time station personnel arrive at, and leave, each passenger rail station, they must check every elevator for cleanliness and operation; and offer thorough training programs to staff at all levels, consistent with industry best practices. 3.12. Amtrak should have a single centralized office with accountability for all disability and accessibility issues. Section 4: Paratransit General Assessment One of the most significant transportation changes spurred by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was its new scheme of ADA complementary paratransit service. The law requires transit agencies that provide fixed-route bus and rail service to also provide paratransit service for people who are unable to use the fixed-route service due to a disability.⁵³ Paratransit is required to be comparable to the fixed-route system, and comparability is defined using specific characteristics, including service area, hours, fares, next-day advance reservations, and response time.⁵⁴ The law precludes trip purpose limitations and capacity constraints⁵⁵ and requires that all possible conditions under which an individual may need to travel be considered when determining eligibility.⁵⁶ ADA paratransit, in many respects, is superior to the services that the law replaced. According to 1993 research by Dr. Sandra Rosenbloom, professor of planning at the University of Arizona, most pre-ADA paratransit systems around the country served fewer than 20 percent of those eligible for service, had serious capacity issues, and required users to call far in advance.⁵⁷ There also have been significant increases in paratransit ridership, and concomitant increases in paratransit spending. In 1991, before the implementation of ADA requirements, about 14 to 16 million paratransit trips were provided annually nationwide. For fiscal year 2000, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grantees reported 73 million demand-response rides, of which almost 45 million were ADA-related. Thus, the ADA has resulted in transit operators tripling the amount of paratransit rides they provided since the legislation was passed.⁵⁸ The ADA has significantly increased overall transportation choices for people with disabilities, and more trips on more mode choices are being provided today than before the law was passed. Despite these gains, paratransit riders in many cities still experience a variety of problems, sometimes very significant ones, with ADA paratransit service, including substantial problems with service quality and limitations in capacity. Typical of problems that have been seen in many cities are those alleged by riders in Washington, D.C. A Washington Post article in March 2004 described a lawsuit just filed there. Riders alleged the following: Vehicles are often late, appearing hours after they were expected, or fail to show up at all; The service takes far too long to transport passengers; The telephone reservation system is staffed by rude operators who do not answer calls, place calls on hold for long periods, or hang up; Managers do not give accurate information about the location of assigned vehicles and do not respond to complaints; and Some drivers do not know how to secure wheelchairs and scooters inside vans, operate dangerously, and falsely accuse passengers of not showing up for trips, which can cause a rider to be suspended from service. Marc Fiedler, cofounder of the Disability Rights Council of Washington, says, It’s not just an inconvenience. It’s people who may end up losing their jobs because [the service] over and over and over again isn’t getting them to work on time. It’s people who miss dialysis appointments. It’s people who rely on oxygen, whose trips are so circuitous they run out of oxygen. Lives are endangered instead of enhanced. A spokesperson for the paratransit provider responded that the agency made changes in the past two years to dramatically improve service, and attributed a 77 percent trip increase in that time to passenger satisfaction.⁵⁹ Policy Issues That Impact Service Availability and Quality Eligibility Since the ADA requires paratransit service only for people who are unable to use the fixed-route service due to a disability, eligibility determination focuses on the person’s functional ability to use the fixed-route service. While the ADA sets minimum criteria for paratransit eligibility,⁶⁰ transit agencies are given the flexibility to design their own process for judging eligibility based on these criteria.⁶¹ To contain paratransit costs, many transit operators have adopted more restrictive ADA eligibility certification procedures over time, usually through the introduction of an in-person element to the process. The disability community generally reacts with great trepidation to significant changes in a transit agency’s eligibility determination process, fearing a loss of eligibility for many riders. While many transit agencies have undeniably provided numerous trips that riders could have taken using fixed route, it is also true that recent moves by many agencies to review eligibility determinations mean that some, or perhaps many, people will lose their eligibility. For example, in Las Vegas in the late 1990s, the paratransit registration base of 17,000 users was almost halved within one year of the implementation of new certification procedures. Some riders who lose eligibility are not necessarily able to manage their transit needs on the fixed-route service. An advocate in Kentucky expressed his view of how stringent a process riders face in his city by remarking, “They want you to crawl to a bus stop instead of taking paratransit. They’re really adamant about this.” In Storman v. Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the “reasonable person” test that it quoted from the ADA’s guidance:⁶² The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year that it need not be “literally impossible” to reach a bus stop for someone with a disability to qualify for ADA paratransit eligibility. The appeals court suggested instead that ADA eligibility is warranted if “a reasonable person with the impairment-related condition in question would be deterred from making the trip.”⁶³ Use of fixed-route versus paratransit service Making fixed-route public transportation accessible is a high priority. Consistent with the ADA’s emphasis, most stakeholders, including the transit industry, federal agencies, and disability advocacy organizations, view the use of fixed-route service as an important goal. ADA paratransit is crafted to be the solution for individuals who cannot use the fixed-route service due to a disability. Nevertheless, many people use paratransit who could use fixed route for some, if not all, trips. ADAPT advocate Barbara Toomer from Salt Lake City expressed some of the conflicting factors about the relationship between these two modes of transit, stating, What I see in the appeals process is a lot of people who are extremely resistant to travel training, and there’s no reason on this earth why in the world they cannot be on the main line system, except that they have used this paratransit as a private taxi service for so long. So I am completely frustrated because of that, and yet there are times that I use it, like when it’s over 80 degrees and I need to go to the airport. When determining riders’ paratransit eligibility, it may be useful for transit agencies to understand the reasons so many riders opt for paratransit use. Some individuals with disabilities rely on paratransit because of fear of using the fixed-route system and lack of fixed-route skills (see “Travel Training and Other Efforts to Transition Paratransit Riders to Fixed Routes,” Section 4). For some, there is a dependence on paratransit that was instilled well before the ADA. In the late 1970s and 1980s, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,⁶⁴ a precursor to the ADA, required either accessible fixed-route transit or paratransit, but not both. Many transit agencies chose to provide only paratransit, and thousands of people with disabilities across the United States became accustomed to using it. These old habits die hard. In some cases, people with disabilities use paratransit because the fixed-route system is not sufficiently accessible, or in other ways doesn’t comply with the ADA. For example, if stops are not announced on the bus, some visually impaired, cognitively disabled, and other disabled individuals will be unable to negotiate bus travel. If bus lifts are often broken or drivers pass by people with disabilities on the street, mobility-impaired individuals may be forced to look to paratransit. If a rail system has a consistently sizable gap between car and platform, a wheelchair user may turn to paratransit instead. A preference for paratransit will often stem from the fact that the fixed-route system is inadequate, not just for people with disabilities, but in general. For example, if the fixed-route system does not have a stop in the vicinity of a particular destination but the paratransit system will go to that location, paratransit represents an understandable choice. Often, which mode to use is a trip-by-trip decision. As John Daughterty, the accessible services coordinator for the Santa Cruz (California) Metropolitan Transit District and an individual with a disability, remarks, People used to use only one system—bus or paratransit. Now people are mixing it up more. Skill sets may diminish over time and paratransit may be more necessary, or people get frustrated by time delays and go to the bus system. Where people know they have a choice, it can be cost saving. Transit agency staff might add that it can also be costly if that choice is paratransit instead of fixed-route service. Particularly when ADA paratransit eligibility is an “all or nothing” proposition—that is, when a paratransit system allows only two choices, full-time eligibility or no eligibility––paratransit riders who could take some trips on the fixed-route service may refrain from doing so out of fear of losing their eligibility on paratransit. Thus, in the face of transit agency efforts to deny paratransit to all riders who show they can use the fixed-route service, paratransit riders actually may be inadvertently discouraged, rather than encouraged, to try the bus or train. For some riders to be comfortable using fixed route, transit agencies will need to guarantee that they won’t lose their paratransit eligibility. Trip-by-trip eligibility may be a good solution for many of these riders. Recent trends in paratransit eligibility Many of the larger transit systems now require in-person interviews or functional assessments to determine whether a disability prevents the applicant from using the fixed-route system. The functional assessment usually involves observation of an applicant attempting to use various elements that simulate a fixed-route trip, such as climbing steps, crossing a street, walking measured courses, taking cognitive tests, an