Executive Summary

Sixteen years after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, the law is having a meaningfully positive impact on the lives of people with disabilities. Many people with disabilities credit the ADA with improving their lives. As consumers, Americans with disabilities have greater access to goods and services from businesses, state and local governments, and their local communities. Service animals for people with vision and other impairments are more accepted than ever before. In addition, greater availability of relatively inexpensive assistive technology has helped people with vision and hearing impairments overcome information and communication barriers to all forms of community participation. People with mobility impairments have experienced substantial improvements in physical access to transportation, businesses and government agencies. As workers, people with disabilities are more likely to receive accommodations and less likely to be terminated due to their disabilities.

Many people with disabilities, employers, and businesses, however, still do not understand major provisions of the ADA, particularly the employment provisions. The ADA is a civil rights law—requiring equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities, with broad coverage and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable standards prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination in employment. It does not provide for accessible housing, transportation to the work site, rehabilitation services, job training, job placement, or any form of affirmative action for people with disabilities. It does not address work disincentives, such as Social Security rules that make people with disabilities who work ineligible for Medicaid, the only form of insurance that provides the kind of services most people with disabilities need to function independently, nor does it require employers to provide the kind of insurance coverage people with disabilities need. While the ADA requires existing transportation services to become accessible, it does not provide transportation for people with disabilities to get to work if they work or live where there is no public transportation. To determine the impact of Title I, one must look at the degree to which employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities has decreased. One cannot measure the success of Title I solely by the employment rate of people with disabilities unless all other barriers to work are eliminated.

Many Americans with disabilities remain frustrated that disability discrimination has not been eliminated, despite ADA implementation. People with disabilities reported the ADA has not been fully enforced; the barriers they face remain primarily attitudinal. Additionally, there is a growing backlash against disability rights and the ADA. The lack of national consistency of access makes it difficult for people with disabilities to carry out daily activities, and access to public transportation, particularly in rural areas, remains a serious problem. Although, once on the job, accommodations are easier to obtain, people with visible disabilities do not appear to be significantly more likely to be hired than before the ADA, and some argue that they are having more difficulty getting hired than before.

Regarding the attainment of the four major goals of the ADA—equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency—the results are encouraging but far from complete. By virtue of greater availability of physical and communications access, accessible transportation, and education and workplace accommodations, people with disabilities have more opportunities to pursue their interests than before the ADA and are seizing those opportunities. Community participation has increased passively, by virtue of greater access, and actively, through greater efforts by businesses, employers, and governments to reach people with disabilities and encourage participation. Options for independent living have improved for people with disabilities since the ADA was passed, particularly since an important Supreme Court decision, Olmstead v. L.C., which requires community integration. However, outdated government restrictions, budget priorities, and medical attitudes are slowing progress. Economic self-sufficiency appears to be the goal having the least success. While many Americans with disabilities are experiencing improvements in quality of life, some people with disabilities remain disenfranchised.

This retrospective study and review provides a snapshot of the impact the ADA has had on the lives of Americans with disabilities over the past sixteen years. Specifically:

· Most people with disabilities perceive improvements in their quality of life and many attribute those improvements to the ADA;

· A majority of people with disabilities surveyed by a Harris Poll perceived significant improvements in public facility access and public attitudes;

· Public transit systems in the United States have made significant progress in becoming more accessible, especially to wheelchair users. Private transportation companies lag behind. People in rural areas continue to be underserved by public transportation, and, as a result, participate less in all aspects of community living;

· A significant number of curb ramps have been installed and sidewalks have been made more accessible in some areas, but full access to public rights-of-way lags behind that of other facilities and there are no regulations for public rights-of-way access;

· People with physical disabilities have seen steady, although inconsistent, progress in access to public accommodations, including restaurants, theaters, stores, museums, Web sites, and government services. People with sensory or communication disabilities were less likely to report experiencing progress in access to public accommodations;

· The ADA has brought about significant improvements in access to telecommunications. Telephone relay services are being used to a greater degree, and changes in technology are making usage easier. However, some businesses are reluctant to use these technologies;

· The percentage of Americans with disabilities voting in 2004 increased dramatically from prior years;

· The education gap between people with disabilities and people without disabilities is shrinking, and people with disabilities are attending postsecondary institutions in greater numbers. Educational supports and services for students with disabilities now are available at most of the nation’s postsecondary institutions;

· Many employees with disabilities are experiencing less discrimination on the job. However, people with visible and severe disabilities continue to experience discrimination in hiring;

· There is no clear evidence that Americans with disabilities are becoming economically self-sufficient;

· There is a surprising absence of ongoing, systematic data collection about the ADA, and the result is significant knowledge gaps about the impact of the ADA.

Based on these findings, this report recommends:

· Federal agencies should fund and implement state-by-state surveys of people with disabilities, based on the N.O.D./Harris Surveys using statistically significant survey populations and distinguishing among rural and urban communities, communities of diverse cultures, and high, middle, and low income communities.

Equality of Opportunity – Transportation

· Congress should expand accessibility requirements for rail services beyond key stations;

· The Department of Transportation should conduct extensive training and outreach for public transit providers regarding maintenance and stop announcements;

· The Department of Transportation should work with state and local governments and taxi providers to develop and publicize effective incentives for private taxi providers to offer accessible vehicles;

· The Department of Transportation should conduct extensive training and outreach for public and private transportation services regarding service animals and increase high-profile enforcement actions by the Departments of Justice and Transportation;

· The Department of Transportation should study and test options for providing transportation services to people with disabilities in rural areas.

Equality of Opportunity – Sidewalks and Curb Ramps

· The Department of Justice should promulgate ADA regulations for public rights-of-way as soon as possible;

· The Department of Transportation should increase funding for sidewalk access and curb ramp installation;

· The Department of Justice should develop and disseminate guidelines for the prioritization of curb ramp installations, so the most needed and useful curb ramps are installed first.

Equality of Opportunity – Public Accommodations

· The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) should conduct a survey of businesses, perhaps through the chambers of commerce or small business associations, to determine the degree to which businesses have instituted readily achievable barrier removal efforts, and provide guidance to Congress on adequately funding the Department of Justice to enforce this part of the statute;

· The Department of Justice, NIDRR, and the Department of Labor should provide expert, individualized, low-cost technical assistance and consulting to small businesses. The ADA and IT Centers and local offices of the National Disability Rights Network are possible agencies to carry out this effort;

· The Department of Justice should expand its Project Civic Access to increase enforcement in local areas by reviewing businesses in identified localities;

· Congress should require states to submit their building codes for access certification by the DOJ;

· The U.S. Access Board and Department of Justice should continue coordination with model building code agencies;

· The Department of Justice should increase enforcement and education regarding how to serve customers with visual and hearing impairments, particularly as it pertains to Web access and use of TTYs and relay services;

· Congress should require Web sites of places of public accommodations and commercial facilities to comply with federal Web accessibility standards;

· The Department of Justice and NIDRR should develop technical assistance materials regarding what people with disabilities and businesses should expect of existing buildings of various sizes years after passage of the ADA.

Equality of Opportunity – Accessibility of Telecommunications

· The Department of Justice should publish information for businesses about how Telecommunications Relay Services work, how to use the service, and the legal obligation to use it. The ADA and IT Centers could be funded to provide this information;

· The Federal Communications Commission should establish standards to encourage the continued development of Video Relay Services.

Full Participation – State and Local Government Services

· The Department of Justice and other federal agencies should focus on enforcing the ADA obligations of government agencies;

· Federal agencies should use initiatives such as Project Civic Access to increase ADA compliance at the state and local levels;

· The Department of Justice should use targeted, high-profile litigation on particularly important issues, such as access to courts, medical care, and education to increase state and local ADA compliance.

Full Participation – Voting

· The Department of Justice should immediately implement the Help America Vote Act requiring installation of electronic voting equipment;

· NIDRR should study the involvement of people with disabilities in civic opportunities, such as government office;

· Other non-governmental disability organizations, such as The National Organization on Disability and the American Association of People with Disabilities, should encourage state and local governments, as part of their diversity efforts, to emphasize involvement of the disability community and provide technical assistance to help government agencies reach out to people with disabilities.

Community Integration

· Congress should increase Medicaid support for community-based treatment settings;

· Congress should pass and fully fund the Money Follows the Person Act[1] and Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act;[2]

· Congress should require states to expeditiously complete effective Olmstead plans, consistent with HHS guidance;

· The Department of Health and Human Services should require states to fund personal care services when needed to allow individuals with disabilities to remain in their community;

· The Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, working with state and local governments and community agencies should implement local initiatives to extend the integration mandate to housing, education, transportation, employment, and other areas affecting people with disabilities;

· The Department of Justice should increase and target enforcement of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, requiring effective deinstitutionalization efforts and publishing creative and effective programs to provide community-based services;

· The Department of Labor’s program funding home modifications should be significantly expanded to allow people with disabilities and the elderly to live in their communities;

· The Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, should work with disability communities and others to develop an overall national policy framework for community integration of people with disabilities;

· The Department of Health and Human Services should study systems of long-term care and long-term care insurance to eliminate unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities and aging people.

Economic Self-Sufficiency

· The Department of Education should work with colleges, universities, and public schools to enhance the effectiveness of supports, such as preparing students to better negotiate their accommodations, assisting students with coordinating and managing a variety of services from multiple sources, and facilitating the use of technology in education and employment;

· The Department of Education should improve coordination of services between the educational system and the vocational rehabilitation system, particularly as regards funding for services and assistive technology;

· Disability organizations, and research and policy centers focused on economic empowerment for people with disabilities should work with philanthropists and federal and state government agencies to improve availability of scholarship, tuition waiver, and loan repayment programs for students and adults with disabilities who wish to pursue higher education;

· Congress should extend and expand the Mental Health Parity Act to ensure that people with mental health disabilities are able to secure treatment;

· NIDRR should study insurance coverage issues that prevent people with disabilities from accessing private insurance;

· The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, and NIDRR should place immediate priority on increasing the hiring of people with disabilities.

Sixteen years after the passage of the ADA, much has been accomplished. Yet, more needs to be done as this report demonstrates, especially in the areas of employment, transportation, health care, and education.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act of 2006 was introduced on September 29 to address aspects of the ADA narrowed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and which are discussed in this report. The bill would prohibit discrimination “on the basis of a disability” and is intended to enable individuals utilizing the ADA to focus on the discrimination they have experienced rather than having to prove they fall within the intended scope of the ADA. Passage of this bill will promote progress in those areas remaining to be addressed, and promote the inclusion of people with disabilities into society.

Introduction

To the critics who complain that the ADA has not achieved total justice ... I say what about the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments? Have they achieved total justice? The vision of justice is an eternal long march to the Promised Land of the good life for all.

– Justin Dart, Jr., “Father of the ADA”[3]

Today, in 2006—
Mary Sims gets on the bus and goes to work.
John Witherspoon talks on the telephone to a college buddy he hasn’t seen in 20 years.
Lisa Rabinovitz tries out a new restaurant in her neighborhood.
Jeremy Montauk takes notes during his economics professor’s lecture.
Sylvia Mathias leads a training session on community advocacy.
Billy Wilkinsen takes part in his town’s intramural baseball program.

Before the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Mary Sims, who is blind, would not have been able to take the bus to work. Her guide dog could not accompany her unless her state had a disability antidiscrimination law. Without the telecommunications relay services mandated by the ADA, John Witherspoon, who is deaf, would have difficulty telephoning anyone. Lisa Rabinovitz, a wheelchair user, rarely would eat out at a new restaurant, concerned that it would not be physically accessible. Jeremy Montauk, who has a learning disability, likely would not have received accommodations to attend and succeed in college. Fearing discrimination, Sylvia Mathias would not have disclosed her disability and become an advocate for people with mental illnesses in her community. And Billy Wilkinsen, who has an intellectual disability, may not have been allowed to play on the town’s baseball team.

Prior to the ADA, employment and rehabilitation programs for people with disabilities were modeled on outmoded and medicalized stereotypes. These long-standing views date back to the birth of the Civil War pension system, which linked the definition of disability to an inability to work and established physicians as the medical gatekeepers of disability benefits.[4] The medical model defined disabilities as individual infirmities that precluded full participation in employment, and society in general.[5] Many individuals were institutionalized, their housing and treatment determined by doctors, rehabilitation professionals, psychologists, and social workers. Because the medical model never questioned the physical and social environment in which disabled people were forced to function, one designed for individuals without disabilities, it countenanced their segregation and economic marginalization.[6]

By contrast, the disability civil rights model that influenced government policy in the 1970s conceptualized people with disabilities as a minority group entitled to the same legal protections for equality that emerged from the struggles of African Americans and women. The civil rights model focuses on the laws and practices that subordinate disabled persons and insists that government must secure the equality of disabled persons by eliminating the legal, physical, economic, and social barriers that preclude their full involvement in society. Under the civil rights model, disability is not an individual’s infirmity but a social and cultural construct.[7] An evolving policy of inclusion fostered federal and state laws to address issues including voting and air travel accessibility, access to education and housing, eventually culminating with passage of the ADA in 1990.[8] In the ADA Congress expressly recognized the minority status of disabled persons, finding that:

Historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem; ... and that] individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society ....[9]

To redress these wrongs, the ADA’s drafters delineated “the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.”[10] Sixteen years after passage of the ADA, the long march to full equality is underway. Progress has been made, but work remains in areas such as employment, transportation, health care, and education, as shown by national statistics, studies, and comments received from the public during this study.

NCD conducted this ADA Impact Project to review the existing information about the impact of the ADA, gathering input from ADA stakeholders and assessing the state of research and knowledge about the impact of the ADA, in an attempt to determine the extent to which the overarching goals of the ADA are being met. One of the important findings is a surprising absence of ongoing, systematic data collection about the ADA from any source. The result is significant knowledge gaps about many aspects of the ADA.

Any study of the impact of the ADA must be undertaken with the recognition that full implementation of the ADA is not complete. The ADA calls for implementation at varying times and degrees, depending on factors such as when a facility is built or altered, the technical feasibility of certain accessibility requirements, the nature, size, and resources of covered entities, and the cost of modifications. For example, when a new facility is built, the ADA’s accessibility requirements are triggered. When a public accommodation is undertaking renovations or alterations of an existing facility, it must, to the “maximum extent feasible,” make the alterations in “such a manner” that the facility is accessible, but only to the extent that costs are not “disproportionate.” The overall accessibility standard under the ADA does not require total accessibility of all parts of buildings, nor that of all hotel rooms, parking spaces, bathrooms, stalls, etc., but only a reasonable number. For existing facilities not undergoing alterations, the ADA requires only accessibility changes that are “readily achievable,” defined to mean without much difficulty or expense. Additionally, transportation facilities are only required to make “key stations” accessible, and certain transportation providers can take up to twenty-two years from the date of the enactment of the ADA to make their vehicles accessible. Thus, while progress toward implementation may be studied, the full impact of the ADA can be evaluated only when the law has been implemented fully and covered entities are in compliance.

Summary of Methodology

This study gathered and synthesized information on the impact of the ADA sixteen years after its passage, based on the law’s four overarching goals: equality of opportunity; full participation; independent living; and economic self-sufficiency. NCD established a Blue Ribbon Panel, chaired by Dr. Peter Blanck (see Appendix A for list of members and affiliations), which defined each of these goals for purposes of this study.

To assess each of these core areas, data were collected using several methods: (i) an environmental scan (reviewing publicly available documents and documents provided by various key informants), (ii) nine focus groups and five public forums, (iii) 24 individual interviews, (iv) 112 e-mails received by NCD as a result of forum publicity, and (v) requests for comments from 487 local and state organizations.

Project staff also had unique access to, and analyzed the raw data from, the National Organization on Disability/Harris Surveys of Americans with Disabilities conducted in 1994, 1998, 2000 and 2004, and the International Council of Disability/Harris Survey of 1986.[11]

More detail about the methodology used for this project is provided in Appendix B.

Data collection on ADA compliance efforts was difficult, as many key elements are not being systematically tracked or recorded. For example, some requirements of Title I of the ADA discourage identification and tracking of employees and applicants with disabilities. Business groups do not track the ADA compliance efforts of private businesses. Because many improvements to city sidewalks and curb ramps are done as part of ongoing street repairs, it is difficult to determine exactly how many curb ramps are being installed. Records of adoption of, and progress on, transition plans are de-centralized. Multiple sources of data on various topics use different standards to define “disability,” “accessibility,” and other essential elements. Therefore, one study of the status of people with disabilities will not be readily comparable to another study, because the people studied often are defined differently.

The creation of original data was beyond the scope of this project. Project researchers undertook a comprehensive search and analysis of existing studies, data compilations, and available information about the impact of the ADA. The project team also tapped into the collective knowledge about the impact of the ADA, drawing from the experiences and expertise of ADA stakeholders across the nation. The findings presented in this report reflect the project team’s best efforts to pull together in one report what is known about the impact of the ADA at this time. However, one of the important findings is that there is a surprising absence of any ongoing, systematic data collection about the ADA from any source, and the result is significant knowledge gaps about many aspects of the impact of the ADA. This report contains recommendations to increase the information that is collected and made available to the public about the ADA from this point forward.

Perceptions of the ADA Overall

Most people with disabilities who participated in the public forums, focus groups, and information requests report the ADA has had a significant positive effect on their lives. As one participant wrote:

Have we gotten all the results we want? No. Have we made the nation entirely accessible and inclusive? No. Do all people with disabilities have jobs? No. Are all decisions made ones free of bias against persons with disabilities relative to jobs, public accommodations or public services? No.

But ... more people with disabilities are out there in their communities, shopping, eating, attending movies, taking public transportation, going to school and working. People with disabilities are moving from their homes or institutions into their societies ... no, not at the pace which I and other advocates would like. Barriers are still many and plentiful from attitudes to finances to architecture ... but inch by inch they are crumbling.

And perhaps this would have happened without the ADA, but I like to think that it is in large measure because of the ADA ... because people are thinking about it, people are talking about it. Disability is out in the open, something to be discussed, analyzed, considered and factored in. There aren’t many who can profess ignorance of this law and get away with it, even if they still do try the argument that they don’t have to be accessible because ‘no one with a disability comes here anyway’ as they stand at the top of their staircase!

So, I do believe the ADA has had and will continue to have a profound impact on my life and the lives of others with disabilities. I hope that the next fifteen years see feet of barriers come crashing down instead of inches ... and that people with disabilities cement their place in history with this important civil rights law.[12]

According to a 2000 National Organization on Disability/Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities,[13] more than 60 percent of people with disabilities perceived significant improvements in public facility access, personal quality of life, and public attitudes (see
Table A).

Table A: Percentage of Individuals with Disabilities Perceiving
Quality of Life Improvements – 2000

Access to public facilities	75%
Quality of life	63%
Public attitudes	63%
Media portrayals	59%
Public transportation	60%
People with disabilities in advertising	56%
Work opportunities	44%

The majority of people with disabilities and people without disabilities, according to the 2004 N.O.D./Harris Survey, have heard of the ADA, compared with 31 percent who had heard of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in the 1986 International Center for the Disabled Poll of Disabled Americans.[14]

However, most respondents to the 2004 N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities did not credit the ADA with achieving these improvements in their lives. Only 30 percent of poll respondents believed the ADA had made their lives better, while 64 percent felt it had made no difference and 5 percent did not know if the law had made a difference.[15] This contrasts with much higher numbers in 1986 regarding the effect of pre-ADA laws. At that time, 68 percent of people with disabilities felt the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and other federal disability-related laws had helped them “a great deal” or “somewhat” and only 24 percent felt those laws had helped “not too much” or “hardly at all.”[16] The current level of perceived impact may reflect the disability community’s higher expectations of the ADA, combined with the significant delays in implementation and challenging employment figures. Or, it may reflect a new, better status quo. Compared with 1986, younger respondents in 2004 may not have much experience as adults with the pre-ADA world. Researchers on this project noted that some people with disabilities confused the requirements of a variety of laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid laws, and sometimes attributed aspects of the ADA to one of these laws, and vice versa.

I. Equality of Opportunity

In passing the ADA, Congress found that people with disabilities traditionally have been excluded from, or limited in their ability to access, goods and services in their communities and historically have been subjected to purposeful unequal treatment. Equality of opportunity, for purposes of this project, is defined as the equalization of chances for people with disabilities to have reliable access to transportation, and goods and services from businesses and government.

A. Transportation

1. Public Transportation

Public transportation is essential to many people with disabilities. For many people with disabilities the use of a private automobile is not possible, either because of their disability or because the cost of modifying a car for accessible use is prohibitive. Without access to reliable public transportation, people with disabilities are severely limited in their ability to enjoy social and economic opportunities, live independently, and participate in their communities.

Testimony from people with disabilities confirmed that access to public transportation is a central issue for people with all kinds of disabilities. Despite the widely reported progress in access to public transportation, people with hearing impairments report a lack of visual signage announcing transportation information,[17] people with vision impairments report a lack of verbal announcements,[18] people with brain injuries and cognitive impairments report a lack of clear, accessible information,[19] and people with mobility impairments still encounter a lack of physical accessibility.[20]

In June of 2005, the National Council on Disability issued a comprehensive report, The Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the United States.[21] In addition to the recommendations to federal agencies and transit system operators that NCD included in its transportation report, NCD echoes the sentiments of a frequent traveler with a disability who spoke at the Los Angeles public forum:

I have traveled 18,000 miles between Los Angeles and Bakersfield in an externship, and without the ADA and the Department of Transportation’s provisions, I would not have managed to remain independent and commute. I’ve commuted to at least five or six counties on a frequent basis, and it has really increased my independence. And the access and the paratransit systems work for me because I am a very informed person. And that’s what [people with disabilities] have to do. Stay informed about the ADA and know and exercise your rights.[22]

The 2004 N.O.D./Harris Survey found that 31 percent of people with disabilities reported inadequate access to public transportation and more than half of those people found it to be a major problem.[23] By comparison, the 1986 ICD/Harris Survey of Disabled Americans found that 49 percent reported that lack of access to transportation was an important reason that they did not socialize as much as they wanted.[24]

Most individuals submitting comments and testimony indicated that the ADA has had a significant positive effect on public transportation,[25] stating, for example, “My quality of life has been greatly improved since ADA …. I am able to travel and use public transportation with just some or little assistance …. All due to the wonderful law we call ADA.”[26] Most noted that much remains to be done and that rural areas lag far behind urban ones.[27] One commenter indicated that states in the South, Northern Midwest, and Central Midwest lag further behind in ADA compliance in transportation than Northeastern and Western states.[28] Another suggested that, in some areas, transportation access has declined since passage of the ADA, because pre-existing paratransit services had larger service areas than are required under the ADA.[29]

Many people with disabilities, especially those in rural areas, continue not to be served by local transit systems, either because public transit systems are not available, or because they are inaccessible.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) confirms that the lack of public transportation in rural areas remains a problem for people with disabilities. In its report, Rural Transportation at a Glance, the ERS reports that in the 1990s public transportation in rural areas increased as a result of federal funding priorities. However, only 10 percent of federal transportation funding went to rural areas. The ERS found that public transportation was available in 60 percent of rural counties nationwide, but that many of these transportation services offered only limited service.[30] ERS found that, in 2000, 23 percent of rural public transportation users had disabilities.[31]

In its 2005 transportation report, NCD found that people with disabilities who live in rural areas are still severely restricted in their ability to participate in all aspects of community life, and some people are even forced to live in institutions because of the lack of transportation to medical appointments.

a . Trains

i. ADA Requirements

The ADA requires key light rail and commuter rail stations to be accessible by July 26, 1993. However, the ADA allows the FTA Administrator to grant extensions to July 26, 2020, for stations requiring extraordinarily expensive structural modifications.

In addition to station accessibility, the ADA requires new passenger train cars purchased, leased, or remanufactured after 1990 to be accessible.[32] The ADA also requires commuter and light rail trains of two or more cars to have at least one accessible car by July 1995.[33] Under Title II of the ADA, all intercity rail (e.g. Amtrak) stations are to be accessible to people with disabilities by July 26, 2010.[34] In addition to accessibility of stations, new cars purchased, leased, or remanufactured after 1990 are required to be accessible and at least one car per train is required to be accessible by July 26, 1995.[35]

ii. Relevant Data

The National Council on Disability’s 2005 transportation study found that many transit agencies with fixed transportation routes fail to comply with the ADA.[36] According to the study, old rail systems often do not have accessible stations, and riders often find elevators out of service. Other data indicates that rail accessibility has improved since passage of the ADA.

(a). Light Rail and Commuter Rail

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reports that 22 percent of rail stations of all types (heavy, light, and commuter) were accessible in 1993 (553 out of 2,452).[37] The BTS also reports that, reviewing 14 heavy rail systems, 19 commuter rail systems and 26 light rail systems, 74 percent (1,666 out of 2,882) of rail stations of all types (heavy, light, and commuter) were accessible by 2004 (see Figure A).[38]

Figure A: Accessibility of Rail Stations – 1993 to 2004

As of the end of 2004, of commuter rail systems in 19 regions, 58 percent of all stations were accessible (666 out of 1153).[39] Nine areas had made all stations accessible (San Jose, CA, San Diego, Los Angeles, New Haven, Miami, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Seattle, Washington, DC). The remaining ten ranged from 29 percent to 80 percent accessible (see Figure B).[40]

Figure B: Accessibility of Commuter Rail Stations – 1993 to 2004

For light rail services, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported that, in 2004, among 26 providers, 82 percent of all stations were accessible (572 out of 706). Nineteen systems were 98 percent to 100 percent accessible, while the remaining seven ranged from 2 percent to 86 percent accessible (see Figure C).[41]

Figure C: Accessibility of Light Rail Stations – 1993 to 2004

Accessible train cars appear to have increased substantially, indicating compliance with the one-car-per-train rule. According to the American Public Transportation Association 2006 poll, 78 percent of commuter rail vehicles were accessible and 86 percent of light rail vehicles were accessible (see Figure D).[42]

Figure D: Accessible Rail Vehicles – 1994 to 2006

(b). Amtrak

As of 2005, Amtrak reports that 66 percent of 91 stations are physically accessible to people with disabilities.[43] Amtrak projects that by 2010, as new stations are built and old ones renovated, every Amtrak station in America will be in full compliance with the ADA. All Amtrak trains have at least one coach car with accessible seating and an accessible restroom. Overnight trains offer accessible seating and restrooms in at least one coach car and an accessible bedroom in each sleeping car. Accessible seating includes space for a passenger using a wheelchair, a transfer seat and storage for the wheelchair.[44]

b. Buses

i. ADA Requirements

The ADA requires the programs and services provided in bus stations and other public transportation stations built before 1992 to be accessible to people with disabilities, either by making physical alterations to provide accessibility, or through other means.[45] Newly constructed or altered transportation facilities must be accessible.[46] The lack of a requirement to make all bus transportation facilities accessible by a certain date makes it difficult to track and assess progress toward achieving accessible bus transportation facilities.

The ADA requires that buses purchased or leased after August 25, 1990, be accessible, although the Department of Transportation can grant waivers.[47] The ADA also requires that communications by public entities be accessible to people with vision and hearing disabilities.[48] Bus services can comply with this requirement by verbally announcing (or “calling out”) the names or locations of stops for people with vision disabilities, and by providing visual information about the stops for people who are deaf.

ii. Relevant Data

According to the Federal Transit Administration, bus systems increased by 67 new systems from 1991 to 2003 and demand responsive systems increased by 111 new systems over the same period.[49] Sixty-three percent of all buses in the United States operated by public transportation agencies were lift- or ramp-equipped by 1996.[50] FTA has set the goal of a 100 percent accessible bus fleet (lift- or wheelchair ramp-equipped) by 2007.[51] Interim goals moving toward that goal have been met, achieving 95 percent accessibility by 2004.[52]

According to the Federal Transit Administration’s 2003 National Transit Summaries and Trends report, Type B (25–35 seat) bus accessibility increased from 54 percent in 1993 to 97.7 percent in 2003 and Type C (>35 seat) bus accessibility increased from 50.3 percent in 1993 to 99.2 percent in 2003, and articulated bus (high-capacity, flexible center) access increased from 38 percent in 1993 to 96.4 percent in 2003.[53]

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics confirms that bus access has increased significantly since 1993. As of the end of 2004, 98.1 percent of all buses were accessible (67,454 out of 68,789).[54] Similarly, an American Public Transportation Association survey indicates that, as of 2006, 97 percent of buses are accessible.[55] As recently as the end of 2005, however, the Department of Justice took enforcement action against the City of Detroit, Michigan, for failing to provide and maintain accessible buses.[56] Under the consent decree, Detroit agreed to establish systems for promptly identifying, removing from service, and repairing buses with malfunctioning wheelchair lifts, including daily maintenance checks and service logs for each bus. Detroit also agreed to retrain its drivers and mechanics to deploy wheelchair lifts and assist passengers with disabilities. In addition, the city agreed to obtain alternative transportation promptly when there are breakdowns in accessible service, implement a complaint system, appoint an ADA coordinator, and retain an independent auditor to assess compliance.[57]

Bus accessibility may be more of a reality in larger, urban areas where bus replacement happens more frequently. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics and American Public Transportation Association surveys both appear to have focused on urban areas. The Economic Research Service indicated that the number of rural communities served by long-distance bus service has declined sharply since 1982.[58]

Physical accessibility to buses is one component of accessibility. The 2005 NCD transportation study reported that many transit agencies with fixed transportation routes fail to comply with the ADA, even if they have accessible buses.[59] The input from people with disabilities in the NCD transportation study was the same as the input from participants in the public forums—that some transit agencies still fail to announce bus stops, maintain wheelchair lifts on buses, and secure wheelchairs once inside the bus.

c. Paratransit Services

i. ADA Requirements

Under the ADA, public entities that operate non-commuter fixed-route transportation services for the general public are required to provide origin-to-destination paratransit service to eligible individuals. This paratransit service must be comparable to the fixed-route service.[60]

ii. Relevant Data

The National Council on Disability pointed out, in its Progress Report in 2003,[61] that people with disabilities often rely on paratransit services to avoid personal health or safety challenges on fixed-route systems such as longer waits in extreme temperatures or safety challenges at isolated stops. NCD noted that people with disabilities using paratransit frequently experience long waits, trip delays, and missed trips (no vehicle arrives), making it difficult to rely upon paratransit for employment, medical, and other appointments. NCD stated that the Department of Transportation must be vigilant in maintaining fairness and effectiveness, particularly as transit agencies consider offsetting the growth in paratransit demand with stricter trip-eligibility criteria.[62]

In Los Angeles County, one of the largest paratransit systems in the country, a 2005 study of paratransit service after litigation[63] indicated that 89 percent of riders in Los Angeles were picked up within 20 minutes of their scheduled appointment. Comparing 11 peer paratransit systems, rides were stated to be “on time” (no more than 30 minutes after the appointed time) 84 percent to 99 percent of the time. The study indicated trips were denied to 1 percent of passengers.[64] The Los Angeles paratransit provider’s 2004–05 annual report indicates a complaint rate of 6.59 out of 1000 trips.[65]

The Federal Transit Administration has conducted compliance reviews of numerous paratransit agencies and continues to find deficiencies in their policies and services. These compliance reviews indicate another area where the FTA’s standards for ADA compliance do not match with customers’ expectations. For example, the FTA considers pickups within 30 minutes after the scheduled pickup time to be “on time.”[66] Given that the scheduled pickup time may be up to one hour after the requested pickup time, customers may permissibly be picked up one hour and 30 minutes after their requested time. Because of these delays, people with disabilities have difficulty relying on paratransit services to meet work schedules and appointments.

d. Input from People with Disabilities

Input from people with disabilities in a previous research effort by NCD revealed that access to rail services has improved, but has not been fully achieved. In the focus groups, there were several individuals who mentioned bus services. A participant with a mobility disability indicated that accessible transportation is available in metropolitan areas but not rural areas:

I think as far as transportation, we see quite a bit of improvement in the metro areas where now all of our bus system finally is accessible. I think the last accessible bus just came on within the last two years. So it took a tremendously long time, but you get outside the metropolitan area anything probably 50,000 and above [in population] where transportation is absolutely terrible.[67]

The participant’s point relates to the availability of public transportation as much as it does to accessible transportation, because, if no public transportation is provided at all, the ADA does not require that accessible transportation be provided.

Participants testified that they were concerned about the attitudes of bus drivers toward people with disabilities and the maintenance of accessible equipment. For example, participants complained that bus drivers often do not announce stops.[68] A wheelchair user participating in the Savannah forum described how she was harassed on an Atlanta city bus for sitting on a seat with her wheelchair beside her in the aisle because the accessible seating area was inoperable.[69]

In the Los Angeles public forum, one participant stated, “Paratransit works for some, but for the majority of the disabled community doesn’t work at all because it’s a dumping ground for fixed-route nonaccessibility.”[70]

Several witnesses testified that paratransit services are inadequate because of strict eligibility requirements, long wait times and late pickups, and limitations on the areas served.[71] However, several participants indicated that paratransit services had improved the quality of their lives significantly.[72]

2. Private Transportation

a . Private Over-the-Road Bus Service

In 1999, Greyhound began to put more accessible buses on the roads and to train Greyhound’s bus drivers and other workers to provide accessible bus service through the operation of lifts, other boarding devices, and disability awareness.[73] According to a 1999 settlement reached with the U.S. Department of Justice, Greyhound was to guarantee lift-equipped bus service, upon 48 hours advance notice from the passenger, to and from all of its destinations, except in a very limited set of circumstances, by April 1, 2000.[74] All of Greyhound’s over-the-road buses are required to be accessible by October 28, 2012.[75]

b. Taxis

i. ADA Requirements

The ADA prohibits discrimination by taxi services. Taxi services may not refuse service to people with disabilities or charge additional fees.[76] Automobiles are not required to be wheelchair accessible.[77] When a taxi provider purchases or leases a new vehicle that is not an automobile (e.g., a van), it must be accessible unless the provider can demonstrate equivalency. Taxi providers are not required to purchase non-automobiles.[78]

ii. Relevant Data

The Community Transportation Association of America reports that some local governments have made efforts to increase accessibility of private taxi cabs. For example, the City of Chicago has passed an ordinance requiring that every fleet of more than 15 taxis must include at least one accessible taxi. Fleets of over 100 vehicles must have at least 2 accessible vehicles and one additional accessible taxi for each 100 vehicles.[79] Chicago has 41 accessible taxis out of 6000 taxis.[80] The city has also instituted a centralized dispatching system for accessible vehicles.[81] Los Angeles requires that taxi companies operate 2 percent of their fleets as accessible vehicles,[82] resulting in 127 of the city’s 1,931 taxis being accessible.[83] Las Vegas requires that 2 vehicles in every fleet be accessible, resulting in 28 accessible taxis out of 1,100.[84]

According to the Community Transportation Association, some large cities appear to have no accessible taxis, including Philadelphia (1,600 cabs), Dallas (1,900 cabs), Detroit (1,320 cabs), and Seattle (850 cabs).[85] A 2004 newspaper article suggests that few taxicabs in New York City were accessible. According to the article, only 5 of 12,000 taxicabs in New York City were wheelchair accessible.[86] The Community Transportation Association indicates that the efforts of cities and taxi service providers who have committed to accessible taxi service have resulted in accessible taxis ranging from 2.5 percent to 6.6 percent of the taxi fleets in Las Vegas, San Diego, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.[87]

Taxi companies have been sued for discrimination against people with disabilities. Many suits claim that taxicabs discriminate against people with vision impairments who use service animals.[88] Others claim taxis refuse to pick up people who use wheelchairs.[89]

iii. Input from People with Disabilities

One blind individual who uses a guide dog commented that, while most businesses are much more aware of their obligation to allow guide dogs, “Guide dog users still experience difficulties in getting taxi drivers to agree to transport the dog.”[90]

3. Recommendations – Transportation

· Congress should expand accessibility requirements for rail services beyond key stations;

· The Department of Transportation should conduct extensive training and outreach for public transit providers regarding maintenance and stop announcements;

· The Department of Transportation should work with paratransit providers, state and local governments, transportation experts, and representatives of disability and aging communities to explore paratransit options such as more subscription service, more flexible services, and other ideas to close the expectation gap and increase usability of paratransit for riders with disabilities. One model for this work is the U.S. Access Board’s Advisory Committees, which bring together diverse constituencies to develop recommendations on disability-related issues;

· The Department of Transportation should study and test options for providing transportation services to people with disabilities in rural areas. Again, a model similar to that used by the U.S. Access Board’s Advisory Committees may be useful in this effort.

B. Sidewalks and Curb Ramps

Accessible buildings mean little without accessible sidewalks leading to them. For people with mobility impairments who use public transportation, which often requires traveling from a station, bus stop, or other drop-off point to a destination, inaccessible sidewalks can render an otherwise possible trip impossible. Inaccessible sidewalks also force many people to use paratransit services.

1. Sidewalks

a. ADA Requirements

The ADA requires all programs, services and activities of state and local governments to be accessible. The concept is commonly referred to as “program access.”[91] In addition, newly constructed or altered facilities must be fully accessible.[92] Program access to existing facilities was required by January 26, 1995. However, some cities argued that sidewalks did not constitute a city program, service or activity. When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed this argument in 2002 in Barden v. City of Sacramento,[93] cities began to take seriously their responsibilities to provide accessible sidewalks.

b. Relevant Data

NCD’s 2005 transportation report found that public rights-of-way including streets, sidewalks, and other public infrastructures continue to be inaccessible and not in compliance with the ADA.[94] No published reports on the degree to which sidewalks are accessible were found in our environmental scan.

2. Curb Ramps

a. ADA Requirements

Title II regulations of the ADA required state and local governments to include in their transition plans, plans to install curb ramps at all existing corners by January 26, 1995 or “in any event, as expeditiously as possible.”[95] Newly constructed or altered streets and sidewalks are also required to provide accessible curb ramps.[96]

In 1993, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the question of what constitutes an alteration that would trigger the requirement to install an accessible curb ramp. The court concluded that street resurfacing constituted an alteration that would trigger the curb ramp obligation on adjacent sidewalks.[97]

b. Relevant Data

In 2002, a representative of the city of Los Angeles announced that the city had concluded its ADA transition plan and had installed over 22,500 curb ramps at an average cost of $1100.[98] At the same meeting, a city engineer for Memphis, Tennessee said in the last three years the city had installed over 3,000 curb ramps and was committed to installing 1,000 curb ramps a year for the foreseeable future.[99] Smaller cities have also worked to increase sidewalk access. For example, Culver City, California had ramped 96 percent of its curbs by 2003 and planned to complete the remaining 50 by 2005.[100] The U.S. Department of Justice has negotiated more than 145 “Project Civic Access” agreements with 138 local governments ensuring accessible buildings, programs and services.[101] These also include curb ramps.

In contrast, the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America (EPVA) sued New York City under these regulations because, by 1994, the city had not installed curb ramps at two-thirds of its street corners, and had no transition plan in place. When the City finally issued a “transition plan” five months after EPVA brought suit, the plan did not contain a schedule for ramping its 106,000 street corners without curb ramps. In September 2002, the city agreed to a settlement to commit approximately $218 million to make all of its 158,738 street corners accessible to wheelchair users. According to the settlement the city agreed to commit a total of $217,862,000 for installation of curb ramps on all of the 61,074 corners remaining to be ramped (27,747 in Queens; 13,008 in Staten Island; 10,710 in Brooklyn; 7,007 in the Bronx; and 2,602 in Manhattan).[102]

Some cities object to the obligation to install curb ramps. As recently as the fall of 2005, the City of Riverside, New Jersey claimed it has no obligation to install curb ramps because it has fewer than 50 employees.[103] The City of Chicago was sued over inaccessible curb ramps in 2005.[104] The City of Sacramento, California, was sued over inaccessible sidewalks and curb ramps and reached a settlement in 2004 requiring the city to spend 20 percent of its annual transportation funds on sidewalks and curb ramps for up to 30 years.[105] The City and County of Honolulu were sued twice for failing to timely implement their transition plan for installing curb ramps, finally agreeing in 2001 to install 7,600 ramps by 2007.[106]

In 2005, a survey of San Francisco sidewalks identified 13,430 curbs needing curb ramps at 6,726 intersections, costing an estimated $210 million.[107] The City estimated that it installed 650 curb ramps per year.[108]

Many curb ramps appear to be installed by private developers as part of their construction projects. In San Francisco, for example, approximately 450 curb ramps are installed annually by the city, while 75–90 are installed by private developers.[109]

These lawsuits and city reports indicate the deadlines of the ADA for installation of curb ramps have not been met and that curb ramps will continue to be inconsistently available for years to come. Lawsuits and forced settlement agreements may be essential tools for ensuring compliance.

c. Input from People with Disabilities

Input from people with disabilities about curb ramps often focused on issues of safety as well as access. The lack of ramps at many intersections, curb ramps that are too steep or not adjacent to pedestrian push buttons, lack of accessible pedestrian signals for blind pedestrians, and failure of municipalities to clear snow from curb ramps were sited as issues causing people with disabilities to make unsafe street crossings and, in some instances, forcing people to use their wheelchairs in the streets or gutters.

3. Recommendations – Sidewalks and Curb Ramps

· The Department of Justice should promulgate ADA regulations for public rights-of-way as soon as possible;

· The Department of Transportation should increase funding for sidewalk access and curb ramp installation;

· The Department of Justice should develop and disseminate guidelines for the prioritization of curb ramp installations, so that the most needed and useful curb ramps are installed first.

C. Places of Public Accommodation

1. Physical Accessibility for People with Mobility Impairments

a. ADA Requirements

The ADA requires places of public accommodation to provide physical accessibility to differing extents based on the time of construction of the facility. Facilities existing before the effective date of Title III of the ADA, must have physical access barriers removed to the extent it is readily achievable to do so. “Readily achievable” means that the barrier removal is not too difficult or too expensive given the resources available to the facility’s owner.