> **The Current State of**
>
> **Transportation for**
>
> **People with Disabilities**
>
> **in the United States**
>
> ![](media/image1.png){width="1.75in" height="1.75in"}
>
> **National Council on Disability**
>
> **June 13, 2005**

National Council on Disability

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

**The Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in
the United States**

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

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2074 TTY

202-272-2022 Fax

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.

June 13, 2005

The President\
The White House\
Washington, DC 20500

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,

![](media/image2.png){width="1.3479166666666667in"
height="0.4861111111111111in"}

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 C**ontents

[Section 1: Executive Summary 13](#section-1-executive-summary)

[Fixed-Route Public Transit 13](#fixed-route-public-transit)

[Paratransit 14](#paratransit)

[Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements on Public Transit
15](#approaches-that-have-resulted-in-service-improvements-on-public-transit)

[Public Rights-of-way 15](#public-rights-of-way)

[Private Transportation 16](#private-transportation)

[Flex Service and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service
16](#flex-service-and-other-nontraditional-forms-of-transit-service)

[Transportation in Rural Areas 16](#transportation-in-rural-areas)

[Section 2: Introduction 19](#section-2-introduction)

[Section 3: Fixed-Route Public Transit
23](#section-3-fixed-route-public-transit)

[Bus Transit 23](#bus-transit)

[General assessment 23](#general-assessment)

[Low-floor ramped buses and other features of universal design
25](#low-floor-ramped-buses-and-other-features-of-universal-design)

[Problem areas 26](#problem-areas)

[Stop announcements 26](#stop-announcements)

[Bus equipment maintenance 30](#bus-equipment-maintenance)

[Lift maintenance problems in Detroit
30](#lift-maintenance-problems-in-detroit)

[But is it really broken? 31](#but-is-it-really-broken)

[Securement of mobility devices 33](#securement-of-mobility-devices)

[Ensuring proper securement 34](#ensuring-proper-securement)

[Wheelchairs that are difficult to secure, and should wheelchair\
securement be optional?
34](#wheelchairs-that-are-difficult-to-secure-and-should-wheelchair-securement-be-optional)

[Resolving securement problems 35](#resolving-securement-problems)

[Oversized wheelchairs 36](#oversized-wheelchairs)

[Rail Transit 37](#rail-transit)

[Rapid rail, light rail, and commuter rail
37](#rapid-rail-light-rail-and-commuter-rail)

[Access to train stations 37](#access-to-train-stations)

[Key station enforcement 38](#key-station-enforcement)

[Elevator maintenance and information on outages
40](#elevator-maintenance-and-information-on-outages)

[The rail gap 41](#the-rail-gap)

[Commuter rail and platform accessibility
41](#commuter-rail-and-platform-accessibility)

[Stop announcements 43](#stop-announcements-1)

[Amtrak 43](#amtrak)

[Section 4: Paratransit 47](#section-4-paratransit)

[General Assessment 47](#general-assessment-1)

[Policy Issues That Impact Service Availability and Quality
48](#policy-issues-that-impact-service-availability-and-quality)

[Eligibility 48](#eligibility)

[Use of fixed-route versus paratransit service
49](#use-of-fixed-route-versus-paratransit-service)

[Recent trends in paratransit eligibility
51](#recent-trends-in-paratransit-eligibility)

[Trip-by-trip screening 52](#trip-by-trip-screening)

[Best practices in assessing eligibility
53](#best-practices-in-assessing-eligibility)

[Immediate needs certification 55](#immediate-needs-certification)

[Service area 56](#service-area)

[Trip denials 56](#trip-denials)

[Court-established right to next-day service
57](#court-established-right-to-next-day-service)

[Hidden impact of trip denial rates
58](#hidden-impact-of-trip-denial-rates)

[On-time performance 61](#on-time-performance)

[Factors affecting on-time performance
62](#factors-affecting-on-time-performance)

[The one-hour window and the importance of the desired arrival or\
appointment time
62](#the-one-hour-window-and-the-importance-of-the-desired-arrival-or-appointment-time)

[The on-time pickup window 63](#the-on-time-pickup-window)

[Negotiated time versus scheduled time
64](#negotiated-time-versus-scheduled-time)

[Trip length 65](#trip-length)

[Other operational issues 65](#other-operational-issues)

[Factors outside the transit agency's control
66](#factors-outside-the-transit-agencys-control)

[Other operational practices to enhance on-time performance
66](#other-operational-practices-to-enhance-on-time-performance)

[Agreed-upon time should appear on driver's manifest
66](#agreed-upon-time-should-appear-on-drivers-manifest)

[Consistency of daily tours 66](#consistency-of-daily-tours)

[Monitoring 67](#monitoring)

[Callouts 67](#callouts)

[Information technology 67](#information-technology)

[Lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints
68](#lengthy-telephone-hold-times-and-other-capacity-constraints)

[Subscription service 69](#subscription-service)

[Cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies
to\
manage costs
71](#cutting-back-service-to-minimum-ada-requirements-and-other-strategies-to-manage-costs)

[No-show policies 73](#no-show-policies)

[Late cancellations 76](#late-cancellations)

[Door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service
79](#door-to-door-versus-curb-to-curb-service)

[Travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to
fixed routes
81](#travel-training-and-other-efforts-to-transition-paratransit-riders-to-fixed-routes)

[Fare incentive programs 83](#fare-incentive-programs)

[Travel training in the context of IDEA
84](#travel-training-in-the-context-of-idea)

[Equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers
85](#equalizing-pay-between-fixed-route-drivers-and-paratransit-drivers)

[Feeder service 87](#feeder-service)

[Chain trips 89](#chain-trips)

[Low bid versus service quality in contracting
90](#low-bid-versus-service-quality-in-contracting)

[Seniors with disabilities are not necessarily eligible for ADA
paratransit
91](#seniors-with-disabilities-are-not-necessarily-eligible-for-ada-paratransit)

[Serving individuals who need dialysis treatment
92](#serving-individuals-who-need-dialysis-treatment)

[Serving individuals with dementia
93](#serving-individuals-with-dementia)

[Use of taxis in paratransit 94](#use-of-taxis-in-paratransit)

[Case studies 96](#case-studies)

[Best practices in Broward County, Florida
96](#best-practices-in-broward-county-florida)

[Best practices in New York City, New York
96](#best-practices-in-new-york-city-new-york)

[Section 5: Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements on
Public Transit
97](#section-5-approaches-that-have-resulted-in-service-improvements-on-public-transit)

[Disability Community Involvement 97](#disability-community-involvement)

[ADA Administrative Complaints to the Federal Transit Administration
100](#ada-administrative-complaints-to-the-federal-transit-administration)

[Federal Transit Administration ADA Assessments
101](#federal-transit-administration-ada-assessments)

[Litigation 103](#litigation)

[Ballot measures 104](#ballot-measures)

[Information technology 105](#information-technology-1)

[Section 6: Issues for All Modes of Public Transit
109](#section-6-issues-for-all-modes-of-public-transit)

[Department of Justice ADA Requirements and Their Relationship to Public
Transportation
109](#department-of-justice-ada-requirements-and-their-relationship-to-public-transportation)

[DOT's 1991 regulation under section 504
110](#dots-1991-regulation-under-section-504)

[The D.C. Circuit statement on the same issue in Burkhart v. WMATA
111](#the-d.c.-circuit-statement-on-the-same-issue-in-burkhart-v.-wmata)

[DOJ's amicus brief in Burkhart 112](#dojs-amicus-brief-in-burkhart)

[Federal Transit Administration reliance on DOJ regulation
113](#federal-transit-administration-reliance-on-doj-regulation)

[Contrary Fifth Circuit decision in Melton v. DART
114](#contrary-fifth-circuit-decision-in-melton-v.-dart)

[In conclusion, the DOJ regulation applies to transit agencies
115](#in-conclusion-the-doj-regulation-applies-to-transit-agencies)

[Service Animals 115](#service-animals)

[Discrimination based on service animals
115](#discrimination-based-on-service-animals)

[Must one say the magic words? 116](#must-one-say-the-magic-words)

[Barriers to People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities
118](#barriers-to-people-with-multiple-chemical-sensitivities)

[Section 7: Public Rights-of-Way 121](#section-7-public-rights-of-way)

[Section 8: Private Transportation
125](#section-8-private-transportation)

[Taxi Service 125](#taxi-service)

[General assessment 125](#general-assessment-2)

[Accessible taxi service 125](#accessible-taxi-service)

[Portland, Oregon 126](#portland-oregon)

[Seattle, Washington 127](#seattle-washington)

[Boston, Massachusetts 128](#boston-massachusetts)

[Las Vegas, Nevada 129](#las-vegas-nevada)

[Chicago, Illinois 130](#chicago-illinois)

[San Francisco, California 131](#san-francisco-california)

[New York, New York 131](#new-york-new-york)

[Other locations 132](#other-locations)

[Issues and concerns 132](#issues-and-concerns)

[Keeping the vehicles in use and available
133](#keeping-the-vehicles-in-use-and-available)

[Accessibility and nondiscrimination
135](#accessibility-and-nondiscrimination)

[Training 135](#training)

[Enforcement 136](#enforcement)

[Vehicles and costs 136](#vehicles-and-costs)

[Greyhound and Other Intercity Bus Service
138](#greyhound-and-other-intercity-bus-service)

[Airport Shuttles and Other Airport-related Services
141](#airport-shuttles-and-other-airport-related-services)

[Social Services Transportation and Coordination
143](#social-services-transportation-and-coordination)

[Tour and Charter Service 145](#tour-and-charter-service)

[Section 9: Flex Service and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit
Service
147](#section-9-flex-service-and-other-nontraditional-forms-of-transit-service)

[Route Deviation Service 147](#route-deviation-service)

[Community Bus Routes 150](#community-bus-routes)

[Section 10: Transportation in Rural Areas
151](#section-10-transportation-in-rural-areas)

[Section 11: Other Publicly Funded Transportation Initiatives
155](#section-11-other-publicly-funded-transportation-initiatives)

[Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Other Work Transportation
Programs
155](#job-access-reverse-commute-jarc-and-other-work-transportation-programs)

[Volunteer Driver Programs 157](#volunteer-driver-programs)

[Section 12: Conclusion 159](#section-12-conclusion)

[Section 13: Appendices 161](#section-13-appendices)

[Appendix A: Recommendations (in order of their appearance in this
report)
161](#appendix-a-recommendations-in-order-of-their-appearance-in-this-report)

[Fixed-Route Public Transit (from Section 3)
161](#fixed-route-public-transit-from-section-3)

[Stop announcements 161](#stop-announcements-2)

[Bus equipment maintenance 161](#bus-equipment-maintenance-1)

[Securement of mobility devices 162](#securement-of-mobility-devices-1)

[Oversized wheelchairs 162](#oversized-wheelchairs-1)

[Rail transit 162](#rail-transit-1)

[Paratransit (from Section 4) 163](#paratransit-from-section-4)

[Eligibility 163](#eligibility-1)

[Trip denials 164](#trip-denials-1)

[On-time performance 165](#on-time-performance-1)

[Lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints
166](#lengthy-telephone-hold-times-and-other-capacity-constraints-1)

[Subscription service 166](#subscription-service-1)

[Cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies
to\
manage costs
166](#cutting-back-service-to-minimum-ada-requirements-and-other-strategies-to-manage-costs-1)

[No-show policies and late cancellations
166](#no-show-policies-and-late-cancellations)

[Door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service
168](#door-to-door-versus-curb-to-curb-service-1)

[Travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to
fixed route
168](#travel-training-and-other-efforts-to-transition-paratransit-riders-to-fixed-route)

[Equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers
168](#equalizing-pay-between-fixed-route-drivers-and-paratransit-drivers-1)

[Feeder service 169](#feeder-service-1)

[Chain trips 169](#chain-trips-1)

[Low bid versus service quality in contracting
169](#low-bid-versus-service-quality-in-contracting-1)

[Serving individuals who need dialysis treatment
170](#serving-individuals-who-need-dialysis-treatment-1)

[Serving individuals with dementia
170](#serving-individuals-with-dementia-1)

[Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements in Public
Transit\
(from Section 5)
170](#approaches-that-have-resulted-in-service-improvements-in-public-transit-from-section-5)

[Disability community involvement
170](#disability-community-involvement-1)

[ADA administrative complaints to the Federal Transit Administration
171](#ada-administrative-complaints-to-the-federal-transit-administration-1)

[Federal Transit Administration ADA Assessments
171](#federal-transit-administration-ada-assessments-1)

[Litigation 171](#litigation-1)

[Ballot measures 171](#ballot-measures-1)

[Information technology 171](#information-technology-2)

[Issues for All Modes of Public Transit (from Section 6)
172](#issues-for-all-modes-of-public-transit-from-section-6)

[Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public
transportation
172](#department-of-justice-ada-requirements-and-their-relationship-to-public-transportation-1)

[Service animals 172](#service-animals-1)

[Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities
172](#barriers-to-people-with-multiple-chemical-sensitivities-1)

[Public Rights-of-Way (from Section 7)
173](#public-rights-of-way-from-section-7)

[Private Transportation (from Section 8)
173](#private-transportation-from-section-8)

[Taxi service 173](#taxi-service-1)

[Greyhound and other intercity bus service
174](#greyhound-and-other-intercity-bus-service-1)

[Airport shuttles and other airport-related services
174](#airport-shuttles-and-other-airport-related-services-1)

[Social services transportation and coordination
174](#social-services-transportation-and-coordination-1)

[Tour and charter service 175](#tour-and-charter-service-1)

[Flex and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service (from Section 9)
175](#flex-and-other-nontraditional-forms-of-transit-service-from-section-9)

[Transportation in Rural Areas (from Section 10)
175](#transportation-in-rural-areas-from-section-10)

[Other Publicly Funded Transportation Initiatives (from Section 11)
175](#other-publicly-funded-transportation-initiatives-from-section-11)

[Job access reverse commute (JARC) and other work transportation
programs
175](#job-access-reverse-commute-jarc-and-other-work-transportation-programs-1)

[Volunteer driver programs 176](#volunteer-driver-programs-1)

[Appendix B: Recommendations (organized by the entity to which they are
directed)
177](#appendix-b-recommendations-organized-by-the-entity-to-which-they-are-directed)

[To Publicly Funded Transit Agencies
177](#to-publicly-funded-transit-agencies)

[General 177](#general)

[Stop announcements 177](#stop-announcements-3)

[Bus equipment maintenance 177](#bus-equipment-maintenance-2)

[Securement of mobility devices 178](#securement-of-mobility-devices-2)

[Rail transit 178](#rail-transit-2)

[Paratransit----eligibility 179](#paratransiteligibility)

[Paratransit----trip denials 180](#paratransittrip-denials)

[Paratransit----on-time performance
180](#paratransiton-time-performance)

[Paratransit----lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity
constraints
181](#paratransitlengthy-telephone-hold-times-and-other-capacity-constraints)

[Paratransit----subscription service
181](#paratransitsubscription-service)

[Paratransit----cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and\
other strategies to manage costs
181](#paratransitcutting-back-service-to-minimum-ada-requirements-and-other-strategies-to-manage-costs)

[Paratransit----no-show policies and late cancellations
181](#paratransitno-show-policies-and-late-cancellations)

[Paratransit----door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service
182](#paratransitdoor-to-door-versus-curb-to-curb-service)

[Paratransit----travel training and other efforts to transition
paratransit\
riders to fixed route
183](#paratransittravel-training-and-other-efforts-to-transition-paratransit-riders-to-fixed-route)

[Paratransit----equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and
paratransit drivers
183](#paratransitequalizing-pay-between-fixed-route-drivers-and-paratransit-drivers)

[Paratransit----feeder service 183](#paratransitfeeder-service)

[Paratransit----low bid versus service quality in contracting
184](#paratransitlow-bid-versus-service-quality-in-contracting)

[Paratransit----serving individuals who need dialysis treatment
184](#paratransitserving-individuals-who-need-dialysis-treatment)

[Paratransit----serving individuals with dementia
184](#paratransitserving-individuals-with-dementia)

[Flex and other nontraditional forms of transit service
184](#flex-and-other-nontraditional-forms-of-transit-service)

[Public rights-of-way 185](#public-rights-of-way-1)

[Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public
transportation
185](#department-of-justice-ada-requirements-and-their-relationship-to-public-transportation-2)

[Service animals 185](#service-animals-2)

[Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities
185](#barriers-to-people-with-multiple-chemical-sensitivities-2)

[Information technology 185](#information-technology-3)

[To Providers of Privately Funded Transportation
186](#to-providers-of-privately-funded-transportation)

[To Airport-related Transportation Providers
186](#to-airport-related-transportation-providers)

[Tour and charter service 187](#tour-and-charter-service-2)

[Service animals 187](#service-animals-3)

[Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities
187](#barriers-to-people-with-multiple-chemical-sensitivities-3)

[Information technology 187](#information-technology-4)

[To the Federal Government 188](#to-the-federal-government)

[Specific recommendations to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
188](#specific-recommendations-to-the-federal-transit-administration-fta)

[Transportation in rural areas 188](#transportation-in-rural-areas-1)

[ADA enforcement 188](#ada-enforcement)

[Public rights-of-way 189](#public-rights-of-way-2)

[Rail transit 189](#rail-transit-3)

[Vehicle standards 189](#vehicle-standards)

[Paratransit 189](#paratransit-1)

[Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public
transportation
189](#department-of-justice-ada-requirements-and-their-relationship-to-public-transportation-3)

[Airport transportation 190](#airport-transportation)

[Greyhound and other intercity bus service
190](#greyhound-and-other-intercity-bus-service-2)

[Social services transportation 190](#social-services-transportation)

[Volunteer driver programs 190](#volunteer-driver-programs-2)

[To State and Local Governments/Municipal Leaders
190](#to-state-and-local-governmentsmunicipal-leaders)

[To People with Disabilities/Advocates/Riders/Disability Organizations
191](#to-people-with-disabilitiesadvocatesridersdisability-organizations)

[General 191](#general-1)

[Paratransit 191](#paratransit-2)

[Greyhound and other intercity bus service
192](#greyhound-and-other-intercity-bus-service-3)

[To Wheelchair Manufacturers 192](#to-wheelchair-manufacturers)

[To Schools and Departments of Education
192](#to-schools-and-departments-of-education)

[To the Public Rights-of-Way Industry
192](#to-the-public-rights-of-way-industry)

[To Planning and Design Curricula at the University Level
192](#to-planning-and-design-curricula-at-the-university-level)

[To Airports 192](#to-airports)

[To Researchers 193](#to-researchers)

[Appendix C: Methodology 194](#appendix-c-methodology)

[Appendix D: List of Focus Group Participants, Interviewees, and
Consultants
197](#appendix-d-list-of-focus-group-participants-interviewees-and-consultants)

[Focus Group Participants, August 31, 2004
197](#focus-group-participants-august-31-2004)

[Persons Interviewed or Consulted
197](#persons-interviewed-or-consulted)

[Appendix E: Mission of the National Council on Disability
202](#appendix-e-mission-of-the-national-council-on-disability)

[Overview and Purpose 202](#overview-and-purpose)

[The Current Statutory Mandate of NCD Includes the Following:
202](#the-current-statutory-mandate-of-ncd-includes-the-following)

[International 203](#international)

[Consumers served and current activities
204](#consumers-served-and-current-activities)

[Statutory history 204](#statutory-history)

[Section 14: Endnotes 205](#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 service[^17] 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
requirements[^38] 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 constraints[^55] 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, and
other activities.[^65] Transit agencies should provide transportation to
such in-person interviews and functional assessments.

Some individuals may consider in-person interviews and functional
assessments too troublesome or intimidating and may not even apply for
paratransit service. For example, after requiring in-person interviews
for new applicants and for recertification of current riders, Houston's
Metro found that 61 percent received eligibility, compared with the 89
percent previously approved. Of the remaining 39 percent who did not
receive eligibility, 14 percent were denied and 25 percent did not
appear for the interview.[^66] This raises the question of whether some
who may not be able to use the fixed-route service also are not
receiving ADA paratransit service. Further study is needed to ascertain
any negative impacts of more rigorous ADA eligibility procedures on the
mobility of people with disabilities.[^67]

#### Trip-by-trip screening

Because of a variety of disability and environmentally related factors,
a person may be eligible for some ADA paratransit trips but not others.
Thus, eligibility may depend on the particular trip. Determining
eligibility of an individual's specific trip request is one strategy
that has been used to attain the goal of fixed-route ridership for at
least some of a paratransit customer's trips. Reports from transit
systems that have relatively thorough eligibility determination
processes suggest that about 20 to 30 percent of all registrants require
paratransit service only under certain conditions.[^68] Moving a portion
of these trips to the fixed-route service can achieve many goals,
including a reduction in demand for paratransit and a significant cost
savings to providers.

The transit agency must find the applicant conditionally eligible, and
then undertake trip-by-trip screening to ascertain whether the person is
able to take each requested trip using the fixed-route service, or
whether there is a barrier that would make the trip eligible for
paratransit. Trip-by-trip screening can involve several steps, as Karen
Hoesch, executive director of Access Transportation Systems in
Pittsburgh, described at the National Transit Institute course on
Comprehensive ADA Paratransit Eligibility in April 2004.[^69] Central to
the process is identifying the applicant's specific travel abilities,
including the conditions and barriers that prevent him or her from
getting to and from fixed-route stops.

Also important is evaluating the specific trips that the person needs to
make. This evaluation entails identifying the fixed-route line that
would be used, determining that line's accessibility in relation to the
applicant's ability to travel, and examining the path of travel to and
from the fixed-route stops. If it is determined that the applicant can
use the fixed-route service for that particular trip, he or she would
not be eligible for ADA paratransit on that trip. Staff proficient in
assessing barriers to travel conduct these route assessments and, where
possible, consult with the applicant or a professional familiar with his
or her functional abilities.[^70]

A handful of systems screen every trip request from conditionally
eligible riders. Examples include the transit agencies in Pittsburgh and
Tacoma. Many more systems screen specific categories of trips, such as
night trips or those taken during winter months. In Pittsburgh, trip
requests are checked against potential bus routes serving that
particular trip, and staff determines from a preexisting environmental
assessment whether, given the rider's eligibility conditions, the trip
should be found eligible. If the streets and barriers along the route of
the trip request have not been assessed, the rider is given presumptive
eligibility for that route until the completion of an environmental
assessment.[^71]

#### Best practices in assessing eligibility

Equip for Equality, the Illinois Protection and Advocacy agency, has
developed a guide for people with disabilities going through the
eligibility process. It emphasizes the importance of transit industry
best practices in determining eligibility, and gives people with
disabilities tips to ensure that their situation is accurately
considered. For example, it points out that eligibility determinations
should consider conditions that could pose barriers to an individual's
"potential travel throughout the entire bus and/or rail system during
all seasons," not just conditions in the applicant's immediate
neighborhood and at the locations to which the applicant usually
travels.

This point was underscored by FTA's New York City Transit assessment,
dated October 22, 2004, which analyzed the paratransit service
Access-A-Ride (AAR). The authors of the compliance review examined some
recent eligibility determinations. The review states,

In a few instances, . . . there was some question about the . . .
conditional eligibility granted and whether \[it\] covered all
circumstances under which the applicants would not be able to use
fixed-route transit. In one case, the applicant reported severe
arthritis and use of a support cane. An in-person assessment was
performed, and the report suggested that the applicant could only be
expected to travel about one block to get to or from transit
stops/stations. The applicant was only granted eligibility for
"inter-borough" trips, however. The Certifier explained that eligibility
based on "distance to and from stops" was not granted because the
applicant only indicated a need for AAR services to get to and from her
doctor, who was located in another borough. The decision appeared to
focus on a specific trip need rather than on the broader conditions
under which fixed-route service could not be used.[^72]

Also emphasized in the Equip for Equality eligibility guide is the
importance of considering any variable conditions experienced by the
individual, and any secondary disabilities, such as disorientation,
fatigue, or difficulty with balance. Another best practice issue
addressed by the guide is that some disabilities cannot be evaluated by
a functional assessment. Examples include seizure disorders, psychiatric
disabilities, and variable conditions such as multiple sclerosis.[^73]

Some transit agencies have established a category of seasonal
eligibility; however, if it is the only condition of eligibility
identified in a simplified process, this is not consistent with industry
best practice. It is a problem in these cases because it is typically
not the case that someone cannot travel only because of weather issues.
Often, transit systems think they are simplifying the process by
identifying only broad categories of conditions, but then they miss the
real reasons why people can't travel. For example, if "winter only" were
identified for a rider who uses a wheelchair because of obvious
difficulties negotiating snowy and icy paths of travel, and no other
conditions were identified, this would suggest that the person faces no
other barriers during good weather months, such as distance and
otherwise inaccessible pathways. This is rarely the case.[^74]

Recommendations:

4.1. Transit agencies implementing in-person interviews and functional
assessments for determining ADA paratransit eligibility should follow
transit industry best practices for eligibility assessment. Eligibility
determinations should consider conditions that could pose barriers to an
individual's travel throughout the entire bus and/or rail system during
all seasons, not just conditions in the applicant's immediate
neighborhood or in one season. Eligibility determinations should also
consider any variable conditions the applicant experiences, such as
disorientation, fatigue, or difficulty with balance. Transit agencies
should not use functional assessments to determine eligibility for
people with certain disabilities such as seizure disorders, psychiatric
disabilities, and variable conditions like multiple sclerosis. Staff
proficient in assessing functional ability to use the fixed-route
service and evaluating barriers to travel should conduct eligibility and
route assessments.

4.2. Transit agencies should ensure that eligible paratransit riders
will not lose their ADA paratransit eligibility if they try the
fixed-route service.

4.3. Transit agencies should provide transportation to
eligibility-related in-person interviews and functional assessments.

4.4. Research should be conducted to ascertain any negative impacts of
more rigorous ADA eligibility procedures on the mobility of people with
disabilities.

### Immediate needs certification

In some urgent cases, transit agencies grant interim eligibility to
applicants pending a more thorough review of their eligibility
applications. Such urgent cases are usually for medical purposes, such
as a critical need for ongoing medical services after an accident or
attending rehabilitation following a hospital discharge.

Whatcom Transportation Authority in Bellingham, Washington, was advised
by an independent consultant to discontinue its immediate needs
certification, as it created an expectation that the eligibility
application would ultimately be approved and that the review process is
a mere formality. As an alternative, agencies such as Whatcom wishing to
provide temporary assistance to people with urgent needs could determine
the specific trips for which assistance is needed and authorize a taxi
company to provide those trips, with the agency paying a portion of the
regular fare. Such assistance would not be automatic. It would be
offered only in cases of urgent need and until the person's eligibility
has been determined.[^75]

Santa Cruz Metro in California offered, at one time, a very loosely
defined immediate needs certification under which individuals remained
de facto eligible for many months. Recently, the agency has defined this
eligibility category more clearly and encouraged applicants to apply for
regular eligibility within a week of receiving the temporary
certification.

### Service area

Since the passage of the ADA, many transit systems have provided
paratransit service to areas that exceeded what the ADA requires. The
ADA-mandated service area,[^76] generally speaking, is a network of
corridors that extend three-quarters of a mile on either side of each
fixed route, thus mirroring the transit service provided to the general
public. Most often, transit agencies have actually served the entire
city, county, or general area covered by their fixed-route service.
Reasons for doing so have included the desire to continue serving riders
who had previously been served in the larger area, either as a public
service or to avoid the political consequences of cutting service to
riders with disabilities. In many instances, when transit agencies
mapped out the areas that required service under the ADA, the pockets of
areas that were outside of their ADA obligation were so small or
irregular that it was operationally simpler to "grandparent" them into
the larger service area.

Many transit agencies continue to provide paratransit to this broad
service area, and the disability community is the beneficiary. But with
increasing paratransit costs, some transit agencies are taking another
look at their service areas. Some have cut them back to the ADA-mandated
minimum corridors, and some are considering making any service outside
these corridors into a non-ADA premium service at a higher fare (see
"Cutting Back Service to Minimum ADA Requirements and Other Strategies
to Manage Costs," Section 4).

### Trip denials

The ADA requires ADA paratransit providers to schedule and provide rides
to eligible individuals in response to any request made the previous
day,[^77] and thus, may not plan to deny any eligible trip requests.
Many, if not most, agencies are making progress toward a zero denial
rate and some have reportedly reached that goal, including New York City
and Philadelphia, according to David Koffman of Nelson\\Nygaard,
national expert on paratransit operations.

But many agencies throughout the country continue to struggle with high
denial rates. For example, Cleveland's quarterly reports to the FTA
Office of Civil Rights have shown its paratransit system to have average
denial rates ranging as high as 6 percent. Regarding the Cleveland
situation, *Transit Access Report* stated in March 2004, "This is a
strikingly high rate for a major transit agency at a time that federal
regulators are looking for efforts to meet all expected demand under the
ADA."[^78]

Many of these agencies' riders have been forced to cope with very
regular trip denials that are in clear violation of the ADA. For
example, a paratransit rider in one southern city states, "The way the
system works here, it's a week in advance. Say, for instance, tomorrow
is Wednesday, you start calling for next Monday's trip, and that's how
it goes, from day to day." When asked whether next-day rides are usually
available, she says they are not. However, paratransit riders have the
right under the ADA to unlimited next-day trips. If next-day trip
requests are denied with any regularity, it is considered an ADA
violation.

When a paratransit system's capacity is constrained in this way, it
often causes cascading problems. For example, riders who know they are
unlikely to secure a ride if they call as late as the previous day will
tend to call earlier and earlier for their rides to ensure that they can
obtain them. Some will arrange rides they may not end up taking, because
they must request a ride before they are sure of their plans, and plans
sometimes change. The resulting cancellations and no-shows further drain
resources from an already resource-poor system (also see "No-Show
Policies," Section 4**)**.

#### Court-established right to next-day service

It was not so long ago that this now-accepted ADA right to all rides
requested the previous day was under significant question. A case in
federal court against the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority (RGRTA) stemmed from high denial rates. The Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals decision on July 23, 2003, against RGRTA faulted
the agency for denying service for reasons that were entirely within its
control. In this important ruling, *Anderson et al. v. Rochester-Genesee
Regional Transportation Authority,* the court held that the transit
agency's regular denial of trip requests was attributable to its
insufficient capacity and deficient booking practices. For example,
according to undisputed evidence for a sample period in 2000, RGRTA
provided 95 percent of all requested rides, but only about 43 percent of
next-day requested rides.[^79]

The court also found that, while RGRTA projected increases in
paratransit trip demand, it failed to modify its practices or plans to
meet this demand. The court established this principle:

Section 37.131(b) \[of the Department of Transportation (DOT) ADA
regulation\] requires paratransit service providers to plan to meet 100%
of the demand for next-day ride requests. Section 37.131(f) recognizes
that even well-laid plans may misfire on occasion and permits the denial
of an insubstantial number of trips, so long as those denials were not
attributable to the design of the paratransit system. And, as necessary,
paratransit service providers must modify their plans with the goal of
achieving the 100-percent service level.

The court also stated that "the regulations require a provider to
rethink its plan and implement changes whenever a pattern of
noncompliance develops."[^80]

In addressing what it means for a denial to be within or not within the
agency's control, the court quotes a letter brief filed by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of DOT:[^81]

\[A\]n excusable cause \[of operational problems\] must truly be beyond
the control of the transit provider. A transit agency is expected to
anticipate recurrent traffic congestion, seasonal variations in weather,
and the need to maintain vehicles. . . . Indeed, once a seemingly
unforeseen pattern develops, . . . the recurring event becomes
foreseeable, and the transit authority can no longer claim the matter is
beyond its ability to address.

Transit agencies have suggested other reasons that occasional denials
might be truly outside their control, such as a significant power outage
affecting telephone service, a major freeway accident, or an unusual
weather event.

#### Hidden impact of trip denial rates

An important issue that is rarely discussed regarding paratransit trip
denials is the discrepancy between what may seem a small rate of
calculated denials and the significance of its impact on riders. For
example, in the *Transit Access Report* article from March 2004
discussed above, a denial rate of 6 percent was called "strikingly
high." To a casual observer, a 6 percent denial rate may imply that for
every rider, on average, only 6 trip requests per every 100 are denied.
But in fact, a seemingly small rate has a very substantial impact on the
lives of riders. The discrepancy stems from many factors, some of which
are related to how trip denial rates are calculated. These factors
include the following:

-   **Averaging**. Calculating a transit agency's overall trip denial
    rate requires averaging many different subrates in various portions
    of the service. The averaging can significantly soften what are very
    high rates in particular portions. For example, in the RGRTA example
    quoted above, RGRTA provided 95 percent of all requested rides, but
    only about 43 percent of next-day requested rides. Very often, the
    denial rate for next-day rides is far higher than a transit agency's
    average. Yet next-day denials are a crucial measure, because
    next-day service is an ADA mandate.

Similarly, averaging denial rates during peak service hours with nonpeak
service hours may mask a high rate during rush hour. For example, most
riders wishing to go grocery shopping at 1 p.m. may get their wish. But
in calculating an average denial rate, these shoppers' good experiences
will offset the difficulties experienced by many other riders needing,
but failing, to get to work by 9 a.m.

Another key example of the masking effect of averaging is when denials
on subscription service, which tend to be low, are averaged with denials
of people who must call every day for their ride.

-   **Violations of the one-hour window**. The ADA allows providers to
    negotiate a requested pickup time up to one hour either earlier or
    later.[^82] If the only time offered varies more than one hour from
    the time requested, this constitutes a trip denial, in that it is
    outside the confines the ADA allows. But if the rider accepts the
    offered time, many transit providers may not count this as a denial.

-   **Discouraged demand**. Paratransit riders in many cities know from
    experience that if they call the transit agency too close to the
    time of the requested trip, they won't get the ride, and,
    frustrated, they cease to make those calls. In the life of each
    rider, every ride that would have been requested but is not has the
    same impact as an outright denial, but it is not reflected in the
    trip denial calculations.

Discouraged demand can also result from other factors. For example, it
is not uncommon for would-be paratransit riders to experience very long
telephone hold times when trying to request a ride---as much as 10, 20,
30, or more minutes. Usually this problem comes from a shortage in phone
and/or staffing capacity. But according to one ex-staffer, a particular
transit agency instructs its dispatchers to leave callers on hold for
three minutes, even if they are able to answer the calls immediately, to
discourage paratransit demand. Regardless of the reason for the long
hold time, how many would-be riders hang up in frustration? Each time, a
trip is effectively denied, in terms of the impact on the individual.

-   **Contracted and further subcontracted service**. As paratransit
    service is contracted and further subcontracted out, so that the
    actual operations are farther and farther away from the responsible
    transit agency, contractors and subcontractors may have significant
    incentive to report that service is better than it really is. Many
    transit agencies rely on contractors' reports rather than actively
    monitoring the service themselves. Even transit agencies that tend
    to monitor their fixed-route service closely, often do not monitor
    paratransit as closely. Careful monitoring of paratransit is very
    important, particularly when the service is contracted out to
    private providers.

-   **Dispatcher issues**. Across the country, there is significant
    anecdotal experience of retaliation by paratransit staff, some of
    which occurs at the level of the dispatcher. Underpaid dispatchers
    who won't talk to "troublemakers" or are just having a bad day are
    often said to put some callers on very long holds or otherwise fail
    to provide efficient service. These circumstances have the effect of
    increasing denials as experienced by the rider, without affecting
    statistics kept by the transit agency.

These factors help explain why a seemingly small denial rate often
accompanies a situation in which riders are significantly affected by
paratransit trip denials.[^83]

Recommendations:

4.5. Transit agencies should plan to meet 100 percent of the demand for
next-day ADA paratransit ride requests, including modifying plans as
circumstances affecting trip demand or capacity change.

4.6. Transit agencies should consider as a denial any paratransit ride
offer that varies more than one hour from the requested pickup time.

4.7. Transit agencies should actively monitor all aspects of paratransit
service, including scheduling and dispatching, and make use of secret
monitoring, rather than relying on contractor reports.

4.8. When calculating trip denial rates in its paratransit assessments,
FTA should consider transit agency complaint records for complaints
about practices that effectively constitute trip denials, such as when
callers could not get through on the telephone, or when a vehicle
arrival was so late that an appointment was missed.

4.9. Paratransit riders should consider ADA enforcement actions if
next-day paratransit denials occur regularly.

4.10. Riders and advocates should be aware of how the calculation of ADA
paratransit denials and other factors in this section of this report
affect the measurement of denials and their impact on riders.

### On-time performance

One of the most frequent complaints of ADA paratransit riders in many
cities is the chronic lateness of the paratransit vehicle. Lateness is a
significant issue, both for the pickup time and the time the passenger
arrives at his or her destination. It can have a particularly harsh
impact on riders going to scheduled events such as jobs, classes,
medical appointments, and social activities such as movies and sports
events. In addition, for some riders, long waits can pose a safety
threat because of the location of the stop, or can have a medical impact
on an individual because of inclement weather. When lateness of the
pickup is compounded by an excessive ride time to the destination, the
service can become unusable. As one individual with a disability, who
wished to remain anonymous, states,

Many people with disabilities can see when the vehicle arrives, and can,
therefore, stay inside and watch for it. Blind people do not know when
it arrives, and have to stand outside, no matter what the weather,
because the operators refuse to call them when the van arrives and the
drivers aren't permitted to come to the door to get you. They also
refuse to tell you when you can expect to get home. That is, how many
other people are they picking up and dropping off before you? When you
have evening obligations or kids at home, it means you can't use
paratransit.

Occasional late trips are inevitable on any paratransit system, but the
ADA regards substantial numbers of significantly untimely pickups to be
an illegal capacity constraint.[^84] "Untimely" can apply to an overly
early pickup, which may be considerably earlier than a passenger is
ready to go, just as it applies to an overly late one. Sometimes it is
alleged that, to be in compliance, a transit agency must achieve a
particular percentage of its trips within a certain arrival window. But,
according to Russell Thatcher, senior transportation planner at
TranSystems, compliance in this area needs to consider how systems
schedule and dispatch trips, and whether they are engaged in practices
that keep service on time or that contribute to lateness.

#### Factors affecting on-time performance

Many factors, separately or in combination, affect the on-time
performance of paratransit operations and can cause a vehicle to be
late.

##### The one-hour window and the importance of the desired arrival or appointment time 

The transit agency may negotiate pickup times with the individual but
cannot require him or her to schedule a trip more than one hour before
or after his or her desired departure time.[^85] In some cities, transit
agencies have imposed this scheduling window without regard to the
passenger's desired *arrival* time. The result can be just as
problematic if the arrival is significantly early. For example, an
individual may arrive 90 minutes too early for work during harsh winter
weather before the building is open.

FTA has addressed this problem in the context of a compliance review
conducted in Rochester, New York, in November 2002. FTA urged the
transit agency, RGRTA, to take appointment times into account. The
review states,

RGRTA's procedure of applying a full two-hour scheduling window to
requested pickup times and not allowing riders to schedule trips based
on appointment/desired arrival times or departure times from an
appointment appears to make responsive scheduling of trips very
difficult. Scheduling trips in a manner that is unresponsive to
customers' needs could be discouraging some riders from using the
service and could be considered a practice that limits the use of the
service.

Practices that constrain the use of paratransit service are considered
illegal capacity constraints by the ADA.[^86] At a later point, the
review also states,

The "ADA Paratransit Handbook," developed by FTA to provide guidance to
transit systems in designing ADA complementary paratransit services,
indicates that "suggesting a 4 p.m. pickup knowing that the person works
until 5 p.m. would not be in keeping with the concept of comparable
service." Similarly, offering a 9 a.m. pickup if a person requests an 8
a.m. ride to get to work by 9 \[a.m.\] would not be in keeping with the
concept of comparable service.[^87]

A letter from Michael Winter, director of the FTA Office of Civil
Rights, to RGRTA on October 27, 2003, that followed up on this
compliance review, stated, "Just as substantial numbers of untimely
pickups limit the utility and, therefore, availability of service to
people with disabilities, so do a substantial number of untimely
arrivals. For many passenger trips, the timeliness of the drop-off is
more critical to the utility of the service than the timeliness of the
pickup. Such trips are those with an appointment time such as trips to
work, school, medical appointments, recreational events, etc.
Substantial numbers of significantly late arrivals for appointments can
limit the utility of the service to customers and would constitute a
capacity constraint."[^88]

A later FTA assessment makes the point even more strongly by questioning
whether it is consistent with the ADA for a transit agency to offer only
one pickup time, even if it is within one hour of the requested time,
because such an offer is not a negotiation. FTA's New York City Transit
assessment, dated October 22, 2004, points out that, in most cases,
"only one pickup time is generated and offered to callers for each trip
requested." The compliance review concludes that the transit agency's
procedures should "address appropriate negotiation of trip times that
respond to stated rider needs."[^89]

##### The on-time pickup window

Current practice in the paratransit industry defines an on-time pickup
as a vehicle arrival within the on-time window established by the
transit agency. Paratransit providers frequently use 20 to 30 minutes as
their on-time performance window. For example, Southwest Ohio Regional
Transit Authority (SORTA) in Cincinnati and the Indianapolis Public
Transportation Corporation (IPTC) regard a vehicle as on time if it
arrives 15 minutes before or 15 minutes after the scheduled pickup time.
Other variations on the 30-minute arrival window include the Maryland
Transit Administration in Baltimore, where the vehicle must arrive by 30
minutes after the scheduled pickup, and Miami-Dade Transit, where the
vehicle can arrive 10 minutes before or 20 minutes after the scheduled
pickup.[^90]

##### Negotiated time versus scheduled time

Sometimes there is a difference between the negotiated time given to the
rider on the phone and the scheduled time according to the transit
agency, which may have made changes without notice to the rider. The
negotiated time given to the rider is very important and needs to be
protected in the system. The paratransit operator should notify the
rider of any changes to ensure that the transit system is keeping the
driver and the rider mutually informed. And, per the ADA scheduling
window, any changes should not be more than one hour from the rider's
requested time.

Changes sometimes occur without notice to the rider because the
paratransit service is using a computerized system that changes the time
to make the driver's printed schedule conform to certain parameters. For
example, the negotiated time may be 7:15, but the driver is told 7:30.
The individual who expects a 15-minute arrival window goes outside to
wait for the vehicle at 7:15 and, at 7:30, assumes the vehicle isn't
coming. The rider goes inside, the vehicle arrives at 7:35, and the
driver records the rider as a no-show, when, in fact, the rider was
present according to the information he or she was given.

Also, schedulers will sometimes put more trips on the schedule than can
be managed or do not allow as much time for a pickup as is needed.[^91]
Some systems overbook to avoid having denials. Others overbook to
compensate for same-day cancellations. But if the cancellations don't
occur, or if the cancellations occur at a time or place that does not
lend itself to serving the overbooked trips, the system will run
late.[^92] Contracting with a backup provider, such as a taxi company,
to step in and provide these "overbooked" trips can be a particularly
effective way of serving trip requests that cannot be accommodated on
the transit system's dedicated vehicles.

##### Trip length

Another significant factor affecting late arrival times is trip length.
It is not atypical for a paratransit ride to take a full hour (or
sometimes much longer), even when a car or bus ride in the same city is
considerably shorter. In some cities, riders face far longer trips.
Given that a substantial number of trips with excessive lengths is an
illegal capacity constraint under the ADA, how long is too long---what
is an excessive length?

While there is no clear legal guidance to date, one can make a
comparison to the fixed-route system. If a paratransit ride takes
significantly longer than the same ride on the fixed-route bus or
train----including the additional time that would be needed on the
fixed-route system to get to and wait for the bus or train, and to go
from the final bus or train stop to the destination----that may be too
long. For example, if the total fixed-route time is 60 minutes
(including the time on each end of the ride to get to and from the bus
or train stops), a paratransit trip that is 20 or 30 minutes longer
might be considered excessive.[^93]

##### Other operational issues

There are still other operational issues affecting on-time performance.

Many large fixed-route services have spare drivers. But this is often
not the case in paratransit operations. Sometimes, in paratransit
systems, there are adequate spare drivers to cover "schedule outs"
(i.e., vacations and other absences known in advance), but not enough to
cover same-day absences. Or, spares are available to be called in from
home on an as-needed basis, but they are not "scheduled spares" who are
readily available to cover runs on the day of service if scheduled
drivers are unexpectedly absent or do not arrive on time. If some
drivers are absent from work, their trips are "same-day dispatched"
(i.e., added to other drivers' manifests throughout the day by the
dispatcher), a recipe for running late. In this and other ways,
inadequate driver backup can cause lateness.[^94]

Also, if a system pays the paratransit contractor on a per-trip basis
for the number of trips performed, and simultaneously gives scheduling
responsibility to the same contractor, that contractor often will try to
perform more trips than it can provide properly. If a pay-per-trip
contract is used, transit systems need to be extremely thorough in
monitoring service quality, particularly on-time performance and onboard
ride times.

##### Factors outside the transit agency's control

An added complexity is that the causes of late trips can be beyond the
transit provider's control. Unanticipated congestion, poor weather, or
road construction can cause delays in paratransit trips that affect
on-time performance and efficiency.[^95]

When considered together, these factors can add up to an extreme
schedule burden on paratransit passengers. The 2002 FTA review gave this
graphic illustration:

For example, a rider who needs to be at work at 9 a.m. might reasonably
request a pickup time of 8 a.m. for a trip of average or short length.
If RGRTA schedulers applied the full two-hour scheduling window, though,
a pickup time of between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. could be offered. Further,
with a 60-minute maximum ride time policy, it is possible that the rider
could be offered a 9 a.m. pickup, ride for 60 minutes, and not arrive
until 10 a.m. So, to guarantee a 9 a.m. arrival, a rider would have to
request a pickup at 7 a.m. (allowing one hour scheduling flexibility
plus 60 minutes ride time). If 7 a.m. were requested, though, a pickup
time as early as 6 a.m. could then be offered by the RGRTA. In this
example, RGRTA's scheduling procedures could result in the customer
arriving one hour late or two hours early for work, or a medical or
other appointment.[^96]

#### Other operational practices to enhance on-time performance

##### Agreed-upon time should appear on driver's manifest

Transit agencies need to make sure that whatever time the customer
understood as the negotiated, agreed-upon time appears on the driver's
manifest, not some other time that may have been the result of computer
or staff changes. Some transit agency manifests show the agreed-upon
time as well as the arrival window.

##### Consistency of daily tours

For subscription riders, daily tours should be created and assigned to
the same driver each day. Staff should not attempt to squeeze in
additional trips, sending drivers out to unfamiliar areas. Driver input
on scheduling configurations should be taken seriously, in addition to
the guidance provided by software companies or other staff who may wish
to alter daily schedules.

##### Monitoring

Transit agencies need to monitor on-time performance thoroughly, not
only via paper monitoring but actually spot-checking pickup and arrival
times at known destinations. This monitoring must go beyond reliance on
contractor reports. Careful monitoring of paratransit is very important,
particularly when the service is contracted out to private providers.

##### Callouts

Callouts are an interesting feature enabled by some paratransit software
programs and other technologies wherein a rider can elect to receive an
automated phone call when the vehicle is five minutes away or less.
According to Joe King, manager of community services for Access
Services, Inc., in Los Angeles, a great majority of riders take
advantage of this feature.

##### Information technology

A number of relatively new information technologies are assisting some
transit agencies to improve on-time performance (see "Information
Technology," Section 5).

Recommendations:

4.11. Transit agencies providing paratransit should----

-   schedule ride times that are responsive to riders' appointment or
    desired arrival times;

-   protect the negotiated time given to the rider----no changes,
    regardless of how small, should be made without notifying the rider;

-   ensure that, per the ADA scheduling window, any changed or
    renegotiated pickup time is not more than one hour from the rider's
    requested time;

-   ensure that the pickup time understood by the rider as the
    negotiated, agreed-on time, as well as any pickup or arrival window,
    both appear on the driver's manifest;

-   thoroughly monitor paratransit on-time performance and onboard ride
    times through spot-checking pickup and arrival times at known
    destinations. This monitoring needs to go beyond reliance on
    contractor reports;

-   for subscription riders, ensure that daily tours are assigned to the
    same driver each day, to the extent operationally feasible. Staff
    should not squeeze in additional trips, sending drivers out to
    unfamiliar areas. Driver input on scheduling configurations should
    be taken seriously;

-   ensure that paratransit ride times are not significantly longer than
    the ride times on the fixed-route system, including the additional
    time needed for the average rider to go to and from the transit
    stops and wait for the bus or train; and

-   provide adequate driver backup to avoid impacting on-time
    performance.

4.12. Transit agencies providing paratransit should consider contracting
with taxi providers to step in and provide overbooked trips.

4.13. Research should be conducted to identify the service impacts that
could potentially result from the use of extra-board (spare) drivers on
paratransit service. The research should address the financial
feasibility of expanding paratransit driver staff in the context of
operational benefits that would accrue from having more flexibility in
driver assignments.

### Lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints

The ADA prohibits any operational pattern or practice that significantly
limits the availability of service to ADA paratransit-eligible
individuals.[^97] Some of these operational patterns or practices, also
referred to as capacity constraints, are specifically listed in the DOT
regulation, such as substantial numbers of significantly untimely
pickups (see "On-Time Performance," Section 4), substantial numbers of
trip denials or missed trips (see "Trip Denials," Section 4), or
substantial numbers of trips with excessive lengths (see "Trip Length,"
Section 4).

Any other operational practice that significantly limits the
availability of the service would also be considered an illegal capacity
constraint. A typical example is the amount of time an individual must
wait on the telephone to arrange a ride. Because of shortages of staff
or phone capacity in some systems, some would-be riders experience very
long telephone hold times.

An example of long telephone holds was found in the Metro-Dade Transit
Agency in Miami, according to the FTA assessment conducted there in
2001. The assessment found that 19 percent of customers abandoned their
phone calls and that, for one sample day, 98 percent of those who
abandoned calls did so after waiting for more than five minutes. The
assessment concluded that "The long times required to complete a
reservation could be considered an operational pattern or practice that
significantly limits the availability of service to ADA eligible
persons."[^98]

Anecdotal reports from other areas of the country seem to demonstrate
that long telephone holds are a widespread problem. Many riders in a
West Coast city report hold times of 20 to 40 minutes. Riders in an East
Coast city report other problems related to long hold times. Sometimes,
for example, callers cannot get through but hear a telephone network
message that "all circuits are busy," or they are put on hold and
subsequently disconnected.

Other capacity constraints can include unusual policies established by
particular transit agencies. For several years in Los Angeles, for
example, riders were required to reconfirm their return ride by
telephone two hours before the time of the ride. This was very difficult
or impossible for individuals taking final exams, in dialysis, or
otherwise occupied during the period when the transit agency required
this reconfirming call.

Recommendation:

4.14. Transit agencies providing paratransit should reduce lengthy
telephone hold times to a maximum average of two minutes.

### Subscription service 

Most paratransit programs provide subscription service, which allows
users to place a standing order for a trip that occurs between the same
origin and destination at the same time on a recurring basis. This is
convenient both for the rider, who does not need to make repeated phone
calls, and for the agency, which can build schedules around regular
trips. Some transit agencies have wait lists of two years or more,
attesting to the popularity of subscription trips.

Often, these waiting lists are present because the transit agency
misinterprets the ADA's limitation on subscription service. The ADA
regulation forbids subscription service from absorbing more than 50
percent of the number of trips available at a given time of day, unless
there is nonsubscription capacity left over.[^99] This regulation is
often misunderstood to mean an absolute prohibition on transit agencies
offering more than 50 percent of their capacity as subscription service.
But actually, as long as a system is not denying any rides to
nonsubscription riders, the ADA allows subscription service to exceed 50
percent---in fact, it can reach 80 percent, 90 percent, or whatever
amount riders request and the transit agency wishes to provide.

However, some transit agencies are reducing or eliminating subscription
service, because they believe that the increased convenience will boost
demand and consequently drive up costs. Transit agencies are also
concerned that, with this type of service, subscription passengers will
be more likely to forget to cancel trips than if the trips are
individually reserved.

As a result, a small number of agencies do not provide this service at
all or charge a premium fare for subscription service (see "Cutting Back
Service to Minimum ADA Requirements and Other Strategies to Manage
Costs," Section 4). Paratransit operators in Santa Barbara and Marin
County (California) provide very limited subscription service.[^100]
King County in Washington State has an ADA service and a non-ADA
component. ADA paratransit riders can currently access non-ADA services,
such as subscription service, but these services are not guaranteed.

When subscription service is not available, riders with work, school,
and other regular schedules are at a significant disadvantage. They must
start from scratch to arrange a new schedule for every day's ride, which
in some systems is a laborious task that must be carried out during the
work day. Riders of a fixed-route system have no such imposition.

Recommendations:

4.15. FTA should require ADA paratransit to provide subscription service
at no extra charge to passengers.

4.16. FTA should clarify that the ADA allows transit agencies to provide
subscription service that exceeds 50 percent of paratransit capacity at
a given time of day, as long as the system is not denying rides to any
nonsubscription riders.

4.17. Transit agencies should provide subscription service as a
component of ADA paratransit services and should strongly consider
subscription service that exceeds 50 percent of paratransit capacity, as
needed based on demand, while ensuring that no rides are denied to
nonsubscription riders.

### Cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies to manage costs

The tremendous growth in paratransit has been accompanied by equally
dramatic increases in cost. Unlike fixed-route service, which, to a
certain point, can accommodate more riders without a significant cost
increase, paratransit costs grow with every jump in ridership. Once
capacity constraints are removed, paratransit programs frequently
experience another increase in demand, which tends to level off after a
time. Even when demand has stabilized, however, costs for paratransit
continue to grow because of the rising costs of fuel, insurance, and
overall inflation.

In the context of limited federal funding, transit operators have strong
incentives to cut back or eliminate service that is not specifically
required. Discretionary elements that are often considered for
elimination include rider assistance between the vehicle and a doorway,
and service that is more than three-quarters of a mile beyond the areas
where fixed-route service is provided[^101] (see "Service Area," Section
4).

Other strategies transit agencies have used to limit reliance on
paratransit include the following:

-   Removing barriers to fixed-route transit (e.g., adding curb cuts);

-   Making fixed-route service ADA compliant and more attractive (e.g.,
    fare incentive strategies (see "Fare Incentive Programs," Section
    4);

-   Ensuring more accurate eligibility determinations (see
    "Eligibility," Section 4**)**; and

-   Modifying service delivery or operational characteristics (e.g.,
    charging premium fares for special services).[^102]

This last approach, as it is used by King County Metro in Washington
State, is perceived in the transit industry as a model in managing
paratransit costs. The county's transit agency offers two types of
paratransit service: (1) an ADA service that provides the minimum
federal requirements and (2) a non-ADA component that offers a wider
range of services.[^103] While ADA registrants are currently able to
access various features that are considered non-ADA premium service,
such as subscription service, this access to such services is not
necessarily guaranteed in the future. Therefore, no premium service
charges have been levied yet, and the reorganization of services has not
had a significant direct negative impact on King County riders to date,
but could some day. Disability advocates have significant concerns about
the potential impact of this form of reducing service to ADA minimum
requirements, particularly in cities that have fewer alternative
transportation options than the Seattle/King County area.

In other locales where paratransit service has been cut back to ADA
minimums in this manner, many riders have felt the pinch. A particularly
difficult combination of characteristics has arisen in some locations
where paratransit riders who use the service daily face these conditions
simultaneously:

-   Subscription service has been made a premium service, and thus is
    unavailable on regular ADA paratransit, or is in short supply due to
    waiting lists;

-   The transit agency has been changing ride times daily, up to a full
    hour before or after riders' desired time, regardless of their
    needed arrival time and without any real ride time negotiation. For
    example, a rider whose job ends at 5 p.m. and who requests a 5:15
    p.m. ride home may be given a 4:15 p.m. ride home instead, and has
    no choice but to accept it (also see "On-Time Performance," Section
    4); and

-   Riders can only reserve a ride one to three days in advance, forcing
    them to start from scratch in negotiating a new ride time every day
    or nearly so. This is a laborious task that, in combination with the
    above factors, can result in times that vary wildly from day to day.

Riders requesting a more consistent schedule are told that subscription
service is unavailable to them, or that it is available only as a
non-ADA service that costs twice as much as ADA paratransit, which can
already be twice as high as the fixed-route fare.[^104] But these
non-ADA rides are not covered by the ADA's protections, such as
prohibitions against significant numbers of denials, late arrivals,
overly lengthy trips, and so on. This combination of characteristics can
result in riders facing extremely formidable challenges to regular use
of the ADA service. Such conditions are quite different from conditions
on the fixed-route service, although the ADA requires paratransit to be
comparable to the fixed-route service.[^105] Adopting some or all of
these conditions is a current trend in the transit industry, which views
them as part of the "Seattle model," regardless of whether Seattle's
service is actually placing riders under these limitations.

An example of this problem is found in a California transit system,
about which a parent of a paratransit rider states the following:

If a proposal is implemented to make subscription service premium, the
rides it delivers will not be subject to ADA performance criteria such
as on-time service, etc. \[The transit provider\] also asserts that
therefore they won't have to report the performance data on those rides,
either to the community or to the FTA.

A real danger in this trend is that, to obtain any kind of consistency
in their schedules, riders will be forced to sacrifice the civil rights
that the ADA was crafted to provide, such as limitations on lateness,
denials, and ride length, and guarantees of service area and hours of
availability. Another potential danger is that transit agencies could
use this approach to classify violations of these ADA protections as
existing only within their non-ADA service.

Recommendation:

4.18. Despite any cost-cutting measures, transit agencies should provide
schedule consistency for regular ADA paratransit riders by offering
subscription service, establishing scheduling practices that give
genuine consideration to arrival and appointment times (both beginning
and ending times), and allowing reservations to be made well in advance.
All parts of the service should be subject to the ADA's minimum service
criteria.

### No-show policies

The ADA allows transit agencies to suspend, for a reasonable period of
time, the provision of paratransit to people who establish a pattern or
practice of missing scheduled trips, also known as no-shows.[^106] In
doing so, the ADA acknowledges that paratransit users who repeatedly do
not appear for their prearranged rides can have a detrimental effect on
the service's operational and cost efficiencies. Yet people with
disabilities will experience the same kinds of unexpected schedule
changes as everyone else. In addition, some people with disabilities
have variable conditions that change from day to day. For these reasons,
one might reasonably expect that ADA paratransit riders' plans will
sometimes change. The challenge of no-show policies is to balance these
needs.

Examples of no-show policies include the one in Washoe County, Nevada,
where two no-shows in one week or four in a 30-day period result in a
two-week suspension. The Dallas paratransit program imposes penalties
when the customer accumulates a total of three no-shows in a 30-day
period.[^107] Although the ADA allows suspensions, FTA has said that
this stringent a sanction may be an unreasonable limitation of ADA
service. In a letter from Michael Winter, director of the FTA Office of
Civil Rights, to Richard White of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority (WMATA), FTA stated the following:

\[Regarding\] the suspension of service for no-shows/late cancellations,
considering only three no-shows or six cancellations in a 30-day period
to be excessive and an abuse of the service may unreasonably limit
service to ADA-eligible customers....WMATA should reconsider this policy
and should also consider analyzing overall frequency of riders' use of
the service, as well as the number of no-shows, when determining whether
there is a sufficient pattern or practice of no-shows to justify a
suspension.[^108]

Many transit agencies have similar no-show policies that penalize riders
after three no-shows in a 30-day period. Such policies should be
reconsidered in light of FTA's view that this may not constitute a
sufficient showing of pattern or practice.

The same FTA letter addressed another important consideration, which was
first explained in the DOT ADA regulation's guidance: no-show
suspensions may be imposed only when the rider's record involves
intentional, repeated, or regular actions, not isolated, accidental, or
singular incidents.[^109] If a rider travels to and from work five days
a week and misses several trips a month, this is less of a repeated or
regular action than if the rider misses the same number of trips out of
a total travel record of once every week or two. So, frequency of use or
percentage of trips missed should be considered when determining
"pattern or practice." Few transit systems, however, look at what
percentage of trips is missed, although some do. Most policies are
absolutes (e.g., three per month) because they are easier to administer.

For this reason, FTA has adopted the position that trip frequency should
be taken into account in establishing the level for suspension of
paratransit service. One way of doing this would be to base no-shows "on
a percentage of trips taken, rather than a fixed number."[^110]

The ADA precludes transit agencies from including in the no-show tally
trips riders miss for reasons beyond their control.[^111] The ADA also
guarantees that customers may appeal transit operators' no-show
decisions.[^112] Yet riders are not always informed of their rights to
contest particular no-shows and to appeal. Any suspensions that have
taken place without such information being given are violations of the
ADA's due process protections.

Sometimes these rights, which are present on paper, are not present in
fact. According to Naomi Soule, St. Louis paratransit rider and district
supervisor of Rehabilitation Services for the Blind,

No-shows that are beyond the passenger's control still count as
no-shows. It doesn't really matter what the passenger says. They hired a
woman to "handle complaints" and it is clear that she isn't interested
in listening to the consumer. I had a no-show that was out of my
control, and I called her three times and documented the times I called.
She never called back, so I had a friend of mine who is a lawyer call
her, who told her she needed to call me. When she didn't, I called her,
and she claimed that she returns all calls. I was still penalized.
Unfortunately, I know many people who are given no-shows through no
fault of their own.

There are a number of ways to reduce no-shows that do not penalize the
passenger. For example, rewards can play a role. In Las Vegas, the
paratransit system has a Responsible Rider Program that awards free
paratransit rides to users who do not miss a scheduled ride in the first
half of the year. The program complements the agency's penalty policy
for persistent no-shows, and it has reportedly been well received by
customers. The transit agency credits both policies with helping to
reduce the no-show rate from an average of about 850 per month to
approximately 500 per month.[^113] Similarly, the Reno paratransit
program, CitiLift, reduced the combined no-show/cancellation rate from
25 percent in 1999 to less than 18 percent in 2002, through a
combination of sanctions and rewards.

Another strategy for reducing no-shows is coordination. Often, a social
service agency will have several people on the schedule on a
subscription basis. There will be changes in their plans and some people
will go and others will not, but the agency doesn't keep the transit
system apprised of the changes. Transit systems can reduce no-shows
significantly if they work more closely with social service agencies for
which they provide subscription service.

On systems with capacity constraints, a significant portion of no-shows
stem from riders' responses to those constraints. For example, if riders
know that calling the day before a ride will likely result in a ride
denial, they will tend to call earlier and earlier. Some people will
arrange rides they may not end up taking, because they must request a
ride before their plans are confirmed or because their plans change. The
result is an increased number of no-shows.

As one paratransit planner put it, it is advisable to focus on the real
abusers rather than establish a no-show policy that is customer
unfriendly and disrespectful of the average rider. In practice, it isn't
the majority of riders who abuse the system; typically, only a few
people do so, and they are easily identified. Sending threatening
letters to all riders who occasionally have unexpected changes in plans
isn't a customer-friendly or respectful public service.[^114]

#### Late cancellations

Late cancellations are related to no-shows. Some transit agencies have
defined a category of late cancellations that can contribute to a
rider's suspension. Some have even extended the definition of a late
cancellation to be any time after 5 p.m. the previous day, or even
earlier. For example, the St. Louis transit agency states on its Web
site, "If you are unable to keep your reservation for any reason, call
in advance to cancel your ride . . . Call as early as possible, but you
must call at least 24 hours before your scheduled trip or you will be
charged with a late cancellation."[^115]

Yet, an FTA letter of June 2, 2004, to the RGRTA stated,

The regulations permit service suspension only for customer missed trips
and not for late cancellations . . . FTA recognizes late cancellations
that are the "functional equivalent" of a missed trip, or customer
no-show, in service suspension policies. FTA does not consider
cancellations after 5 PM on the day before the service day the
functional equivalent of a trip missed by a customer.[^116]

What would constitute the functional equivalent of a trip missed by a
customer? The Multisystems assessment offered this general guidance:

> Typically a late cancellation is one made less than one or two hours
> before the scheduled trip. And, if this definition is used, some
> provision is made to allow individuals with trips first thing in the
> morning not to be penalized if they are unable to provide the 1--2
> hours notice because cancellation calls are not taken before they are
> scheduled to travel.

It is our opinion that extending the definition of a "late cancellation"
or "no-show" to include trips not cancelled at least 48 hours in advance
(or even the day before) is inconsistent with the regulatory requirement
for next day service. It is inconsistent to have a policy that permits
trips to be placed and changed up to the close of business before the
day of service but also to require cancellations by or before that
time.[^117]

Michael Winter, director of the FTA Office of Civil Rights, in a letter
dated February 26, 2003, which closed out his office's review of the
Washington, D.C., paratransit program, states that it "seems
unreasonable" to require a rider to call at 5 p.m. the day before the
ride to avoid a penalty. Most other systems, he said, give the rider
until two or three hours before the scheduled pickup time to cancel a
reservation before charging the rider with a late cancellation.[^118]

Moreover, some, if not many, transit agencies can efficiently redeploy
vehicles when same-day cancellations come in. An FTA assessment that
addressed New York City Transit and was finalized in October 2004 stated
the following:

Cancellations made several hours in advance of the scheduled pickup time
would still seem to allow the system's dispatchers to use the open
vehicle time to respond to same-day operating issues. Systems, which
operate without "floater" vehicles or with limited "floater" capacity,
often rely on same-day cancellations to be able to operate reliably and
on-time.[^119]

Thus, FTA expectations and industry best practice do not appear to
justify penalizing riders with restrictions on extended late
cancellations.

As with no-shows, a significant portion of late cancellations stem from
capacity constraints in the system. Riders must request rides earlier
than their plans are finalized to ensure that they can secure the ride.
There have been public meetings in which riders have revealed that they
will actually take trips they no longer even want, just to avoid being
charged with a late cancellation. This result serves no one's
interest.[^120] If there are capacity constraints in the system, transit
agencies should resolve them before they implement tough no-show and
cancellation policies.

Recommendations:

4.19. FTA should clearly define----

-   a late cancellation as one made less than one or two hours before
    the scheduled trip, consistent with FTA's assessment letters and
    industry best practice; and

-   an ADA-compliant no-show policy, including the issues addressed in
    this paper.

4.20. Transit agencies should do the following regarding paratransit
no-shows and late cancellations:

-   resolve any capacity constraints before implementation of stringent
    no-show and cancellation policies;

-   focus on the real abusers rather than establish a no-show policy
    that is customer unfriendly and disrespectful of the average rider;

-   reconsider overly strict no-show and late cancellation policies
    based on FTA guidance that, for example, three no-shows in a 30-day
    period may be an unreasonable limitation on ADA service;

-   inform riders of their right to contest whether particular no-shows
    and late cancellations were beyond their control;

-   not count as no-shows or late cancellations those trips missed by
    riders for reasons beyond their control;

-   inform riders of their right to appeal a service suspension
    resulting from alleged violations of no-show and late cancellation
    procedures, and provide a full description of customers' procedural
    rights;

-   ensure that suspensions of riders' eligibility because of no-shows
    considers the frequency of each rider's use of the service or the
    percentage of trips missed, rather than basing suspension on an
    absolute number of no-shows;

-   coordinate very closely with social service agencies for which they
    provide paratransit subscription service. Such coordination can
    significantly reduce no-shows as well as providing other benefits;

-   make some provision to allow individuals with trips first thing in
    the morning not to be penalized if they are unable to provide early
    morning notice because cancellation calls are not taken before the
    time they are scheduled to travel; and

-   consider offering riders non-punitive incentives to reduce no-show
    rates.

### Door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service

The ADA classifies paratransit as an origin-to-destination service,
[^121] but allows transit agencies to establish whether, or in what
circumstances, they will provide door-to-door service, wherein the
driver offers assistance from the rider's door to the vehicle (and
comparable assistance at the destination), or curb-to-curb service,
wherein assistance is not provided until the rider reaches the
vehicle.[^122] In either case, the driver is required to assist riders
to enter and exit the vehicle.

Some people with disabilities need door-to-door service, or they are so
significantly aided by it that it makes a substantial improvement in
service quality. For example, a passenger may have difficulty in
negotiating her way independently to and from the vehicle. Other reasons
for needing door-to-door service have been cited. For example, a blind
individual who wished to remain anonymous states,

Many people with disabilities can see when the vehicle arrives, and can,
therefore, stay inside and watch for it. Blind people do not know when
it arrives, and have to stand outside, no matter what the weather,
because the operators refuse to call them when the van arrives and the
drivers aren't permitted to come to the door to get you.

Other significant problems are created by curb-to-curb policies. Because
a rider may not be able to see the vehicle from inside his or her home,
or may take longer to exit than the waiting vehicle will allow, many
individuals must wait outside for the vehicle. People affected adversely
by extreme temperatures and people with ambulatory disabilities who
cannot or should not stand at the curb for 30 minutes are significantly
impacted.

Despite these issues, many transit agencies establish only curb-to-curb
policies, and there is a prevailing view in the transit industry that
this approach is more cost-effective. There is little or no evidence to
confirm or deny this view, but some stakeholders in the disability
community and in the transit industry, as well, question the assumption
that door-to-door service will cost transit providers more. The
following factors lead some to question this widely held assumption:

-   Some transit agencies argue that they incur greater liability if
    they provide door-to-door service, but all paratransit providers
    have general liability policies that cover the driver beyond the
    vehicle.

-   General effectiveness is not increased if drivers must wait until a
    rider notices that the vehicle has arrived or watch someone struggle
    rather than assist the person.

-   Even under a curb-to-curb policy, many drivers provide door-to-door
    assistance, out of basic decency as well as for practical reasons.

-   Switching from a door-to-door approach, whether it is by policy or a
    de facto reality, to a more stringent curb-to-curb policy, is
    difficult. Some drivers will make the switch and others will not,
    establishing inconsistent expectations by riders. Some riders,
    accustomed to door-to-door assistance, will wait for the driver to
    come to the door, and be considered no-shows even when they were at
    hand. And such a change is difficult to enforce.

For all these reasons, appropriate assistance between the door and the
vehicle should be provided for people who cannot be served effectively
by curb-to-curb service.

Some transit agencies already provide door-to-door service. Russell
Thatcher explains that door-to-door policies sometimes include certain
limitations, based on the transit operator's policy about what drivers
can safely perform. The most common is "door-to-door or up or down one
step or curb." Some systems allow two steps, although rarely more.
Another common approach is door-to-door service with a limit in the
winter if the path of travel is not clear of snow and ice.

If drivers provide door-to-door service, there is general agreement that
the driver should not go into the dwelling or otherwise go out of sight
of the vehicle, or lose effective control over the vehicle, particularly
if there are other riders on board.

Recommendations:

4.21. Transit agencies offering ADA paratransit should provide
appropriate assistance between the door and the vehicle for people who
cannot be served effectively by curb-to-curb service.

4.22. Research should be conducted assessing the relative costs and
merits of paratransit door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service.

### Travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to fixed routes

"My friend told me the scariest thing she ever did," reports Karen
Hoesch, "was travel for the first time on the bus as an adult. She had
anxiety about knowing how to pay, for example. . . . it had nothing to
do with her disability, just lack of experience with the system." Travel
training teaches people with disabilities how to use the fixed-route
transit service, whether they are entirely new to public transit or
experienced with paratransit but not the fixed-route system.

There are several levels of travel training, from the most basic
outreach effort, through which people learn about the types of transit
that are available, to individualized instruction and guidance, through
which trainers help people plan their routes and accompany them on
practice trips. Instruction can also focus on the use of wheelchair
lifts or other access features, landmark identification, street-crossing
safety, emergency procedures, stranger safety awareness, or any
combination of these. The best programs have professionally qualified
trainers who have experience communicating with people with a variety of
disabilities, including cognitive impairments.

Travel training's benefits accrue to both the riders and the transit
agency. Individuals learn to use the transit system independently,
increasing their general mobility and decreasing their dependence on
paratransit programs. In most systems, travelers retain their
paratransit eligibility for all trips except those for which they have
successfully completed travel training. Travel training can help transit
agencies move some of their current paratransit customers to fixed-route
services for certain trips.

These benefits can lead to a decline in overall demand for paratransit
and open up trips for other paratransit customers, helping transit
agencies manage demand and costs.[^123] This is important, given that
the cost of ADA paratransit trips can exceed the cost of fixed-route
trips by a factor of 10[^124] and that reducing some riders' paratransit
dependency can help ensure that paratransit remains available for
individuals who have no other option. Travel training is
cost-effective---research suggests that the cost-to-savings ratio is \$1
cost for every \$3 saved on shifted trips.[^125] Nancy Poultney,
director of eligibility services, reports that King County Metro in
Washington State saved \$241,000 in paratransit costs in 2000 by
shifting existing and potential users of these services, who had
completed travel training, from paratransit to fixed-route systems.

However, inappropriate administration of travel training can cause
problems. David Newburger, based on his experience as a lawyer
representing individuals with disabilities in transit disputes, observed
with dissatisfaction the way some transit agencies use travel training.
When the training is professed to benefit the disability community, yet
its real function, in the eyes of the community, is to take away
paratransit eligibility, he reports that the disability community can
view the travel training approach as "insulting and even outrageous." He
adds that the relationship between the transit agency and the disability
community makes a significant difference in whether people with
disabilities will view such a program in positive terms.

Moreover, it is critical that travel training be coupled with effective
eligibility determinations. Kevin Irvine, senior advocate at Equip for
Equality, the Protection and Advocacy organization in Illinois,
describes a "Catch-22" situation regarding travel training.

> I represented a guy with a cognitive disability who took paratransit
> to and from his job, and has been doing so for nearly 20 years. About
> five years ago they changed the paratransit certification process and
> made it more stringent, and when he went through it, they asked him a
> whole series of questions relating to his cognitive understanding. The
> transit agency declared that he was ineligible for all ADA
> paratransit, even though he had never actually used the bus system, at
> least not by himself. But as soon as he was ineligible, he was no
> longer eligible for travel training.

I assisted him in appealing and he was able to get some temporary
certification. He's going to try travel training and see if it works.
What I'm going to be advocating with him, is \[conditional
eligibility\], that if he does learn to go some places but he doesn't
know how to use the fixed-route bus or rail to go other places, that he
should still be paratransit eligible for those trips. But the point is
that he was basically declared ineligible because of how he answered
questions and not based upon his actual performance trying to use
transit out in the real world.

The reactions of various stakeholders to this compelling story show the
difference in perspective that disability advocates and transit agencies
can have. One national advocate comments, "Someone like this shouldn't
just be dumped on the fixed-route system----it could really destabilize
his life. This effectively excludes many people who can benefit from
travel training because they may have been found inaccurately fully
ineligible in the first place." A professional consultant who works
closely with transit agencies comments, "I almost always hear from
certifiers that they err in favor of the applicant if they're not sure,
though sometimes they may get it wrong."

Before denying paratransit eligibility, it is important for transit and
other agencies to track and support paratransit riders' successful
transition through travel training to fixed-route service, and offer
transition assistance as needed, either directly or through contracted
service with qualified personnel.

#### Fare incentive programs

Fare incentives are used to make the fixed-route service more
financially attractive than paratransit service to passengers. The
incentives are essentially fare reductions that exceed federally
required off-peak half-fare programs. The paratransit provider in Fort
Worth, Texas, has reduced paratransit trip demand by offering an
incentive of free fixed-route trips to travel-trained passengers.
Paratransit demand in Fort Worth decreased by 1.2 percent in 2001---a
percentage that translated to 4,000 fewer trips.[^126] Case studies of
fare incentive programs in Ann Arbor, Austin, Miami, and Tulsa have also
indicated cost savings for the transit operator. For example, Ann Arbor
experienced cost savings of \$207,000 per year and Austin \$1.5 million
per year by shifting paratransit riders to the fixed-route
service.[^127]

Some agencies offer fixed-route fare incentives without tying them to
travel training. The Broward County, Florida, ADA paratransit service
gave selected riders the opportunity to voluntarily give up their
paratransit eligibility in exchange for a lifetime bus pass at no
charge. This program also included a safety net clause that the riders
would be allowed to return to paratransit eligibility should their
mobility needs change or should they become unable to use the
fixed-route system.[^128] It should be noted that, although Broward
County's fixed-route financial incentive may have benefited certain
riders as well as the transit agency, it could pose a problematic choice
for people who can use the fixed-route system only under certain
conditions. This choice would be tantamount to asking them to give up
transportation when they can't use the fixed-route service, to get free
fixed-route rides when conditions exist such that they *can* use it.
People should not be asked to forego their rights to receive a benefit.

When providing discounted or free fixed-route fares to ADA
paratransit-eligible registrants, eligibility screening procedures
should be sufficiently accurate to prevent abuse by individuals who
would otherwise pay the fare on the fixed-route service.[^129] For
example, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, an analysis of the free fixed-route
fare program found that many people who had formerly paid half fare on
the fixed-route system applied for paratransit eligibility to obtain
free fares on fixed route. Moreover, after they became eligible for ADA
paratransit, some of these riders started using paratransit for trips
they might have formerly taken on the fixed-route service.

In addition to thorough eligibility screening, fare incentive programs
can limit the discounted or free fixed-route eligibility to only certain
persons, as in Fort Worth, where free fixed-route service was offered
only to ADA paratransit-eligible persons involved in travel training.

#### Travel training in the context of IDEA

Travel training is generally considered to be a service for adults with
disabilities. Yet another very important audience is older children with
disabilities, who often leave high school with few travel and mobility
skills.

The law that addresses the rights of these students, generally speaking,
is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA requires
an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each covered student. The
IEP process should include a component of age-appropriate individualized
travel training and mobility training.

Recommendations:

4.23. Transit agencies should track and support paratransit riders'
successful transition through travel training to fixed-route service,
and offer transition assistance as needed, before denying paratransit
eligibility.

4.24. When providing discounted or free fixed-route fares to ADA
paratransit-eligible registrants, transit agencies should ensure that
their eligibility screening procedures are sufficiently accurate to
prevent abuse by individuals who would otherwise have paid the fare on
the fixed-route service.

4.25. Transit agencies should offer a competently staffed
travel-training program.

4.26. Schools and Departments of Education should ensure that the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) process under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes age-appropriate,
individualized travel and mobility training.

### Equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers

Almost all transit agencies pay fixed-route bus drivers considerably
more in wages and benefits than paratransit drivers. It is often assumed
that this pay discrepancy reflects greater difficulty in the fixed-route
driver's job. However, the salary differential is not necessarily based
on any objective comparison of the two jobs, but rather, has historic
roots. Paratransit developed from a social services model in which
salaries are lower than those for public transit operators. Arguably,
paratransit driving is the more difficult job, requiring more skills,
such as familiarity with the street network, and more physical stamina.

Eliminating this discrepancy in pay could resolve some of the chronic
difficulties with paratransit. The low driver salaries lead to high
turnover and difficulties in maintaining a stable, skilled force of
drivers. A stable driver workforce is particularly important in
paratransit systems, because veteran drivers are more familiar with the
street network and with the needs of their riders. These factors enhance
on-time performance and service productivity, as well as improve the
ride experience of the passenger.

A few transit agencies have eliminated the pay discrepancy, and have
seen significant service benefits as a result. Tri-Delta Transit in
Antioch, California, made this change in the late 1990s and lowered
paratransit driver turnover by 50 percent. In Wenatchee, Washington,
Link Transit has extensive experience with equalizing driver pay.
Richard DeRock, who became general manager in 2002, describes Link's
positive experience, which dates back to 1995:

> Here at Link, the agency decided in 1995 to bring its paratransit
> operation in house. The Link Board decided that the operators
> \[drivers\] would be fully integrated into the Link operation and that
> full wage parity would be provided.
>
> The paratransit operators that were assumed from the contractor were
> made employees of Link and had to complete the Link training program
> for fixed-route operators. The operators can choose to drive
> exclusively paratransit, exclusively fixed route, or a combination
> based on their seniority. All operators are paid on the same scale.
> Most of the operators regularly choose back and forth between
> paratransit and fixed route. Nearly all operators drive paratransit at
> least two months each year.

The results: Our turnover rate is very low and uniform between
paratransit and fixed route. Our average operator has driven for 10
years, as opposed to most paratransit systems that have turnover around
50 percent per year. This longevity has resulted in very skilled drivers
who rarely get lost, know nearly all of their passengers, and operate at
very high productivity---3.9 ADA passengers per hour. This compares to
an industry average that is around 1.8 passengers per hour. In addition,
by having the drivers operate both paratransit and fixed route, efforts
to move paratransit riders to fixed route have been much more
successful. The passengers seem to be more willing when they know that
the big bus operator is someone who has transported them on paratransit.
I am convinced that driver attitude has a huge impact on the possibility
of moving paratransit riders to fixed route. We believe our parity
actually reduces paratransit demand.

David Koffman points out that several other transit systems in
Washington State have accomplished some of the same operational
practices, especially in the area of operating paratransit with "transit
system" drivers, such as in Bellingham and Tacoma. Bellingham has also
adopted the goal of achieving pay equity. Possibly as a result,
paratransit productivity in the Washington systems is quite high.[^130]

Often, there are other differences between fixed-route and paratransit
drivers. There may be differences, for example, in terms of whether the
operator has conducted criminal background checks and driving safety
checks. These differences may also impact service quality in some
circumstances.

Recommendations:

4.27. Transit agencies should equalize the salaries and benefits of
fixed-route and paratransit drivers. Doing so has been shown to reduce
chronic paratransit problems such as high turnover and difficulties in
maintaining a stable, skilled force of drivers.

4.28. Transit agencies should consider training drivers in service
provision on both service modes, and rotate drivers between fixed-route
and paratransit service.

4.29. Research should be conducted on the impact of the discrepancy in
employee wages and benefits between fixed-route drivers and paratransit
drivers. What is the impact on service quality? What benefits might
accrue if the gap is narrowed?

### Feeder service 

For people who can use the bus or train, but can't get to the bus or
train stop because of a disability, the ADA allows the use of
paratransit as a feeder service to and from the stop. While this results
in significant cost savings to the transit agency, the need to transfer
to a different mode, particularly if that mode runs infrequently, can
make it a difficult option for riders. Not only can feeder service make
a paratransit trip take far longer; there can also be significant
scheduling difficulties with the transfer from fixed route to the feeder
service and vice versa.

Naomi Soule, St. Louis paratransit rider and a district supervisor for
Rehabilitation Services for the Blind, provides an example of the
hardships that can come from feeder service if it is not carefully
applied and coordinated. She describes how a person with a cognitive
disability was let off at a transfer point between zones. The subsequent
van pulled up at another entrance, but the rider was unaware of this. He
was considered a no-show. When advocates complained, they were told that
someone who can't transfer can't use the paratransit service; staff
suggested that the disability community get volunteers to help people
transfer, because transfers are part of the paratransit program. In
analyzing this incident, Russell Thatcher points out that ADA
paratransit is meant to provide transportation to people with
disabilities who cannot navigate the fixed-route system. Therefore, if a
rider can't independently navigate a transfer, the system has the
responsibility either to provide direct origin-to-destination service or
to arrange transfers that meet the individual's abilities, via a direct
vehicle-to-vehicle handoff or a transfer location where there is staff
to assist the rider.

Other cities have had varied experiences with paratransit feeder
service. To encourage people to use the feeder service, Pittsburgh's
ACCESS program did not charge customers for the paratransit trip. Thus,
riders paid only the fixed-route fare. The transit agency also
guaranteed direct paratransit service if a timely connection to the bus
was not made.[^131] Pierce Transit in Tacoma, Washington, also has a
comprehensive feeder service program, in which riders transfer at major
transfer centers throughout the service area. In a sample month in 1996,
the agency recorded 600 feeder trips out of 40,000 paratransit trips.
Survey results indicated that the feeder trips take more than twice as
long as direct paratransit between the same origin and destination at
the same time of day---80 minutes versus 38 minutes.[^132] However,
where transit runs very frequently, feeder service can be an attractive
option. For example, in Vancouver, British Columbia, feeder service is
generally faster than the equivalent trip on direct paratransit service
because of the availability of a light rail system that operates on
three- to five-minute headways.

Paratransit should be used as a feeder service only on long trips;
otherwise, it is less effective because of multiple rides and the need
for transfers. Also, only one fare should be charged, and it should be
the fixed-route fare. The transfer location should have a shelter, a
bench, and a telephone. The fixed routes to be used should have short
headways. The pickup window should be tightly coordinated, so the
paratransit vehicle arrives in time for the rider to catch the
fixed-route vehicle. Special consideration should be given to scheduling
parameters---the times should be anchored, the pickup and arrival
windows should be tight, and there should be manual reviews of schedules
to ensure good coordination.

Recommendations:

4.30. Transit agencies providing paratransit as a feeder service should
ensure that, if a rider can't make a transfer independently, the system
either provides direct origin-to-destination service, or arranges
transfers that meet the individual's abilities, via a direct
vehicle-to-vehicle handoff or a transfer location where there is staff
to assist the rider.

4.31. Transit agencies should use paratransit as a feeder service only
on long trips. One fare, the fixed-route fare, should be charged. The
transfer location should have a shelter, a bench, and a telephone. The
fixed routes to be used should have short headways (15 minutes or less).
The pickup window should be tightly coordinated, so the paratransit
vehicle arrives in time for the rider to catch the fixed-route vehicle.
Special consideration should be given to scheduling parameters---the
times should be anchored, the pickup and arrival windows should be
tight, and there should be manual reviews of schedules to ensure good
coordination.

### Chain trips

Chain trips are multiple trips that riders make during one outing. They
represent significant challenges to both paratransit riders and
paratransit operators. Riders and operators may have differing views
about the length of the wait between trips, because some trips expected
to take "just a minute" end up taking longer, thus impacting schedule
adherence for the provider. Yet from the rider's perspective, although
an errand may take only five minutes, the rider may have to wait a long
time for a second vehicle to be dispatched, because drivers are not
expected to wait for the passenger. Many riders, however, must take such
trips to lead normal lives and, as one rider expresses it, "to
accomplish more than one thing in a day." For example, a parent may need
to drop off one or more children at school while on the way to work, and
this is a task that current paratransit systems may not be structured to
accommodate.

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) handles chain trips by clearly
defining what a paratransit trip is and specifying the time interval
between back-to-back trips. The agency's policy states that one trip is
composed of a single pickup and drop-off. The policy also specifies that
there must be a minimum of 20 minutes between the drop-off of the first
trip and the pickup of the second trip.

One of the policy issues raised by chain trips is whether the rider
should pay two fares if there is a short gap between the two trips. As a
result, some agencies prohibit trip reservations that they consider to
be too close together.

Recommendation:

4.32. The Federal Government should address the needs of people with
disabilities to travel to multiple destinations in one trip, as in the
case of a parent dropping a child off at school and then going to work,
or an adult running multiple errands. The New Freedom Initiative may be
an appropriate way to address this unmet need.

### Low bid versus service quality in contracting

There is a move in paratransit contracting toward considering the
bidder's demonstrated ability to provide a high-quality service, rather
than simply awarding the contract to the lowest bidder. For example, in
the report from Easter Seals Project ACTION's 2003 National Dialogue,
the section on "Best Value Procurement in ADA Paratransit" stated the
following:

The history of procurement procedures has long been focused on the
selection of the lowest bid with little regard for quality of services.
After years of providing ADA paratransit services, it is becoming more
apparent that substituting cost for quality during the procurement
process may ultimately lead to higher costs over time. . . . The Federal
Transit Administration specifically published guidance on and encouraged
the use of "best value" contracting for services such as these.[^133]

In particular, a contracting procedure emphasizing service quality can
be an effective tool for attaining a more stable workforce and reducing
staff turnover. First, procuring paratransit service providers through a
Request for Proposal (RFP) process---rather than a low-bid process---is
important. Second, transit agencies can include language in the RFP that
proposers must detail compensation levels by job type and explain how
they will maintain an adequate and well-trained workforce and minimize
turnover.

Further, RFPs can ask what the proposer's history of turnover has been
in other contracts, and transit agencies can verify this information
when checking references. It can be useful to include such language as
"The likelihood of maintaining a stable, well-trained workforce" as one
of the proposal evaluation factors, and to weight this factor
significantly in the review process.[^134]

Recommendation:

4.33. Transit agencies providing paratransit are encouraged to----

-   use contracting procedures that emphasize service quality;

-   procure paratransit service providers through an RFP process, rather
    than a low-bid process;

-   include language in the RFP that proposers must detail compensation
    levels by job type and explain how they will maintain an adequate
    and well-trained workforce and minimize turnover;

-   ask in RFPs what the proposer's history of turnover has been in
    other contracts, and verify this information when checking
    references; and

-   include such language as "the likelihood of maintaining a stable,
    well-trained workforce" as one of the proposal evaluation factors,
    and weigh that factor significantly in the review process.

### Seniors with disabilities are not necessarily eligible for ADA paratransit

As people age and curtail their driving, many are able to use
traditional fixed-route systems, but they may not have done so in the
past. Others find they cannot use transit because of impairments or
health problems. Among older adults who have stopped driving because of
an impairment or health problem, 55 percent are also limited by that
impairment or health problem in their ability to use transit.[^135] Many
of these individuals would be ADA paratransit eligible. However, because
of stigma associated with disability, some older adults do not apply for
ADA paratransit eligibility, and thus experience a degradation in
mobility and independent living.

Those who do apply are not always accepted. Because an individual's
eligibility for ADA paratransit is determined by functional
ability,[^136] not age, many seniors are found ADA paratransit
ineligible because their functional impairments do not rise to the level
of ADA eligibility requirements.[^137] For example, frailty or a chronic
medical condition could make travel on fixed-route transportation
difficult, but this alone may not qualify an older adult for paratransit
services.[^138] As a result, some older adults fall through the cracks
because they are not ADA eligible and fixed-route service is not a
practical option for them.

According to Ann Guerra, executive director of FREED Independent Living
Center in Grass Valley, California, when the paratransit program in her
area changed its eligibility determination process "from an age basis to
one based on disability, this policy was met by anger in the senior
community, who usually do not perceive their issues as disability
issues."

Despite these barriers to older adult use of ADA paratransit, there is
still a high correlation between age and ADA paratransit use, and high
proportions of older adults in some communities are eligible. A study by
David Koffman et al. suggested that, in some cities with good levels of
paratransit service, there is a solid market penetration by seniors for
those services: Broward County (Florida) figures show that 7.8 percent
of the county population age 65 and older is registered with the
paratransit program. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 9.5 percent of the
65 and older population is registered for ADA paratransit.[^139]

### Serving individuals who need dialysis treatment

Dialysis is a procedure that cleans the blood, essentially functioning
as a substitute for damaged or absent kidneys. As the aging population
experiences increasing rates of hypertension and other health issues,
there is growing demand for dialysis services, which usually take place
twice a week or more. Many people who need dialysis treatment depend on
paratransit.

Individuals who need dialysis and may be debilitated by the treatment
are particularly vulnerable to any problems in paratransit service.
Transit agencies also face challenges serving this constituency,
particularly on the return trip, because of schedule uncertainty and
concern for the passenger's weakened state.

Various communities have addressed challenges in paratransit programs
for dialysis trips in different ways. In the senior and disability
transportation program in Hayward, California, which is not an ADA
paratransit program, more than 80 percent of paratransit trips are used
by people going to dialysis treatment, effectively preventing use of the
service for nonmedical trip purposes. Discussions with social workers at
dialysis clinics in the city of Hayward have pointed to the need for
operational changes, such as a designated dispatcher to handle medical
return trips, as well as increased demand-responsive or taxi services
for people needing dialysis treatment.

In other examples of responses to this issue, local organizations in
Wayne County, New York, teamed up to provide demand-responsive
transportation specifically for dialysis round-trips twice daily, three
times a week. Partners in this collaborative effort include the
transportation system, social services agencies, the Department of Aging
and Youth, and other community-based agencies.

The CTA has a taxi-based subscription service program that is used by 55
percent of the program's participants to attend dialysis appointments.
The program is used only for trips within the city of Chicago, primarily
those that are less than 10 miles, and only for those preapproved by the
transit agency. Approval is given for trips that are taken at least
three times per week. CTA staff review the trip history of the
individuals requesting subscription service to confirm whether they
actually take the trips as requested.[^140]

Recommendation:

4.34. Transit agencies and dialysis clinics should coordinate services
to address the special transportation needs of people who use dialysis
services.

### Serving individuals with dementia

Some people with dementia experience progressive brain dysfunction,
which can result in the restriction of daily activities and lead to the
need for long-term care. For paratransit programs, this decline in
functioning can raise the need for another person to be present at the
rider's destination. When a person is not available to receive such a
rider, practical considerations and liability issues can become a
concern for the paratransit driver and the agency. A person with
dementia may appear to be lucid, and the paratransit driver may perceive
that it is safe to leave the individual alone. Left unattended, however,
the person may wander off or inadvertently pose a danger to him/herself
or others.

Some transit agencies work with social service agencies to develop
protocol for situations involving customers with dementia. The Ann Arbor
Transportation Authority works closely with the family and caregivers of
customers with dementia. These individuals' files are flagged with
special requests and notations for paratransit staff and drivers. Family
members can request that only one person be authorized to schedule
paratransit trips for the person with dementia. Notations can be made
that trips are not to be altered, as a person with dementia may not be
aware of his or her destination and may ask to be dropped off at an
unscheduled location. If needed, drivers escort the person with dementia
to the door at both ends of the trip. The nature of these requests
depends on the progression of the dementia, and each request is handled
on an individual basis.

Recommendation:

4.35. Transit agencies and other local organizations should coordinate
services to address the special transportation needs of people with
dementia.

### Use of taxis in paratransit

Many paratransit programs use taxis as a means of meeting a portion of
their ADA obligations. Taxis' operational benefits are appealing to
operators, as no purchase of vehicles is needed, and program costs can
be controlled by changing the subsidy or adjusting the amount the rider
must pay.[^141] Furthermore, the taxi industry has developed a
sophisticated, automated approach to dispatching.

Paratransit systems have used taxicabs in a number of ways, with many
variations in various cities. One way is to use taxicabs in program
areas where the primary provider is unable to meet demand efficiently.
This can include late-night trips, trips out of the area, overflow
trips, or will-call return trips. New York City provides many of its
paratransit trips using this method.[^142]

Sedan taxis can be used for trips when wheelchair access is not needed.
This often happens when a transit agency works with multiple contractors
and designates one contractor, usually a taxicab company, to operate
only sedans or inaccessible minivans for paratransit purposes.[^143] San
Mateo County, California, uses taxis in this way for supplemental
service.

Another option is to use multiple taxi providers. For example, the CTA
provides a taxi option to eligible paratransit riders as part of its
Taxi Access Program (TAP), which is described in CTA's brochure as
follows:

You can purchase taxi vouchers worth up to \$12 of the metered cab fare
for \$1.50 each. The use of TAP gives you more flexibility in scheduling
nonstop service within the city of Chicago. All Chicago taxicab
companies participate in TAP. It is not necessary to reserve your trip
the day before as required by Special Services. If you require a
lift-equipped cab, call the Chicago Accessible Taxicab Service toll-free
. . . .[^144]

In some situations, taxicabs play a large role in the provision of
paratransit service. Dedicated and nondedicated taxis constitute 50
percent of the paratransit fleet in Harris County (Houston), Texas. The
nondedicated taxis are used to offset peak demand fluctuation. They also
are used to back up the dedicated fleet if a vehicle runs behind
schedule. The paratransit provider has found that this use of taxicabs
has reduced its costs by more than \$5 per trip, compared with dedicated
van services.[^145]

There are also drawbacks to the use of taxis in paratransit. Most taxis
are not wheelchair accessible, so wheelchair users lack the same-day
service benefit the taxi component offers all others (see "Taxi
Service," Section 8). Another concern with paratransit-related taxi
programs in urban areas is the potential for fraud and abuse by drivers
and passengers. One step San Francisco has taken to reduce the
unauthorized selling and transferring of taxi scrip is to install an
automated debit card system. Such a move will eliminate the need for
cash payments and paper handling, and tie payments directly to taxi
meter readings.[^146] Other issues that arise when transit agencies are
considering the use of taxi services include service quality, drug and
alcohol testing requirements, and driver sensitivity training. As ADA
paratransit programs become increasingly costly, transit agencies are
working with cab companies to address these issues, and taxis are
increasingly being used to provide paratransit trips, particularly trips
that pose challenges to traditional ways of providing paratransit, such
as long trips and evening service.

### Case studies

#### Best practices in Broward County, Florida

In the late 1990s, Broward County Transit restructured its paratransit
program to make the service more user-friendly, provide customers with
more options, and improve operating efficiencies. Key elements in the
new program included establishing centralized control by county transit
staff; purchasing a sophisticated new software program for transit staff
and all contractors to administer and monitor paratransit services; and
allowing customers to choose from multiple providers who operated on
equal standards and for the same reimbursement structure. A quality
assurance program included monitoring by mystery riders, frequent visits
to contractor offices, and onboard passenger surveys. Transit staff made
it clear that these steps were used to identify areas that needed
improvement and not to penalize any individual or contractor.

Staff was trained on all of the transit agency's services so that they
were fully knowledgeable about the range of mobility options in Broward
County when answering customers' questions. The agency hired a full-time
travel trainer to train people who showed an interest in and ability to
ride the fixed-route system. Daily wheelchair boardings on the bus
increased by more than 50 percent in 2000. The county's eligibility
determination procedure, considered a model for other agencies, includes
a comprehensive assessment of cognitive and functional skills necessary
for bus travel. Applicants participate in a simulated bus trip that
includes a mock bus with seats, a fare box, a destination board, a bell
to ring for the stop, bus stop signs, and crosswalk signs.[^147]

#### Best practices in New York City, New York

As a result of a legal case that focused on high trip denial rates, New
York City's paratransit system has taken dramatic steps to address
capacity issues. A primary consideration in making these changes is to
increase paratransit service while managing costs. The changes included
increasing the number of carriers from three to eight, enlisting
taxicabs and providers of smaller ambulances to meet overflow needs, and
adding more reservationists and dispatchers to the command center
staff.[^148] As a result of these steps, ridership increased from
735,000 in 1997 to more than 2.5 million in 2003, and denials reportedly
dropped significantly during this period.[^149]

# Section 5: Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements on Public Transit

## Disability Community Involvement

Advocacy by individuals and organizations in the disability community is
a critical element in improving public transit service for people with
disabilities. There is a wide panoply of types of involvement,
everything from giving individual feedback to service providers,
participating on advisory committees, and offering testimony to
submitting complaints, filing lawsuits, and engaging in various types of
protests---advocates have tried all these steps and many others. While
the involvement of people with disabilities doesn't always produce
service improvements, few significant changes come about without some
disability community advocacy.

Michael Muehe, executive director and ADA coordinator of the Cambridge
Commission for Persons with Disabilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
puts it this way:

What's really needed is intensive, ongoing watchdog efforts by people
who are actually users of transportation. For example, several years ago
we started utilizing automated destination messages on buses. The
transit agency started putting messages like "Merry Christmas" and "Go
Red Sox" on the displays. It confused \[some\] people with cognitive
impairments and other disabilities, and the automated call stop system
lost efficacy. Users who noticed the problem got it changed. People with
disabilities need to hold their transit providers' feet to the fire.
Good consumer involvement can really yield benefits.

Marcellus Mayes, vice president of the Metro Disability Coalition in
Louisville, Kentucky, has been active in transportation concerns for the
past 10 years and also sits on the Appeals Board for the Transit
Authority of River City (TARC) in Louisville. He expressed years of
frustration with a variety of problems and says he finally felt the need
to resort to protest.

> I do think our initial protest in June let the transit authority know
> that we were more serious about issues that needed to be addressed.
> The protest has resulted in them listening more to our concerns, and
> I've been invited to some of the mayor's meetings to address them. For
> example, on paratransit, we have long rides of two or three or four
> hours, failure to respond to customer service complaints, and service
> just continues to deteriorate.
>
> The other problematic thing is, on the return from medical runs, it
> can be four, five, or six hours if you have a "will call." A lot of
> people will schedule a ride two or three hours later than their
> appointment is scheduled, just to have an arranged ride, rather than
> take a will-call, because they know if they get a will-call, they're
> going to be left out there to close the building down, and they're
> just at the mercy of the environment. I know a lot of people at
> various doctors' offices and they're just amazed that the service can
> leave people that long, waiting to get a ride home. One paratransit
> client, a blind and deaf person, was left at a doctor's office all
> night long, and no one ever went to get her. That's what we're dealing
> with.
>
> We have an elderly and disabled advisory committee comprised of
> disabled persons on there and ... they've very carefully chosen a
> person who's not going to do very much. But I'd say as a result of our
> protest it made those particular disabled persons come out and see
> that everything's not going right and there are some real issues that
> need to be looked at. I think it even made their complaint process
> within the transit authority be scrutinized, because when, over a
> period of time, you hear the same concerns every month, then it
> becomes apparent after a while that they're not getting addressed.

Lastly, I think what we've done has encouraged a lot of disabled persons
to file transit complaints through the city. They feel like at least
they're on record, and also the mayor has made it known that he's
looking at those complaints himself and following up.

Strong advocacy by the disability community succeeded in persuading the
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), which has been wrestling with a
significant budget deficit, to retract a vigorously opposed doubling of
the ADA paratransit fare from \$1.75 to \$3.50 in December 2004. The
retraction, which will extend beyond July 2005 if the Illinois General
Assembly can find money to stave off CTA service cuts and fare
increases, capped off a campaign involving united action from disability
organizations and extensive participation by people with disabilities in
public hearings, including testimony and chanting throughout a CTA board
meeting. An October 25 letter to the CTA board from a cross-disability
coalition of nine organizations stated the following:

Doubling the fare to \$7 per round-trip . . would have a catastrophic
impact on a community that is already faced with a staggering
unemployment rate, increasing healthcare costs, cuts in Federal rental
assistance, and financial barriers to social and cultural opportunities.
. . We are committed to advocating for long-term financial solutions
that will solidify the Chicago region's public transportation system,
but changes to that system must be equitable and must not squeeze out
the most socially and economically disadvantaged among us. Please
demonstrate your willingness to work on this problem in good faith by
rejecting the proposed paratransit fare increase.[^150]

In New Orleans, Charles Tubre, systems advocate with the Advocacy
Center, described how setting up a working relationship with the
transportation management has

...paid off. Before the new streetcar line went into service we asked,
and were granted, opportunities to ride the system to check out a number
of components before it went public. By doing that we picked up
significant deficiencies in the design. For that reason and other
technical reasons, the start of service was two months delayed while
some barriers were removed from the end of the line, which prevented
wheelchairs from moving off the lift onto the street. We also pointed
out that the system did not have raised truncated domes warning of
hazardous areas. So having that open relationship got us that preview on
two or three occasions; it got the problems corrected and it's met with
great public satisfaction.

Although disability community involvement in improving public
transportation systems is undeniably a good thing, it is also true that
the disability community carries a heavy burden to ensure compliance
with rights laws like the ADA. Advocates are often required to resort to
extreme resourcefulness, extensive organizing efforts, sophisticated
series of advocacy techniques, filing appeals and complaints, and
organizing protests just to have their rights realized and receive
transportation service comparable to that enjoyed by their nondisabled
peers.

As a U.S. civil rights law, the filing of complaints[^151] is what
drives ADA enforcement. Thus, the burden for ensuring ADA compliance is
largely on people with disabilities. A better approach would maintain
the current enforcement methods and add a component of comprehensive
federal monitoring and assessment of transportation systems for ADA
compliance. While such an overall monitoring system does not exist
today, the ADA does include a complaint process, and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) does conduct six to eight ADA assessments of
transit systems annually. These efforts will be explored in the next two
sections.

Recommendation:

5.1. The federal agencies responsible for transportation access
enforcement should expand on the current commendable efforts by FTA in
conducting ADA assessments. All transportation systems covered by the
ADA should be assessed and monitored for compliance.

## ADA Administrative Complaints to the Federal Transit Administration

The ADA offers people with disabilities only two formal avenues of
enforcement of its public transportation provisions: the filing of
administrative complaints[^152] with FTA and the filing of lawsuits. The
filing of complaints against transit agencies for discrimination under
the ADA is therefore a potentially important avenue for people with
disabilities to obtain their transportation rights---assuming FTA
follows through with a strong enforcement role.

In June 2000, the National Council on Disability criticized FTA for
narrow enforcement of complaints, lacking "forceful action against
discriminatory practices."[^153] However, recent evidence shows that in
the past few years, FTA has engaged in a more vigorous and commendable
enforcement effort. Consider the following examples:

-   One FTA decision drew the conclusion that where there is a systemic
    problem with the calling out of bus stops, and therefore a low rate
    of occurrence, an individual with a disability who needs the stops
    to be called out in order to use the bus must be granted paratransit
    eligibility.[^154]

-   In resolving two complaints, FTA told transit agencies that, based
    on the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ's) ADA Title II
    regulation,[^155] "if a paratransit rider wants a certain seating
    location because of a particular disability, the transit agency
    operating the vehicle may have to try to accommodate the request."
    One of the two complaints was from a rider in Orlando, Florida, who
    requested the front seat because of claustrophobia; the other was
    from a rider in Jacksonville, Florida, who complained of significant
    back pain because of a very rough ride in a vehicle in such poor
    repair---with bad shock absorbers----that it caused the rider to
    need pain shots in her spine. FTA directed the transit agency to ask
    other passengers at the front location to change seats and stated,
    "We ask that in the future you apply the Department of Justice
    regulatory requirements in providing public transit."[^156]

-   FTA responded to a complaint against Springs Transit in Colorado
    Springs involving, among other issues, the charge that less than 20
    percent of Springs Transit's bus stops are wheelchair accessible, by
    reviewing the DOJ regulations' requirements for program access and
    the transit agency's power to move stops to more accessible
    locations. Then FTA requested a status update on the current number
    of accessible and inaccessible stops, and an explanation of Springs
    Transit's efforts to make inaccessible stops accessible.[^157]

People with disabilities have effectively used the complaint process. On
several occasions, disabled individuals from a particular city have
submitted multiple complaints to FTA, and in response, FTA has scheduled
a paratransit assessment in that city. Two locations where this occurred
were Memphis[^158] and Baltimore.[^159]

Recommendation:

5.2. Public transit riders with disabilities who believe they have
experienced disability discrimination on a public transportation system
should file complaints with FTA. People with disabilities who wish to
address systemic ADA compliance problems in their local transit system
should consider submitting multiple complaints to FTA and requesting an
FTA compliance review of their transit agency.

## Federal Transit Administration ADA Assessments

In 1998, FTA's Office of Civil Rights began conducting assessments in
cities where FTA had concern about ADA compliance. Approximately six
such assessments, also known as compliance reviews, are conducted per
year. After each assessment, FTA requires quarterly monitoring of the
transit agency's progress in correcting deficiencies. Most of these
assessments are posted on FTA's Web site.[^160]

This commendable program has led to positive results. In a number of
cities where assessments have occurred, people with disabilities report
significant service improvements.

In Salt Lake City, advocate Barbara Toomer reports that, after the
compliance review, "there has been a marked increase in the stop
announcements, destination announcements, and transit points
announcements on the mainline system. Utah Transit Authority says it is
in 85% compliance, and probably this is true."[^161] Julie Shaw,
executive ADA administrator of the Governor's Working Group on the ADA
in Florida, reports that transportation in Palm Beach County "really
turned around due to an FTA assessment."[^162]

The important role played by FTA's assessments is underscored by a legal
controversy occurring in Baltimore over, not only the paratransit
service, but also the assessment document itself. In *Smith v.
Flanagan*,[^163] a court case against Maryland Transit Administration
(MTA) and Maryland Department of Transportation officials, disability
rights advocates who filed the suit are trying to make the FTA
assessment a part of their case. The consultants' report documented
shortcomings in the service, particularly in terms of on-time
performance. But Maryland is fighting the admissibility of the
assessment as evidence in the case. In turn, the U.S. attorney is
defending the assessment's admissibility and contending that Maryland
should be precluded from challenging the trustworthiness of the FTA
assessment because Maryland provided comments and contributed to the
final version of the report.[^164]

Lauren Young, legal director for the Maryland Disability Law Center,
which is representing the riders, remarks,

Disability rights advocates must question why the state of Maryland is
so afraid of the court having access to this assessment, which merely
tells the truth about the performance of MTA.

Michael Winter, director of FTA's Office of Civil Rights, reports that,
beginning in 2005, his office will perform more ADA fixed-route and
paratransit assessments. It is recommended that FTA's assessments cover
both fixed route and paratransit at the same time in each system
studied. Assessments should be holistic, rather than covering one or two
limited aspects of a transit system.

Recommendations:

5.3. FTA should----

-   continue and increase its ADA assessment program, which is
    successful and is to be commended, and

-   ensure that each ADA assessment covers both fixed-route and
    paratransit service.

## Litigation

Filing lawsuits under the ADA (and before the ADA, under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) has been one of the most important tools
used by the disability community across the United States to create
positive change in transportation systems. This is almost always seen as
a last resort by people with disabilities who have exhausted other means
of creating urgently needed changes.

For example, in Atlanta in 2003, a lawsuit against the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) resulted in a broad agreement to
revamp virtually all of MARTA's bus, paratransit, and rail services for
people with disabilities.[^165] Tim Willis, one of the four attorneys
for the Atlanta plaintiffs, described a broad array of problems that had
previously faced blind and visually impaired travelers, wheelchair
users, people with dyslexia and other learning disabilities, and people
with short stature. Describing the hostile environment faced by people
with short stature in particular, Willis explains the poor customer
service these individuals faced:

> Some people with short stature can't climb stairs to get onto a bus,
> and need the lift. But MARTA had this policy that someone cannot stand
> on the lift. \[Despite the ADA regulation to the contrary.[^166]\]
> Drivers would say, "You don't need no lift. Walk up those stairs." The
> individual would have to wait for another bus. Then, on the next bus,
> the lift wouldn't work.

Also, there was a real lack of common courtesy on the part of security
staff on the rail system. If our clients couldn't reach the fare box,
they would call for assistance, but would be scorned or laughed at
instead.

Willis describes the impact of the case:

> Someone who had experience on MARTA in the late 90s, as well as today,
> would find that today they are much more likely to be on a fixed-route
> bus where the stops are called; much more likely not to encounter
> broken lifts on buses. They would be able to access Braille and other
> accessible schedules that were nonexistent before. This was the first
> legal decision to require a public entity to make its Web site
> accessible under the ADA. The decision clearly stated that, if a
> public entity fails to have an accessible Web site, they're violating
> the ADA. There are improvements in paratransit as well.

In New Orleans, Charles Tubre describes how a combination of strategies
by the disability community resulted in real change.

Litigation and ongoing systems advocacy seems to be the formula that's
worked here, with the good fortune of a change in administration, with
leadership that wanted to work with the community to improve transit
services for people with disabilities. So setting up an atmosphere for
an ongoing dialogue has been our formula to achieve, in the last two
years, significant gains in quality of service. It's not 100 percent,
but it's a vast improvement over previous conditions. We've seen
improvements in on-time performance, in that on paratransit, 85 percent
of the rides provided on a monthly basis for one year were on time.
There's greater compliance by the drivers for securement than there has
been in the past. It's still a problem but it's not as great as it once
was. Driver attitude has been vastly improved through some sensitivity
training for the paratransit system.

Recommendation:

5.4. For transit systems that are judged by advocates to be in need of
systemic change to bring about ADA compliance, ongoing systems advocacy,
in combination with a range of enforcement approaches that include
litigation when other advocacy methods fail to bring about real
progress, is recommended as a combined strategy that has proved
successful in some U.S. cities.

### Ballot measures

Ballot measures increasingly are becoming a mechanism to pay for
transportation projects in many areas of the country. Their growing use
reflects a shift in the traditional method of financing transportation
programs from federal funding and legislatively approved user fees, such
as gasoline taxes, to voter-approved tax increases, such as sales taxes,
bonds, and other methods.[^167] Measures approved at the ballot often
include money set aside for paratransit. For example, Sacramento
County's Measure A is a half-cent sales tax passed by voters in 1988.
Two percent of its revenue is directed to paratransit. Passed in 2000,
Measure B in Alameda County (California) allocates 10 percent of the
\$1.4 billion it expects to generate for transportation services to
seniors and people with disabilities.

Recommendation:

5.5. Disability organizations and advocates are encouraged to work with
other community leaders to attain ballot measures to pay for
transportation projects where funding gaps exist.

### Information technology

Advances in information technology have simplified and expedited the
provision of transportation services for people with disabilities. These
advances include a variety of technologies that were not in common use
as recently as a decade ago. However, in many ways, technological
advances have not accomplished the improvements in service quality that
had originally been hoped for. Technology, therefore, should not be seen
as a silver bullet, but as one potential means of enhancing service
quality and users' experience. As always, each system must be used in
combination with operational best practices, and the technologies must
be tested and monitored for effectiveness.

Information technology is used on paratransit in a variety of ways, most
of which have the potential to increase convenience to the rider, such
as improvements in on-time arrivals by vehicles and the ability to
change reservations even when the office is not staffed.
Computer-assisted scheduling and dispatching should also enable office
staff to inform customers about the whereabouts of a vehicle and enable
the paratransit provider to serve more trips within a given hour of
operations. Many medium-to-large paratransit providers use some form of
computer-assisted scheduling and dispatching. In fact, operating a
system that has more than 10 vehicles is often considered quite
challenging without computer-assisted scheduling.[^168]

Other technologies in common use include the automated vehicle locator
(AVL) and mobile data terminals (MDTs). The AVL uses a global
positioning system that allows the agency to monitor the location of its
paratransit vehicles on a real-time basis and to provide historical
location information on trips. AVL technology has the potential to
improve the monitoring of operations and performance, including on-time
performance. Paratransit providers can use this information to make
better schedules and trip routes, thereby reducing late pickup and
drop-off times and otherwise improving the rider's experience.[^169]

MDTs facilitate communications between drivers and the dispatcher.
Drivers can use the terminals to record their arrivals and departures in
real time. This information is then used to calculate new estimated
arrival times for subsequent trips. Late pickups or drop-offs are
flagged to the dispatcher, who can then reassign later trips that might
otherwise have become backed up.[^170] Passengers with appointments for
trips later in the day can be notified about possible delays and can
reschedule their trips. Many MDT models have the capability to expand
their functions, with built-in slots that can receive devices for AVL
programs, smart-card readers, or other technology.[^171]

Like all technology, these systems have proved helpful in many cases,
but are no panacea. A *Transit Access Report* explains how, in
Philadelphia,

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in 2002
scrubbed its plans to rely on mobile data terminals (MDTs) to provide
the data needed for the on-time analysis. Because the MDTs were
installed without any GPS \[global positioning system\] component, the
system relies on operator input to establish the vans' location at any
given time. SEPTA was never able to satisfy the plaintiffs in *Richman
v. SEPTA* \[who had planned to gather case-related data using the MDTs\]
that this input could be trusted.[^172]

Dallas Area Rapid Transit has pursued major technology changes to make
its operations more efficient. Paratransit dispatchers and drivers use
an automated voice system with many versatile features. Communications
are conducted primarily through this system, on which dispatchers can,
in real time, schedule and cancel rides that appear on drivers' onboard
monitors. This reduces the need for radio communications and written
documentation so that drivers can focus on driving the vehicle safely.
Drivers use the automated voice system to communicate to dispatchers,
using a touch screen of canned messages, such as "Call Passenger At
Address," "In the Area," "Manifest Shows Wrong Address," and so on. A
no-show clock records the time of the vehicle's arrival to the five
minutes that the driver is required to wait before the customer is
considered a no-show. This clock has decreased disputes about whether
vehicles waited the required time and whether riders appeared on time.
The automated voice system includes an onboard mapping program,
information about the passenger's disability, and automatic reporting of
trip distances, passenger miles, and travel time.

Recommendation:

5.6. Transit agencies are encouraged to use information technology
systems and devices, as affordable and appropriate, to improve transit
service. They should understand that these systems are not an instant
panacea to resolve problems, and they should take care to educate staff
on the technology's use, test the systems regularly, monitor systems
closely, and make changes as necessary to attain effective results.

#  

# Section 6: Issues for All Modes of Public Transit

## Department of Justice ADA Requirements and Their Relationship to Public Transportation

Many of the requirements for publicly funded transportation are found in
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) ADA regulation,[^173] which
was promulgated under Title II, Subtitle B of the ADA.[^174] This
regulation contains all the transportation-specific requirements for
fixed-route, paratransit, and other forms of publicly funded
transportation, including requirements for purchasing accessible
vehicles, service requirements such as stop announcements and vehicle
maintenance, paratransit eligibility categories, paratransit service
criteria such as the requirements for next-day service and fares, and
the like.

The ADA has other, more general requirements that apply to publicly
funded transportation as well. These are contained in the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA regulation for Title II, Subtitle
A.[^175] These requirements apply, not only to public transit agencies,
but to all public entities, including state and local governments.

Transit agencies are often unaware of their obligations under the DOJ
regulations, because they are familiar only with the
transportation-specific rules in the DOT regulation. However, DOT's
regulations expressly state that recipients of federal funds must also
comply with DOJ's ADA regulations.[^176] These DOJ obligations include
the requirement to make reasonable modifications of policies, practices,
and procedures; to provide program access; and to provide auxiliary aids
and services to remove communication barriers. Because they apply to all
public entities, DOJ obligations also include other requirements that
are not transportation-specific.

One of the most important and far-reaching requirements in the DOJ Title
II regulation is the obligation of public entities to make reasonable
modifications to policies, practices, and procedures when such
modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of
disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the
modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,
program, or activity.[^177] In the transportation context, for example,
this could require the following:

-   If there is a no-eating policy on the subway train, the transit
    agency must allow a modification of the policy in the case of an
    individual with diabetes who needs to eat on a particular schedule.

-   On the bus, if there is a policy that bus drivers may not touch bus
    fare money, the policy must be modified in the case of an individual
    with a disability who is unable to physically deposit the fare into
    the fare box and requests assistance from the driver to help deposit
    the money.

One recent court decision held that the DOJ regulation does not apply to
transit agencies. However, this decision is at odds with other legal
authority discussed below, including DOT's own 504 regulation, another
court decision interpreting the ADA, the views of DOJ as expressed in a
"friend of the court" brief, and the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA's) administrative decisions. Therefore, the strong preponderance of
legal authority is that transit agencies are still required to comply
with the DOJ Title II regulation.

### DOT's 1991 regulation under section 504

The earliest statement that DOJ's regulation under Title II Part A
clearly applies to transit agencies was contained in the updated
regulation promulgated by DOT under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 in September 1991,[^178] at the same time that DOT published
its ADA regulation. This 504 regulation is entitled "Nondiscrimination
On the Basis of Disability In Programs and Activities Receiving Or
Benefiting From Federal Financial Assistance." DOT revised its 504
regulation at the same time it published its ADA regulation because it
saw the need to update the requirements it imposed specifically on
public transit providers that receive DOT funding. This regulation
states----

> Sec. 27.19 Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act
> requirements and FTA policy.[^179]

\(a\) Recipients subject to this part (whether public or private
entities, as defined in 49 CFR part 37) shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101-12213) including the Department's ADA regulations (49 CFR
parts 37 and 38), *the regulations of the* *Department of Justice
implementing titles II* and III of the ADA (28 CFR parts 35 and 36), and
the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
implementing title I of the ADA (29 CFR part 1630). Compliance with the
EEOC title I regulations is required as a condition of compliance with
section 504 for DOT recipients even for organizations which, because
they have fewer than 25 or 15 employees, would not be subject to the
EEOC regulation in its own right. Compliance with all these regulations
is a condition of receiving Federal financial assistance from the
Department of Transportation. Any recipient not in compliance with this
requirement shall be subject to enforcement action under subpart F of
this part. *(emphasis added)*

### The D.C. Circuit statement on the same issue in Burkhart v. WMATA

In 1997, the D.C. Circuit addressed this issue in *Burkhart v.
WMATA*.[^180] The court stated----

> Title II \[of the ADA\] is divided into two parts. Part A generally
> prohibits disability-based discrimination by any public entity. Part B
> provides specific examples of prohibited discriminatory conduct in the
> public transportation context. Of course, public transportation
> providers are also subject to the general nondiscrimination mandate of
> Title II(A). *See id.*
> [at](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12131&FindType=L)
> Sec. 12131 (defining a "public entity" subject to
> [S](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS12132&FindType=L)
> 12132 as including "any commuter authority")\[FN1\].

On appeal, WMATA contends that Part A of Title II does not apply to
public transportation providers subject to Part B. We decline to address
this challenge as it was not properly preserved below.[^181]

The court is saying that, while it does not need to address the issue of
Part A coverage of transit agencies to reach its decision in this case,
it reasoned that public transit providers are, "of course," also covered
by Part A and, therefore, by the DOJ Title II regulation. Such a
statement of the court's view, which is part of the formal court opinion
but not necessary to reach its conclusion, is known as dictum.

The *Burkhart* court cites as one reason for this view the ADA's
definition of "public entity," which includes mention of a type of
transit agency ("any commuter authority"), that is, a transit agency
providing commuter rail service. The full definition of public entity in
the ADA,[^182] which makes the court's point even more strongly, is as
follows:

> The term "public entity" means---
>
> \(A\) any State or local government;
>
> \(B\) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other
> instrumentality of a State or States or local government; *and*

\(C\) *the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter
authority* (as defined in section 103(8) of the Rail Passenger Service
Act). *(emphasis added)*

Thus, the ADA's definition of public entity, to which the DOJ Title II
regulation applies, includes two types of public transit agencies:
Amtrak and commuter rail providers.

### DOJ's amicus brief in Burkhart

DOJ submitted an amicus ("friend of the court") brief to the D.C.
Circuit Court in the *Burkhart* case, arguing, among other points, for
the same legal conclusion: that its own Title II regulation, promulgated
by the U.S. Attorney General, covers public transit agencies, in
addition to the coverage of those agencies by the DOT regulation. The
chief significance of this brief to this issue is that it clearly
established the position of the Executive Branch of the Federal
Government, including both DOJ and DOT, that public transit agencies are
subject to DOJ's regulation.

The brief states the following:

> Title II of the ADA covers public entities. It is divided into two
> parts. Part A generally prohibits any public entity from
> discriminating on the basis of disability. The Attorney General has
> authority to promulgate regulations implementing this general rule.
> Part B outlines the manner in which this general rule of
> nondiscrimination applies in several specific public transportation
> contexts. The Secretary of Transportation has exclusive authority to
> promulgate regulations implementing these specific provisions.

But Part B's transportation-specific provisions are not intended to
address all forms of disability-based discrimination that may occur in
the transportation setting. In particular, they do not address the forms
of discrimination that may occur in any public setting---such as the
outright denial of service or the failure to assure effective
communications with people with disabilities. If Title II(A) and its
implementing regulations did not apply in these circumstances, the ADA's
prohibition against the basic forms of discriminatory exclusion would
not apply in the transportation setting.

Or, as the brief argues compellingly in a later section,

...then the ADA would permit public transportation organizations wholly
to exclude people with disabilities from the use of their services so
long as their vehicles and facilities were physically accessible.

The original section continues,

The text of the ADA makes clear that Congress did not intend that absurd
result. With respect to those forms of discrimination that are not
addressed in Part B, Part A's general rule of nondiscrimination applies,
as do the Attorney General's regulations implementing that rule. As
"public entities," organizations like WMATA remain subject at all times
to these general requirements.

Moreover, two subsequent technical sections of the brief are entitled as
follows:

The Text And Structure of Title II Demonstrate That The Attorney
General's Regulations Apply In The Transportation Context To Issues Not
Addressed By The Transportation-Specific Provisions

and,

Both The Department of Justice And The Department Of Transportation
Regulations Recognize That The Attorney General's Regulations Apply To
Public Entities That Provide Transportation Services

In these sections, the brief explains that the DOJ regulation exempts
public transit services only to the extent that those services "are
covered by Part B." The brief also shows how the Preamble of the DOJ
regulation underscores the point by saying, "matters not covered by Part
B, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, are covered by this rule."
And the brief draws the conclusion that "Department of Justice
regulations apply with full force in the transportation context except
to the extent that they involve matters addressed by title II(B) of the
ADA."

### Federal Transit Administration reliance on DOJ regulation

On a number of occasions, FTA has shown its agreement by basing its
decisions on ADA administrative complaints not only on the DOT
regulation but also on sections of the DOJ Title II regulation. Some of
these FTA decisions are explained in detail in "ADA Administrative
Complaints to the Federal Transit Administration" (Section 5).

### Contrary Fifth Circuit decision in Melton v. DART

On November 19, 2004, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in
New Orleans issued a ruling in *Melton v. DART*[^183] that was contrary
to all the considerations discussed above. The *Melton* case involved
the issue of whether ADA paratransit is required to follow the DOJ
regulation requiring public entities to provide reasonable modifications
of policies, practices, and procedures. The ruling held that the DOJ
regulation does not apply to transit agencies.

The Fifth Circuit based its ruling on two points. First, it looked at a
section of the DOJ regulation:[^184]

To the extent that public transportation services, programs, and
activities of public entities are covered by subtitle B of title II of
the ADA, they are not subject to the requirements of this part.

The court assumes this means there is no coverage for public transit
whatsoever by Title II, Subtitle A. However, DOJ in its *Burkhart*
amicus (discussed above) explained that this section in its regulation
actually means that transit providers are exempt only to the extent that
Subtitle B imposes specific transportation requirements. In DOJ's view,
matters not explicitly covered by Subtitle B, such as reasonable
modifications of policies, practices, and procedures, and the provision
of auxiliary aids and services, are covered by its own rule.

Second, the Fifth Circuit looked at the ADA requirement for transit
agencies to submit an annual paratransit plan for DOT review.[^185] It
concluded that, because paratransit service is a "disability complement"
to fixed-route service, the paratransit plan "is itself the
accommodation to the disabled" and no "extra-plan modification" is
required. The court appeared unaware that DOT has not required annual
paratransit plan updates since 1996.[^186] Further, it is a
misunderstanding of disability accommodation to consider paratransit
plans, which were lengthy annual administrative documents, as disability
accommodations, which are intended by the ADA as individualized
determinations in a particular situation. Transit agencies' paratransit
plans addressed their systemic obligations, but not their obligations to
make individualized modifications to policies and to provide individual
auxiliary aids and services.

### In conclusion, the DOJ regulation applies to transit agencies

Although the *Melton* court found that the DOJ requirement did not apply
to paratransit, this finding is contrary to DOT's own 504 regulation, to
strong dicta by the D.C. Circuit interpreting the ADA and its
regulations in *Burkhart*, and to the views of DOJ (in its *Burkhart*
amicus) and FTA (in its complaint decisions). Therefore, there is a
strong preponderance of authority that Title II, Subtitle B of the ADA,
and the requirements of the DOJ regulation that implements it, apply to
the activities of public transit agencies.

The *Melton* case, despite its erroneous reasoning, now provides the
rule in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana). Transit
agencies in all other circuits are not required to follow *Melton*, but
rather are required to comply with the DOJ regulations, for the reasons
discussed above. If they do not, they may be liable for violating the
ADA.

Recommendations:

6.1. DOT and DOJ should restate clearly that public transit agencies are
subject to Title II, Subtitle A of the ADA and its implementing DOJ
regulation.

6.2. Transit agencies should educate themselves about the requirements
of the ADA Title II regulation of DOJ, and ensure that appropriate staff
are trained on this regulation as well as on DOT's ADA regulation.

## Service Animals

### Discrimination based on service animals

People with disabilities who travel by bus, paratransit, and taxi with
their service animals----particularly individuals with visual
impairments----can experience significant problems, despite their right
under the ADA to travel with a service animal.[^187] For example,
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, "People using service animals have enormous
problems with taxi access. They are passed by, they are treated rudely,
they are faced with a gross lack of understanding." Barbara Toomer and
Charles Tubre both reported problems in Salt Lake City and New Orleans,
respectively, regarding service animals and taxis. Charles Tubre
describes it as follows:

The way it arose, the particular cab driver had religious issues with an
animal being in his cab, and so an appeal was made to the Taxicab Bureau
and it was corrected. There were a number of articles in the paper about
it and so a lot of public pressure brought a quick resolution. There was
a letter of apology to the consumer. The driver stayed on as a driver,
he did not lose his license, but he had to undergo some sensitivity
training and also acculturation about people with disabilities, what
their entitlements are, etc.

But taxis are not the only mode of transportation in which people with
disabilities face discrimination related to service animals. Ruthanne
Shpiner, a transportation advocate in Berkeley, California, describes
the lack of respect with which paratransit drivers treat service
animals:

For example, at the last advisory committee meeting, there was a comment
from a member of the public about a driver tossing a service animal
around like baggage. Also I have heard \[many reports\] about drivers
complaining about having to transport animals, don't like them, are
afraid of them.

### Must one say the magic words?

Transportation providers sometimes have difficulty determining whether
an animal is a pet or a service animal. A new problem may be looming in
how transit providers ascertain whether an animal accompanying a
passenger is a service animal. *Transit Access Report* recently
described language from a new brochure, the "Transit Operator's Pocket
Guide," developed by Easter Seals Project ACTION:

A brochure being distributed to transit agencies provides a new
formulation on the questions that a \[transit provider\] can ask about
animals accompanying persons with disabilities. Under the new
formulation, \[providers\] can ask "if the animal is a pet" (as opposed
to asking if it is a service animal) and "what tasks the animal has been
trained to perform". . . The brochure's guidance stands to become the de
facto protocol for discerning the difference between a service animal
and a pet. . . The brochure includes this guidance: "You may inquire if
the animal is a pet. If the customer responds that the animal is a
service animal, you may ask what tasks the animal has been trained to
perform."

Linda D. Kilb explains how this approach could lead to a denial of the
ADA rights of people with disabilities. While asking whether the animal
is a pet is probably an acceptable way to start the dialogue in the eyes
of DOJ and DOT, it would still constitute an ADA violation if an
individual with a disability was required by the provider to respond
with exact words, such as "service animal," in order to receive
transportation. Most members of the public are not familiar with the
specific provisions of any law, nor conversant with exact legal
terminology. Similarly, persons with a disability should not be expected
to use specific words to be granted their civil rights.

Kilb mentions another part of the ADA, the employment provisions, to
illustrate this point. People with disabilities who need a "reasonable
accommodation" on the job have never been required to use that exact
term as a condition for receiving the accommodation. As long as they
explain that they have a disability and need some change in their work
circumstances, employers are required to consider this to be a request
for reasonable accommodation, regardless of whether the person uses the
"magic words."[^188]

Kilb concludes,

So if, to the question "Is this your pet," an individual with a service
dog responds, for example, "She is my pet and I need to take her
everywhere because I may have a seizure and then I would need her help,"
a provider who denies transportation to this individual merely because
he did not say the words "service animal" has still violated the ADA's
requirements.

The legal term "service animal" applies to any animal individually
trained to help a person with a disability with his or her
disability-related needs. However, the public uses many terms to
describe such animals (for example, guide dog, mobility animal,
assistance animal). To determine whether the provisions of the ADA
apply, transit providers must consider the role of the animal and not
just the term used to describe the animal.

Identification of the role of an animal should be respectful and as
brief as possible. When an animal's role is not evident and transit
providers must verify whether it is a service animal, the transit
provider should initially inform the individual of the existing pet
policy. Then the individual's response should be carefully evaluated to
determine whether the animal is a pet or a service animal necessary for
the person's disability. For example, when a transit provider sees a
passenger holding a small dog that has no visible indicators that it is
a service animal, the transit provider may ask, "Is this dog your pet?"
If the response is not sufficient to determine whether the ADA applies,
transit providers are permitted to ask a person "Do you have a
disability?" to which the person may reply yes or no, and, if necessary,
the provider may ask, "What task does the animal do for you?" Transit
providers are discouraged from asking unnecessary questions of an
individual who has an obvious disability and whose animal by observation
can easily be identified as a service animal.

Recommendations:

6.3. Owners, administrators, and employees of taxi and other
transportation systems should be trained to understand and correctly
implement the provisions of the ADA that pertain to individuals with
disabilities who use service animals.

6.4. Transportation providers should be trained to evaluate whether an
animal is a service animal based on whether the animal performs specific
tasks for an individual who has a disability and not based on whether
the individual with the service animal uses the legal term for a service
animal.

## Barriers to People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities

People with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) have extremely
debilitating reactions to certain chemicals and other substances that
are prevalent in the built environment---substances which, to them, are
toxic. The general public is very poorly informed about this disability.
Like most public indoor environments, transit systems present many
barriers to would-be travelers with MCS.

On September 23, 2004, Susan Molloy, a person with MCS and a nationally
prominent advocate for MCS access, wrote an open letter to Michael
Winter, director of the FTA Office of Civil Rights, and Lex Frieden,
chairperson of the National Council on Disability and the director of
Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU), on the eve of an ILRU
Webcast on public transportation for people with disabilities featuring
both Winter and Frieden. Molloy wrote the following:

> In all . . . trains, highway rest areas, Greyhounds, bus stations, and
> transportation terminals, the restrooms are life-threateningly
> inaccessible to people with asthma, lung disease, multiple chemical
> sensitivities, and those on chemotherapy.
>
> The fragrance emission devices and systems, violently scented soaps
> and the cleaning chemicals are too threatening for us to be able to
> use the restrooms. Even for those of us who don't have immediate
> life-threatening symptoms, our clothes, hair and luggage are
> contaminated by the scents.
>
> I have had to throw away clothes . . . after using so-called public
> restrooms. It's impossible to scrub the chemical perfume off my hands.
>
> I thought maybe using the men's restrooms would expose us to less of
> these chemicals, but the men's urinals all have
> paradichlorobenzene---do you know that is the same as mothballs? This
> means MCS men cannot use their restrooms either. . . .

What's up with calling \[these\] public restrooms "accessible?"

Recommendation:

6.5. DOJ should develop standards and guidance on the access
requirements for people with MCS.

6.6. Transit agencies should address the needs of all disability
categories, including those of people with MCS; this should include
MCS-appropriate access to transit stations and vehicles.

#  

# Section 7: Public Rights-of-Way

Access to the public rights-of-way, a term referring to sidewalks and
streets, is a critical disability transportation element. Public
rights-of-way include components such as crosswalks, curb ramps,
crossing signals, and street parking. Almost every trip involves a
pedestrian component, whether it is walking several blocks on the
sidewalk or simply crossing the street. As Dennis Cannon, senior
transportation/facility accessibility specialist at the U.S. Access
Board, points out, if public rights-of-way are not accessible, then
people with disabilities are unable to connect to other forms of
transportation such as buses or trains. An accessible pedestrian
environment permits people with disabilities, especially those who do
not drive, to remain independent and more involved in the
community.[^189]

Many kinds of barriers are still found in the public rights-of-way. A
telephone pole or other obstacle in the center of the sidewalk can turn
an accessible block into an impassable one for most wheelchair users.
The absence of detectable warnings on curb ramps and accessible
pedestrian signals on traffic lights make negotiating the environment
far more difficult, as well as more dangerous, for many people with
visual impairments. Even seemingly small details such as the slope of a
curb ramp have a huge impact on the mobility of people with
disabilities. HolLynn D'Lil, a Sacramento, California, disability
advocate, states that a curb ramp with a slope 1 to 2 percent steeper
than recommended can have debilitating effects on the arms and shoulders
of wheelchair users.

Barriers in the public rights-of-way that impede the use of fixed-route
public transportation by people with disabilities, particularly the lack
of curb ramps, and inaccessible bus stops, are often especially
problematic for jurisdictional reasons. Usually, these obstacles are
under the authority of the municipality, or sometimes the county or
state, but not the transit agency. Therefore, even when transit agencies
wish to provide better access to bus stops or install curb ramps, they
often lack the authority to do so.

One factor that contributes to the inaccessibility of public
rights-of-way is that they are often built over a long period by many
different people with varying interests and motivations.[^190]
Therefore, long-range concerns are not taken into account, and making
the environment accessible is considered a burden rather than something
that will be universally beneficial.[^191] This piecemeal process also
results in inaccessible gaps in the system, which Dennis Cannon
describes as the biggest problem in public rights-of-way.

Barbara McMillen, disability policy analyst for the Federal Highway
Administration, states that one way to ameliorate this concern would be
to ensure that access issues are included in planning and design
curricula at the university level. HolLynn D'Lil, who was involved in an
ADA case against the city of Sacramento to provide more accessible
public rights-of-way, believes that lawsuits are the only way to ensure
that attention is given to this issue.

A second major issue is that currently there are no federal regulations
defining the standards for an accessible public right-of-way. Barbara
McMillen explains that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requires the public environment to be accessible, but the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines[^192] (ADAAG) do not yet address public
rights-of-way issues. According to McMillen, the absence of an
enforceable regulation has resulted in funds being spent on poor designs
that do not truly meet the needs of people with disabilities. Although
the rulemaking process by the Access Board has been restarted, it will
take time before any regulations regarding public rights-of-way become
enforceable. But important progress was made when the Access Board
released draft guidelines on public rights-of-way on June 17,
2002.[^193]

Given that no enforceable requirements exist today governing public
rights-of-way, best practice documents provide the optimal standards
presently available, according to Dennis Cannon. Two design documents
have been especially useful to planners, engineers, designers, and
decisionmakers. One is *Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access,*
published by the Federal Highway Administration.[^194] The other,
*Building a True Community*,[^195] was the final report issued by the
Access Board's Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee. Both
documents promote maximum accessibility of the pedestrian environment
for all users, including people with disabilities. In addition, the
Access Board's 2002 draft guidelines serve as another best practices
document.

Recommendations:

7.1. The Federal Government should establish enforceable ADA standards
for accessibility in the public rights-of-way as expeditiously as
possible.

7.2. Transit agencies should work with cities, counties, and states
during the planning process to provide input into plans and schedules
for installing accessible bus stops and curb ramps, and removing
barriers in the public rights-of-way that are obstacles to transit
system use.

7.3. Planning and design curricula at the university level should
include accessibility issues in public rights-of-way.

7.4. The public rights-of-way industry, including state and municipal
transportation departments and highway engineers, should follow best
practice documents describing how to make public rights-of-way
accessible to people with disabilities, until enforceable ADA standards
are established.

#  

# Section 8: Private Transportation

## Taxi Service 

### General assessment

Taxicabs are a significant form of transportation used by people with
disabilities. Many disabled individuals who cannot drive, or who cannot
afford their own cars, make extensive use of taxis. Some advantages of
taxi travel, as seen by many people with disabilities, are that taxis
are generally available 24 hours a day, they generally do not need to be
scheduled far in advance, and they closely resemble travel in a private
vehicle. Service is direct, without detours to serve other passengers,
as is often the case with paratransit service.

Yet problems of discrimination in taxi service continue to be reported.
People with disabilities who use service animals, particularly people
with visual impairments, face a variety of problems using taxis, as
described in "Service Animals" (Section 6). And in some cities,
individuals with a variety of disabilities----wheelchair users, users of
crutches, and blind people, among others----are often passed up by
taxicabs. As Andy Humm wrote in New York City's *Gotham Gazette*, "The
first problem is getting the cab to stop. It is a violation for cab
drivers to refuse to stop for a person with disabilities, but some risk
it. I've witnessed cabs speed up after pausing and seeing that the
potential fare was in a wheelchair."[^196]

Although many people with disabilities view travel by taxi positively,
others in the disability community are wary of it. Reasons usually
include one or more quality of service issues, such as rude drivers,
drivers who are not trained to provide service to people with
disabilities, and poor vehicle quality.

### Accessible taxi service

Another significant barrier to taxicab travel for people with
disabilities is the lack of wheelchair access. While some wheelchair
users are able to transfer into a sedan cab and collapse the wheelchair
for stowage in the back seat or trunk, many cannot. For this significant
group, standard sedan taxis are simply not usable.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) does not require
wheelchair-accessible taxi vehicles unless the taxi service uses vans
that were newly purchased by the taxi provider and have a seating
capacity of fewer than eight passengers,[^197] an arrangement that is
unusual but not unheard of. Barbara Toomer, corporate secretary of the
Disabled Rights Action Committee and member of ADAPT, reports that Salt
Lake City's three cab companies (Yellow Cab, Ute Cab, and City Cab) are
providing taxi service in inaccessible vans without offering equivalent
accessible service as the ADA requires. Her organization has brought
suit on this issue. It is also working with the Salt Lake City Council
to amend its taxi ordinance to require accessible vehicles.

In the absence of comprehensive ADA requirements for accessible taxis,
there is a great deal of activity across the country aimed at putting
wheelchair-accessible taxicabs into circulation. In some cases, the
efforts are initiated or helped along by transit agency officials who
recognize the importance of this service and its potential to reduce
reliance on paratransit. In other cases, disability advocates are behind
the efforts. Many different approaches have been attempted. These
efforts are meeting some successes and also encountering a variety of
problems.

#### Portland, Oregon

Park Woodworth, manager of King County Department of Transportation's
Paratransit and Rideshare Program in Seattle, worked on accessible taxis
in both Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, where he formerly
served as director of Accessible Program Development for Tri-Met. In
Portland, where Woodworth was also on the Taxicab Board of Review, the
city passed an ordinance mandating movement toward 20 percent
accessibility of the taxi fleet by requiring all replacement cabs to be
accessible. One company had a large fleet of accessible vehicles and saw
this as an important part of its business; they provided the service
well. The other companies had the requisite number of accessible cabs,
but they were not in operation on the street as required.

Portland also required additional training, and people from the
disability community and the transit agency got involved. There were
discussions about the cost of providing the service and how to provide
incentives. The cab companies contended that it would be difficult to
take money from all drivers' fares in the absence of a good means to
distribute it to drivers of accessible vehicles. A tax that the
government would distribute was considered, but at the suggestion of a
tax, the cab companies said they would deal with the cost. The best
company uses low-floor minivans, accepts the added maintenance these
vehicles need, and drives them for quite a few years.

Regarding Portland's experience, Dr. Sandra Rosenbloom, professor of
planning at the University of Arizona, who has long studied the taxi
industry and particularly its services to people with disabilities,
comments that the use of taxi vouchers by the Portland paratransit
system, ordinarily a good incentive, can mean that the drivers of
accessible taxis focus narrowly on paratransit rides and can be
unavailable to serve the general public.[^198]

#### Seattle, Washington

Park Woodworth assumed his new position in Seattle in 1995 and
immediately began work on the accessible taxi issue. Eventually a city
council ordinance was passed, establishing a goal of 10 percent
accessibility of the taxi fleet. King County has a similar ordinance,
but both ordinances establish voluntary goals rather than mandates.

Seattle's taxi industry has a different structure than
Portland's---advertisements and the color of the cabs are controlled by
dispatch organizations, instead of cab companies, and most drivers
operate independently. Woodworth felt there was little support from
either the taxi industry or the taxi regulators, who seemed primarily
concerned with the needs of the companies, which were, in turn,
concerned about the cost of accessible vehicles. Woodworth explains,

We like low-floor minivans that everyone can use. We undertook a plan to
show that accessible taxis can work economically. The plan included taxi
permits specifically for accessible vehicles, with the incentive of no
yearly fee. The transit agency would provide used vehicles from the
paratransit program. But the City doesn't seem very interested, and we
may not even accomplish the demonstration. It may be possible to use the
initiative process.

#### Boston, Massachusetts

According to Dr. Sandra Rosenbloom, who studied the history of
accessible taxicabs in Boston, the State of Massachusetts allowed only a
limited number of vehicles to provide taxi service in Boston for more
than 60 years. This meant that licenses to operate---called
medallions---gained a substantial market value. A few large companies
with employee drivers dominated the taxi industry for many years.
However, by the end of the 1990s, roughly 40 percent of all Boston
medallions were in the hands of drivers who owned only one medallion.

In 1991, the city required that 10 percent of all vehicles be accessible
(even if the owner had only one taxi), that drivers of accessible
vehicles receive special training, and that all taxis receiving new
medallions have a dispatch radio. As incentives, the city gave away
medallions valued at more than \$40,000 to be used only on accessible
vehicles and reduced the price of medallions for additional accessible
taxis.

Russell Thatcher points out that the 1991 requirements established a
structure that is not ideal, because it requires a percentage of
vehicles in the fleet but doesn't specify use, so the taxis can all be
at the airport and people with disabilities cannot get them in the
neighborhoods. Or the vehicles may simply be parked and not taken out. A
certain percentage should be required to be in service. Operators of
those vehicles, as well as dispatchers, should give priority to riders
with disabilities who need accessible taxis.[^199]

In early 1993, a settlement was reached on a suit filed by disability
groups. The settlement provided for new accessible taxi medallions, a
written survey of ridership, and a reevaluation of the program after 18
months. In June 1993, the city began issuing new medallions designed
specifically for vehicles accessible to people who use wheelchairs.
Although existing medallions had a value somewhere between \$70,000 and
\$90,000, these new medallions were given free to drivers or companies
that intended to put them on accessible vehicles.

In January 1999, the city auctioned off medallions for both inaccessible
taxis and accessible vehicles. The city set reserve prices for the
auction (a level below which no bid would be accepted): \$95,000 for
inaccessible vehicles and \$40,000 for accessible vehicles. Medallions
for accessible vehicles were offered at a lower price to compensate
accessible vehicle owners for the following:

-   The additional expenses associated with their operation, including
    higher initial vehicle costs, probable higher operating costs, and
    lower income per trip, because of the longer time a person using a
    wheelchair takes to board; and

-   The lower demand or market for accessible service.

Surprisingly, the two medallions for accessible vehicles went for
\$80,000 and \$120,000. This was all the more startling because of
reports that existing accessible medallions had been selling for
\$37,000 on the street just the week before.

From 1999 to 2001, the city auctioned off additional medallions, and
those for accessible vehicles were each sold for \$100,000 or more.

Dr. Rosenbloom found that police officials admitted they don't actually
enforce the 10 percent requirement, because some companies are so small
and others have so many accessible vehicles. The Boston taxi industry
would need to operate more than double the amount currently licensed, if
the regulations were enforced. Rosenbloom states,

We spoke to several people who had won medallions; most said the only
reason they bid on the medallions was as a cheap way to get into the
regular taxi industry. It is not clear how many of Boston's accessible
vehicles are actually used to provide accessible services, because there
is no real requirement that they do so, and no oversight of their
behavior.

#### Las Vegas, Nevada

Dr. Rosenbloom highlights Las Vegas as an interesting example, where
one-third of each company's fleet is required to be accessible.
According to Rosenbloom, people in the disability community like Las
Vegas' accessible taxi service---often, if an individual asks his or her
hotel to arrange an accessible taxi, one will arrive in less than five
minutes. The unique element in Las Vegas is that all drivers are
employees---there are no contract drivers----so there aren't the usual
disincentives for drivers to serve people with disabilities.

Some wheelchair users have reported longer waits. Tamara Thorsfeldt, a
wheelchair user from Las Vegas, reports, "I have waited for over two
hours for an accessible cab."

#### Chicago, Illinois

According to Kevin Irvine, senior advocate at Equip for Equality, the
Protection and Advocacy organization in Illinois, Mayor Richard Daley
deserves credit for doing a lot to improve accessibility in Chicago. For
example, Daley supported a city ordinance requiring 1 out of every 15
taxicabs to be accessible. There was a great deal of involvement of the
disability community early in the process. Through the commissioner of
consumer services that oversees taxis, funding was allocated to address
the extra cost of accessible vehicles, so a number of these vehicles
went into service.

A problem developed when disabled riders needed to call each individual
cab company for an accessible taxi. Sometimes it was not easy getting a
company to dispatch an accessible taxi to their homes, so a lot of
people with disabilities would get the personal cell phone numbers of
individual drivers, which sometimes worked. But after the Department of
Consumer Services conducted tests to assess how easily callers could get
an accessible taxi, a solution was devised to have one toll-free number
through which an individual can request an accessible cab from any
Chicago cab company. This seems to be working fairly well, and the cabs
arrive within a reasonable time.

David Fialkoff of Miami-Dade Transit confirms this with his personal
experience.[^200] "We used a ramp taxi when I was \[in Chicago\] in June
\[2004\]. There is a centralized dispatch (an 800 number) for all
accessible taxis no matter what company. The service was great."

Another strong point about Chicago's accessible taxi program is that
this city appears to be the one place in the United States that has
begun real monitoring and enforcement of the accessibility requirements
they adopted.

#### San Francisco, California

Annette Williams, manager of San Francisco Municipal Railway's (Muni's)
Accessible Services Program, explained how the city established a fleet
of 75 accessible taxis. San Francisco has a long waiting list for
medallions, and a second one for ramped taxi medallions. An advantage in
San Francisco is that the same government entity regulates both Muni and
taxis, so it's easier for all modes to be coordinated. The various
interest groups, including the taxi industry, have worked together to
attain both commercial taxi services on the street as well as taxi use
in Muni's ADA paratransit program. Paratransit customers and the general
public have the same access to the ramped taxis, because Muni's
paratransit system is set up with a user-side subsidy. Each person,
whether calling for a commercial accessible taxi or a paratransit
accessible ride, calls the same dispatch service. The paratransit
customer pays with subsidized scrip, and the commercial customer pays
with cash.

#### New York, New York

In New York City, accessible taxi policy is in rapid transition. On
August 26, 2004, New York's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) voted to
modify the rules of its next medallion auction to encourage the purchase
of 27 more medallions specifically designated for wheelchair-accessible
cabs. In anticipation of the move, the *New York Times* stated,

Today, only three of the city's 12,487 yellow cabs are accessible,
meaning that someone in a wheelchair has about one chance in 4,162 of
hailing an accessible minivan. In contrast, other major American cities,
including Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco, have significantly
expanded the availability of the vehicles in recent years.[^201]

Also, according to the *New York Times*, the TLC is finally enforcing a
three-year-old rule requiring that all black car and livery cab
companies (more than 700 in all) either buy their own
wheelchair-accessible van or contract with another company to provide it
on demand. When the city finally began enforcing the rule earlier this
year, less than one-third of the 613 companies inspected were found to
be in compliance. The proportion rose to about 80 percent after the
commission began issuing warnings and then summonses, but most of the
companies are signed up with a single organization, A Ride for All,
which has only four vans to serve the entire city.[^202]

People with disabilities have formed an advocacy group, Taxis for All,
to seek meaningful access to both the yellow cab and livery systems.
Terry Moakley of the United Spinal Association states, "Taxis for All is
not convinced the TLC enforcement has resulted in meaningful livery
service." One possible next step, supported by Taxis for All, is
legislation drafted by the City Council Transportation Committee that
will require yellow cabs, as the older vehicles retire, to be replaced
with new accessible vehicles. Because the TLC requires taxis to be
replaced after three years of use, the legislation would make a full
transition possible in as little as three to four years.[^203] But in
their efforts to establish strong measures to increase accessible taxis,
Taxis for All has been up against "fleet owners and others in the
\[taxi\] industry with high-powered lobbyists."[^204]

Terry Moakley states:

The Council Transportation Chair just last week offered to introduce a
bill that the next batch of 300 medallions to be auctioned off in one
year would be required to be placed only on accessible cabs, if we back
down on full access via cab replacement. We responded that there must be
a schedule in such a bill for a gradual and meaningful conversion to
full access. The situation changes every week.

#### Other locations

Many other locations have made efforts to obtain accessible taxis,
including Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California;
Boulder and Denver, Colorado; Fort Lauderdale and Miami, Florida;
Savannah, Georgia; Indianapolis, Indiana; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Reno,
Nevada; Raleigh, North Carolina; Providence, Rhode Island; Houston,
Texas; and Arlington, Virginia.

#### Issues and concerns

Individual efforts to establish wheelchair-accessible taxi service in
cities across the United States have revealed a number of key issues
that can significantly affect the success of such efforts. Dr. Sandra
Rosenbloom summarizes some of these issues:

> Most cities are considering mandating accessibility, but it's best
> when all stakeholders buy into the plan. Also, rather than only
> mandating vehicle accessibility, I suggest packaging incentives,
> sanctions or regulatory involvement, and enforcement. A series of
> incentives must be structured so that both the driver and the company
> see the advantage of providing accessible service.
>
> For the company, incentives can include vehicle grants or low-cost
> leasing arrangements, when the public sector can obtain vehicles at
> lower cost than the private operator. A form of incentive is to
> promote greater use of accessible taxis in user-side subsidy programs
> and as contractors to the public transit operator for ADA and similar
> services. At the same time, you have to be careful not to use all
> available accessible vehicles in contract services---leave some on the
> street.

The driver must have separate incentives. Communities must recognize
that the driver can lose revenue twice, once in taking the less
lucrative trips of people with disabilities, and the second time when
cashing in a voucher or other form of subsidy. In most cities, the
company charges the driver up to 8% of the face value of the voucher to
cash it.[^205]

Rosenbloom continues,

> The incentives we've seen so far tend to overly favor the company (for
> example, a discounted medallion), while the sanctions---to the extent
> they actually exist and are enforced---are on the individual drivers.
> There needs to be a way for real incentives to go to the drivers, such
> as giving them dollars to defray costs. But whether the incentives go
> to the driver or the company, it is absolutely necessary to regulate
> and oversee their behavior. The City of Chicago found that two drivers
> who had received \$15,000 to make their vehicles accessible had never
> carried any people with disabilities in almost two years.

So it is important to recognize that there are long-term and continuing
costs, beyond the vehicle, costs that are usually borne by the driver.
Thus, in most communities, strategies that provide financial assistance
to the company to offset additional vehicle costs are only part of the
solution. Even if we require taxi companies to offer lower daily leases
to drivers to reflect any vehicle subsidies they receive, it may not be
enough to convince most drivers to actually provide accessible service
with that vehicle. We have to find ways to also offset the costs the
drivers incur each day, while ensuring that if they get a subsidy, they
provide timely and high-quality accessible service.

##### Keeping the vehicles in use and available

Rosenbloom explains the following:

Once the accessible taxis are purchased, there are a number of
challenges to keeping them in use. Sometimes they just sit on the lot.
Often they're the first vehicles taken out of service, and the last ones
put into service. And even if they're in service, they're still not
necessarily providing services to people who need an accessible vehicle.

There can be other obstacles, including the overuse of accessible taxis
as ADA paratransit contract providers. An overview of accessible taxi
efforts quickly reveals the beneficial impact of transit agencies
contracting with the taxis for accessible service. When the local
transit agency commits to, or at least offers, paratransit contracts for
accessible taxi service, operators have an incentive to provide a steady
supply of vehicles and trained drivers. At the same time, however, it is
also clear that too much of this good thing can lead to problems---in
some places, no one else can get the taxis when they need them.
Rosenbloom points out, "In some cities, people with disabilities told me
they need 24 or 48 hours' notice to get a vehicle. When I called
anonymously in several cities, I was told the same thing---if I wanted
to be sure to get an accessible vehicle, I should make prior
arrangements."

To ensure that paratransit contracts don't overwhelm the taxi capacity,
Rosenbloom says, "I don't know a magic balance point. But most operators
claim that no more than 10 to 15 percent of their accessible ridership
is private pay, so even if you double that, you can get an idea of how
much residual capacity they need."

Russell Thatcher suggests the following:

Instead of trying to set an arbitrary percentage of use for contracts
versus private pay, it would be better just to track and monitor denials
of private pay service as well as response times. For example, does it
take two hours to get an accessible cab when the average response for
nonaccessible service is 20 minutes? If public entities responsible for
taxi services track denials and response time, they will know when an
increase in the number or percentage of accessible cabs is needed.

Dr. Rosenbloom explains how other demands for accessible vehicles
sometimes pose additional obstacles to keeping the vehicles available
for use by people with disabilities. For example, many accessible
vehicles in large cities sit at the airport, where they are called to
the front of the line for people traveling in large groups or carrying
golf clubs or other bulky equipment. Because the average wait for a fare
at the airport can exceed two hours, this is a substantial incentive to
drive an accessible vehicle. Regulators in Boston have disciplined
drivers of accessible vehicles several times for refusing calls from
people with disabilities while sitting in line at the airport.

Similarly, in some Florida communities, people with disabilities know
they can't get accessible taxis on the days the cruise ships arrive,
because the taxis sit at the dock to pursue more lucrative business from
large groups traveling together or those with a great deal of luggage.
These taxis occasionally do transport people with disabilities coming
off the cruise ships, but they are waiting there for expensive runs from
the dock to the airport.

These demands vary by community. In Indianapolis, the accessible cabs
serve people with disabilities because there aren't a lot of other
requests for them.

##### Accessibility and nondiscrimination

According to an August 25, 2004, *New York Times* article, there are a
variety of other accessibility and nondiscrimination issues:

> It is a good idea for localities to adopt ADA nondiscrimination
> standards and vehicle design standards into their local ordinances, to
> combat problems for people with service animals, and to deal with
> drivers refusing service to people due to their disability. Moreover,
> it can help ensure that accessible taxis actually meet ADA
> requirements**.** Local regulators, most of whom are not from the
> transit industry, don't have a clue---they accept whatever shows up.
> Many purportedly accessible taxis don't meet ADA standards for door
> and internal width and clearances. If the regulations were locally
> enacted, there is a greater likelihood that local regulators would
> know and enforce the exact vehicle specifications.

Cities might want to be even stricter than the ADA. For example, the ADA
regulations require that a rear door entry have fifty-six inches of
clearance from the top of the ramp or lift to the top of the door.[^206]
Unfortunately, because of the regulation's wording, it is legal to
measure the required fifty-six inch vertical clearance on the diagonal.
But this is a bad practice. Localities could require the measurement to
be made on a 90 degree angle, assuring greater ease of entry for many
wheelchair users.[^207]

Other accessibility issues include poor securement practices in many
accessible taxis.

##### Training

Training is an essential part of a comprehensive program, yet training
sometimes amounts to little or nothing; for example, a one-hour film
during which the drivers are talking rather than watching. It is
important to ensure that every driver is trained. Drivers will admit
they have not been trained because there are no effective sanctions.

According to Rosenbloom, some cities have "great training." Other
cities, however, do not require retraining.

##### Enforcement

Enforcement is a crucial element in an accessible taxi program, and its
absence can be the biggest problem. Rosenbloom explains the overarching
importance of enforcement in this way:

> Usually, the local regulator, the person who enforces taxi
> accessibility regulations, is in a city agency overseeing everything
> from butcher scales to hairdressers, although in a few cities they are
> in the Police Department. Most of these people are extremely busy and
> don't particularly care about accessibility. They worry about drivers
> having insurance and vehicles being safe. Often I think the regulators
> understand the needs of the taxi industry better than the needs of
> people with disabilities, and aren't very sympathetic to demands for
> accessible service. Of course, there are always exceptions to these
> kinds of generalizations. But overall, I don't think we can currently
> expect local taxi regulators to ensure that accessible vehicles are on
> the road at all, let alone providing appropriate service to people
> with disabilities.
>
> Communities have to make an active effort to independently monitor the
> level and quality of accessible taxi service. You need hard data to
> prove to local regulators that discrimination and poor service do
> exist. You need phantom riders, people who call for service and see
> what happens. You need to use people who are visually impaired, or
> appear to be, including people with service animals, and monitor the
> response. You need to record specific dates and times, and vehicle and
> driver license numbers, so the regulators can't deny or ignore the
> problem. The industry won't enforce itself, and the regulators, in
> general, won't do it either. Further, people with disabilities who
> receive bad service often can't or won't complain to the enforcer
> because if they are regular taxi or paratransit users, they fear
> retaliation. And people don't always know when they have been passed
> by, or why the taxi never comes.
>
> It is crucial to understand that just handing out money to companies
> or drivers won't make accessible taxi service happen. We have to
> monitor the amount and kind of service that is delivered. We should
> require drivers to keep logs, and we should check those logs. We have
> to test actual response rates and times.

If we don't monitor and enforce all aspects of the regulations, many
companies will buy inappropriate vehicles and fail to adequately train
drivers. The drivers themselves will bypass people; they will refuse
service animals; they will refuse to leave the airport to respond to
calls. If you do not enforce and monitor the sanctions, drivers will
learn that they can defy the regulations with impunity.

##### Vehicles and costs

According to Russell Thatcher, senior transportation planner at
TranSystems,

The first objection that's always raised by the industry is the cost of
the vehicles. They used to say the vehicles are no good and won't hold
up, but that's died down now. Cost is now the objection, and they're
right. Taxis are usually converted used vehicles costing \$6,000, but
these vehicles can be \$35,000.[^208]

Thatcher continues,

But just like anything else in accessible transportation, you divide up
the extra costs over all customers. Take the number of accessible
vehicles, and the number in the entire fleet. Figure out the overall
costs and the fares, and come to some agreement with the industry that,
say, instead of \$1 per one-eighth mile, it will be \$1.05 per
one-eighth mile.

Regarding vehicle cost, the *New York Times* reported the following:

...the workhorse of the yellow taxicab fleet \[in New York City\] right
now is the Ford Crown Victoria, which costs about \$23,500. Initially,
industry representatives put the price of an accessible minivan at
\$33,000 to \$39,000, but after soliciting bids from several companies,
they conceded that the vehicles could be bought for as little as
\$27,500.

The minivans are also costlier to maintain. In some cities, the
additional costs are addressed via incentives to taxi companies and
drivers.[^209]

Park Woodworth comments,

Lack of appropriate vehicles is a big stumbling block. We use hybrid
diesel electric low-floor buses. Maybe the diesel engine and the
electric motors could be separated in a taxi, and a real low floor
vehicle with good fuel economy could emerge for this use.

Regarding vehicle costs, Rosenbloom states, "Vehicle prices are coming
down. Moreover, increasingly, there's a used van market, from Avis and
Hertz---vehicles that can be converted. It is important to recognize the
need for incentives."[^210]

Recommendations:

8.1. The taxi industry, in cooperation with other stakeholders, should
conduct thorough training for drivers and other staff regarding the
needs of people with disabilities and the requirements of the ADA for
nondiscriminatory service.

8.2. Accessible taxicab programs should include----

-   mandates for accessible cabs;

-   financial incentives for drivers and cab companies, including
    contracts for paratransit service, where appropriate;

-   training for drivers;

-   regulatory requirements, including a requirement to give priority to
    riders who need accessible taxis over other riders, a requirement
    for a percentage of accessible taxis to be in service, and adherence
    to ADA nondiscrimination standards and vehicle design standards;

-   sanctions;

-   monitoring, including tracking of denials and response time, to
    determine when more accessible taxis are needed and to ensure the
    presence of adequate securement devices, including seatbelts; and

-   enforcement.

8.3. Municipal leaders should play a leadership role in inaugurating
accessible taxi programs.

## Greyhound and Other Intercity Bus Service

Intercity bus service provides transportation from city to city and is
used by thousands of people across the United States every year. It is
also one of the few types of transportation available to many small
towns. Intercity bus service virtually always uses over-the-road buses
(OTRBs), a different type of bus than that used in most fixed-route
public transit. OTRBs are high-floor buses with baggage compartments
underneath. Most OTRBs are used in private intercity, tour, and
sometimes charter service. A rare few public transit agencies use OTRBs,
such as the transit agency in Denver, where some routes cover long
distances.

The major intercity bus provider in the United States is Greyhound Lines
Inc., and there are a variety of smaller regional carriers.
Historically, almost none of these companies provided
wheelchair-accessible service until a number of years after accessible
buses came into use in many cities' public transit systems. Greyhound,
in particular, was a target for demonstrations and civil disobedience in
the 1980s by ADAPT, a national grassroots disability rights
organization, for its failure to offer accessible service.

Companies that provided OTRB service and their trade association, the
American Bus Association, were effective during congressional
deliberation on the ADA in gaining a delay of several years[^211] before
accessible buses were required, while the technical feasibility of
accessible OTRBs was studied. The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) did not issue a final regulation requiring OTRB access until 1998.

In general, this regulation requires companies like Greyhound to provide
accessible service if requested at least 48 hours in advance. Any newly
purchased buses must be accessible. The companies must achieve
accessibility in at least half their fleets by 2006, and in the full
fleets by 2012, with a possible extension by the Secretary of
Transportation. When the fleets are 100 percent accessible, the 48-hour
advance notice will no longer be needed, and may not be required.[^212]

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a settlement
agreement with Greyhound, resulting from complaints regarding passenger
assistance, the accessibility of Greyhound vehicles, and other issues.
Under this agreement, Greyhound provided lift-equipped buses on 48
hours' notice two years before the DOT regulation required it to do so.
As a result of the settlement, Greyhound also developed and provided
training, employee discipline procedures, a customer complaint
resolution system, and other changes to improve accessibility.[^213]

Janna Willardson, general manager of Telephone Information Centers for
Greyhound Lines Inc., stated in October 2004 on behalf of the company
that it provides accessible bus service at a success rate of 99 percent
when passengers make advance notice requests . People with disabilities
appear to agree that Greyhound provides accessible service regularly.
Stephanie Thomas, a national leader of ADAPT and a veteran of ADAPT's
long effort to press Greyhound for lift-equipped service, wrote in
August 2002 that "People are getting good service on Greyhound if they
call 48 hours in advance. I haven't heard many complaints and none that
were too bad. I think we'd hear if they were more widespread or terribly
bad."[^214]

According to Maureen McCloskey, director of advocacy for Paralyzed
Veterans of America, Greyhound has also conducted thorough and
high-quality training of staff.

There are still problems with some smaller intercity carriers.
Greyhound's October 2004 statement discussed what Greyhound views as a
problem in a portion of the industry:

Greyhound has cooperated with the regional carriers to provide fully
integrated accessible service. We believe that these traditional
carriers are making strong good-faith efforts to serve disabled
passengers and fully comply with the ADA. However, a new group of
discount, curbside intercity bus operators has emerged, primarily in the
Northeast corridor. We believe that many of these carriers make no
effort to comply with either the vehicle acquisition or service
requirements of the ADA. These new operators appear to be either totally
ignorant of the ADA requirements, or willfully ignoring them.

Barbara Toomer of the Disabled Rights Action Committee in Salt Lake City
expresses another difficulty with some intercity bus carriers. Three
Salt Lake City bus companies run OTRBs to gambling facilities in
Wendover, Nevada. Toomer states, "They do not carry people in
wheelchairs if they are power chairs, and if you have a manual chair,
they will lift you up into the bus and throw your manual chair on."
These procedures are not consistent with the requirements of the ADA.

Recommendations:

8.4. DOJ, as well as disability advocates, should make efforts to obtain
ADA compliance by all sectors of the intercity bus industry, including
discount curbside carriers that may not be in ADA compliance.

8.5. All transportation providers should offer thorough training
programs to staff at all levels, consistent with industry best
practices.

## Airport Shuttles and Other Airport-related Services

Airport shuttle services, hotel shuttles, airport rental car company
shuttles to their car lots, and airport parking shuttles are all crucial
transportation links needed by many air travelers. Some providers of
these services properly accommodate people with disabilities, but on the
whole, many travelers with disabilities have had difficulties finding
usable airport services. John Gaffney, a wheelchair user who has worked
as a transit manager and has traveled widely as a consultant for transit
agencies, notes the following:

Some of my greater horror stories are from airport transit. The industry
seems to have ignored all of its responsibilities. The New Orleans
airport is the only place I can think of that does a pretty good job. I
can't think of very many trainings or enforcement efforts that have gone
on in this area, either. And \[given the lack of\] accessible taxis,
there is often no alternative.

In April 2002, DOJ signed a settlement agreement with SuperShuttle
International to ensure that the nation's largest door-to-door airport
shuttle company provides the same level of service to wheelchair users
as it provides to the general public. The company agreed to have two
accessible vehicles at each of its 11 corporate locations nationwide
within one year, as well as standing subcontracts with accessible
transportation providers to meet overflow demand. These locations
include Phoenix, Arizona; Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and
Orange County, California; Denver, Colorado; Tampa Bay, Florida;
Baltimore, Maryland; New York, New York; Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; and
Washington, D.C.[^215] The agreement also required SuperShuttle to
display its disability nondiscrimination policy statement, mention its
accessible service on its prerecorded telephone message, and include it
in all its advertisements.

Jonas Schwartz with Advocacy, Incorporated in Austin, Texas, has
personally benefited from the resulting service.

SuperShuttle---I've had the best luck with them. They are
excellent---always on time and very courteous and accommodating. I like
to fly into Baltimore when going to D.C., and SuperShuttle is the only
easy, accessible option. Trains are hard to deal with when carrying lots
of luggage.

But just like on the city bus, it's one thing to have accessible airport
transportation and another thing to keep it maintained. David Newburger,
a lawyer in private practice in St. Louis and a person with a
disability, shares both his negative and positive experiences with this
class of transit providers:

> My experience with airport shuttles and also hotel shuttles at
> airports is that they are very underutilized, and what I often have
> had is people blowing fuses on them and they've got the lift halfway
> down and the fuse blown and they don't know how to deal with it, and
> they're untrained.

On the other hand, Hertz has been wonderful these days and some
airports, like Denver, have got good accessible shuttle systems going to
their rental car locations. I think they've done that pretty much
nationwide.

Another important link at airports is the parking lot shuttle system. In
September 2004, the California attorney general's office announced a
settlement agreement with the County of Sacramento to resolve problems
with the Sacramento International Airport's parking shuttle service,
which denied full access to individuals with disabilities. Problems
alleged in the agreement included broken lifts, drivers who didn't
understand how to operate the lifts, drivers who would allow the bus to
fill without boarding passengers with disabilities, drivers who would
simply avoid passengers with disabilities, and lifts that were slow,
cumbersome, and subjected passengers to humiliation.

The California Department of Justice press release about the case stated
the following:

The Attorney General's Office discovered that although buses with broken
lifts were identified, those buses continued to be used---sometimes for
months---before the lifts were repaired. . . . the problem had reached
such proportions that . . . in June 2003, up to 30 buses out of a fleet
of 40 had broken lifts.

The solutions include maintenance and repair, procedures for handling
lift problems and passenger complaints, better training and stronger
discipline of drivers, a system of audits, and a plan to completely
transition by 2012 to low-floor buses with ramps.[^216]

Recommendations:

8.6. Airport-related transportation providers (including private
providers of airport shuttle service, hotel shuttle service, and rental
car company shuttle service to rental car lots) should provide access to
people with disabilities per the requirements of the ADA and industry
best practices.

8.7. Airports should ensure that airport-provided ground transportation,
such as airport parking shuttles, provide access to people with
disabilities per the requirements of the ADA.

8.8. DOJ should conduct additional enforcement efforts to ensure
compliance by private providers of transportation to airports.

## Social Services Transportation and Coordination

Before the passage of the ADA, social service agencies provided a
significant proportion of non-fixed-route transportation services
available to people with disabilities in the United States. While
transportation was not necessarily earmarked as a separate funding
stream in the budgets of many agencies, for agencies to bring clients in
for services, they often had little choice but to become involved in the
"transportation business." Because transportation was not viewed as a
primary goal in the mission of social service agencies, many were very
willing to shift this responsibility to the federally mandated ADA
paratransit programs, which to some extent met the transportation needs
of agency clients.

While some transit agencies entered into cost-sharing arrangements with
social service agencies after the passage of the ADA, many were unable
to recoup the cost of providing this service, apart from the fare
charged to all riders. As a result of the integration of social service
transportation with ADA paratransit services, there have been
significant impacts, both positive and negative, on riders affiliated
with social service agencies. On the positive side, riders generally
enjoy a higher quality of service in terms of vehicle condition and
driver training. Riders who in the past paid little or no fare sometimes
are required to pay a fare, and they may not enjoy the same level of
intimacy with the drivers or other riders as they did previously. For
transit agencies, there have been real cost impacts, as they have had to
absorb some of the costs formerly borne by other programs.

The need for coordination between ADA paratransit and social service
transportation programs, as well as among the social service
transportation programs themselves, has increasingly become a focus of
attention. In February 2004, the White House issued a Presidential
Executive Order (EO) on Human Service Transportation Coordination. The
EO calls for action by DOT; the Departments of Health and Human
Services, Labor, and Education; and other federal agencies to enhance
access to transportation for people who are transit-dependent. The
principle behind the EO is that there are too many federally funded
transportation services with complex restrictions and regulations, and
that multiple federal agencies need to work together to ensure that
transportation services are seamless, comprehensive, and
accessible.[^217]

Currently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
provides the bulk of these transportation programs and services. HHS
provides more than 300 health and social service programs to Americans,
the majority of which require the individuals to physically present
themselves to receive the service. Accordingly, transportation is
essential to receiving these services, and HHS offers 23 different
transportation programs. Examples of coordinating efforts include the
DOT and HHS jointly updating Medicaid transit-pass brochures and
providing guidance on transportation brokerage for Medicaid trips.[^218]

FTA is currently leading the five-part United We Ride initiative, which
will address the ongoing transportation coordination needs in states and
communities. The initiative is geared toward providing transportation
services for older adults, people with disabilities, people with lower
incomes, and people who do not have access to private transportation.
The United We Ride initiative is intended to break down the barriers
among existing transportation programs and set the stage for local
partnerships to generate additional solutions and improve the quality of
services. Local efforts to achieve these objectives have already been
initiated in many states, including Minnesota, Colorado, North Carolina,
and Montana.

In 2004, the Montana Council on Developmental Disabilities and the
Western Transportation Institute released a handbook to help public and
human services programs coordinate transportation programs for people
with limited transportation options due to disability, age, or income.
The *Montana Coordinated Transportation Handbook* consists of a
step-by-step guide to develop a transportation coordination program,
including the planning, implementation, and evaluation stages. While the
handbook focuses on Montana, its contents may be applicable to other
suburban and rural areas.[^219]

A successful example of coordinated services can also be found in Eau
Claire County, Wisconsin, according to Tim Sheehan, executive director
of the Center for Independent Living for Western Wisconsin. The
transportation section of the county's human services department
coordinates and combines its services with local transit operators. The
result is coordinated transit services available countywide, including
demand-responsive service regardless of where a person lives. There has
been increased use of the service by all users and increased
satisfaction with the service by people with disabilities, including
those who live in rural areas.

Jon Burkhardt of WESTAT conducted a study of eight coordinated
transportation programs around the country. The results showed that
benefits realized by these programs include lowered trip costs for
passengers and for human services agencies, extended service hours,
increased services to new areas and to more people, greater emphasis on
safety and customer service, and flexible payment and service
options.[^220]

Recommendations:

8.9. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as social services
organizations, should continue aggressive coordination efforts to ensure
that all available transportation resources can be used as fully as
possible by all transportation-disadvantaged constituencies, including
people with disabilities.

8.10. States and the Federal Government should provide funding resources
to assist in coordination efforts.

## Tour and Charter Service

Companies that use OTRBs in demand-responsive systems, such as many tour
and charter bus services, are also covered by the requirements in DOT's
1998 regulation covering private companies that offer transportation
service using OTRBs. Many of these companies have taken advantage of
funding for accessibility equipment provided through DOT specifically
for privately operated OTRB service providers. As in most modes of
transportation, much has been accomplished, yet many problems remain.

Advocates in Alaska point to a real success story. Royal Celebrity Tours
was started in 2001 and, according to Maggie Kelly, manager of Alaska
Operations, obtained accessible OTRBs "because we thought it was the
right thing to do. We tie the coach line into \[our other services\],
and Royal Caribbean Cruises has always been concerned about
accessibility." The company's fleet is about 40 percent accessible, and
many customers use the lift feature. The company is conscientious about
ensuring that staff complete mechanical training for lift equipment use
and mandatory sensitivity training "beginning each season for all staff
with direct contact with customers."

Mona McAleese, an Alaska ADA advisor and person with a disability,
declares enthusiastically, "Royal Celebrity Tours is an *awesome*
company to deal with. They have had \[disability community advocates\]
address the whole tour company for three years now. They do have
accessible buses, and the drivers get trained on etiquette, performance,
and the ADA."

Recommendation:

8.11. Private providers of tour and charter services should provide
accessibility and nondiscriminatory service to people with disabilities
per the requirements of the ADA, consistent with industry best
practices.

# Section 9: Flex Service and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service

"Flex" services are a hybrid version of fixed-route and
demand-responsive services, and incorporate a variety of different
service models, including those that deviate from a fixed route and
those in which fixed-route services are specifically designed for people
with disabilities and older adults. From the customers' perspective,
flex services and other nontraditional forms of transit can offer a
variety of advantages over paratransit. For example, in the community
bus route model, which is discussed below, riders do not need to call in
advance for a trip. This is also often true for route deviations in
which customers can call with shorter notice than on paratransit or
request a deviation when they board the vehicle. Fares are often more
comparable to fixed-route service than paratransit, which is permitted
by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to charge twice the
fixed-route fare.[^221]

In instances in which fixed-route service has been eliminated in favor
of flex service, this can be a drawback for customers with disabilities
who are able to ride the fixed-route service, which can be more frequent
and predictable. There can be other disadvantages as well, such as the
use of route deviation service in locations where it is not entirely
suitable or in place of ADA paratransit. From the operators'
perspective, schedule adherence can be challenging if the deviations are
not tightly controlled.

## Route Deviation Service

In the route deviation model, buses deviate from an established route to
pick up or drop off passengers at, or closer to, their origin or
destination, as long as it is within the designated service area. Some
operators specify that flex routes can deviate within one-quarter mile
of every residence in the service area. Others may choose major
destinations such as medical complexes, grocery stores, and shopping
malls as their designated service areas. Because flex routes generally
incorporate some degree of demand-responsive operation, they typically
carry fewer passengers per hour than conventional fixed-route service,
but they carry more passengers than paratransit service.

Each flex-route service is unique and has many different kinds of
applications. These routes can provide service in limited areas that are
considered hard to serve for reasons of demographics, street layout, or
community preferences. Flex routes can also provide service in
low-demand time periods. In some cases, they constitute the entire
transit service for a small city, low-density suburban area, or rural
area, including service for people who would use paratransit in a larger
urban area.

For example, Ann Guerra, executive director of FREED Independent Living
Center, described the situation in her locale, Nevada County,
California, a largely rural region. The Nevada County Transportation
Commission decided to provide a minimum level of service to the entire
region while cutting back on fixed-route service. The goal was to serve
the region as broadly as possible. Instead of eliminating routes
altogether, there are now buses that serve the county's rural areas at
least one day of the week.

The Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission in Virginia
offers another example of route deviation service. The program's
distinctive features include the fact that its flex-route service
comprises the entire local transit system. All users can make off-stop
requests by phone from two hours to two days in advance. These requested
stops can be up to three-quarters of a mile from the fixed stops; the
buses stop at convenient locations but not necessarily at the rider's
home or final destination, except for riders with disabilities.[^222]

In situations in which transit agencies are experiencing funding
shortfalls, route deviations are sometimes provided as a substitute for
a fixed-route service, because they generally do not require the
provision of ADA complementary paratransit service. This raises a
significant concern, because such route deviations will likely provide
less service, sometimes substantially less, to the disability community.
Transit agencies can then establish any service parameters they wish,
including parameters that would not meet ADA paratransit requirements,
such as a service area short of the full three-quarters of a mile on
either side of the established route, and significant capacity
constraints.

Route deviation systems that make deviations for the general public and
do not provide ADA complementary paratransit service are classified by
the ADA under another category---general public demand-responsive
services.[^223] The ADA requires that such systems provide service to
people with disabilities that is equivalent to the service available to
the general public, according to a list of factors that include
providing an equivalent response time and not imposing capacity
constraints.

But most route deviation systems must constrain their capacity in order
to remain viable, either explicitly---usually by limiting deviations to
a first-come, first-served basis (that is, after a certain number of
deviation requests, the system will not accept additional ones)----or
less overtly, for example, by not advertising. This, arguably, could
provide service to people with disabilities that is comparable to the
service provided to the general public, because both groups have an
equal opportunity to make an early request. But from another
perspective, a first-come, first-served route deviation service does not
provide equivalency, because nondisabled people whose requests for
deviation are not accepted can walk to the established route.
Individuals with disabilities, however, who cannot get to the bus stop
due to their disabilities, and who do not or cannot call soon enough,
are completely without transportation.

An example was Wichita Falls, Texas, which had a route deviation service
that deviated only one-fourth mile from its route and often refused to
pick up people because of schedule demands. In 2000, it averaged about
12 one-way deviations per day for people with disabilities, when other
similarly sized cities in Texas (Abilene and Amarillo) both averaged
more than 100 such trips per day on their ADA paratransit services.

Whether it is possible to provide equivalent service to people with
disabilities on a route deviation service depends largely on the locale.
If the area is rural and the service will cover long distances with a
low population density, thus necessitating vehicles to stop only every
mile or so, then making unlimited deviations will be operationally
feasible because there is a lot of recovery time. But in a suburban or
small city setting, when a transit system uses a route deviation model
to avoid paratransit service, it is difficult to operate it on a basis
that provides equivalent service to people with disabilities.[^224] If
route deviation service cannot be offered without capacity constraints
on deviations, it should be combined with another type of service, such
as a pure demand-responsive service, so that when viewed in their
entirety, both services offer equivalent service to riders with
disabilities.

## Community Bus Routes

Community bus routes are essentially fixed-route services that are
designed to reduce the distance to the bus stop for riders, rather than
to shorten the time required to travel between stops. They are
specifically designed with the ambulatory disabled person in mind,
particularly older adults. Small buses operate in medium- to
high-density areas where there are large concentrations of potential
riders, including people with disabilities, seniors, and children. For
community bus routes to succeed, origins and destinations must be easily
linked, such as housing complexes, senior centers, medical buildings,
and shopping plazas. The buses are small so that they can travel on
neighborhood streets and enter driveways and parking lots. Community
buses are often provided by cities, with or without transit agency
assistance. In Broward County, Florida, the local transit agency
provides the buses as well as money for operations, planning assistance,
and scheduling. The service can pay for itself by diverting paratransit
trips to community bus trips.[^225]

Recommendation:

9.1. Route deviation service should only be used where it can provide
equivalent service to people with disabilities.

# Section 10: Transportation in Rural Areas

Lack of accessible public transportation---indeed, lack of any public
transportation---is a major problem reported by people with disabilities
in rural areas. The urban/rural inequity in public transportation
funding leads to significant consequences. Approximately 40 percent of
the rural population has no public transportation at all, and another 25
percent has only minimal service. Only one-third of rural residents live
in an area in which service exceeds 25 trips a year per carless
household. Overall trends reveal that urban residents have access to 25
times more public transportation service than rural residents.[^226]

The experiences of people with disabilities support these numbers. Tim
Sheehan, executive director of the Center for Independent Living for
Western Wisconsin, points out that "the fixed-route system just leaves
out so many people, because there are so many people who live outside
the municipal boundaries and therefore don't have access to any sort of
public mass transit."

The lack of transportation for people with disabilities in rural areas
of the United States has a great human cost, sometimes far more
significant than is generally understood. One example is that people
with disabilities are institutionalized solely because of the lack of
transportation. Mary Holloway, executive director of the Resource Center
for Independent Living, which covers a large section of rural Kansas,
explains:

> If I need physical therapy after a stroke and live in rural America,
> but am unable to drive, I must find transportation to and from another
> community to obtain physical therapy. That transportation doesn't
> exist in many communities. Thus the consumer can only get that therapy
> as a patient of a nursing home.
>
> A 48-year-old farmer I just met has liver and kidney cancer. He moved
> into a nursing home and wrote the home a check for first and last
> month's rent and one month otherwise, almost \$10,000. He will need to
> sell his livestock because there isn't anyone who can feed them. The
> bank will take that money on the farm account. Why will the farmer pay
> so much for the nursing home care? Because if he missed three
> treatments, he is considered noncompliant, and should the cancer
> progress, he won't qualify for a transplant with that on his medical
> record.

From October 2003 until September 2004, 113 people reported to us that
they would like to leave the nursing home, but entered due to the need
for transportation to and from medical care. Due to nursing home costs,
some who are there over 30 days will have their utilities turned off for
lack of payment, or will lose a home for lack of ability to pay for
housing that they would otherwise be able to pay. Then they will step
onto the Medicaid roster without a likely exit.

The employment-related benefits of improving rural transportation
options for people with disabilities have been demonstrated by a
five-year project of the Association of Programs for Rural Independent
Living (APRIL), funded by the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
U.S. Department of Education.[^227] The purpose of the project is to
demonstrate effectiveness of a voucher model to provide
employment-related transportation to people with disabilities who live
in rural areas. APRIL reports that after the third year of the project,
482 consumers were served. Approximately 52 percent, or 250, were
unemployed when they entered the project. A total of 117 people obtained
employment after entering the project. Clearly, federal financial
assistance for rural transportation is a good investment.

Although lack of accessible public transportation in rural areas is a
significant problem on the national level, there are several good
examples of programs that are working. In Alaska, a creative arrangement
was developed between the Kenai Peninsula Center for Independent Living
and a local taxi company. The independent living center (ILC) received a
grant from the Alaska Department of Transportation and the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority to acquire a lift-equipped van. A local cab
company leased the van from the ILC free of charge. Instead of charging
the usual \$7.00 per ride, the taxi company gives ILC consumers a \$2.00
discount. The ILC pays \$3.00 per ride with its grant money, and the
consumer pays the remaining \$2.00. The cab company is in charge of all
driving, dispatching, and vehicle maintenance, while the ILC administers
the voucher program by selling ride coupons to its clients.

According to Joyanna Geisler, the executive director of the Kenai
Peninsula Independent Living Center, the program has been a tremendous
success. Not only have hundreds of individuals received affordable,
accessible transportation services, but the program also has increased
awareness about the ILC and doubled its number of consumers. Geisler
believes a community-minded cab company is a key to success for this
type of program. The Alaska company has been so responsive that it even
purchased two more lift-equipped vans of its own. Unfortunately,
Alaska's Department of Transportation has targeted most of its funding
toward a coordinated public transit system involving vans and minivans
that does not work for 90 percent of Alaska's ILC consumers. Geisler
believes that both types of programs are needed to ensure accessible,
effective transportation for Alaska residents, and the two should not
have to compete for funding.

Arkansas' CADET (Creative Alternatives for Delta Area Transportation)
Project is another example of a successful rural public transportation
program. According to Thirland McKissick, the CADET program is a
demand-responsive curb-to-curb service that focuses on individuals who
are going to and from work, employment training, or school. Funding for
the program comes from a variety of state sources, including
Rehabilitation Services, Temporary Employment Assistance, Workforce
Investment Centers, and the Highway and Transportation Department. The
Workforce Investment Centers determine the eligibility of consumers, who
are then referred to Arkansas Rehabilitation Services, which houses the
dispatch office. Consumers get rides from local transportation providers
or volunteer drivers who receive reimbursement. The program has been so
successful that it reached its five-year service goal in less than three
years.

Clearly it is important to have programs that demonstrate successful,
accessible public transportation in rural areas. However, Tom Seekins,
director of the University of Montana Rural Institute, states that,
while there has been a lot of focus on developing models, less work has
been done to address some of the underlying problems with rural
transportation. According to Seekins, the most critical issue is lack of
funding. Data reveal that urban areas receive a disproportionate amount
of the total money available for public transportation. According to
APRIL, 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, but only
6 percent of federal transit dollars are allocated to serve them.[^228]

Recommendations:

10.1. The Federal Government should provide a significant level of
funding to increase transportation in rural areas in general, and
specifically for people with disabilities.

10.2. Research should be conducted on the extent to which the lack of
transportation for people with disabilities contributes to their
institutionalization.

#  

# Section 11: Other Publicly Funded Transportation Initiatives

## Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Other Work Transportation Programs

The Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program[^229] provides
transportation to and from jobs for welfare recipients and low-income
individuals. JARC was established in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21),[^230] authorized through fiscal year
2003. Beneficiaries of this program must meet JARC's low-income
eligibility, which currently is defined as 150 percent of the federal
poverty level.

While JARC is not specifically geared to people with disabilities, the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has awarded JARC money to programs
that serve this population. For example, in Allegan County, Michigan,
transit service is provided for people with disabilities Monday through
Friday, from 5:00 a.m. to midnight. This new service was the outcome of
a partnership between the local transit provider and local organizations
that serve the needs of people with disabilities. The Michigan
Department of Transportation and a local group, Family Independence
Agency, provided matching dollars. In 2001, 65 percent of the county's
transit passengers were people with disabilities who used the service to
access jobs in and out of the county.[^231]

According to Michael Winter, director of the FTA Office of Civil Rights,
the U.S. Department of Transportation would like to determine how JARC
and the proposed New Freedom Initiative[^232] could aid people with
disabilities to get to work. This is critical as the unemployment rate
for people with disabilities is 70 percent.[^233]

There are other federal initiatives that provide assistance to programs
that enable people with disabilities to get to work, some of which are
linked with JARC and others that are independent of JARC. For example,
funds from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
program[^234] are a major source of matching funds for the JARC program.
TANF is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.

Another source of funding for work trips is provided by the U.S.
Department of Labor, which awards its Work Incentive Grant to local
programs. For example, the Way Station is a nonprofit mental health
program in Frederick County, Maryland, that received such a grant in
2000. It partnered with other organizations, including the local
workforce development board, employment assistance center, and Goodwill
Industries, to begin the Frederick Works Project. This project's mission
is to increase the employability, job retention, and career advancement
of people with disabilities in Frederick County.[^235]

The Caring and Sharing Center for Independent Living (CSCIL) and
LogistiCare in Largo, Florida, are developing a project to address the
barriers faced by people with disabilities traveling to work. Their
program is designed to resemble travelers checks that tourists use on
vacation. Doug Towne, executive liaison of Disability Relations Group,
who is based in St. Petersburg, explained how the proposed project would
allow users to arrange their own transportation and write special checks
to providers for the number of miles they travel to and from work. The
providers will, in turn, submit their checks to an organization, such as
the local Center for Independent Living, which would pay the provider
for the mileage costs incurred. CSCIL and LogistiCare are investigating
federal funding sources, such as JARC, to pay for a pilot program. In
the initial phases, eligibility would be restricted to people with
disabilities who have undergone a vocational rehabilitation program or a
government job-training program.

More research is needed to address the effects of the transportation gap
on the employment of people with disabilities and to develop innovative
strategies for ensuring that people can obtain the transportation needed
to get to and from work.

Recommendation:

11.1. The Federal Government should conduct research to address the
effects of the transportation gap on the employment of people with
disabilities and to develop innovative strategies to ensure that people
can obtain the transportation needed to get to and from work.

## Volunteer Driver Programs

Volunteer driver programs are used to provide trips for people who do
not have access to an automobile. Essentially, they are transportation
services for transit-dependent individuals who live in low-density or
remote areas that cannot be effectively served by public transit
services. Volunteer driver trips are used for a variety of purposes,
including medical appointments, job training, and shopping. This
volunteer service can provide transportation that is too difficult to
accomplish using public service, such as unplanned medical trips, trips
by parents with disabilities who must transport their children, trips
involving multiple purposes, and the like. Some agencies that offer
volunteer driver programs require a referral from a caseworker or social
worker.

Volunteer driver programs are increasingly facing challenges to their
efficacy. While some volunteer driver programs have existed for many
years, recruiting volunteers to new programs has become increasingly
difficult recently, because of liability concerns and other competing
interests. Some programs have also found that the cost of administration
can outweigh the financial benefits of not paying salaries to the
drivers.

Ride Connection is a nonprofit organization in Portland, Oregon, that
operates the country's largest and one of its most successful volunteer
driver programs for people with disabilities and older adults. The
agency provides interregional transportation services throughout four
counties in the Portland metropolitan area. More than 370 of its
volunteers contribute their time working as drivers, escorts, and travel
training educators, and provide an average of 248,000 rides annually.

Recommendation:

11.2. Federal and state agencies serving people with disabilities and
senior citizens should jointly fund the development of model volunteer
driver programs to help fill existing transportation gaps.

#  

# Section 12: Conclusion

Great strides have been made in the accessibility of public
transportation in this country since the passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, yet 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 has reviewed 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. The
cumulative knowledge from these varied sources strongly suggests 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 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.

At the same time that progress has been made on many fronts, the
underfunding of public transportation in general has directly limited
the mobility of large sections of the disability community who are
unable to use a car. This report has documented some of the regulatory
changes that affect the mobility of the disability community, and the
impact that disability involvement has had in achieving changes in the
transportation environment. It also sets forth a variety of
recommendations for service improvements and additional research that
will lead to greater options for the 6 million Americans with
disabilities who have difficulties obtaining the transportation they
need. However, the problem will not be fully addressed without a
fundamental shift in funding priorities to greatly improve public
transportation as a whole.

#  

# Section 13: Appendices

# Appendix A: Recommendations (in order of their appearance in this report)

## Fixed-Route Public Transit (from Section 3)

### Stop announcements

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

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 

3.5. Transit agencies should use training and disciplinary measures, as
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

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

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.

## Paratransit (from Section 4)

### Eligibility

4.1. Transit agencies implementing in-person interviews and functional
assessments for determining ADA paratransit eligibility should follow
transit industry best practices for eligibility assessment. Eligibility
determinations should consider conditions that could pose barriers to an
individual's travel throughout the entire bus and/or rail system during
all seasons, not just conditions in the applicant's immediate
neighborhood or in one season. Eligibility determinations should also
consider any variable conditions the applicant experiences, such as
disorientation, fatigue, or difficulty with balance. Transit agencies
should not use functional assessments to determine eligibility for
people with certain disabilities such as seizure disorders, psychiatric
disabilities, and variable conditions like multiple sclerosis. Staff
proficient in assessing functional ability to use the fixed-route
service and evaluating barriers to travel should conduct eligibility and
route assessments.

4.2. Transit agencies should ensure that eligible paratransit riders
will not lose their ADA paratransit eligibility if they try the
fixed-route service.

4.3. Transit agencies should provide transportation to
eligibility-related in-person interviews and functional assessments.

4.4. Research should be conducted to ascertain any negative impacts of
more rigorous ADA eligibility procedures on the mobility of people with
disabilities.

### Trip denials

4.5. Transit agencies should plan to meet 100 percent of the demand for
next-day ADA paratransit ride requests, including modifying plans as
circumstances affecting trip demand or capacity change.

4.6. Transit agencies should consider as a denial any paratransit ride
offer that varies more than one hour from the requested pickup time.

4.7. Transit agencies should actively monitor all aspects of paratransit
service, including scheduling and dispatching, and make use of secret
monitoring, rather than relying on contractor reports.

4.8. When calculating trip denial rates in its paratransit assessments,
FTA should consider transit agency complaint records for complaints
about practices that effectively constitute trip denials, such as when
callers could not get through on the telephone, or when a vehicle
arrival was so late that an appointment was missed.

4.9. Paratransit riders should consider ADA enforcement actions if
next-day paratransit denials occur regularly.

4.10. Riders and advocates should be aware of how the calculation of ADA
paratransit denials and other factors in the "Trip Denials" section of
this report affect the measurement of denials and their impact on
riders.

### On-time performance

4.11. Transit agencies providing paratransit should----

-   schedule ride times that are responsive to riders' appointment or
    desired arrival times;

-   protect the negotiated time given to the rider----no changes,
    regardless of how small, should be made without notifying the rider;

-   ensure that, per the ADA scheduling window, any changed or
    renegotiated pickup time is not more than one hour from the rider's
    requested time;

-   ensure that the pickup time understood by the rider as the
    negotiated, agreed-upon time, as well as any pickup or arrival
    window, both appear on the driver's manifest;

-   thoroughly monitor paratransit on-time performance and onboard ride
    times through spot-checking pickup and drop-off times at known
    destinations. This monitoring needs to go beyond reliance on
    contractor reports;

-   for subscription riders, ensure that daily tours are assigned to the
    same driver each day, to the extent operationally feasible. Staff
    should not squeeze in additional trips, sending drivers out to
    unfamiliar areas. Driver input on scheduling configurations should
    be taken seriously;

-   ensure that paratransit ride times are not significantly longer than
    the ride times on the fixed-route system, including the additional
    time needed for the average rider to go to and from the transit
    stops and wait for the bus or train; and

-   provide adequate driver backup to avoid impacting on-time
    performance.

4.12. Transit agencies providing paratransit should consider contracting
with taxi providers to step in and provide overbooked trips.

4.13. Research should be conducted to identify the service impacts that
could potentially result from the use of extra-board (spare) drivers on
paratransit service. The research should address the financial
feasibility of expanding paratransit driver staff in the context of
operational benefits that would accrue from having more flexibility in
driver assignments.

### Lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints

4.14. Transit agencies providing paratransit should reduce lengthy
telephone hold times to a maximum average of two minutes.

### Subscription service 

4.15. FTA should require ADA paratransit to include subscription service
at no extra charge to passengers.

4.16. FTA should clarify that the ADA allows transit agencies to provide
subscription service that exceeds 50 percent of paratransit capacity at
a given time of day, as long as the system is not denying rides to any
nonsubscription riders.

4.17. Transit agencies should provide subscription service as a
component of ADA paratransit services and should strongly consider
subscription service that exceeds 50 percent of paratransit capacity, as
needed based on demand, while ensuring that no rides are being denied to
nonsubscription riders.

### Cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies to manage costs

4.18. Despite any cost-cutting measures, transit agencies should provide
schedule consistency for regular ADA paratransit riders by offering
subscription service, establishing scheduling practices that give
genuine consideration to arrival and appointment times (both beginning
and ending times), and allowing reservations to be made well in advance.
All parts of the service should be subject to the ADA's minimum service
criteria.

### No-show policies and late cancellations

4.19. FTA should clearly define----

-   a late cancellation as one made less than one or two hours before
    the scheduled trip, consistent with FTA's assessment letters and
    industry best practice; and

-   an ADA-compliant no-show policy, including the issues addressed in
    this paper.

4.20. Transit agencies should do the following regarding paratransit
no-shows and late cancellations:

-   resolve any capacity constraints before implementation of stringent
    no-show and cancellation policies;

-   focus on the real abusers rather than establish a no-show policy
    that is customer unfriendly and disrespectful of the average rider;

-   reconsider overly strict no-show and late cancellation policies
    based on FTA guidance that, for example, three no-shows in a 30-day
    period may be an unreasonable limitation on ADA service;

-   inform riders of their right to contest whether particular no-shows
    and late cancellations were beyond their control;

-   not count as no-shows or as late cancellations those trips missed by
    riders for reasons beyond their control;

-   inform riders of their right to appeal a service suspension
    resulting from alleged violations of no-show and late cancellation
    procedures, and provide a full description of customers' procedural
    rights;

-   ensure that suspensions of riders' eligibility because of no-shows
    considers the frequency of each rider's use of the service or the
    percentage of trips missed, rather than basing suspension on an
    absolute number of no-shows;

-   coordinate very closely paratransit subscription service with social
    service agencies. Such coordination can significantly reduce
    no-shows as well as providing other benefits;

-   make some provision to allow individuals with early morning trips
    not to be penalized for cancellations, if they are unable to provide
    early morning notice because calls are not taken before the
    scheduled travel time; and

-   consider offering riders incentives to reduce no-show rates.

### Door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service

4.21. Transit agencies offering ADA paratransit should provide
appropriate assistance between the door and the vehicle for people who
cannot be served effectively by curb-to-curb service.

4.22. Research should be conducted assessing the relative costs and
merits of paratransit door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service.

### Travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to fixed route

4.23. Transit agencies should track and support paratransit riders'
successful transition through travel training to fixed-route service,
and offer transition assistance as needed, before denying paratransit
eligibility.

4.24. When providing discounted or free fixed-route fares to ADA
paratransit-eligible registrants, transit agencies should ensure that
their eligibility screening procedures are sufficiently accurate to
prevent abuse by individuals who would otherwise have paid the fare on
the fixed-route service.

4.25. Transit agencies should offer a competently staffed
travel-training program.

4.26. Schools and Departments of Education should ensure that the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) process under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) include age-appropriate,
individualized travel and mobility training.

### Equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers

4.27. Transit agencies should equalize the salaries and benefits of
fixed-route and paratransit drivers. Doing so has been shown to reduce
chronic paratransit problems such as high turnover and difficulties in
maintaining a stable, skilled force of drivers.

4.28. Transit agencies should consider training drivers in service
provision on both service modes, and rotate drivers between fixed-route
and paratransit service.

4.29. Research should be conducted on the impact of the discrepancy in
employee wages and benefits between fixed-route drivers and paratransit
drivers. What is the impact on service quality? What benefits might
accrue if the gap is narrowed?

### Feeder service 

4.30. Transit agencies providing paratransit as a feeder service should
ensure that, if a rider can't make a transfer independently, the system
either provides direct origin-to-destination service, or arranges
transfers that meet the individual's abilities, via a direct
vehicle-to-vehicle handoff or a transfer location where there is staff
to assist the individual.

4.31. Transit agencies should use paratransit as a feeder service only
on long trips. One fare, the fixed-route fare, should be charged. The
transfer location should have a shelter, bench, and telephone. The fixed
routes to be used should have short headways (15 minutes or less). The
pickup window should be tightly coordinated, so the paratransit vehicle
arrives in time for the rider to catch the fixed-route vehicle. Special
consideration should be given to scheduling parameters---the times
should be anchored, the pickup and arrival windows should be tight, and
there should be manual reviews of schedules to ensure good coordination.

### Chain trips

4.32. The Federal Government should address the needs of people with
disabilities to travel to multiple destinations in one trip, as in the
case of a parent dropping a child off at school and then going to work,
or an adult running multiple errands. The New Freedom Initiative may be
an appropriate way to address this unmet need.

### Low bid versus service quality in contracting

4.33. Transit agencies providing paratransit are encouraged to----

-   use contracting procedures that emphasize service quality;

-   procure paratransit service providers through a Request for Proposal
    (RFP) process, rather than a low-bid process;

-   include language in the RFP that proposers must detail compensation
    levels by job type and explain how they will maintain an adequate
    and well-trained workforce and minimize turnover;

-   ask in RFPs what the proposer's history of turnover has been in
    other contracts, and verify this information when checking
    references; and

-   include such language as "the likelihood of maintaining a stable,
    well-trained workforce" as one of the proposal evaluation factors,
    and weigh that factor significantly in the review process.

### Serving individuals who need dialysis treatment

4.34. Transit agencies and dialysis clinics should coordinate services
to address the special transportation needs of people who use dialysis
services.

### Serving individuals with dementia

4.35. Transit agencies and other local organizations should coordinate
services to address the special transportation needs of people with
dementia.

## Approaches That Have Resulted in Service Improvements in Public Transit (from Section 5)

### Disability community involvement

5.1. The federal agencies responsible for transportation access
enforcement should expand on the current commendable efforts by FTA in
conducting ADA assessments. All transportation systems covered by the
ADA should be assessed and monitored for compliance.

### ADA administrative complaints to the Federal Transit Administration

5.2. Public transit riders with disabilities who believe they have
experienced disability discrimination on a public transportation system
should file complaints with FTA. People with disabilities who wish to
address systemic ADA compliance problems in their local transit system
should consider submitting multiple complaints to FTA and requesting an
FTA compliance review of their transit agency.

### Federal Transit Administration ADA Assessments

5.3. FTA should----

-   continue and increase its ADA assessment program, which is
    successful and is to be commended; and

-   ensure that each ADA assessment covers both fixed-route and
    paratransit service.

### Litigation

5.4. For transit systems that are judged by advocates to require
systemic change to bring about ADA compliance, ongoing systems advocacy,
in combination with a range of enforcement approaches that include
litigation when other advocacy methods fail to bring about real
progress, is recommended as a combined strategy that has proved
successful in some U.S. cities.

### Ballot measures

5.5. Disability organizations and advocates are encouraged to work with
other community leaders to attain ballot measures to pay for
transportation projects where funding gaps exist.

### Information technology

5.6. Transit agencies are encouraged to use information technology
systems and devices, as affordable and appropriate, to improve transit
service. They should understand that these systems are not an instant
panacea to resolve problems, and they should take care to educate staff
on the technology's use, test the systems regularly, monitor systems
closely, and make changes as necessary to attain effective results.

## Issues for All Modes of Public Transit (from Section 6)

### Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public transportation

6.1. DOT and DOJ should restate clearly that public transit agencies are
subject to Title II, Subtitle A of the ADA and its implementing DOJ
regulation.

6.2. Transit agencies should educate themselves about the requirements
of the ADA Title II regulation of DOJ, and ensure that appropriate staff
are trained on this regulation as well as on DOT's ADA regulation.

### Service animals

6.3. Owners, administrators, and employees of taxi and other
transportation systems should be trained to understand and correctly
implement the provisions of the ADA that pertain to individuals with
disabilities who use service animals.

6.4. Transportation providers should be trained to evaluate whether an
animal is a service animal based on whether the animal performs specific
tasks for an individual who has a disability and not based on whether
the individual with the service animal uses the legal term for a service
animal.

### Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities

6.5. DOJ should develop standards and guidance on the access
requirements for people with MCS.

6.6. Transit agencies should address the needs of all disability
categories, including those of people with MCS; this should include
MCS-appropriate access to transit stations and vehicles.

## Public Rights-of-Way (from Section 7)

7.1. The Federal Government should establish enforceable ADA standards
for accessibility in the public rights-of-way as expeditiously as
possible.

7.2. Transit agencies should work with cities, counties, and states
during the planning process to provide input into plans and schedules
for installing accessible bus stops and curb ramps, and removing other
barriers in the public rights-of-way that are obstacles to transit
system use.

7.3. Planning and design curricula at the university level should
include accessibility issues in public rights-of-way.

7.4. The public rights-of-way industry, including state and municipal
transportation departments and highway engineers, should follow best
practice documents describing how to make public rights-of-way
accessible to people with disabilities, until enforceable ADA standards
are established.

## Private Transportation (from Section 8)

### Taxi service 

8.1. The taxi industry, in cooperation with other stakeholders, should
conduct thorough training for drivers and other staff regarding the
needs of people with disabilities and the requirements of the ADA for
nondiscriminatory service.

8.2. Accessible taxicab programs should include----

-   mandates for accessible cabs;

-   financial incentives for drivers and cab companies, including
    contracts for paratransit service, where appropriate;

-   training for drivers;

-   regulatory requirements, including a requirement to give priority to
    riders who need accessible taxis over other riders, a requirement
    for a percentage of accessible taxis to be in service, and adherence
    to ADA nondiscrimination standards and vehicle design standards;

-   sanctions;

-   monitoring, including tracking of denials and response time, to
    determine when more accessible taxis are needed and to ensure the
    presence of adequate securement devices, including seatbelts; and

-   enforcement.

8.3. Municipal leaders should play a leadership role in inaugurating
accessible taxi programs.

### Greyhound and other intercity bus service

8.4. DOJ, as well as disability advocates, should make efforts to obtain
ADA compliance by all sectors of the intercity bus industry, including
discount curbside carriers that may not be in ADA compliance.

8.5. All transportation providers should offer thorough training
programs to staff at all levels, consistent with industry best
practices.

### Airport shuttles and other airport-related services

8.6. Airport-related transportation providers (including private
providers of airport shuttle service, hotel shuttle service, and rental
car company shuttle service to rental car lots) should provide access to
people with disabilities per the requirements of the ADA and industry
best practices.

8.7. Airports should ensure that airport-provided ground transportation,
such as airport parking shuttles, provide access to people with
disabilities per the requirements of the ADA.

8.8. DOJ should conduct additional enforcement efforts to ensure
compliance by private providers of transportation to airports.

### Social services transportation and coordination

8.9. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as social service
organizations, should continue aggressive coordination efforts to ensure
that all available transportation resources can be used as fully as
possible by all transportation-disadvantaged constituencies, including
people with disabilities.

8.10. States and the Federal Government should provide funding resources
to assist in coordination efforts.

### Tour and charter service

8.11. Private providers of tour and charter services should provide
accessibility and nondiscriminatory service to people with disabilities
per the requirements of the ADA, consistent with industry best
practices.

## Flex and Other Nontraditional Forms of Transit Service (from Section 9)

9.1. Route deviation service should only be used where it can provide
equivalent service to people with disabilities.

## Transportation in Rural Areas (from Section 10)

10.1. The Federal Government should provide a significant level of
funding to increase transportation in rural areas, in general, and
specifically for people with disabilities.

10.2. Research should be conducted on the extent to which the lack of
transportation for people with disabilities contributes to their
institutionalization.

## Other Publicly Funded Transportation Initiatives (from Section 11)

### Job access reverse commute (JARC) and other work transportation programs

11.1. The Federal Government should conduct research to address the
effects of the transportation gap on the employment of people with
disabilities and to develop innovative strategies to ensure that people
can obtain the transportation needed to get to and from work.

### Volunteer driver programs

11.2. Federal and state agencies serving people with disabilities and
senior citizens should jointly fund the development of model volunteer
driver programs to help fill existing transportation gaps.

# Appendix B: Recommendations (organized by the entity to which they are directed)

## To Publicly Funded Transit Agencies

### General

1\. All transportation providers should offer thorough training programs
on disability issues and the requirements of the ADA to staff at all
levels, consistent with industry best practice.

### Stop announcements

2\. 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\. 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.

4\. 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

5\. 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 a
    pattern appears 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 

6\. Transit agencies should use training and disciplinary measures, as
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.

7\. Transit agencies should not make securement of mobility devices
optional on small vehicles such as vans.

### Rail transit

8\. Transit agencies that operate rail systems 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.

9\. Amtrak should have a single centralized office with accountability
for all disability and accessibility issues.

### Paratransit----eligibility

10\. Transit agencies implementing in-person interviews and functional
assessments for determining ADA paratransit eligibility should follow
transit industry best practices for eligibility assessment. Eligibility
determinations should consider conditions that could pose barriers to an
individual's travel throughout the entire bus and/or rail system during
all seasons, not just conditions in the applicant's immediate
neighborhood or in one season. Eligibility determinations should also
consider any variable conditions the applicant experiences, such as
disorientation, fatigue, or difficulty with balance. Transit agencies
should not use functional assessments to determine eligibility for
people with certain disabilities such as seizure disorders, psychiatric
disabilities, and variable conditions like multiple sclerosis. Staff
proficient in assessing functional ability to use the fixed-route
service and evaluating barriers to travel should conduct eligibility and
route assessments.

11\. Transit agencies should ensure that eligible paratransit riders
will not lose their ADA paratransit eligibility if they try the
fixed-route service.

12\. Transit agencies should provide transportation to
eligibility-related in-person interviews and functional assessments.

### Paratransit----trip denials

13\. Transit agencies should plan to meet 100 percent of the demand for
next-day ADA paratransit ride requests, including modifying plans as
circumstances affecting trip demand or capacity change.

14\. Transit agencies should consider as a denial any paratransit ride
offer that varies more than one hour from the requested pickup time.

15\. Transit agencies should actively monitor all aspects of paratransit
service, including scheduling and dispatching, and make use of secret
monitoring, rather than relying on contractor reports.

### Paratransit----on-time performance

16\. Transit agencies providing paratransit should----

-   schedule ride times that are responsive to riders' appointment or
    desired arrival times;

-   protect the negotiated time given to the rider----no changes,
    regardless of how small, should be made without notifying the rider;

-   ensure that, per the ADA scheduling window, any changed or
    renegotiated pickup time is not more than one hour from the rider's
    requested time;

-   ensure that the pickup time understood by the rider as the
    negotiated, agreed-on time, as well as any pickup or arrival window,
    both appear on the driver's manifest;

-   thoroughly monitor paratransit on-time performance and onboard ride
    times through spot-checking pickup and drop-off times at known
    destinations. This monitoring needs to go beyond reliance on
    contractor reports;

-   for subscription riders, ensure that daily tours are assigned to the
    same driver each day, to the extent operationally feasible. Staff
    should not squeeze in additional trips, sending drivers out to
    unfamiliar areas. Driver input on scheduling configurations should
    be taken seriously;

-   ensure paratransit ride times are not significantly longer than ride
    times on the fixed-route system, including the additional time
    needed to go to and from the transit stops and wait for the bus or
    train; and

-   provide adequate driver backup to avoid impacting on-time
    performance.

17\. Transit agencies providing paratransit should consider contracting
with taxi providers to step in and provide overbooked trips.

### Paratransit----lengthy telephone hold times and other capacity constraints

18\. Transit agencies providing paratransit should reduce lengthy
telephone hold times to a maximum average of two minutes.

### Paratransit----subscription service

19\. Transit agencies should provide subscription service as a component
of ADA paratransit and should strongly consider subscription service
that exceeds 50 percent of paratransit capacity, as needed based on
demand, while ensuring no rides are being denied to nonsubscription
riders.

### Paratransit----cutting back service to minimum ADA requirements and other strategies to manage costs

20\. Despite any cost-cutting measures, transit agencies should provide
schedule consistency for regular ADA paratransit riders by offering
subscription service, establishing scheduling practices that give
genuine consideration to arrival and appointment times (both beginning
and ending times), and allowing reservations to be made well in advance.
All parts of the service should be subject to the ADA's minimum service
criteria.

### Paratransit----no-show policies and late cancellations

21\. Transit agencies should----

-   resolve any capacity constraints before implementation of stringent
    no-show and cancellation policies;

-   focus on the real abusers rather than establish a no-show policy
    that is customer unfriendly and disrespectful of the average rider;

-   reconsider overly strict no-show and late cancellation policies
    based on FTA guidance that, for example, three no-shows in a 30-day
    period may be an unreasonable limitation on ADA service;

-   inform riders of their right to contest whether particular no-shows
    and late cancellations were beyond their control;

-   not count as no-shows or late cancellations those trips missed by
    riders for reasons beyond their control;

-   inform riders of their right to appeal the agencies' no-show and
    late cancellation decisions and provide a full description of
    customers' procedural rights;

-   ensure that suspensions of riders' eligibility because of no-shows
    considers the frequency of each rider's use of the service or the
    percentage of trips missed, rather than basing suspension on an
    absolute number of no-shows;

-   coordinate very closely paratransit subscription service with social
    service agencies. Such coordination can significantly reduce
    no-shows as well as providing other benefits;

-   make some provision that allows individuals with early morning trips
    first not to be penalized for cancellations, if they are unable to
    provide early morning notice because calls are not taken before the
    scheduled travel time; and

-   consider offering riders incentives to reduce no-show rates.

### Paratransit----door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service

22\. Transit agencies offering ADA paratransit should provide
appropriate assistance between the door and the vehicle for people who
cannot be served effectively with curb-to-curb service.

### Paratransit----travel training and other efforts to transition paratransit riders to fixed route

23\. Transit agencies should track and support paratransit riders'
successful transition through travel training to fixed-route service,
and offer transition assistance as needed, before denying paratransit
eligibility.

24\. When providing discounted or free fixed-route fares to ADA
paratransit-eligible registrants, transit agencies should ensure their
eligibility screening procedures are sufficiently accurate to prevent
abuse by individuals who would otherwise have paid the fare on the
fixed-route service.

25\. Transit agencies should offer a competently staffed travel-training
program.

### Paratransit----equalizing pay between fixed-route drivers and paratransit drivers

26\. Transit agencies should equalize the salaries and benefits of
fixed-route and paratransit drivers. Doing so has been shown to reduce
chronic paratransit problems such as high turnover and difficulties in
maintaining a stable, skilled force of drivers.

27\. Transit agencies should consider training drivers in service
provision on both modes, and rotate them between fixed route and
paratransit service.

### Paratransit----feeder service 

28\. Transit agencies should use paratransit as a feeder service only on
long trips. One fare, the fixed-route fare, should be charged. The
transfer location should have a shelter, bench, and telephone. The fixed
routes to be used should have short headways (15 minutes or less). The
pickup window should be tightly coordinated, so the paratransit vehicle
arrives in time for the rider to catch the fixed-route vehicle. Special
consideration should be given to scheduling parameters---the times
should be anchored, the pickup and arrival windows should be tight, and
there should be manual reviews of schedules to ensure good coordination.

29\. Transit agencies providing paratransit as a feeder service should
ensure that, if a rider can't make a transfer independently, the system
either provides direct origin-to-destination service, or arranges
transfers that meet the individual's abilities, via a direct
vehicle-to-vehicle handoff or a transfer location where there is staff
to assist the individual.

### Paratransit----low bid versus service quality in contracting

30\. Transit agencies providing paratransit are encouraged to----

-   use contracting procedures that emphasize service quality;

-   procure paratransit service providers through a Request for Proposal
    (RFP) process, rather than a low-bid process;

-   include language in the RFP that proposers must detail compensation
    levels by job type and explain how they will maintain an adequate
    and well-trained workforce and minimize turnover;

-   ask in RFPs what the proposer's history of turnover has been in
    other contracts, and verify this information when checking
    references;

-   include such language as "the likelihood of maintaining a stable,
    well-trained workforce" as one of the proposal evaluation factors,
    and weigh that factor significantly in the review process.

### Paratransit----serving individuals who need dialysis treatment

31\. Transit agencies and dialysis clinics should coordinate services to
address the special transportation needs of people who use dialysis
services.

### Paratransit----serving individuals with dementia

32\. Transit agencies and other local organizations should coordinate
services to address the special transportation needs of people with
dementia.

### Flex and other nontraditional forms of transit service

33\. Route deviation service should only be used where it can provide
equivalent service to people with disabilities.

### Public rights-of-way

34\. Transit agencies should work with cities, counties, and states
during the planning process to provide input into plans and schedules
for providing installing bus stops and curb ramps, and removing other
barriers in public rights-of-way that are obstacles to transit system
use.

### Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public transportation

35\. Transit agencies should educate themselves about the requirements
of the ADA Title II regulation of DOJ, and ensure that appropriate staff
are trained on this regulation as well as on DOT's ADA regulation.

### Service animals

36\. Owners, administrators, and employees of taxi and other
transportation systems should be trained to understand and correctly
implement the provisions of the ADA that pertain to individuals with
disabilities who use service animals.

37\. Transportation providers should be trained to evaluate whether an
animal is a service animal based on whether the animal performs specific
tasks for an individual who has a disability and not based on whether
the individual with the service animal uses the legal term for a service
animal.

### Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities

38\. DOJ should develop standards and guidance on the access
requirements for people with MCS.

39\. Transit agencies should address the needs of all disability
categories, including those of people with MCS; this should include
MCS-appropriate access to transit stations and vehicles.

### Information technology

40\. Transit agencies are encouraged to use information technology
systems and devices, as affordable and appropriate, to improve transit
service. They should understand that these systems are not an instant
panacea to resolve problems, and they should take care to educate staff
on the technology's use, test the systems regularly, monitor systems
closely, and make changes as necessary to attain effective results.

## To Providers of Privately Funded Transportation

1\. The taxi industry, in cooperation with other stakeholders, should
conduct thorough training for drivers and other staff regarding the
needs of people with disabilities and the requirements of the ADA for
nondiscriminatory service.

2\. Accessible taxicab programs should include----

-   mandates for accessible cabs;

-   financial incentives for drivers and cab companies, including
    contracts for paratransit service, where appropriate;

-   training for drivers;

-   regulatory requirements, including a requirement to give priority to
    riders who need accessible taxis over other riders, a requirement
    for a percentage of accessible taxis to be in service, and adherence
    to ADA nondiscrimination standards and vehicle design standards;

-   sanctions;

-   monitoring, including tracking of denials and response time, to
    determine when more accessible taxis are needed; and ensuring the
    presence of adequate securement devices, including seatbelts; and

-   enforcement.

## To Airport-related Transportation Providers

3\. Airport-related transportation providers (including private
providers of airport shuttle service, hotel shuttle service, and rental
car company shuttle service to rental car lots) should provide access to
people with disabilities per the requirements of the ADA and industry
best practices.

### Tour and charter service

4\. Private providers of tour and charter services should provide
accessibility and nondiscriminatory service to people with disabilities
per the requirements of the ADA, consistent with industry best
practices.

### Service animals

5\. Owners, administrators, and employees of taxi and other
transportation systems should be trained to understand and correctly
implement the provisions of the ADA that pertain to individuals with
disabilities who use service animals.

6\. Transportation providers should be trained to evaluate whether an
animal is a service animal based on whether the animal performs specific
tasks for an individual who has a disability and not based on whether
the individual with the service animal uses the legal term for a service
animal.

### Barriers to people with multiple chemical sensitivities

7\. Transit providers should address the needs of all disability
categories, including those of people with MCS; this should include
MCS-appropriate access to transit stations and vehicles.

### Information technology

8\. Transit providers are encouraged to use information technology
systems and devices, as affordable and appropriate, to improve transit
service. They should understand that these systems are not an instant
panacea to resolve problems, and they should take care to educate staff
on the technology's use, test the systems regularly, monitor systems
closely, and make changes as necessary to attain effective results.

## To the Federal Government

### Specific recommendations to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

1\. FTA should require ADA paratransit to include subscription service
at no extra charge to passengers.

2\. FTA should clarify that the ADA allows transit agencies to provide
subscription service that exceeds 50 percent of paratransit capacity at
a given time of day, as long as the system is not denying rides to any
nonsubscription riders.

3\. FTA should clearly define----

-   a late cancellation as one made less than one or two hours before
    the scheduled trip, consistent with FTA's assessment letters and
    industry best practice; and

-   an ADA compliant no-show policy, including the issues addressed in
    this paper.

4\. FTA should----

-   continue and increase its ADA assessment program, which is
    successful and is to be commended; and

-   ensure each ADA assessment covers both fixed-route and paratransit
    service.

5\. In its paratransit assessments, when calculating trip denial rates,
FTA should consider transit agency complaint records for complaints
about practices that constitute trip denials, such as when callers could
not get through on the telephones, or when a vehicle arrival was so late
that an appointment was missed.

### Transportation in rural areas

6\. The Federal Government should provide a significant level of funding
to increase transportation in rural areas, in general, and specifically
for people with disabilities.

### ADA enforcement

7\. The federal agencies responsible for transportation access
enforcement should expand on the current commendable efforts by FTA in
conducting ADA assessments. All transportation systems covered by the
ADA should be assessed and monitored for compliance.

### Public rights-of-way

8\. The Federal Government should establish enforceable ADA standards
for accessibility in the public rights-of-way as expeditiously as
possible.

### Rail transit

9\. The Federal Government should provide funding to make all passenger
rail stations accessible, not just key stations.

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.

### Vehicle standards

11\. 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.

### Paratransit

12\. The Federal Government should address the needs of people with
disabilities to travel to multiple destinations in one trip on
paratransit, as in the case of a parent dropping a child off at school
and then going to work, or an adult running multiple errands. The New
Freedom Initiative might be an appropriate way to address this unmet
need.

### Department of Justice ADA requirements and their relationship to public transportation

13\. DOT and DOJ should restate clearly that public transit agencies are
subject to Title II Subtitle A of the ADA and its implementing DOJ
regulation.

### Airport transportation

14\. DOJ should conduct additional enforcement efforts to ensure
compliance by private providers of transportation to airports.

### Greyhound and other intercity bus service

15\. DOJ, as well as disability advocates, should make efforts to obtain
ADA compliance by all sectors of the intercity bus industry, including
discount curbside carriers that may not be in ADA compliance.

### Social services transportation

16\. The Federal Government and state governments should provide funding
resources to assist in coordination efforts.

17\. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as social service
organizations, should continue aggressive coordination efforts to ensure
that all available transportation resources can be utilized as fully as
possible by all transportation-disadvantaged constituencies, including
people with disabilities.

### Volunteer driver programs

18\. Federal and state agencies serving people with disabilities and
senior citizens should jointly fund the development of model volunteer
driver programs to help fill existing transportation gaps.

## To State and Local Governments/Municipal Leaders

1\. Municipal leaders should play a leadership role in inaugurating
accessible taxi programs.

2\. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as social service
organizations, should continue aggressive coordination efforts to ensure
that all available transportation resources can be used as fully as
possible by all transportation-disadvantaged constituencies, including
people with disabilities.

3\. The Federal Government and state governments should provide funding
resources to assist in coordination efforts.

4\. Federal and state agencies serving people with disabilities and
senior citizens should jointly fund the development of model volunteer
driver programs to help fill existing transportation gaps.

## To People with Disabilities/Advocates/Riders/Disability Organizations

### General

1\. Riders with disabilities who believe they have experienced
disability discrimination on a publicly funded transportation system
should file complaints with FTA. People with disabilities who wish to
address systemic ADA compliance problems in their local transit system
should consider submitting multiple complaints to FTA and requesting an
FTA compliance review of their transit agency. If the incident of
discrimination has occurred on privately funded transportation,
complaints should be filed with DOJ.

2\. For transit systems that are judged by advocates to require systemic
change to bring about ADA compliance, ongoing systems advocacy, in
combination with a range of enforcement approaches that include
litigation when other advocacy methods fail to bring about real
progress, is recommended as a combined strategy that has proved
successful in some U.S. cities.

3\. Disability organizations and advocates are encouraged to work with
other community leaders to attain ballot measures to pay for
transportation projects where funding gaps exist.

### Paratransit

4\. Paratransit riders should consider ADA enforcement actions if
next-day paratransit denials occur regularly.

5\. Riders and advocates should be aware of how the calculation of ADA
paratransit denials and other factors in the "Trip Denials" section of
this report affect the measurement of denials and the impact on riders.

### Greyhound and other intercity bus service

6\. DOJ, as well as disability advocates, should make efforts to obtain
ADA compliance by all sectors of the intercity bus industry, including
discount curbside carriers that may not be in ADA compliance.

## To Wheelchair Manufacturers

1\. Wheelchair manufacturers should provide securement points on all
wheelchairs.

## To Schools and Departments of Education

1\. Schools and Departments of Education should ensure that the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) process under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes age-appropriate,
individualized travel and mobility training.

## To the Public Rights-of-Way Industry

1\. The public rights-of-way industry, including state and municipal
transportation departments and highway engineers, should follow best
practice documents describing how to make public rights-of-way
accessible to people with disabilities, until enforceable ADA standards
are established.

## To Planning and Design Curricula at the University Level

1\. Planning and design curricula at the university level should include
accessibility issues in the public rights-of-way.

## To Airports

1\. Airports should ensure that airport-provided ground transportation,
such as airport parking shuttles, provide access to people with
disabilities per the requirements of the ADA.

## To Researchers

1\. Research should be conducted to ascertain any negative impacts of
more rigorous ADA paratransit eligibility procedures on the mobility of
people with disabilities.

2\. Research should be conducted assessing the relative costs and merits
of paratransit door-to-door versus curb-to-curb service.

3\. Research should be conducted on the impact of the discrepancy in
employee wages and benefits between fixed-route drivers and paratransit
drivers. What is the impact on service quality? What benefits might
accrue if the gap is narrowed?

4\. Research should be conducted to identify the service impacts that
could potentially result from the use of extra-board (spare) drivers on
paratransit service. The research should address the financial
feasibility of expanding paratransit driver staff in the context of
operational benefits that would accrue from having more flexibility in
driver assignments.

5\. Research should be conducted on the extent to which the lack of
transportation for people with disabilities contributes to their
institutionalization.

6\. The Federal Government should conduct research to address the
effects of the transportation gap on the employment of people with
disabilities and to develop innovative strategies to ensure that people
can obtain the transportation needed to get to and from work.

# Appendix C: Methodology

The research conducted for this report entailed the following tasks:

-   Literature review of studies and documents related to fixed-route
    transportation, paratransit, privately funded transportation, other
    publicly funded transportation, and historic reports

-   Extensive interviews with three groups of stakeholders:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   People with disabilities who regularly use public transportation
    systems around the United States, and their advocates and
    representatives

-   Transportation providers and consultants in the field of
    transportation

-   Officials from federal transportation agencies

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Review of relevant research studies that are national in scope, such
    as Transit Cooperative Research Program studies

-   Review of primary sources concerning specific transportation
    programs

-   Focus group discussions with stakeholders in the disability
    community

Much formal research on this topic remains to be done. This paper
focuses on anecdotal information from personal interviews and
information about the public and private transportation fields. We hope
this study raises and presents the issues that remain to be studied
empirically to achieve a complete understanding of the transportation
landscape for people with disabilities; identifies industry best
practices, models, emerging technologies, and barriers to
transportation; and informs policymakers, law makers, transportation
providers, and individuals with disabilities.

Much of the data collected for this project derive from interviews or
focus group discussions. Most of these conversations took place between
April 2004 and February 2005. Especially key to our findings was a
telephone focus group with nine individuals from the disability
community, based in locations across the United States, which was held
on August 31, 2004. We cite interview and focus group findings in the
text with the name and identification of the speaker. Note that some
comments that are critical of particular transit agencies have been
cited anonymously, at the request of the National Council on Disability,
to avoid revealing the identity of the transit agency. Appendix D
contains a list of individuals included in the focus group or
interviewed for this study.

Note on changing circumstances: The information contained in this report
was accurate at the time of writing, but because transportation services
are in a state of continual change, certain circumstances may no longer
be the same after publication of this report.

# Appendix D: List of Focus Group Participants, Interviewees, and Consultants

## Focus Group Participants, August 31, 2004

Dee Evans, advocate for Goodwill Industries and board member of Programs
for Accessible Living, Charlotte, North Carolina

Ann Guerra, executive director, FREED Independent Living Center, Grass
Valley, California

Kevin Irvine, senior advocate, Equip for Equality, Chicago, Illinois

Marcellus Mayes, vice president of the Metro Disability Coalition,
Louisville, Kentucky

David Newburger, attorney in private practice and a person with a
disability, St. Louis, Missouri

Tim Sheehan, executive director, Center for Independent Living for
Western Wisconsin, Menomonie, Wisconsin

Barbara Toomer, corporate secretary, Disabled Rights Action Committee
and member of ADAPT, Salt Lake City, Utah

Charles Tubre, systems advocate, Advocacy Center, New Orleans, Louisiana

Alexander Wood, director, Disabilities Network of New York City, New
York, New York

## Persons Interviewed or Consulted

Jane Alper, senior attorney, Disability Law Center of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts

Rick Bernstein, attorney, Law Offices of Samuel I. Bernstein, Detroit,
Michigan (December 6, 2004)

Jon Burkhardt, WESTAT (\[\[**dates**\]\])

Dennis Cannon, senior transportation/facility accessibility specialist,
U.S. Access Board, Washington D.C. (June 10, September 13, and November
15, 2004, and February 15, 2005)

Brian Clouse, paratransit coordinator, Ann Arbor Transportation
Authority, Michigan (June 9, 2004)

John Daughterty, accessible services coordinator for the Santa Cruz,
California Metropolitan Transit District (June 29 and 30, 2004)

Richard DeRock, general manager, Link Transit, Wenatchee, Washington
(November 18, 2004)

HolLynn D'Lil, disability advocate, Sacramento, California (April 30,
2004)

Dee Evans, advocate for Goodwill Industries and board member of Programs
for Accessible Living, Charlotte, North Carolina (September 15, 2004)

John Gaffney, wheelchair user who has worked as a transit manager in
Boston, Miami, and Palm Beach (August 3 and September 13, 2004)

Joyanna Geisler, executive director, Kenai Peninsula Independent Living
Center, Homer, Alaska (April 6, 2004)

Steve Gold, attorney, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (August 4, 2004)

Marilyn Golden, policy analyst, the Disability Rights Education and
Defense Fund

Larry Guevara, wheelchair technician, Grandmar Inc., Emeryville,
California (November 27, 2004)

Karen Hoesch, executive director, Access Transportation Systems,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (June 25, 2004)

Mary Holloway, executive director, Resource Center for Independent
Living, Osage City, Kansas (November 13, 2004)

Kevin Irvine, senior advocate, Equip for Equality, Chicago, Illinois
(July 20, October 13, and November 5, 2004, and February 23, 2005)

Melissa Kasnitz, managing attorney, Disability Rights Advocates,
Oakland, California (September 23, 2004)

Maggie Kelly, manager, Alaska Operations, Royal Celebrity Tours (August
10, 2004)

Linda D. Kilb, attorney, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,
Berkeley, California (September 14 and 22, 2004)

Joe King, manager, Community Services, Access Services, Inc., Los
Angeles, California (November 18, 2004)

David Koffman, principal investigator and national expert on paratransit
operations, Nelson/Nygaard, San Francisco, California (April 15 and
November 24, 2004)

Marty Mallera, alternative fuel engineer, San Francisco Municipal
Railway, San Francisco, California (July 2004)

Mona McAleese, Alaska ADA advisor, Anchorage, Alaska (August 19, 2004)

Maureen McCloskey, director of Advocacy, Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Washington D.C. (October 25, 2004)

Thirland McKissick, Arkansas' CADET (Creative Alternatives for Delta
Area Transportation) Project, Monticello, Arkansas (April 7, 2004)

Barbara McMillen, disability policy analyst, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington D.C. (June 2, 2004)

Terry Moakley, Marine Corps veteran, United Spinal Association, Jackson
Heights, New York (October 7, 2004)

Susan Molloy, nationally prominent advocate for people with Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity and Electromagnetic Sensitivity, Snowflake, Arizona
(September 23, 2004)

Mike Muehe, executive director and ADA coordinator, Cambridge Commission
for Persons with Disabilities, Cambridge, Massachusetts (July 6 and
September 17, 2004)

Nancy Poultney, director, Eligibility Services, King County Metro,
Seattle, Washington (April 10, 2002)

Dr. Sandra Rosenbloom, professor of planning, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona (June 24 and October 5 and 26, 2004)

Jonas Schwartz, policy services manager, Advocacy, Incorporated, Austin,
Texas (June 28 and September 24, 2004)

Tom Seekins, director, University of Montana Rural Institute, Missoula,
Montana (May 5, 2004)

Ruthanne Shpiner, transportation advocate, Berkeley, California (August
18 and September 2, 2004)

Dr. Rosalyn Simon, president and CEO, Simon & Simon Research and
Associates, Ellicott City, Maryland (July 12, 2004)

Naomi Soule, St. Louis paratransit rider and district supervisor of
Rehabilitation Services for the Blind, St. Louis, Missouri (October 21
and November 12, 2004)

Clarissa Swann, rail manager, Federal Transit Administration Office of
Civil Rights, Washington D.C. (September 13 and 30, 2004)

Russell Thatcher, senior transportation planner, TranSystems, Medford,
Massachusetts (April 9, July 13 and 16, October 13, and November 1 and
12, 2004)

Tamara Thorsfeldt, wheelchair rider, Las Vegas, Nevada (November 1,
2004)

Barbara Toomer, corporate secretary, Disabled Rights Action Committee
and member of ADAPT, Salt Lake City, Utah (August 27, 2004)

Doug Towne, executive liaison, Disability Relations Group, and member of
the Easter Seals National Steering Committee, St. Petersburg, Florida
(May 26, 2004)

Jim Weisman, general counsel, United Spinal Association, Jackson
Heights, New York (September 13, 2004)

Janna Willardson, general manager of Telephone Information Centers,
Greyhound Lines Inc. (October 28, 2004)

Richard Weiner, transportation consultant, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting
Associates

Annette Williams, manager, Accessible Services Program, San Francisco
Municipal Railway, San Francisco, California (June 24 and October 12,
2004)

Tim Willis, attorney, Atlanta, Georgia (September 23, 2004)

Michael Winter, director, Federal Transit Administration Office of Civil
Rights, Washington D.C. (September 15, 2004)

Park Woodworth, manager, Paratransit and Rideshare Program, King County
Department of Transportation, Seattle, Washington (June 24, 2004)

Lauren Young, legal director, Maryland Disability Law Center, Baltimore,
Maryland (September 27, 2004)

# Appendix E: Mission of the National Council on Disability

## Overview and Purpose

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal
agency with 15 members appointed by the President of the United States
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is to promote
policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal
opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless of the
nature or significance of the disability and to empower individuals with
disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living,
and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.

## The Current Statutory Mandate of NCD Includes the Following:

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs,
    practices, and procedures concerning individuals with disabilities
    conducted or assisted by federal departments and agencies, including
    programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance
    and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all statutes and regulations
    pertaining to federal programs that assist such individuals with
    disabilities, to assess the effectiveness of such policies,
    programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in
    meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging
    disability policy issues affecting individuals with disabilities in
    the Federal Government, at the state and local government levels,
    and in the private sector, including the need for and coordination
    of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school
    reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with
    disabilities, access to health care, and policies that act as
    disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.

-   Making recommendations to the President, Congress, the Secretary of
    Education, the director of the National Institute on Disability and
    Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of federal agencies
    about ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic
    self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration
    into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.

-   Providing Congress, on a continuing basis, with advice,
    recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional
    information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate.

-   Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and
    impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42
    U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).

-   Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner of the
    Rehabilitation Services Administration, the assistant secretary for
    Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department
    of Education, and the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the
    programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
    amended.

-   Providing advice to the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services
    Administration with respect to the policies and conduct of the
    administration.

-   Making recommendations to the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research,
    service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and
    implementation of research findings affecting people with
    disabilities.

-   Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the
    Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the
    recommendations of this council for legislative and administrative
    changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with
    NCD's purpose of promoting the full integration, independence, and
    productivity of individuals with disabilities.

-   Preparing and submitting to the President and Congress an annual
    report titled *National Disability Policy: A Progress Report*.

### International

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S.
government's official contact point for disability issues. Specifically,
NCD interacts with the special rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission for Social Development on disability matters.

### Consumers served and current activities

Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs
affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency
charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues
of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age,
disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific
functional ability, veteran status, or other individual circumstance.
NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living,
community integration, and employment opportunities for people with
disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to
addressing the concerns of people with disabilities and eliminating
barriers to their active participation in community and family life.

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In
fact, NCD originally proposed what eventually became the ADA. NCD's
present list of key issues includes improving personal assistance
services, promoting health care reform, including students with
disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools,
promoting equal employment and community housing opportunities,
monitoring the implementation of ADA, improving assistive technology,
and ensuring that people with disabilities who are members of diverse
cultures fully participate in society.

### Statutory history

NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department
of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984
(P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an independent agency.

# Section 14: Endnotes

[^1]: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
    Statistics, "Freedom to Travel," 2002. Retrieved November 13, 2004,
    from <http://products.bts.gov/publications/freedom_to_travel/>.

[^2]: National Organization on Disability, *N.O.D./Harris Survey of
    Americans with Disabilities*, 2000. Retrieved November 13, 2004,
    from <http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=798>.

[^3]: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
    Statistics, "Freedom to Travel," 2002. Retrieved November 13, 2004,
    from <http://products.bts.gov/publications/freedom_to_travel/>.

[^4]: National Organization on Disability, *N.O.D./Harris Survey of
    Americans with Disabilities*, 2000. Retrieved November 13, 2004,
    from <http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=798>.

[^5]: Community Transportation Association of America, Rural
    Transportation. Retrieved November 13, 2004, from
    <http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/is_rural.asp>.

[^6]: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of
    Transportation, "Transportation Difficulties Keep Over Half a
    Million Disabled at Home," April 2003. BTS Issue Brief, No. 3.
    Retrieved February 16, 2005, from
    http://www.bts.gov/publications/issue_briefs/number_03.

[^7]: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub. L.
    105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998).

[^8]: Chris Zeilinger, compiler, *Building Mobility: Opportunities for
    Federal Funding* (Community Transportation Association of America,
    2002). Retrieved November 13, 2004, from
    http://www.ctaa.org/ct/resource/.

[^9]: 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 *et seq.*

[^10]: Rosalyn M. Simon, "Status of Transportation Accessibility in the
    United States: Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act," in
    *Proceedings of Seminar L Held at the Planning and Transportation
    Research and Computation European Transport Forum*, (England: Brunel
    University, September 2--6, 1996), §1.2.

[^11]: Mary Johnson and Barrett Shaw, eds., *To Ride the Public's Buses:
    The Fight that Built a Movement* (The Advocado Press, 2001).

[^12]: Silvia Yee and Marilyn Golden, "Achieving Accessibility: How the
    Americans with Disabilities Act Is Changing the Face and Mind of a
    Nation," in *Disability Rights Law and Policy: International and
    National Perspectives,* eds. Mary Lou Breslin and Sylvia Yee
    (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2002).

[^13]: Simon, "Status of Transportation."

[^14]: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, *National Transportation
    Statistics 2003*, Table 1-8, ADA Lift- or Ramp-Equipped Transit
    Buses. Retrieved September 1, 2004, from [http://www.bts.gov/\
    publications/national_transportation_statistics/
    2003/html/table_01_08.html](http://www.bts.gov/%0Bpublications/national_transportation_statistics/ 2003/html/table_01_08.html).

[^15]: D. Koffman, R. Weiner, and D. Raphael, "The Impact of Federal
    Programs on Transportation for Older Adults" (Washington, DC: AARP
    Public Policy Institute, 2003).

[^16]: National Council on Disability, *Voices of Freedom: America
    Speaks Out on the ADA---A Report to the President and Congress*,
    July 26, 1995. Retrieved September 2, 2004, from
    http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/1995/voices.htm.

[^17]: Fixed-route transit systems (49 C.F.R. § 37.3) are defined as
    those that operate along prescribed routes according to fixed
    schedules, in contrast to demand-response transit service, in which
    a vehicle is dispatched or routed in response to a potential rider's
    request. Fixed-route systems include traditional city transit buses
    and all train service, which travel to their stops regardless of the
    actions of an individual rider to summon them. Demand-responsive
    systems include paratransit and taxis, wherein a passenger must make
    a call, flag the taxi, or otherwise take an action to get a ride.

[^18]: *Martin v. MARTA*, Civ. No. 01-3255 TWT (N.D. Ga., Class Action
    Complaint Filed 11/28/01).

[^19]: Transit Access Report, "Riders in Atlanta Win Request For an ADA
    Compliance Order" (Pace Publications, October 10, 2002).

[^20]: Transit Cooperative Research Program, "Evaluating Transit
    Operations for Individuals with Disabilities" (Washington, DC:
    Transportation Research Board, 1997).

[^21]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(b)(1).

[^22]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(b)(2).

[^23]: Transit Access Report, "FTA Orders Reporting of Rate At Which Bus
    Stops are Called" (Pace Publications, September 10, 2003).

[^24]: \[49 C.F.R. § 37.167(b)(2)\].

[^25]: National Transit Institute, "Comprehensive ADA Paratransit
    Eligibility" (San Jose, California: National Transit Institute,
    March 18--20, 2004).

[^26]: Russell Thatcher, "Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
    Training on the Transportation Requirements of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act," sponsored by the Disability Law Resource Project,
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 18--20, 2003.

[^27]: Transit Access Report, "FTA Sees Right to Paratransit In Failure
    to Call Out Bus Stops" (Pace Publications, January 12, 2004).

[^28]: 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.161 and 37.163.

[^29]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.165(g).

[^30]: Joel Kurth, 'Broken Buses Prompt Lawsuit,' *Detroit News*, August
    17, 2004.

[^31]: Jerry Wolffe, "Change In Law Will Keep More People Rolling," *The
    Oakland Daily Press*, January 6, 2005.

[^32]: Kimberly Hayes Taylor, "Buses Fail Disabled in Metro Area,"
    *Detroit News*, July 25, 2004.

[^33]: Kurth, *op. cit.*; Taylor, *op .cit.*; Lockhart, Valerie D.,
    "Road Block: Broken Lifts On City Buses Stop Disabled From Getting
    Around," *Michigan Chronicle*, November 18, 2004; Wolffe, *op.
    cit.*; "Feds Probe Detroit Buses' Handicapped Access Compliance,"
    *Detroit Free Press*, January 19, 2005; Bill Laitner, "Ailing
    Detroit Bus System Has New Woe," *Detroit Free Press*, January 19,
    2005.

[^34]: Transit Access Report, "Role of Legal Data Software Noted in
    Denver Transit Case" (Pace Publications, October 25, 2001).

[^35]: Multisystems, Inc., *Bi-State Development Agency ADA Compliance
    Assessment,* Executive Summary, February 9, 2001.

[^36]: Jack Encarnacao, "Some With Disabilities Say T Still a Tough
    Ride," *Boston Globe*, September 15, 2004.

[^37]: Kevin Irvine, personal communication, and Rapid Transit District,
    Denver, Colorado, January 27, 2003, retrieved September 12, 2004,
    from <http://www.rtd-denver.com/>: "RTD will permit riders who use
    wheelchairs to choose whether they want to be secured. RTD will not
    refuse transportation on the grounds that the rider elects to ride
    unsecured. . . . If a passenger indicates to the operator that they
    do not wish to be secured then the operator will respect that
    decision without question or comment."

[^38]: 49 C.F.R. Part 37, § 37.165, 56 Fed. Reg. 45617-45618.

[^39]: Invacare, M 71 Jr. Product Description, retrieved on February 20,
    2005, from
    [https://www.invacare.com/cgi-bin/imhqprd/inv_catalog/prod_cat_detail.jsp?s=0&customerID=\
    null&prodID=M71JR](https://www.invacare.com/cgi-bin/imhqprd/inv_catalog/prod_cat_detail.jsp?s=0&customerID=%0Bnull&prodID=M71JR).

[^40]: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, California, "AC Transit
    Wheelchair Marking/Tether Strap Program," 2002. Retrieved September
    12, 2004, from [http://www.actransit.org/pdf/\
    securement.pdf](http://www.actransit.org/pdf/%0Bsecurement.pdf).

[^41]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.3 ("Wheelchair," including definition of "common
    wheelchair").

[^42]: *See* 42 U.S.C. § 12146 (public entity new facility requirement
    for designated public transportation facilities); 42 U.S.C. §
    12147(b) (public entity key station requirement for rapid and light
    rail); 42 U.S.C. § 12162(e)(1) (public entity new station
    requirement for intercity or commuter rail); 42 U.S.C. § 12162(e)(2)
    (public entity key station requirement for intercity or commuter
    rail); 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1) (private entity new facility
    requirement). *See also* 49 C.F.R. § 37.41 (public entity new
    facility requirement); 49 C.F.R. § 37.45 (private entity new
    facility requirement); 49 C.F.R. § 37.47 (light and rapid rail key
    stations); 49 C.F.R. § 37.51 (commuter rail key stations).

[^43]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.5, 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(f).

[^44]: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, *National Transportation
    Statistics 2003*, Table 1-9, ADA-Accessible Rail Transit Stations by
    Agency. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from
    <http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics>/2003/html/table_01_09.html.

[^45]: 29 U.S.C. § 794.

[^46]: *See* 42 U.S.C. § 12147(b)(2) (public entity timeline and
    extension requirements for rapid and light rail key stations); 42
    U.S.C. § 12162(e)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (public entity timeline and
    extension requirements for commuter rail key stations). S*ee also,*
    49 C.F.R. § 37.47(c)(1) (timeline for light and rapid rail key
    stations); 49 C.F.R. § 37.47(c)(2) and (e) (light and rapid rail key
    station extension provisions); 49 C.F.R. § 37.51(c)(1) (timeline for
    commuter rail key stations); 49 C.F.R. § 37.51(c)(2) and (e)
    (commuter rail key station extension provisions).

[^47]: Herald Staff, "Disabled Tell Horror Stories About T," *Boston
    Herald,* September 15, 2004.

[^48]: Encarnacao, *op. cit.*, 2004.

[^49]: ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. A,
    § 10.3.1(9).

[^50]: Dennis Cannon, personal communication, December 10, 2003.

[^51]: Transit Access Report, "Question Raised in Nashville on Rail
    Project Accessibility," (Pace Publications, January 12, 2004);
    Transit Access Reports, "Seattle Agency Adds Arguments In Favor of
    Mini-High Platforms" (Pace Publications, February 10, 2004); and
    "Agreement on Rail Car Access Preceded Release of FTA Grant" (Pace
    Publications, April 12, 2004).

[^52]: Federal Transit Administration, "Frequently Asked Questions: Rail
    Station Platform Requirements," *Bulletin* Volume 3, July, 2004.
    Retrieved September 12, 2004, from
    <http://www.fta.dot.gov/15874_ENG_HTML.htm>.

[^53]: *See* 42 U.S.C. § 12143; 49 C.F.R. § 37.121.

[^54]: *Id*.; *see also*, 49 C.F.R. § 131.

[^55]: 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, § 37.131.

[^56]: Koffman, Weiner, and Raphael, o*p. cit.*, 2003.

[^57]: Sandra Rosenbloom, "Will Older Persons Lose Mobility?"
    (Washington, DC: AARP, 1993).

[^58]: Koffman, Weiner, and Raphael, o*p. cit.* 2003.

[^59]: Lyndsey Layton, "Disabled Riders Plan Suit Against Metro,"
    *Washington Post*, March 25, 2004.

[^60]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.123.

[^61]: *See* 49 C.F.R. § 37.125 ("ADA paratransit eligibility: Process")
    and § 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, § 37.125 ("The details of the
    process are to be devised through the planning and public
    participation process of this subpart").

[^62]: 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D. § 37.123.

[^63]: Transit Access Report, "Transit Agency in Sacramento Settles Case
    on ADA Eligibility" (Pace Publications, October 26, 2004) (citing 70
    Fed. Appx. 438, 439, 2003 WL 21518745 \*1 (9th Cir. July 3, 2003)).

[^64]: 29 U.S.C. § 794.

[^65]: National Transit Institute, "Managing the Cost of ADA
    Paratransit" (New Brunswick, NJ: National Transit Institute, 2003).

[^66]: S. Hirano, "How to Beat the High Cost of Paratransit Service,"
    *Metro Magazine,* August 2002.

[^67]: Koffman, Weiner, and Raphael, o*p. cit.*, 2003.

[^68]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2004*.*

[^69]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2004*.*

[^70]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2004*.*

[^71]: Richard Weiner, *ADA Paratransit Eligibility Certification
    Practices,* Transit Cooperative Research Practices, Synthesis 30
    (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 1998).

[^72]: Transit Access Report, "On the Record... Question Raised on
    Eligibility: Are 'All' Conditions Covered?" (Pace Publications,
    November 10, 2004).

[^73]: Kevin Irvine, Equip for Equality, and Marilyn Golden, Disability
    Rights Education and Defense Fund, "ADA Paratransit Eligibility: How
    to Make Your Case," 2003. Retrieved October 23, 2004, from
    <http://www.equipforequality.org/cta080103a.htm>.

[^74]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2004.

[^75]: Koffman, Weiner, and Raphael, *op. cit.* 2003.

[^76]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(a).

[^77]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(b).

[^78]: Transit Access Report, "Cleveland Struggles to Meet Demand for
    ADA Paratransit" (Pace Publications, March 10, 2004).

[^79]: Transit Access Report, "Judges Say ADA Requires Plan to Meet 100
    Percent of Demand" (Pace Publications, July 25, 2003).

[^80]: Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority,
    337 F.3d 201, (2nd Cir. 2003).

[^81]: *Anderson,* 337 F.3d at 215 (*quoting* Letter Brief of the United
    States at 5 (October 25, 2002)).

[^82]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(b)(2).

[^83]: The source for many of the factors affecting paratransit denial
    rates is Transit Access Report, "Seven Reasons Offered for Why
    Denials Are Magnified" (Pace Publications, October 25, 2000).

[^84]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(f)(3)(i)(A).

[^85]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(b)(2).

[^86]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(f).

[^87]: Transit Access Report, "Option Urged for ADA Riders to State
    Desired Arrival Time," (Pace Publications, November 25, 2003).

[^88]: Ibid.

[^89]: Transit Access Report, "ADA Interpretations Disputed On Several
    Issues in New York" (Pace Publications, November 10, 2004).

[^90]: Steve Kautz, Tri-Met, memorandum to LIFT/Paratransit Committee,
    "Peer Survey of Paratransit Services: Tabulation of Results by
    System," April 2002.

[^91]: Multisystems, Inc., "Innovative Practices in Paratransit
    Services" (Easter Seals Project ACTION, April 2002).

[^92]: Thatcher, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^93]: Ibid.

[^94]: Multisystems, *op. cit.,* 2002.

[^95]: Ibid.

[^96]: Transit Access Report, *op. cit.,* November 25, 2003.

[^97]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(f).

[^98]: Planners Collaborative, "Assessment of ADA Complementary
    Paratransit Service Capacity Constraints, Metro-Dade Transit Agency,
    Special Transportation Services, Miami, Florida" (Final Report
    prepared for the Federal Transit Administration, September 6, 2001).

[^99]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.133(b).

[^100]: Koffman, Weiner, and Raphael, *op. cit.*, 2003.

[^101]: Ibid.

[^102]: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, *Paratransit Demand
    Management Handbook,* 1995.

[^103]: Hirano, *op. cit.,* 2002.

[^104]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(c)

[^105]: *See* 42 U.S.C. § 12143; and 49 C.F.R. § 37.121.

[^106]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.125(h).

[^107]: Crain & Associates, RTC Paratransit Service Plan, Final Report,
    May 2000.

[^108]: Letter from Michael Winter, FTA, to Richard White, WMATA,
    December 22, 2003.

[^109]: 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, § 37.125

[^110]: Transit Access Report, "Rights Office Keeps Up Effort To Ease
    'No-Show' Policies" (Pace Publications, May 25, 2004).

[^111]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.125(h)(1).

[^112]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.125(h)(3).

[^113]: Transit Access Report, "'Responsible Rider' Rewards Instituted
    to Curb 'No Shows'" (Pace Publications, August 11, 2003).

[^114]: Russell Thatcher, personal communication, July 16, 2003.

[^115]: Bi-State Development Agency, Call-a-Ride Overview, Call-a-Ride
    Brochure, and Call-a-Ride Tips. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from
    <http://www.metrostlouis.org/MetroCAR/metroCAR.asp>.

[^116]: Transit Access Report, *op. cit.,* May 25, 2004.

[^117]: Multisystems, Bi-State Development Agency, *op. cit.,* 2001.

[^118]: Transit Access Report, "Winter Asks a Transit Agency to Review
    Cancellation Policy" (Pace Publications, July 10, 2003).

[^119]: Planners Collaborative with TranSystems Corporation, "ADA
    Complementary Paratransit Service Compliance Review, New York City
    Transit" (Final Report prepared for the Federal Transit
    Administration, October 22, 2004).

[^120]: Russell Thatcher, personal communication, July 16, 2003.

[^121]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.129(a).

[^122]: 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, § 37.129.

[^123]: Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, Case Study: SORTA's
    Travel Training Program, Fall 2000.

[^124]: Weiner, *op. cit.,* 1998.

[^125]: J.D. Culver, K. Welch, and L. Bailiff, "Providing transit
    options through travel training," *CalAction* 4, Spring 2003.

[^126]: Hirano, *op. cit.,* 2002.

[^127]: Transit Cooperative Research Program, *op. cit.,* 1997.

[^128]: E. Wisniewski, 'Restructuring a Paratransit System: The Broward
    County Model,' APTA Bus and Paratransit Conference, 2000.

[^129]: EG&G Dynatrend and Crain & Associates, "Evaluating Transit
    Operations for Individuals with Disabilities," Final Report, TCRP
    B-1, June 1995, page VI-2.

[^130]: David Koffman, personal communication, November 24, 2004.

[^131]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^132]: Transit Cooperative Research Program, *op. cit.,* 1997.

[^133]: Easter Seals Project ACTION, The 2003 National Dialogue,
    Transportation Policy and Research Forum on Accessible Community
    Transportation in America, Report and Recommendations, 2003.
    Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://projectaction\
    .easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ESPA_04dial, p. 26 of
    downloadable pdf file.

[^134]: Thatcher, *op. cit.,* 2003 and personal communication, November
    15, 2004.

[^135]: Koffman, Weiner, and Raphael, *op. cit.*, 2003.

[^136]: *See* 49 C.F.R. § 37.123(e); 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, § 37.123
    ("Eligibility does not inhere in the individual or his or her
    disability, as such, but in meeting the functional criteria of
    inability to use the fixed route system established by the ADA").

[^137]: Sandra Rosenbloom, "The Mobility Needs Of Older Americans,"
    Transportation Reform Series Brief (Washington, DC: Brookings
    Institution, 2003).

[^138]: G. Bailey, "Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options" (Surface
    Transportation Policy Project, 2004).

[^139]: Koffman, Weiner, and Raphael, *op. cit.*, 2003.

[^140]: Nelson/Nygaard, "Assessment of Chicago Transit Authority ADA
    Complementary Paratransit Capacity Constraints" (February 2004).

[^141]: Nelson/Nygaard, "Senior Mobility Toolkit" (Metropolitan
    Transportation Commission, September 2003).

[^142]: National Transit Institute, "Managing the Cost of ADA
    Paratransit," 2003.

[^143]: Ibid.

[^144]: Chicago Transit Authority, "CTA Paratransit Service: A
    Customer's Guide," July 2002. Retrieved October 19, 2004, from
    http://www.transitchicago.com/downloads/brochures/\
    paratransit.pdf.

[^145]: Hirano, *op. cit.,* 2002.

[^146]: Nelson/Nygaard, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^147]: Wisniewski, *op. cit.,* 2000.

[^148]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^149]: Beverly Morris, New York City Transit, Presentation to American
    Public Transit Association Conference, April 28, 2004.

[^150]: Letter, October 25, 2004, to members of the Chicago Transit
    Board from executive directors of nine Chicago disability
    organizations, shared by Kevin Irvine in a personal communication,
    December 17, 2004.

[^151]: *See* 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (ADA Title II enforcement); 42 U.S.C. §
    12188 (ADA Title III enforcement); 49 C.F.R. § 37.11 (administrative
    enforcement of ADA transportation provisions); 28 C.F.R. §§
    35.170-35.174, 35.190 (ADA Title II administrative complaint
    process); and 28 C.F.R. § 36.501 (ADA private lawsuits to enforce
    Title III); and 28 C.F.R. § 36.502 (Title III administrative
    complaint process).

[^152]: *See* 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (ADA Title II enforcement); 49 C.F.R. §
    37.11 (administrative enforcement of ADA transportation provisions);
    and 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.170-35.174, 35.190 (ADA Title II administrative
    complaint process).

[^153]: National Council on Disability, *Promises to Keep: A Decade of
    Federal Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act*, Section
    4.2, Federal Transit Administration, June 27, 2000. Retrieved
    September 17, 2004, from
    [http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/\
    promises_4.htm#7](http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2000/%0Bpromises_4.htm#7).

[^154]: Transit Access Report, "FTA Sees Right to Paratransit in Failure
    to Call Out Bus Stops," *op. cit.,* January 12, 2004.

[^155]: 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)

[^156]: Transit Access Report, "FTA Advises Transit Agencies to Act on
    Riders' Seat Choices" (Pace Publications, April 10, 2003).

[^157]: Transit Access Report, "Transit Agency Told to Ensure
    Accessibility of New Bus Stops" (Pace Publications, September 10,
    2003).

[^158]: Transit Access Report, "Quarterly Compliance Reporting Ordered
    for Memphis Paratransit" (Pace Publications, April 25, 2001).

[^159]: Transit Access Report, "Administrative Complaint Filed on
    Baltimore-Area Paratransit" (Pace Publications, March 11, 2002).

[^160]: Federal Transit Administration, ADA Compliance Assessment Final
    Reports. Retrieved November 5, 2004, from
    <http://www.fta.dot.gov/14531_16159_ENG_HTML.htm>.

[^161]: Barbara Toomer, personal communication, April 25, 2002.

[^162]: Julie Shaw, personal communication, February 19, 2004.

[^163]: *Smith v. Flanagan*, Civ. No. 03-02895 BEL (D. Md., Complaint
    Filed 10/10/03).

[^164]: Transit Access Report, "U.S. Defends ADA Assessment Against
    Challenge by Maryland" (Pace Publications, June 10, 2004).

[^165]: *Martin v. MARTA*, Civ. No. 01-3255 TWT (N.D. Ga., Class Action
    Complaint Filed 11/28/01).

[^166]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.165(g).

[^167]: M. Ernst, et al., "Measuring Up: The Trend Toward Voter-Approved
    Transportation Funding" (Surface Transportation Policy Project,
    2003).

[^168]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^169]: KFH Group, "Report of the Special Master: Findings and
    Recommendations on Methods and Technologies for Obtaining Reliable
    On-Time Performance Data," *Richman, et al. v. Southeastern
    Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al.,* Civil Action No.
    94-6497, April, 2003.

[^170]: Multisystems, *op. cit.,* 2002**.**

[^171]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^172]: Transit Access Report, "Parties in ADA On-Time Case Decide to
    Send Out Observers" (Pace Publications, October 26, 2004).

[^173]: 49 C.F.R. Parts 37 and 38.

[^174]: 42 U.S.C. §§ 12141 *et seq.*

[^175]: 28 C.F.R. Part 35.

[^176]: 49 C.F.R. § 27.19.

[^177]: 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)

[^178]: 49 C.F.R. Part 27.

[^179]: 49 C.F.R. § 27.19.

[^180]: Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
    (WMATA), 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

[^181]: *Id.*, 112 F. 3d at 1210.

[^182]: 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1).

[^183]: *Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit* (DART), 391 F.3d 669
    (5^th^ Cir. 2004).

[^184]: 28 C.F.R. § 35.102(b).

[^185]: 42 U.S.C. §§ 12143(c)(7) & (d).

[^186]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.135(c)(1).

[^187]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(d).

[^188]: *Schmidt v. Safeway Inc.*, 864 F. Supp. 991, 997, 3 AD Cas.
    (BNA) 1141, 1146-47 (D. Or. 1994) ("statute does not require the
    plaintiff to speak any magic words. . . The employee need not
    mention the ADA or even the term 'accommodation.'").

[^189]: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), *Designing Sidewalks and
    Trails for Access; Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide.*
    2001. Retrieved June 15, 2004, from http://www.fhwa.\
    dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/index.htm.

[^190]: U.S. Access Board, Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory
    Committee, "Building a True Community: Final Report," 2001*.*
    Retrieved June 15, 2004, from
    <http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/commrept/index.htm>.

[^191]: FHWA, *op. cit.,* 2001.

[^192]: 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. A,

[^193]: U.S. Access Board, Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public
    Rights-of-Way, June 17, 2002. Retrieved September 1, 2004, from
    <http://www.access-board.gov/rowdraft.htm>.

[^194]: FHWA, *op. cit.,* 2001.

[^195]: U.S. Access Board, *op. cit.*, 2001.

[^196]: Andy Humm, "12,000 NYC Taxis; Five Are Accessible," *Gotham
    Gazette*, May 2004.

[^197]: *See* 49 C.F.R. § 37.29 (private entities providing taxi
    services); and 49 C.F.R. § 37.103(c) and (d) (acquisition of
    accessible vehicles by private entities).

[^198]: Sandra Rosenbloom, personal communication, July 14, 2003.

[^199]: Russell Thatcher, personal communication, July 14, 2003.

[^200]: APTA electronic discussion list communication, August 2004.

[^201]: Michael Luo, "A Little Movement Toward More Taxis for
    Wheelchairs," *New York Times*, August 25, 2004.

[^202]: Ibid.

[^203]: Frank Lombardi, "Taxi Access Blasted," *New York Daily News*,
    May 5, 2004.

[^204]: Michael Luo, *op. cit.,* August 25, 2004.

[^205]: Sandra Rosenbloom, personal communication, July 14, 2003.

[^206]: \[49 C.F.R. § 38.25(c)\]. Note: the 56-inch requirement is
    applicable only to vehicles of 22 feet or less, as stated: "Door
    height. For vehicles in excess of 22 feet in length, the overhead
    clearance between the top of the door opening and the raised lift
    platform, or highest point of a ramp, shall be a minimum of 68
    inches. For vehicles of 22 feet in length or less, the overhead
    clearance between the top of the door opening and the raised lift
    platform, or highest point of a ramp, shall be a minimum of 56
    inches."

[^207]: Ibid.

[^208]: Russell Thatcher, personal communication, July 14, 2003.

[^209]: Michael Luo, *op. cit.,* August 25, 2004.

[^210]: Sandra Rosenbloom, personal communication, July 14, 2003.

[^211]: 42 U.S.C. § 12186(a)(2).

[^212]: 49 C.F.R. § 183, 49 C.F.R. § 185, 49 C.F.R. §193.

[^213]: Settlement Agreement Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
    Between the United States of America and Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
    retrieved on February 21, 2005, from
    http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/greyhnd.htm.

[^214]: Stephanie Thomas, personal communication, August 1, 2002.

[^215]: U.S. Department of Justice, "Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report
    from the Department of Justice," April--June 2002. The SuperShuttle
    settlement agreement was retrieved from
    <http://www.usdoj.gov:80/crt/ada/superstl.htm>.

[^216]: State of California Department of Justice, Office of the
    Attorney General, Press Release, September 30, 2004. Retrieved
    October 6, 2004, from <http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2004/04-112.htm>.

[^217]: *United We Ride* Newsletter, Coordinating Council on Access and
    Mobility. Retrieved November 3, 2004, from
    [http://www.fta.dot.gov/CCAM/www/Newsletters/\
    UWR_Newsletter_2004_07_07.htm](http://www.fta.dot.gov/CCAM/www/Newsletters/%0BUWR_Newsletter_2004_07_07.htm).

[^218]: General Accounting Office, letter to Representative Thomas E.
    Petri on Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Agencies
    Are Taking Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies in Coordinating
    Transportation Services, 2004.

[^219]: Montana Council on Developmental Disabilities, *Montana
    Coordinated Transportation Handbook*, 2004. Retrieved November 3,
    2004, from [http://www.mtcdd.org/trcordn/\
    contents.php](http://www.mtcdd.org/trcordn/%0Bcontents.php).

[^220]: J.E. Burkhardt, *Coordinated Transportation Systems*
    (Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons, 2000).

[^221]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(c)

[^222]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^223]: 49 C.F.R. § 37.77.

[^224]: Information on route deviation service and its relationship with
    the ADA comes from Thatcher, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^225]: National Transit Institute, *op. cit.,* 2003.

[^226]: Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), *Status
    Report on Public Transportation in Rural America, 1994*, 1995*.*
    Retrieved June 7, 2004, from
    <http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/rtap/pubs/status/status.asp>.

[^227]: Retrieved from http://www.april-rural.org/transreportyear3.html.

[^228]: Retrieved from http://www.april-rural.org/.

[^229]: Federal Transit Administration, Job Access and Reverse Commute
    Program. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from
    http://www.fta.dot.gov/grant_programs/specific_grant_programs/\
    4339_ENG_HTML.htm.

[^230]: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub.L.
    105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998).

[^231]: Community Transportation Association of America, "Allegan County
    Transportation: Meeting the Mobility Needs of People with
    Disabilities," Job Access and Reverse Commute Projects: Profiles of
    Success, prepared by CTAA for the Federal Transit Administration.
    Brief No. 4, February 2002. Retrieved on November 14, 2004, from
    http://www.ctaa.org/images/\
    AlleganCountyJARC%20profilno.pdf.

[^232]: The New Freedom Initiative, The White House. Retrieved November
    14, 2004, from
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominitiative.html.

[^233]: Community Transportation Association of America, Panel: The
    Challenge of Inclusion. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from
    <http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/challenge_inclusion.asp>.

[^234]: Community Transportation Association of America, TANF
    Reauthorization and Transportation. Retrieved November 14, 2004,
    from [http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/atj/\
    tanfreauthorization.asp](http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/atj/%0Btanfreauthorization.asp).

[^235]: Beth Wilson, "On the Road to Travel Independence in Frederick."
    Retrieved November 14, 2004, from
    <http://www.ctaa.org/ct/winterspring04/winterspring-28-33.pdf>.