United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, 

House of Representatives 

TRANSPORTATION 

ACCESSIBILITY 

Lack of Data and 

Limited Enforcement 

Options Limit Federal 

Oversight 

September 2007 

 

GAO-07-1126 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2007

TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY

Lack of Data and Limited Enforcement Options 

Highlights of GAO-07 Limit Federal Oversight -1126, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, House of 

Representatives 

The Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (ADA) provides people 

with disabilities the legal right to 

access transportation and public

rights-of-way, including sidewalks 

and street crossings. The 

Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and Department of Justice 

(DOJ) share responsibility for 

overseeing ADA compliance. 

GAO was asked to review federal

oversight and enforcement of ADA 

compliance, including (1) what is 

known about compliance, (2) 

difficulties the federal government

faces in overseeing and enforcing 

compliance, and (3) the sources of

federal help and any gaps in that 

help. GAO’s work encompassed a 

wide range of federal agencies and 

other entities, such as industry

associations, transportation 

providers, and disability advocacy

groups, as well as detailed reviews 

in eight cities across the country. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes several 

recommendations to DOT and 

Amtrak to improve data and 

guidance for ADA compliance, 

increase coordination and 

communication across federal 

agencies, and develop a legislative

proposal to enable DOT to impose 

fines for noncompliance with the 

ADA. DOT agreed to consider the 

recommendations. Amtrak officials 

said the recommendations are

likely to be ineffective for them

without more funding and clearer 

federal requirements.

While data indicate accessibility is improving for public transit, the extent of 

ADA compliance for other modes of transportation and public rights-of-way 

is unknown due to the lack of reliable data. For example, there are no 

national data on compliance with requirements for ADA paratransit—transit 

service that complements bus or rail transit. The Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration solicits compliance data from registered commercial 

bus companies, but the response rate is low (13 percent in 2006), and the 

agency has not verified or analyzed the data. In other instances, such as the 

accessibility of Amtrak’s train stations, data are still being developed. 

Federal agencies face three main difficulties overseeing and enforcing 

compliance. First, they differ greatly in the degree to which they have an 

oversight framework in place. For example, the Federal Transit 

Administration has a memorandum of understanding in place with DOJ 

specifying each agency’s responsibilities for public transit, while the Federal 

Railroad Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

have no formal mechanism for coordinating with DOJ. Second, federal 

agencies’ lack of data about compliance limits DOT’s ability to target its 

oversight and enforcement efforts. Only the Federal Transit Administration 

uses data in this manner. Third, DOT officials regard their enforcement 

options, such as withholding grant money, as lengthy and complex processes 

that would not be undertaken lightly. DOT officials said the authority to 

impose fines—an option they lack—would be more useful. 

Federal agencies provide a variety of technical assistance to help entities 

comply with the ADA, but gaps in regulations and guidance exist. For 

example, one gap involves a requirement for local governments to develop 

plans for identifying and correcting accessibility problems with public rightsof-way (such as shown in the figure below). As a result, GAO found 

confusion about which entities needed to develop the plans and how to use 

and update plans once they were developed. DOJ officials said most 

localities had not developed such plans, leaving themselves open to private 

lawsuits and federal enforcement action. 

Example of Inaccessible Sidewalk in a Downtown Area 

Note: This is a recent construction project in a downtown area where a median was installed in the 

main street, but curb ramps were not installed in the existing sidewalks, as required. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1126.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 9

Extent of ADA Compliance for Surface Transportation and Public 

Rights-of-Way Is Largely Unknown Because Little Reliable 

Information Is Available 15 

Federal Agencies Conduct Oversight and Enforcement Activities 

but Face Difficulties in Ensuring Compliance with the ADA 26 

Federal Entities Provide a Variety of Technical Assistance to Help 

with ADA Compliance, but Gaps Exist in Regulations and 

Guidance 37

Conclusions 46

Recommendations for Executive Action 48 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 49 

Appendix I Examples of Federal Funds That Are Used for ADA 

Compliance 52 

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 55 

Appendix III The Disability Law Coordinating Council 60 

Appendix IV Comments from the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) 61 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64

Tables 

Table 1: Other Examples of ADA Technical Assistance Sources 

Provided by DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board 39 

Table 2: Examples of Federal Funds that Are Used for ADA 

Compliance 52

Page i GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Table 3: National Industry Associations and Disability 

Organizations Interviewed for Our Review 57 

Table 4: State and Local Organizations Interviewed for Our Review 58 

Figures 

Figure 1: Examples of Accessible Transportation Features 11 

Figure 2: Percentage of People Reporting Problems with 

Transportation and Public Rights-of-Way, by Mode and 

Disability Status in 2002 14 

Figure 3: Inaccessible Sidewalks and Medians in a Downtown Area 23 

Abbreviations 

Access Board Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

 Compliance Board 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

ADAAG ADA Accessibility Guidelines 

Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

CMAQ Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality 

 Improvement Program 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

NCD National Council on Disability 

NHS National Highway System 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

STP Surface Transportation Program 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 19, 2007 

The Honorable John W. Olver 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Dear Chairman Olver: 

Access to transportation and public rights-of-way1

 is critical to helping 

people with disabilities live independently—allowing individuals to gain 

access to the goods, services, employment opportunities, and social 

contacts that support their quality of life. According to recent estimates, 

there are about 40-50 million people with disabilities in the United States.2

These include people with spinal cord injuries or other mobility 

impairments, who may use a wheelchair or other mobility aid; people who 

are blind or visually impaired, who may need assistance in reading signs or 

locating crosswalks; people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, who may 

have difficulty hearing stop or route announcements; people with 

cognitive impairments, who may have difficulty negotiating the public 

transportation system; and others. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) protects the legal rights 

of people with disabilities and requires the provision of services, including 

 1

Public rights-of-way include pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets, through 

crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and parking, among other things.

2

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2002 Survey of Income and Program Participation reported that

51.2 million noninstitutionalized civilians had some level of disability. In its 2005 American 

Community Survey, the bureau found that 39.7 million noninstitutionalized civilians age 5 

and over had one or more disabilities. According to the bureau, the definition of a disability 

varies between these surveys and, therefore, disability statistics vary depending on the 

purpose for which they are being used and the survey collecting the information. 

Page 1 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
access to transportation and public rights-of-way.3

 Since ADA 

requirements became effective, access to surface transportation has 

improved. For example, reports from the National Council on Disability4

and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics found that more public and 

private transportation vehicles are accessible now than at the time the 

ADA was enacted.5

To help ensure that people with disabilities have such access, the federal

government is responsible for monitoring, overseeing, and enforcing ADA 

requirements, as well as providing technical assistance. Specifically, the 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board) issues guidelines that show how buildings, facilities, and vehicles

covered by the law can be made accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

These guidelines form the basis for enforceable standards when 

incorporated into federal regulations. The Department of Transportation 

(DOT) issues regulations for both public and private transportation and is

responsible for reviewing compliance among public entities. The 

Department of Justice (DOJ) issues regulations setting rules and standards 

for access in public and commercial facilities, including public rights-ofway, and has responsibility for litigation on the government’s behalf in 

enforcing the ADA upon referral of a finding of noncompliance by DOT or 

by intervention in a privately filed lawsuit. DOJ is also responsible for 

enforcing compliance among both publicly and privately operated 

transportation systems that serve the general public. 

Despite overall improvements in accessibility since the ADA’s enactment 

and these federal oversight responsibilities, individuals with disabilities 

 3

The precursor to the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibits 

discrimination against an otherwise qualified person with a disability in any program or 

activity that receives federal financial assistance. Section 504 also gave certain authority to

the federal government for oversight and enforcement. The ADA extended the 

nondiscrimination principles established under Section 504 to both public and private 

entities without regard to receipt of federal financial assistance. 

4

The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency that makes 

recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for people 

with disabilities and their families.

5

National Council on Disability, The Current State of Transportation for People with

Disabilities in the United States (Washington, D.C.: June 2005); and U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2007). 

Page 2 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
continue to face barriers to accessible transportation.6

 For example, a 

national study conducted by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 

2002 found that approximately 12 percent of individuals with disabilities 

had difficulties obtaining the transportation they need, compared with 3 

percent of people without disabilities.7

 A 2004 national survey found that 

people with disabilities were twice as likely to have inadequate 

transportation as people without disabilities.8

 In addition, research has 

shown that compliance gaps still pose significant problems for many 

individuals with disabilities. For example, a 2005 National Council on 

Disability report found that some transit agencies fail to comply with the 

ADA regulatory requirement to announce bus or rail stops, making it 

difficult for people with visual or cognitive impairments to know when to 

get off the bus or train. Elevators at rail stations may not be in working 

order, rendering those stations inaccessible to people with certain 

mobility impairments. The ADA requires public transit operators to 

provide paratransit9

 service for persons with disabilities who cannot use 

the regular transit system, but many of these complementary paratransit

systems have timeliness problems, providing rides either too early or too 

late, preventing riders from reaching their jobs or appointments in a timely 

manner. Further, some transportation providers—including taxi and 

commercial bus10 drivers—have refused to accommodate service animals, 

such as guide dogs, as required by law. Finally, problems with public 

 6

The ADA requires transportation to be accessible, but it does not require transportation to

be available. As a result, people with disabilities may face mobility challenges if they live in 

suburban or rural areas that are not served by public transportation, or in areas that do not 

have sidewalks. We have discussed such mobility challenges in several reports, including

GAO, Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing 

Mobility: A National Challenge, GAO-02-775 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002); and

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among 

Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist, GAO-03-697 

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003). 

7

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Freedom to Travel

(Washington, D.C.: 2003). DOT officials pointed out that this information is 5 years old; 

however, this is DOT’s most recent study of the subject. 

8

National Organization on Disability, Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities 

(Washington, D.C.: June 2004).

9

The ADA refers to this service as “complementary paratransit service.” In general, ADA 

complementary paratransit service must be provided within 3/4 of a mile of a bus route or

rail station, at the same hours and days, for no more than twice the regular fixed route fare. 

10The ADA and federal regulations refer to these as over-the-road buses. For the purposes

of this report, we use the term “commercial bus.”

Page 3 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
rights-of-way include intersections without curb ramps or sidewalks 

blocked by telephone poles.11

This report responds to your request that we review the federal 

government’s oversight of compliance with the ADA. Specifically, it 

addresses: (1) what is known about the extent of ADA compliance for 

surface transportation and public rights-of-way;12 (2) what difficulties, if 

any, the federal government faces in overseeing and enforcing compliance 

with the ADA; and (3) the sources of federal technical assistance that are 

available to help public transportation providers, businesses, and state and 

local governments comply with ADA requirements and what gaps, if any,

exist. In addition, we provided information on several sources of federal

financial assistance for ADA-related activities (see app. I). 

To address these questions, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and 

policies governing ADA requirements for surface transportation modes 

and public rights-of-way; reviewed relevant literature; and gathered and 

analyzed available federal agency data on ADA compliance. To assess the 

reliability of accessibility data from the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) and the Federal Transit Administration’s National 

Transit Database, we spoke with agency officials about data quality 

control procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We determined 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We 

interviewed officials from DOJ, DOT’s Office of the Secretary, and the

various offices responsible for specific surface transportation modes 

(transit, rail, commercial bus, and pedestrian access). These offices 

included the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and Federal 

Highway Administration. We also interviewed officials from the Access 

Board, Amtrak, industry associations, and national-level disability 

organizations. We also made site visits to eight cities,13 where we met with 

officials from various entities, including transportation agencies, state 

 11National Council on Disability, Current State of Transportation. 

12For the purposes of this report, surface transportation includes public rights-of-way, 

public transportation (such as buses, subways, trolleys, and commuter rail), ADAcomplementary paratransit, intercity passenger rail (Amtrak), intercity buses, and privately 

operated transportation that is open to the public (such as taxis and airport shuttles). 

Maritime and aviation are excluded from our scope, as are school transportation and the 

Alaska Railroad. 

13Albany, NY; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; Hartford, CT; Joliet, IL; Kingston, NY; Los Angeles,

CA; and Springfield, MA. 

Page 4 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
departments of transportation, municipal governments, centers for 

independent living, and local disability advocacy groups. These cities were 

selected on the basis of several factors, including size, experience with 

federal ADA oversight processes, and geographic diversity. We conducted

this performance audit from November 2006 through July 2007, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The 

details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are in appendix II. 

Although there are indications that accessibility is improving, the extent of

compliance with the ADA’s requirements for surface transportation and 

public rights-of-way is unknown because, except for public transit, little 

reliable information is available. For transit, data are available on the 

percent of vehicles and rail stations that are wheelchair accessible in 

urban areas, as well as more limited data on accessibility in rural areas. 

These data reflect increasing compliance: for example, transit agencies 

reported that the percent of accessible transit buses in urban areas 

increased from 36 percent in 1989 to 97 percent in 2005 as new, accessible 

vehicles replaced older ones. However, problems persist in compliance 

with other ADA requirements, such as maintaining lifts and ramps and 

announcing transit stops. For compliance in public rights-of-way and other 

transportation modes, such as commercial bus and paratransit, however, 

less is known. While there are no national data on compliance with ADA 

paratransit requirements, for example, information from DOT reviews and 

disability interest groups indicate that problems remain, such as some 

transportation providers having policies to determine who is eligible for 

paratransit that are not consistent with the ADA and federal regulations. In

some cases, data are available but unreliable. For example, DOT rules 

require commercial bus carriers to provide compliance data to the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, but the percent of commercial bus 

carriers providing this data is low (13 percent in 2006), and DOT does not 

verify the data it receives. DOT also has not analyzed the information as 

required by DOT regulation, although the agency has developed a 

preliminary strategy for doing so and plans to finish its analysis by 2008. In

other cases, data are still being developed. For example, Amtrak, which 

faces an ADA requirement to make most of the stations that it serves 

accessible by 2010, is gathering station-by-station information on 

accessibility but has not developed a comprehensive schedule for 

achieving full compliance with ADA station accessibility requirements, as 

required by its grant agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration. 

Amtrak officials said that this is due, in part, to station ownership issues 

and the sufficiency and timing of funding. DOT and DOJ also have data on 

ADA-related complaints for all modes of transportation, of which there are 

Results in Brief 

Page 5 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
relatively few, but the number of complaints alone is not a good indicator

of compliance with ADA requirements. 

DOJ and DOT face three main difficulties in overseeing and enforcing 

compliance with the ADA, according to our discussions with officials and

our site visits: 

• Uneven level of oversight and enforcement provided by DOT modal 

administrations. Within DOT, the various modal administrations differ 

greatly in the degree to which they have an ADA oversight framework in 

place. DOJ, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Highway 

Administration have a framework, including processes for conducting 

regular reviews of ADA compliance and, in the case of DOJ and the 

Federal Transit Administration, a formal memorandum of understanding 

that specifies each agency’s oversight and enforcement responsibilities. In 

contrast, officials in other modal administrations do not have a framework 

in place to enforce the ADA. For example, although the Federal Railroad 

Administration does not conduct periodic reviews of Amtrak’s 

compliance, ADA regulations require DOT to conduct such reviews of all 

entities receiving financial assistance from DOT, including Amtrak.14

Federal Railroad Administration officials stated that they may begin such

reviews in the future. Additionally, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration officials have maintained in an ongoing court case that,

although they can penalize commercial bus companies for safety 

violations, they cannot withhold operating authority or issue civil penalties 

for ADA violations. These two modal administrations also lack a formal 

mechanism for coordinating with DOJ, although the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration shares information with DOJ. As a result, there 

appear to be gaps in oversight and enforcement for Amtrak and 

commercial buses. 

• Lack of data for targeting oversight and enforcement activities. Just as a 

lack of data precludes knowing the extent of compliance with the ADA, it 

also restricts federal agencies’ oversight and enforcement efforts. One 

exception that demonstrates the advantage of using such information is 

the Federal Transit Administration, which identifies and targets higher risk 

public transit providers using complaint data and results of reviews it 

conducts regularly. The Federal Transit Administration also focuses its 

ADA compliance reviews on areas it has identified through data analysis 

 14For the purposes of this report, ADA regulations refer to regulations promulgated under

the ADA as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

Page 6 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
and experience as problematic, such as whether transit providers are 

following requirements for vehicle lifts. Other federal agencies lack such 

data, although the Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration collect and use data to target non-ADA 

safety oversight and enforcement efforts. Without the necessary 

information on the extent of compliance, agencies are not able to target 

their enforcement efforts where most needed or to evaluate the 

effectiveness of their efforts. 

• Lack of useful enforcement options. Officials of DOT modal 

administrations said they rarely use available enforcement options 

because the options are too drastic or lengthy to bring about compliance. 

For example, Federal Transit Administration officials said while they have 

the authority to withhold grant funds from a public transit system for ADA 

violations, doing so is a lengthy and complex process that would not be 

undertaken lightly because it could affect the entire transit system and the 

mobility of all riders, including those with disabilities. DOT also has the 

option to refer cases to DOJ for investigation, but has used this option 

twice to date. There are many steps that DOT must undertake before it can 

refer a case to DOJ and many conflicts are resolved informally before they

are referred. DOT officials told us that other options, such as the authority 

to levy civil penalties similar to the authority DOT has under the Air 

Carrier Access Act, would be useful. They said such authority would 

provide a more focused tool for enforcing ADA compliance than 

withholding program funds, and the resulting penalties could be used to 

improve accessibility. DOT already has this ability with regard to air 

carriers and, between 2000 and 2006, DOT assessed approximately $8.4

million in penalties. DOT provided incentives for airlines to offset the 

majority of the penalties by improving accessibility, such as increasing the 

number of wheelchair-assistance personnel at airports. 

Federal entities—including DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board—provide a 

variety of technical assistance, including federal regulations and guidance, 

to help entities comply with the ADA, but gaps in regulations and guidance

exist, creating uncertainty at the state and local levels. Sources for federal 

assistance include Web sites and toll-free assistance lines. Public 

transportation providers and states and localities that we interviewed said 

that, in many respects, this technical assistance was helpful. However, 

they identified gaps in guidance available to address certain issues in 

public transportation and public rights-of-way, such as how to 

accommodate mobility devices that can be too heavy or large for transit 

vehicle lifts and how to plan for and design accessible public rights-ofway. For example, ADA regulations require state and local governments to 

develop transition plans that inventory the accessibility of their public 

Page 7 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
rights-of-way, including curb ramps, and identify corrective actions. Some 

officials we interviewed from state and local governments were unsure 

about how to create a transition plan or when to update the plan they had 

developed. Federal guidance on the content and required updates of these 

plans is limited—for instance, a state transportation official explained that 

federal guidance did not clearly define what data should be collected for 

ADA transition plans. Thus, state and local government officials are 

confused about how to develop the plans. According to DOJ officials, the 

majority of localities they have reviewed have not yet developed transition 

plans. Without such plans, state and local governments lack a systematic 

method of identifying areas of noncompliance, hindering accessibility of 

public rights-of-way, and leaving themselves open to private lawsuits and 

possible federal enforcement action, as well as limiting the potential for 

collecting compliance data. Furthermore, the Access Board has not 

finalized its draft guidelines that would provide specific technical 

standards and definitions for installing public rights-of-way, and could not 

provide a date by which those draft guidelines would be finalized. Various 

studies and advocacy and industry groups cited the lack of final 

specialized standards for public rights-of-way as an obstacle to accessible 

transportation for individuals with disabilities because the draft standards 

are not enforceable. According to industry group officials with whom we 

spoke, states and localities may not be willing to invest in accessibility 

improvements for public rights-of-way that go beyond current regulations

since draft standards would likely change. 

We are making several recommendations to DOT, its modal 

administrations, and Amtrak. These recommendations are designed to 

improve DOT’s knowledge of the status of ADA compliance, obtain 

additional data needed to oversee ADA implementation, clarify and 

streamline DOT’s process for withholding grant funds for ADA violations, 

and increase coordination and communication between DOJ and DOT 

modal administrations. In addition, we are recommending that DOT 

develop a legislative proposal that would give DOT the authority to impose 

civil penalties in instances of noncompliance. This would provide DOT 

with more options for overseeing and enforcing the ADA and help ensure 

that accessibility is a higher priority for public and private surface 

transportation providers and local governments. 

DOT, DOJ, the Access Board, and Amtrak reviewed a draft of this report. 

DOT officials agreed with our findings and conclusions and agreed to 

consider our recommendations. DOJ officials agreed with the report’s 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The Access Board agreed

with our findings. Amtrak officials stated that they have made strides in 

Page 8 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
increasing accessibility of their trains and the stations that they and others

own; however, they expressed concerns about the design of train 

platforms in the future because DOT is proposing regulations that Amtrak 

officials think freight railroads are unlikely to accept and that could be 

very costly to implement, especially over a short period of time. Thus, they 

believe that our recommendations that DOT clarify and develop more 

targeted oversight and enforcement actions will be ineffective for them 

without more funding and clearer federal requirements. Finally, DOT, DOJ, 

and Amtrak provided technical comments that we incorporated 

throughout the report as appropriate.

To help ensure that surface transportation—including public rights-ofway—is accessible, the ADA includes specific provisions for public 

entities (in Title II) and private entities (in Title III) for providing 

accessible transportation. Transportation-related requirements in the ADA 

and associated regulations vary by mode.15 In general, however, new 

vehicles that were purchased or leased after August 1990, and buildings or 

facilities that are constructed or altered after August 1990, must be 

accessible. Other requirements include the following: 

Background 

• Transit authorities must provide comparable paratransit services to those 

individuals who are unable to use fixed-route bus or rail services because

of a disability.16 These services are typically provided using wheelchairaccessible vans, small buses, or taxis. 

• Existing intercity rail (Amtrak), commuter rail, light rail, and rapid rail 

systems were to have at least one accessible car per train as of July 26, 

1995. 

 15Airlines are not covered under the ADA; rather, they are governed by the Air Carrier 

Access Act of 1986. Passenger vessels (such as cruise ships) are covered under the ADA,

but there are currently no federal standards specific to ships. The Access Board is in the

process of developing guidelines for passenger vessels, and DOT issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in January 2007 to amend its ADA regulations to include operating

requirements for passenger vessels. 

16If a transit agency can demonstrate that providing ADA-complementary paratransit would 

impose an undue financial burden, DOT can provide a partial, temporary waiver until DOT

determines that full compliance is possible. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
• Existing “key stations”17 in rapid rail, commuter rail, and light rail systems 

were to have been made accessible by 1993 unless certain extensions 

permitted by law were granted. 

• Most existing stations currently served by Amtrak must be accessible by 

July 26, 2010.

18

• Commercial bus companies must provide an accessible bus with 48-hour 

notice, among other things. 

• Entities such as hotels that generally offer transportation (shuttle service 

to the airport, for instance) must provide equivalent transportation 

services for people with disabilities. 

• For public rights-of-way, all projects for new construction that provide 

pedestrian facilities must incorporate accessible pedestrian features. 

Projects altering the usability of the roadway must also incorporate 

accessible pedestrian improvements. 

Figure 1 shows examples of some of these accessible transportation 

features. 

 17DOT’s regulations state that each public entity is to determine which stations on its rail 

system are key stations, taking into consideration the following criteria: (1) stations where 

passenger boardings exceed average station passenger boardings on the rail system by at 

least 15 percent, unless such a station is close to another accessible station; (2) transfer 

stations on a rail line or between rail lines; (3) major interchange points with other 

transportation modes, including stations connecting with major parking facilities, bus 

terminals, intercity or commuter rail stations, passenger vessel terminals, or airports; (4) 

end stations, unless an end station is close to another accessible station; and (5) stations

serving major activity centers, such as employment or government centers, institutions of 

higher education, hospitals or other major health care facilities, or other facilities that are 

major destinations for individuals with disabilities.

18Amtrak serves 525 stations, 479 of which must be accessible. Those that are not required 

to be accessible include 9 stations in Canada, 25 “flag stops” (at which Amtrak only stops 

on passengers’ request), and 12 stations for which service was suspended after Hurricane

Katrina. 

Page 10 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Figure 1: Examples of Accessible Transportation Features 

Source: DOT.

Images (from left to right) include a low-floor transit bus with a wheelchair ramp, a paratransit vehicle, 

and a curb ramp with a tactile warning.

A number of federal agencies have a role in implementing, overseeing, and 

enforcing the ADA’s surface transportation requirements. We will discuss 

them in more detail later in this report, but their general roles and 

responsibilities are as follows: 

• The Access Board is an independent federal agency devoted to

accessibility for people with disabilities.19 The board develops and 

maintains design criteria for facilities and transit vehicles (these design 

criteria are not enforceable until implemented in DOJ or DOT regulations). 

It also provides technical assistance and training on these requirements 

and on accessible design. 

• DOJ has responsibility for publishing federal regulations governing access 

to public and commercial services. DOJ also has responsibility for 

investigating alleged ADA violations by private entities, including 

transportation providers, and conducting compliance reviews. DOJ refers 

allegations of ADA violations by public transportation entities to DOT for 

investigation. DOJ also may commence civil action in U.S. district court 

under certain circumstances. 

 19The board is structured to function as a coordinating body among federal agencies and to

directly represent the public, particularly people with disabilities. It is composed of 

officials from most of the federal departments as well as members of the public appointed 

by the President, a majority of whom must have a disability.

Page 11 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
• DOT is responsible for publishing federal regulations for carrying out the 

transportation provisions of the ADA. Offices within DOT have the 

following responsibilities: 

• Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) promulgated DOT’s 

regulations for the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. OST 

also coordinates and approves DOT guidance and interpretation for 

transportation accessibility. For example, OST issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in February 2006 in which it proposed 

changes to ADA regulations, including revising commuter and intercity 

rail station platform requirements and clarifying public transit 

providers’ responsibilities to modify their services when needed to 

ensure program accessibility. OST also sought comment on how to 

accommodate changes in mobility devices used by individuals with 

disabilities, among other things. 

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for 

implementation of program access to individuals with disabilities by 

state departments of transportation and other FHWA aid recipients, 

including pedestrian rights-of-way access requirements from the ADA. 

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) informs 

commercial bus companies of their ADA responsibilities and collects 

data on ADA compliance.

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for overseeing 

federal grants to Amtrak, including ADA provisions. 

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is responsible for overseeing 

federal grants for public transportation,20 which includes compliance 

with ADA requirements for public transportation systems, including 

ADA-complementary paratransit. 

Two other agencies—one inside DOT, the other outside—also have roles 

in ADA compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), within DOT, establishes federal motor vehicle 

 20Public transportation includes fixed-route bus service (e.g., buses operating according to

a regular schedule along a prescribed route with designated bus stops), demand-responsive 

bus service (e.g., vehicles operating in response to calls from passengers), heavy rail (e.g.,

subways), commuter rail (provide service from outlying suburbs or small cities to a central 

downtown area), light rail (e.g., streetcars or trolleys), and automated guideway (guided,

fully automated vehicle), among other modes.

Page 12 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
safety standards for platform lifts and vehicles equipped with platform lifts 

(including commercial buses and public transportation vehicles). NHTSA 

is also responsible for ADA compliance of state motor vehicle agencies 

that receive federal funds. In addition, the National Council on Disability

(NCD), an independent federal agency, gathers information about the 

implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the ADA. NCD also reviews 

and evaluates federal policies, programs, practices, and procedures 

concerning people with disabilities, and all statutes and regulations 

pertaining to federal programs that assist people with disabilities, to 

assess their effectiveness in meeting those needs.21

Several major interest groups and industry associations also play a role. 

For example, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund provides 

ADA-related training, technical assistance, and legal services, and 

advocates on behalf of people with disabilities. Also, the American Public 

Transportation Association has an Access Committee designed to promote 

successful implementation of the transportation provisions of the ADA by 

facilitating information sharing and monitoring and reporting to its 

members on the status of pending litigation, among other activities. 

A number of reports by national organizations indicate that transportation 

accessibility has improved since Congress passed the ADA. For example, 

NCD reported that the ADA has resulted in a significant expansion of liftand ramp-equipped buses, more accessible fare collection technology, and 

increased availability of formats for disseminating accessible information. 

Because of increased regulation, vehicles are of higher quality, and travel

has become more efficient.22 However, disability advocates have said (and 

many federal agencies and industry associations agree) that there are still

problems. In a 2002 survey conducted by DOT’s Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, a greater percentage of people with disabilities reported having 

problems with several modes of transportation as compared with people 

without disabilities (see fig. 2).23 Complaints and lawsuits, among other 

sources of information, indicate accessibility problems persist. DOJ has 

referred more than 500 ADA-related surface transportation complaints to 

DOT since 2000 and is investigating 36 additional cases, as of July 2007, 

 21For example, NCD has issued several reports on transportation accessibility that include 

recommendations to DOJ and DOT, among others. 

22NCD, Current State of Transportation. 

23Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Freedom to Travel. 

Page 13 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
according to DOJ officials. Also, additional complaints go directly to DOT. 

Finally, private parties have filed numerous lawsuits alleging violations of

surface transportation and public rights-of-way accessibility requirements. 

Figure 2: Percentage of People Reporting Problems with Transportation and Public

Rights-of-Way, by Mode and Disability Status in 2002 

Providing accessible transportation and public rights-of-way can be 

expensive, especially if an entity has to modify existing structures or 

purchase new equipment. Congress recognized this and phased in many of

the requirements over time. Unlike other situations in which Congress 

identifies transportation priorities and provides grants or other funding 

sources to help entities address those priorities, there are few funds that 

are specifically targeted for ADA compliance. The ADA is a civil rights law, 

not a transportation program; however, many federal transportation 

funding sources can be used to comply with ADA requirements. (See app. I 

for more information on these sources.) 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

With

paratransit

On

subways

At subway

stations

On

buses

At bus

stops

As

cyclist

As

pedestrian

Percentage

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Mode of transportation

People with disabilities

People without disabilities

Page 14 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Other than for public transit, the extent of compliance with the ADA’s 

requirements for surface transportation and public rights-of-way is 

unknown because little reliable information is available, although there 

are indications that accessibility is improving. DOT collects some 

accessibility data from urban public transit agencies and helped fund 

several surveys to determine certain accessibility information for rural and 

specialized transportation services.24 Much of the data for other modes, 

however, are either unreliable or still being developed. 

For public transit, data are available on the percent of vehicles and 

stations that are wheelchair accessible in urban areas. DOT reports that 

accessibility in the urban transit vehicle fleet is increasing as new, 

accessible vehicles are replacing older ones, since the ADA requires that 

all new or refurbished transit vehicles be accessible. In 1989, before 

passage of the ADA, 36 percent of public transit buses in the United States

were accessible.25 By 2005, 97 percent were lift- or ramp-equipped, 

according to FTA’s National Transit Database.26 However, accessibility 

varies significantly by mode of transportation. For example, only 51

percent of commuter railcars were accessible in 2005. ADA regulations do

not require that transportation providers make all railcars accessible 

immediately; rather, that they make the fleet accessible over time as they 

purchase or lease new cars, and that they provide at least one accessible 

car per train. According to FTA officials, transit buses are more likely to 

be accessible than railcars because, on average, railcars have a longer life 

span. For example, buses are replaced about every 10 to 15 years, while 

according to Amtrak officials, railcars are planned for replacement after 30

Extent of ADA 

Compliance for 

Surface 

Transportation and 

Public Rights-of-Way 

Is Largely Unknown 

Because Little 

Reliable Information 

Is Available 

Some Data Are Available 

on the Percent of 

Accessible Vehicles and 

Stations 

 24Special service transportation includes vehicles that are used to provide service to seniors

and persons with disabilities and receive funding through an FTA-administered formula 

grant to states. Special service vehicle funding is directed toward private nonprofit 

organizations (such as religious organizations, senior centers, and rehabilitation centers), 

although in certain cases specified by law, a public agency may be approved as a grantee.

25NCD, Current State of Transportation. 

26FTA officials noted that data in the National Transit Database are self reported and FTA 

officials do not verify the data. Also, the database does not capture whether the lifts are 

operational. 

Page 15 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
to 40 years but may last over 50 years under certain circumstances. The 

ADA also requires that new transit facilities (including stations) and 

alterations to existing facilities comply with federal accessibility 

standards, and FTA has tracked this since 2002. By 2005, FTA’s National 

Transit Database reflected that transit agencies reported that 71 percent of

total transit stations were ADA-compliant. 

Also, while limited, some dated estimates of accessibility in rural areas 

and for special service transportation exist. In a survey conducted by the 

Community Transportation Association of America in 2000, an estimated 

60 percent of the transit fleet in rural areas was lift- or ramp-equipped, as 

compared with 40 percent in 1994. Also, in 2002, approximately 37,700

special service vehicles were used by approximately 4,800 special service

providers including religious organizations, senior centers, rehabilitation 

centers, and other private and nonprofit organizations to transport seniors 

and persons with disabilities. The majority of the special service providers 

were located in rural areas. Of the special service vehicles purchased in 

2002, about 76 percent were accessible (approximately 28,700 vehicles).27

Although available data indicate increasing accessibility of transit vehicles,

requirements in ADA regulations extend beyond having lift- and rampequipped vehicles. Other requirements include properly maintaining the

vehicle lifts and ramps and announcing transit stops. According to an FTA 

official, there are no national data on compliance with these two 

requirements, although FTA’s periodic compliance reviews provide the 

agency with some information about the state of compliance. We heard 

from a number of federal agencies and local and national disability groups 

that these areas continue to be a problem for transit agencies, making it 

difficult for individuals with disabilities to access the public transit system. 

FTA also maintains data on key rail stations, which were required by the 

ADA to be fully accessible by 1993 (with extensions permitted through 

July 2020 for extraordinarily expensive structural changes28). According to 

FTA, as of June 2007, of the 687 key rail stations identified in transit 

 27FHWA and FTA, 2006 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: 

Conditions and Performance (Washington, D.C.: 2007). ADA regulations require certain 

types of special service vehicles to be accessible based on a number of criteria, such as

number of passengers.

28ADA regulations define these as installations of elevators, or alterations of magnitude and 

cost similar to installing an elevator or raising the entire passenger platform (49 C.F.R. § 

37.51). 

Page 16 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
systems nationwide, 321 were found to be fully compliant with ADA 

requirements, 311 were functionally accessible but not fully compliant, 28

were not accessible, and 27 were proceeding under approved time 

extensions. While the number of ADA-compliant stations is still relatively 

low, this is a substantial improvement over the 52 key rail stations (8 

percent) that FTA identified as fully compliant in 2000.

29

In addition to fixed-route transit, FTA also oversees ADA-complementary 

paratransit, which will be discussed in the next section. 

For public rights-of-way and many modes of surface transportation, such 

as intercity passenger rail, less is known about ADA compliance because 

much of the information is unreliable or still being developed. DOT and 

DOJ data indicate that relatively few individuals file transportation-related 

ADA complaints with federal agencies; however, complaints are not a 

reliable indicator of compliance. 

For intercity passenger rail service, Amtrak has data on the accessibility of 

its railcars but is still developing information on station accessibility. 

Amtrak officials indicate that all new or remanufactured Amtrak 

equipment is accessible, in accordance with the ADA. For example, all of

the cars on the Acela high-speed rail service in operation on the Northeast 

Corridor are accessible because the cars were manufactured and placed in

service in or around 2000-2001, according to Amtrak officials. As of June 

2007, 82 percent of Amtrak’s 1,451 passenger cars were fully accessible to 

people in wheelchairs. FRA officials said that Amtrak appears to be on 

schedule to have all of its passenger cars ADA-compliant by the end of 

2008. 

Every train is also required to have a number of wheelchair spaces (for 

those who want to sit in their chairs) and accessible seats (for those who 

want to store their chairs and sit in a seat) equal to the number of coaches. 

For instance, if a train has four passenger cars it must have at least four 

wheelchair spaces and four accessible seats somewhere on that train (but 

not more than two in each car).30 Amtrak has policies and procedures in 

Less Is Known About the 

Extent of ADA Compliance 

for Public Rights-of-Way 

and Other Transportation 

Modes 

Intercity Passenger Rail 

(Amtrak) 

 29For more information on accessible transit vehicle and station data as maintained by 

DOT, see FHWA and FTA’s 2006 Conditions and Performance report. 

30In addition, each individual car that is required to be accessible much have at least one, 

but not more than two wheelchair spaces and at least one, but not more than two 

accessible seats. 

Page 17 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
place to ensure that these requirements are met. The requirements are 

specifically explained in the station master’s guidance for each route and

updated every 6 months when schedules change. Amtrak keeps an internal 

record of instances when it is unable to meet the accessibility 

requirements for each train, due to such things as mechanical failure. 

In addition to requirements for accessible cars, the ADA requires Amtrak 

to make most of the stations that it serves fully accessible by July 2010, 

even if Amtrak does not own the station.31 According to Amtrak, 

transportation personnel check each station for wheelchair accessibility 

and report that information to Amtrak every 6 months for inclusion in 

Amtrak’s timetable. As of June 2007, 45 percent of the 479 stations that 

Amtrak serves were fully accessible to people in wheelchairs. An 

additional 31 percent had barrier-free access between the street or parking 

lot, station platform, and trains, although individual facilities (such as 

restrooms and ticket counters) may not be accessible. Amtrak officials 

said that these stations serve 97 percent of passenger boardings and 

deboardings. 

ADA requirements extend beyond wheelchair accessibility, however, such 

as requiring accessible telephones and detectable warnings at platforms.32

One difficulty that Amtrak cited in making existing stations accessible is 

that ADA regulations define “stations” to include platforms, making it 

difficult to determine who is responsible for making and paying for 

changes when one entity owns the station building (often a public entity),

and another entity owns the platforms (typically a private entity such as a 

freight railroad). Amtrak officials said that this is impeding Amtrak’s 

overall progress in ensuring that stations are ADA compliant. 

Although Amtrak has had 17 years to make its stations accessible, in its 

2008 grant and legislative request, Amtrak said that insufficient time and

funding are likely to prevent full compliance at all station stops by the 

required deadline. Amtrak estimated the cost of compliance for all stations

to be approximately $250 million and requested $50 million in ADA 

 31As footnoted earlier, Amtrak serves 525 stations, 479 of which must be accessible. The 

majority of the 479 stations are owned by entities other than Amtrak, including freight 

railroads and local government entities. 

32Detectable warnings are walking surfaces that are primarily intended to provide a tactile 

cue to pedestrians who are visually impaired. They are installed at locations such as the

edge of a train platform or at the transition between the sidewalk and the street to warn 

pedestrians of the potential hazard that lies ahead. 

Page 18 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
funding for fiscal year 2008 above its base grant request. In addition, 

Amtrak asked Congress for an extension of at least 5 years after 

promulgation of DOT’s final regulations on station platforms (discussed in 

the next paragraph) to meet its statutory obligation on ADA compliance.

Amtrak officials say that they requested the extension in part because 

DOT issued an NPRM in February 2006 that would raise the required 

height for certain new intercity passenger and commuter rail station 

platforms to eliminate the need for wheelchair lifts. DOT plans to finalize 

this rule by early 2008 and has received a significant number of comments 

on it. Amtrak officials said that, if DOT finalizes the regulation in its 

current form, implementing the rule would take significant additional cost 

(potentially more than twice as much as it would cost without the 

proposed rule) and time to comply. In addition, Amtrak officials expressed 

concern that if the cost of complying with that regulation becomes too 

high, Amtrak may have to eliminate service at certain smaller stations 

rather than make those stations fully accessible. The officials also expect

to receive complaints from freight railroads that the elevated platforms 

would interfere with their freight railcars that run on the same tracks as 

Amtrak. On the other hand, DOT officials believe the cost differential 

between the current requirements and the additional proposed 

requirements is negligible for many of the Amtrak stations to which these 

proposed requirements would apply. Moreover, FRA officials believe that 

conflicts with freight traffic are likely to be minimal and that there are well

known and moderately priced techniques that can mitigate conflicts that 

occur. Further, the other station accessibility requirements—such as for 

restrooms, parking, signage, and curb ramps—have not changed since 

1991, and DOT officials said that their proposed regulations should not be 

at fault for any delay or other problems Amtrak may face in addressing 

ADA requirements.33

In part due to Amtrak’s slow progress in implementing the ADA, FRA’s 

grant agreements for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 required Amtrak to assess 

the accessibility of the stations that it serves, identify the steps needed to 

make them accessible, and report to FRA by September 2006 and May 

2007 on its status. Amtrak is in the process of surveying intercity 

passenger rail stations to determine their accessibility and has hired a 

contractor to help in this effort, but the study has not been completed to 

 33Amtrak officials noted that changes to platform requirements could also affect certain 

aspects of the station building, such as station egress. 

Page 19 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
date, limiting the available information on ADA compliance. Of the 479 

stations that are required to be fully accessible, Amtrak had assessed 371 

(77 percent) by June 2007 and expects to have the remaining assessments 

completed by December 2008, according to an Amtrak official. Amtrak 

reported some preliminary findings in a briefing to its board of directors in 

June 2007; however, the briefing did not include specific, station-by-station

information on accessibility, the estimated cost to bring each station into 

compliance, or a schedule for achieving full compliance. An Amtrak 

official said that Amtrak cannot determine the cost or time frame for 

achieving compliance without knowing whether DOT’s proposed 

requirements for rail platforms will be finalized or whether Congress will 

appropriate additional funds. Additionally, ADA regulations require that 

DOT periodically conduct reviews of Amtrak’s compliance with ADA 

requirements. FRA does not conduct such reviews, further limiting the 

availability of data on Amtrak’s ADA compliance.34

There are limited data available on ADA compliance among commercial 

bus companies. ADA regulations require all commercial bus companies to 

provide accessible service within 48 hours of a request—either using the 

company’s own buses or contracting services from another company. 

Large, fixed-route companies35 must also purchase lift-equipped buses 

when acquiring new vehicles and were to have 50 percent of their vehicle

fleets accessible by 2006 and to have 100 percent of the fleets accessible 

by 2012.36 DOT regulations require commercial bus companies to report to 

FMCSA annually on the number of their accessible vehicles, requests for 

accessible service, and their ability to meet those requests. FMCSA 

includes information about this reporting requirement on its Web site and 

sent letters and e-mails to all registered companies starting in 2004, 

reminding them of their obligations. The two major industry associations 

also urged their members to respond to FMCSA’s data request. However, 

13 percent of companies reported this required data in 2006, compared 

with 21 percent in 2005 and 16 percent in 2004, and FMCSA does not have

Commercial Bus 

 34Although it does not conduct compliance reviews, FRA does have other oversight 

activities that will be discussed in the next section. 

35Fixed-route service is where vehicles run on regular, scheduled routes, without variation.

Fixed-route services typically use printed schedules or timetables and designated bus stops

where passengers board and get off the vehicle. Under DOT’s regulatory definition, a large

commercial bus company has gross annual transportation revenue equal to or exceeding

$7.7 million.

36There are different requirements for small fixed-route operators, demand-response 

operators, and small operators that provide both fixed-route and demand-response service.

Page 20 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
the authority to fine companies for failure to comply with these reporting 

requirements. FMCSA also does not verify the reliability of the commercial 

bus companies’ self-reported data before forwarding the data to DOJ. 

Furthermore, DOT’s regulations stated that DOT would analyze data on 

demand-response37 commercial bus companies by October 2006 to 

determine the extent of ADA compliance and evaluate whether the 

agency’s regulations should be revised. DOT was to also conduct a similar 

study for fixed-route commercial buses by October 2007. Neither study has 

been completed to date. After an internal disagreement within DOT about 

which agency is responsible for conducting these studies, officials from 

DOT’s OST and FMCSA recently decided—in response to our preliminary 

findings—to work jointly to produce these reports, with participation from

FTA and other DOT modal administrations. According to DOT, its General 

Counsel’s office will meet with key officials from FMCSA and other 

concerned DOT organizations to finalize plans for completing the study. 

DOT expects to issue its results during the first quarter of calendar year 

2008. In the meantime, however, the status of compliance of commercial 

bus companies is unknown. 

According to agency officials, FMCSA has received two ADA-related 

complaints regarding commercial bus passenger service since 2001,38 and 

DOJ has received relatively few complaints about the accessibility of 

commercial buses. However, FMCSA identified several possible ADA 

violations among small commercial bus companies during compliance 

reviews and forwarded that information to DOJ for possible investigation.

Furthermore, despite the small number of complaints to federal agencies,

reports in the media and several recent and ongoing court cases indicate 

that there may be compliance issues among some commercial bus 

companies. For example, in November 2006, Peter Pan Bus Lines brought 

suit against FMCSA with the allegation that the modal administration had 

not ensured that another commercial bus company was complying with 

the ADA.39 Little is known about compliance by small charter-tour 

companies, but according to DOT officials, they have limited anecdotal 

 37For the purposes of commercial bus service, demand-response service includes many 

charter and tour bus operations.

38FMCSA has received other ADA-related complaints, but many of these involve disabilityrelated commercial driver’s licensing issues rather than bus service. 

39We will discuss this case in more detail in the next section. See Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.

and Bonanza Acquisition, LLC, v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 471 F. 

3rd 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

Page 21 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
evidence suggesting that many such companies are unaware of ADA rules 

or do not comply with them. 

There are no national data on the accessibility of public rights-of-way, in 

part because there are no requirements for either FHWA or DOJ to collect 

such information, although individual localities may collect this 

information. The ADA does not require localities to retrofit existing public

rights-of-way (such as curb ramps) to make them accessible, unless 

deemed necessary to ensure public access to programs or services—

including state and local government offices, places of public 

accommodation, places of employment, and transportation, among other 

things. However, after January 26, 1992, any new construction, alteration, 

or renovation (including road resurfacing) must comply with DOJ 

regulations. Many localities are also required to inventory the accessibility 

of public rights-of-way under their jurisdiction as part of developing an 

ADA-required transition plan for improving that accessibility. Many of the 

national and local disability advocacy groups we spoke with, however, 

said that access to public rights-of-way is still a major barrier to the 

mobility of people with disabilities. For example, a local disability 

advocacy group cited several recent examples in which a locality had a 

major construction project in the downtown area where the renovated 

sidewalks and medians did not include curb ramps and were inaccessible

(see fig. 3). Some groups added that inaccessible routes to bus stops also 

hinder access to public transit. 

Public Rights-of-Way

Page 22 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Figure 3: Inaccessible Sidewalks and Medians in a Downtown Area 

Note: These images were taken in March 2007 of a recent construction project in a downtown area 

where a median was installed in the main street, but curb ramps were not installed in the median to 

make the crosswalk accessible. Also, curb ramps were not installed for existing sidewalks. A local 

disability advocacy group told us that the new construction project was also in front of a polling place. 

Also, we heard from local officials that, in some instances, curb ramps 

have been installed, but are not fully compliant with federal regulations. 

For example, officials from one major urban area said that although the 

locality installed curb ramps, the ramps are too steep and are not well 

maintained. One difficulty is in determining who is responsible for making 

rights-of-way accessible. For example, providing access to bus stops can 

require coordination among the public transit provider, the local 

government office that oversees the street, and the local government 

office that oversees the sidewalk. 

FHWA officials agreed that no data are available on the status of 

compliance with public rights-of-way. However, they have started to visit 

states to determine if they have transition plans or plans to meet 

Source: GAO.

(a) There are no curb ramps in the raised median of the street crossing or on either end of the two

connecting sidewalks. (b) There are no curb ramps in either direction of this sidewalk. 

(a) (b)

Page 23 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
accessibility obligations using DOJ guidance as a tool.40 While this will not 

provide data on actual accessibility, it should provide information on 

whether or not a state has a plan to meet accessibility requirements. 

There are also no data at the national level on the accessibility of private 

transportation—including taxi and limousine service—because there are 

no requirements to collect this information. Available anecdotal 

information suggests some successes in improving access to private 

transportation, including rental car shuttles and hotel shuttles, but the lack 

of national data precludes determining the extent of accessibility among 

various private transportation providers. The ADA does not impose any 

fleet accessibility requirements for private providers and does not require 

that most individual vehicles (e.g., taxis) be accessible. Under ADA 

regulations, however, private providers must accommodate service 

animals (such as guide dogs) and may not discriminate against people with 

disabilities or charge them a premium for accessible service. Several 

private companies and trade associations told us that providers may 

choose not to purchase accessible vehicles because the economic benefits 

do not outweigh the additional overhead cost and maintenance expenses.

According to an official from FTA, there are no data at the national level to 

accurately measure how well entities are complying with the requirements 

under the ADA to provide complementary paratransit service to 

individuals with disabilities who are unable to use the fixed-route system. 

Individual transportation providers collect information on the number of 

paratransit rides provided and report these data to FTA, but the number of 

rides is not a good measure for determining ADA compliance because the 

data do not indicate whether transportation providers are granting rides in

all eligible circumstances or whether response times are comparable to 

fixed-route service, for example. Likewise, FTA collects data on the 

number of demand-response trips—that is, trips in which vehicles respond 

to passenger requests for service. While ADA-complementary paratransit 

trips constitute the majority of such trips, the FTA official said the two 

types of data are not interchangeable and cannot be used to determine the 

extent of compliance with paratransit requirements under the ADA. FTA 

officials noted that, while they do not have nationwide data on compliance 

with the requirement for ADA-complementary paratransit service, FTA 

does have standards that systems are expected to meet. FTA also has 

Private Transportation (Other 

Than Commercial Bus) 

Complementary Paratransit 

 40This guidance is in the form of a tool kit, “ADA Best Practices Toolkit for State and Local 

Governments,” which has a chapter on curb ramps and pedestrian crossings.

Page 24 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
knowledge about the compliance of individual systems that it has 

reviewed or investigated. According to FTA officials, ADA compliance 

rates are subsequently high among the paratransit systems that they have

reviewed. 

Paratransit ridership has increased since the ADA, and although more 

individuals with disabilities are being served, anecdotal evidence suggests

compliance with some ADA regulations is still a problem. For example, 

according to Easter Seals Project ACTION and a 2005 National Council on

Disability report, some paratransit providers deny rides to people who 

may be eligible under the law or fail to provide rides to eligible individuals 

in response to requests made the previous day, as required by federal

regulation. Transit agencies also struggle to balance providing

complementary paratransit service with the increased cost of 

accommodating a growing ridership. 

DOT and DOJ data indicate that relatively few individuals file 

transportation-related ADA complaints with federal agencies. Examples of 

this data are as follows: 

Complaint Data 

• In 2005, the most recent year for which complete data were available, FTA 

received 124 ADA-related complaints,41 FRA received 22, and FHWA 

received 22.

• DOJ forwarded 112 transportation-related ADA complaints to DOT in 2005. 

According to DOT officials, many of these are included in the totals listed 

above. 

• FMCSA has received at least two ADA-related complaints regarding 

commercial bus passenger service since 2001.42

A relatively low number of federal complaints may not indicate a high 

level of compliance with regulations. For example, in another civil rights 

area, fair housing, the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

conducted several studies of discrimination against individuals looking for 

 41According to FTA, of the 124 complaints that it received, 95 were handled informally and 

29 required formal investigation. 

42FMCSA has one official who is responsible for processing complaints and forwarding

them to DOJ for possible investigation; however, we found one instance in which another 

division within FMCSA had received an ADA-related complaint and independently 

forwarded it to DOJ.

Page 25 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
housing. Their findings indicated that discrimination occurred at higher 

rates than the number of complaints would indicate; one study showed 

that only 1 percent of individuals who believed they had experienced 

housing discrimination reported the discrimination to a government 

agency.

43 We heard from a number of local and national disability groups 

that most transportation users are not aware they can file a complaint at 

the federal level. 

DOJ and DOT, which share responsibility for ADA oversight and 

enforcement,44 face three main difficulties in ensuring compliance with the

ADA. First, there are uneven levels of oversight and enforcement among 

the DOT modal administrations, leading to gaps for some transportation 

modes. Second, the same lack of data that precludes a clear understanding 

of the extent of compliance also prevents agencies from targeting 

oversight and enforcement activities and evaluating the effectiveness of 

these efforts. Third, DOT officials indicate their enforcement options are 

of limited use, which suggests a need for additional options. In a number 

of instances, compliance has not come through federal agency

enforcement but through private citizens filing lawsuits and negotiating 

settlements. 

The ADA divides oversight and enforcement authority between DOJ and 

DOT, but there are differences depending on the type of transportation. 

Although some agencies have a framework in place that allows 

comprehensive oversight, the lack of such a framework in other agencies 

and the manner in which responsibility is shared results in gaps in 

oversight and enforcement for intercity passenger rail and commercial bus 

and to possible duplication of effort for public rights-of-way. For public 

transit, DOJ and FTA have used formal means to clarify responsibilities 

and ensure coordinated and consistent oversight and enforcement. 

Federal Agencies 

Conduct Oversight 

and Enforcement 

Activities but Face 

Difficulties in 

Ensuring Compliance 

with the ADA 

Unevenness in Agencies’ 

Oversight Framework and 

Coordination Leads to 

Gaps in Oversight and 

Enforcement of Some 

Modes 

 43U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Office of Fair Housing and

Equal Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report on Fair Housing, (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 29, 2007). 

44For the purposes of this report, oversight includes administrative efforts such as 

investigating complaints and conducting compliance reviews. Enforcement includes taking 

legal action such as filing lawsuits and reaching settlement agreements. 

Page 26 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Under the ADA, responsibility for oversight and enforcement rests partly 

with DOT and partly with DOJ. In general, DOJ issues regulations that 

govern public rights-of-way and oversees and enforces compliance with 

those regulations and has enforcement authority over public and private 

transportation providers. DOT issues regulations that govern both public 

and private transportation providers and oversees public compliance with

those regulations.45 Under the regulations issued by both agencies, DOJ 

and DOT have authority to receive and investigate complaints of 

discrimination and to perform compliance reviews. In addition, DOT’s 

modal authorities—primarily FTA, FHWA, and FRA—distribute federal 

grant money to many of the entities they oversee. Any recipient of federal

financial assistance from DOT must certify that it is in compliance with 

applicable federal laws, including the ADA. 

DOJ, FTA, and FHWA have established an oversight and enforcement 

framework that includes investigating complaints and performing various 

types of reviews to identify noncompliance with regulations. For example, 

in response to a complaint, DOJ investigated a taxi company for refusing 

to provide a ride to a person who is blind and uses a guide dog. DOJ 

entered into a settlement agreement with the taxi company, which agreed 

to provide ADA training to all its current and future drivers and 

dispatchers. In another example, DOJ negotiated settlement agreements 

with six taxi service providers to eliminate surcharges or bans on travelers 

with service animals or wheelchairs. DOJ officials told us that because 

they receive few transportation-related complaints regarding private 

entities, and they consider transportation to be a high-priority area, DOJ 

investigates almost all transportation-related complaints that appear to 

state a violation.46 FTA and FHWA also have a record of receiving and 

investigating complaints. In one instance, complaints in one state 

regarding the installation of accessible pedestrian signals triggered FHWA

Federal Agencies’ Role in 

Oversight and Enforcement of 

Surface Transportation

Accessibility Requirements 

Differs by Mode 

DOJ, FTA, and FHWA Have an 

Oversight and Enforcement 

Framework in Place 

 45DOJ and DOT share responsibility for some areas. For example, public accommodations

that are not primarily in the business of transporting people but that provide transportation 

(such as hotels or shopping centers that provide shuttle service) must comply with DOJ’s

regulations as well as with DOT’s regulations for transportation vehicles and systems. In

another example, DOT and DOJ share responsibility for facility access regulations. DOT 

has issued accessibility standards for access to facilities used in public transit (such as 

subway stations), while DOJ’s barrier removal requirements apply to facilities used in 

certain private transportation. 

46DOJ forwards all transportation-related complaints pertaining to public entities to DOT 

for investigation. 

Page 27 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
to work with the state highway office to draft a plan to address pedestrian 

accessibility issues. 

Similarly, these agencies conduct reviews to determine compliance with 

their respective regulations. Following are examples of some of these 

reviews: 

• In one such effort, DOJ initiated a program called Project Civic Access 

that, as of June 2007, had included reviews of 143 localities’ compliance 

with accessibility requirements, in some cases including public rights-ofway. DOJ selects the entity to be reviewed based on a number of criteria, 

including complaints, relative population of people with disabilities, and 

geographic diversity. These reviews usually result in a formal agreement 

between DOJ and the entity, which includes specific steps to be taken to 

come into compliance and a time line for completion. For example, DOJ 

conducted a review of the City of Omaha, Nebraska, and, based on the 

results of the review, entered into an agreement whereby the city agreed 

to provide, over a 9-year period, curb ramps at all intersections that had 

been built or modified since the effective date of the ADA. 

• FTA conducts at least two different types of oversight reviews of 

recipients of its grant programs and, in cases where it identifies 

noncompliance, works with the audited entities to ensure they comply. 

These oversight reviews include periodic comprehensive reviews of all 

grant recipients (such as statutorily required triennial reviews and state 

management reviews) and discretionary targeted ADA compliance 

reviews. The latter category are usually focused on one of the following 

discrete areas: ADA-complementary paratransit service; fixed-route bus 

lift or ramp maintenance and reliability; fixed-route bus stop 

announcements and route identification; rail stop announcements and 

route identification; or key, new, or renovated rail station compliance. For 

example, FTA found in the course of a compliance review that one local 

agency was improperly denying ADA-complementary paratransit service 

to some individuals who should be eligible under the ADA. The agency 

made several changes to its eligibility determination process in response 

to FTA’s recommendations. 

• FHWA conducts three types of reviews of state transportation agencies—

process reviews, program reviews, and compliance reviews—each of 

which can focus on ADA-related issues. For example, FHWA conducts a 

compliance review to determine whether a state transportation agency is 

properly fulfilling its legal or regulatory responsibilities when it receives a 

complaint or other indication that a state may not be in compliance with 

the ADA. The review would determine whether the state is installing curb 

Page 28 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
ramps in pedestrian facilities that are constructed with federal funds or 

when roads with pedestrian crossings are newly constructed or altered. 

The two other modal administrations, FRA and FMCSA, have taken much

more limited roles and do not have a framework for conducting ADA 

oversight. FRA does not have authority over Amtrak’s day-to-day customer

service, but Amtrak is defined by law as a public entity for ADA purposes

and is, therefore, subject to DOT’s regulatory enforcement provisions. 

ADA regulations require DOT to conduct investigations and initiate 

compliance procedures.47 FRA does not conduct any reviews that assess 

Amtrak’s compliance with ADA regulations, although FRA is monitoring 

Amtrak’s progress in assessing station accessibility. FRA officials also told 

us that they plan to conduct reviews of Amtrak’s service delivery to riders 

with disabilities in the future. FRA officials said that when they receive 

ADA-related complaints about Amtrak, the first step in the investigation is 

to forward the complaint to Amtrak for its review, investigation, and 

possible settlement. FRA officials said they do not have sufficient 

resources to investigate all complaints themselves. They said that they 

review Amtrak’s proposed resolution including, in many cases, contacting 

the complainant to determine if he or she is satisfied with the outcome. In 

a few instances, FRA did not agree with Amtrak’s proposed resolution or 

determined that a complaint reflected an area of broad significance and 

intervened. In those instances, FRA further investigated the complaint and 

had Amtrak sign agreements with FRA describing steps Amtrak will take 

to prevent future discrimination. 

FRA officials described other ways in which the agency provides ADArelated oversight of Amtrak besides reviewing complaints or conducting

compliance reviews. For example, FRA provides oversight through 

administration of Amtrak’s grant agreements, as previously discussed. In 

addition, FRA reviews and approves the plans or designs for certain new 

passenger cars and station platforms, upon referral by Amtrak. FRA 

officials have physically inspected new or soon-to-be renovated stations to 

give technical advice on how to assure compliance, according to FRA. 

Nevertheless, without FRA conducting direct oversight, Amtrak is largely 

responsible for ensuring its own compliance with the ADA. 

FMCSA’s role is also limited: FMCSA officials told us that they have the 

authority to conduct oversight of ADA compliance by commercial buses 

FRA and FMCSA Do Not Have 

a Framework for Clarifying and 

Establishing Their Oversight 

Role 

 4749 C.F.R. § 37.11. 

Page 29 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
but do not do so because of competing priorities for their oversight 

resources, such as safety issues. In addition, FMCSA has asserted that it 

does not have the authority to withhold or revoke a bus company’s 

operating authority on the basis of noncompliance with the ADA, although 

this position has been disputed in court, which reversed FMCSA’s decision 

and directed FMCSA to reexamine the statute.48 FMCSA officials told us 

that they forward any complaints to DOJ because they do not have 

enforcement authority for the ADA. In addition, officials said that if they

become aware of possible violations of ADA regulations, they will forward 

that information to DOJ for resolution. For example, as part of a concerted 

effort to inspect commercial buses for safety violations in 2005, FMCSA 

identified 10 possible instances of ADA violations and provided the 

information to DOJ for further review.49 FMCSA officials also said that they

are considering developing a checklist that would include some 

component of ADA compliance for use in some or all of their safety 

inspections, but this idea is in the very early stages of development. 

FTA and DOJ have taken a formal step to clarify and strengthen their 

respective roles and ensure coordinated and consistent enforcement. In 

2005, these two agencies signed a memorandum of understanding 

addressing each agency’s role in ADA oversight and enforcement. The 

memorandum provides that FTA will, with assistance from DOJ, 

investigate suspected violations of the ADA, seek informal resolution in 

instances of noncompliance, and refer cases to DOJ or withhold federal 

funding if it is unable to resolve compliance issues. For its part, DOJ will, 

once FTA refers a case, pursue further enforcement action with 

coordination and assistance from FTA. Although the agreement has not 

resulted in any referrals from FTA to DOJ, officials from both agencies 

told us that simply having a formal relationship and a requirement to meet 

periodically has been helpful. 

Lack of Coordination also 

Contributes to Oversight Gaps 

or Duplication of Effort 

 48A private bus company brought suit against FMCSA in 2005 alleging that FMCSA granted 

an application for operating authority from another bus company despite that company’s 

unwillingness to comply with DOT’s ADA regulations. FMCSA concluded that the statute

that gives it authority to issue operating authority prevents it from considering whether the 

bus company is in compliance with DOT’s ADA regulations. A U.S. Court of Appeals ruling 

reversed FMCSA’s decision to grant operating authority and directed FMCSA to reexamine

the statute and determine whether it has authority to withhold or revoke licenses for ADA 

violations. FMCSA officials told us they are reviewing this case. See Peter Pan Bus Lines,

Inc. and Bonanza Acquisition, LLC, v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

471 F. 3rd 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

49FMCSA officials said that they have no plans to conduct another similar effort due to the 

need to address other priority areas.

Page 30 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
FRA and FMCSA do not have formal working relationships with DOJ or a 

memorandum of understanding to clarify their respective responsibilities 

in overseeing ADA compliance. Gaps appear in ADA oversight for Amtrak 

and commercial buses because responsibility is not clearly defined, as 

follows: 

• Amtrak—FRA provides limited oversight of Amtrak but has not referred 

any suspected instances of noncompliance with ADA regulations to DOJ 

for further enforcement action. 

• Commercial buses—FMCSA does not conduct oversight of commercial 

buses for compliance with ADA regulations. FMCSA conducts oversight of

commercial buses for compliance with safety regulations, however, and, 

therefore, appears to be in an ideal position to conduct ADA oversight. 

DOJ officials said they have responded to information provided by FMCSA 

and initiated reviews of some commercial bus operators. DOJ officials also

commended FMCSA for being proactive in sharing information and said 

that the informal relationship they have developed over the last 3 years has 

been mutually beneficial. However, neither FMCSA nor DOJ has a 

program in place to conduct ADA oversight reviews on an ongoing basis.

While there does not appear to be a similar gap in oversight of public 

rights-of-way, DOJ and FHWA could also benefit from better coordination. 

DOJ and FHWA officials said they work closely on ADA issues, but they do

not do so formally. Both agencies provide compliance assistance and

conduct similar oversight of public rights-of-way efforts, which could 

potentially overlap if the agencies are not aware of each other’s activities. 

DOJ and FHWA officials told us that the agencies could benefit from better 

coordination by sharing data and expertise and by eliminating possible 

duplication of effort. 

Most agencies lack the information needed to target their ADA 

enforcement efforts and to determine the effectiveness of their oversight 

activities. The exception is FTA, which collects data on accessibility and 

compliance through its triennial, state management, and ADA compliance 

reviews and uses this information to evaluate each grantee annually to 

determine the appropriate level of oversight required. FTA also focuses its 

ADA compliance efforts on areas that it has identified through experience

and data analysis as problematic: paratransit operations, bus lift 

maintenance and usage, and stop announcements. By contrast, FRA, 

FMCSA, and FHWA lack reliable data to determine the extent of 

compliance with the ADA requirements for which they are responsible. 

Agencies Lack Data with 

Which to Target and 

Evaluate the Effectiveness 

of Oversight and 

Enforcement Efforts 

Page 31 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Without this information, agencies cannot target their oversight activities, 

establish performance goals and measures, or monitor progress to gauge 

the effectiveness of their oversight efforts. 

The general lack of data about ADA compliance at FMCSA, FRA, and 

FHWA is in marked contrast to those agencies’ use of data to target 

oversight activities in other areas. For example, in reporting on FMCSA’s 

motor carrier truck enforcement efforts in 2005, we noted that FMCSA’s 

enforcement approach uses major risk factors identified as contributing to 

crashes and that FMCSA targets its enforcement resources at the motor 

carriers that it assesses as having the greatest crash risk. The agency uses 

information that it collects and maintains about carriers’ safety 

performance (including crash history and results of roadside inspections 

and compliance reviews) to identify these unsafe carriers to be targeted.50

In addition, FMCSA has several information systems and a program to help

it identify high-risk carriers and drivers and to assist it in enforcing safety

regulations. FRA and, to a lesser extent FHWA, have similar programs to 

target oversight or enforcement based on collected information. For 

example, many of FHWA’s division offices conduct risk assessments and 

use this information to target their oversight efforts for highway projects. 

DOJ might have difficulty collecting information similar to the DOT modal 

administrations because there are no ADA reporting requirements for 

most of the public and private entities over which DOJ has enforcement 

authority. One example, introduced earlier, is that many municipalities are 

required to develop transition plans about improving rights-of-way access 

but are not required to report this information. DOJ officials said that, 

based on their experience with Project Civic Access reviews conducted so

far, most municipalities did not have a transition plan in place. However, 

this information is not specific enough to help DOJ target future entities to

review. 

 50GAO, Large Truck Safety: Federal Enforcement Efforts Have Been Stronger Since 2000, 

but Oversight of State Grants Needs Improvement, GAO-06-156 (Washington, D.C.: Dec.

15, 2005). 

Page 32 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
In general, DOT’s modal administrations attempt to resolve instances of 

noncompliance informally by working with the offending entity to achieve 

a mutually satisfactory result. If these efforts are not successful, there are

two enforcement options available: withholding federal funds51 or referring 

cases to DOJ for investigation and further enforcement action. DOT has 

rarely used these options, however. 

DOT regulations encourage resolving complaints and compliance issues 

informally before initiating stronger methods. We found informal ADA 

resolution processes in use at most DOT modal administrations, but not 

all, as follows: 

DOT Officials Consider 

Existing Enforcement 

Options to Be Limited 

• FTA and FHWA officials told us that they are generally successful in 

working with grantees to achieve compliance, usually by developing a list 

of problems and providing technical assistance. For example, if FTA 

identifies a deficiency in the course of a triennial or compliance review, 

FTA requires the entity to take steps to correct the deficiency and 

monitors its progress. FTA keeps reviews open until problems are 

resolved, which could occur quickly or take years. For example, entities 

sometimes refuse to comply due to competing priorities for funds, lack of

expertise, or other reasons. In those instances, FTA continues to try to 

work with the entity. In the case of one transit agency, for example, FTA 

completed a compliance review in January 2001 and has been monitoring 

the agency on a quarterly basis since that time. For public rights-of-way, 

FHWA seeks ADA compliance through the investigation and resolution of 

complaints through a settlement agreement. FHWA also approves state 

standards and reviews projects constructed or programs funded with 

FHWA funding, training, and technical assistance. 

• For Amtrak, FRA has entered into voluntary compliance agreements in 

some instances. For example, Amtrak and FRA signed a compliance 

agreement in which Amtrak agreed to develop ADA-related training after

FRA had investigated a complaint from a customer who alleged poor 

treatment on the basis of his disability. However, FRA investigates few 

complaints about Amtrak because most complaints are forwarded to 

Amtrak for resolution. 

• Although FMCSA uses informal resolution methods for its safety oversight 

activities, it does not do so for ADA. FMCSA recently introduced a 

 51The authority to withhold federal funds comes from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973. 

Page 33 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
proposal to add ADA items to its safety audit of new commercial bus 

companies, but this would be for educational purposes and would not 

affect the outcome of the safety audit.

At all modal administrations, DOT officials said they have rarely used the 

following two available enforcement mechanisms: 

• Withholding funds—DOT agencies we spoke with had never used this 

enforcement option because, in most cases, withholding all or a portion of 

grant funds for noncompliance with ADA regulations is a lengthy and

administratively complex process.52 DOT agencies are required to hold a 

hearing in front of, and gain approval from, the Secretary of 

Transportation prior to withholding funding. According to FRA and FTA, 

the process to withdraw any funding would not be taken lightly given its 

effect and the need for the Secretary to weigh all the factors involved. In 

addition, withholding all or a portion of a transportation provider’s funding 

could affect the entire transit system and the mobility of all riders, 

including those with disabilities.53 For example, for issues other than the 

ADA, we have previously reported that FRA has not withheld funds from 

Amtrak for noncompliance with grant agreements—despite the legal 

authority to do so—because withholding grant funds would involve large 

sums and could have a severe impact on Amtrak’s continued operations 

and the mobility of riders who depend on the service.54 Finally, FHWA 

officials said that they have never withheld federal funding because they 

have been able to resolve compliance violations voluntarily. 

• Referral to DOJ—DOT modal administrations have the option of referring 

a case on ADA noncompliance to DOJ for enforcement action. However, 

to date, FHWA and FTA have each formally referred one case to DOJ. 

FMCSA has not formally referred any cases, although it has provided 

information to DOJ on possible ADA violations, as previously mentioned. 

An FTA official said that, prior to implementing the memorandum of 

understanding, FTA did not have the formal working relationship 

necessary to provide an avenue for regular communication about ongoing 

cases. FTA officials also indicated that DOJ investigations can be lengthy 

 52FMCSA does not provide grant funding to commercial bus operators and thus cannot 

withhold federal funds. 

53For example, FTA provides $3.6 billion to cities through its Urbanized Area Formula 

Program, for capital projects for use in public transportation service. 

54GAO, Amtrak Management: Systemic Problems Require Actions to Improve Efficiency,

Effectiveness, and Accountability, GAO-06-145 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2005). 

Page 34 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
and said there are a number of steps that FTA has to pursue internally 

before referring a case. In several instances, however, FTA collected 

sufficient proof of persistent noncompliance and indicated to the grantee 

its intent to refer the case to DOJ, according to FTA officials. In each 

instance, according to FTA, grantees have then indicated willingness to 

make additional improvements, negating the need for a referral at that 

time. 

DOJ’s enforcement options are also somewhat limited, unless the 

transportation entity is privately owned. For public transportation entities, 

DOJ can pursue enforcement action if DOT refers the entity and, in such 

cases, DOJ can initiate a lawsuit, seek mediation, or negotiate a consent 

agreement. As mentioned previously, DOT has referred two cases formally

to DOJ for investigation. DOJ can also intervene in existing private suits. 

For example, DOJ joined a private suit against a large city and reached a 

consent agreement in which the city agreed to address alleged ADA 

violations involving its fixed-route public bus systems. For private 

transportation entities, DOJ can, and has, initiated its own lawsuits, joined 

existing private lawsuits, used mediation, signed settlement agreements, 

and sought civil penalties. For example, DOJ reached a consent decree 

with a private entity providing fixed-route service between Memphis and 

the Little Rock airport, alleging that it had failed to provide accessible 

transportation. In another example, DOJ reached a settlement agreement 

with a large, door-to-door airport shuttle company in which the company 

agreed to add accessible vehicles to its fleet, train its employees on 

providing equivalent service, and pay a civil penalty. DOJ officials said that 

they may increase their use of civil penalties for ADA violations in the 

future because the ADA has been in effect for 17 years and entities should 

be familiar with their responsibilities. 

In contrast to surface transportation cases involving the ADA, DOT has at 

least one other option, the ability to levy monetary penalties, available for 

enforcement in similar situations. Following are examples of monetary 

penalties: 

DOT Has Another Option 

Available for Enforcing Airline 

Accessibility and SafetyRelated Requirements 

• DOT has the ability to levy monetary penalties against airlines that violate 

the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, which largely governs accessibility 

issues in air transportation. DOT has levied penalties against commercial 

air carriers for violations of this law and has allowed carriers to use a 

portion of the penalties to improve their compliance. For example, in 2002, 

DOT found that Northwest Airlines had violated the Air Carrier Access Act 

and assessed civil penalties of $700,000 with certain provisions that 

allowed the airline to offset a portion of the penalties. In this case, 

Page 35 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Northwest could offset up to $550,000 by taking steps such as increasing 

the number of wheelchair assistance personnel at airports, purchasing and 

installing grab bars in airplane lavatories, and establishing an Air Carrier 

Access Act Quality Assurance Program. Between 2000 and 2006, DOT 

imposed approximately $8.4 million in penalties. 

• Such penalties are also an option for many safety violations. FRA and 

FMCSA impose civil penalties against freight rail and commercial motor 

carriers, respectively, for safety violations, and FTA and OST officials said 

that extending this type of enforcement tool to FTA for use against transit 

agencies would be very useful and would help their ADA compliance 

efforts. 

Agency officials indicated the threat of a fine would serve to encourage 

compliance but would also be useful to gain compliance for relatively 

minor acts of noncompliance. For example, FTA officials said that during 

the course of investigating a complaint against a transit agency, the agency

agreed there was a problem but refused to correct it. The transit agency

understood the problem was a small one and that it was unlikely that FTA

would pursue one of the more extreme enforcement options available. 

However, if FTA were able to levy a fine for this particular instance, the

transit agency would be much more likely to comply. 

In a number of instances, compliance has come not through agency 

enforcement but through private citizens filing lawsuits and negotiating 

settlements.55 The ADA authorizes private citizens or their representatives 

to file suit in cases of discrimination, providing another avenue of 

oversight for both public and private entities where federal oversight has 

not resolved problems. In addition, citizens are not required to pursue 

resolution through complaints prior to filing suit. Lawsuits are not without 

limitations, however. For example, the ADA does not provide for punitive 

damages. Also, although the ADA does allow for recovery for legal fees, 

recent court decisions have made these fees more difficult to obtain. 

The terms of lawsuits and settlement agreements reached by people with 

disabilities have resulted in more than just requiring transportation 

providers and state and local governments to conform to the requirements 

Private Citizens Use 

Lawsuits and Settlement 

Agreements to Bring About 

Compliance 

 55As previously mentioned, DOJ has filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in a number 

of private lawsuits. DOT officials also noted that DOT and DOJ have sometimes provided

assistance to the court or to one of the parties in a suit. 

Page 36 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
of the ADA. For example, a group of passengers in Boston brought suit 

against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in 2002 alleging

discrimination based on disability. The passengers and the transit agency 

eventually reached a settlement agreement that includes a commitment by 

the agency to ensure bus lifts are properly maintained and functional, as 

required by ADA regulations, and also a pledge to purchase new low-floor 

(rather than high-floor) buses that employ ramps instead of lifts—lifts are 

often deemed to be less reliable. Notably, FTA has been monitoring 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for compliance with ADA 

requirements to announce transit stops and maintain bus lifts since July 

2000. 

The ADA requires DOT, DOJ, and the Access Board to provide technical 

assistance that will help transportation providers, businesses, and state 

and local governments comply with ADA requirements. The agencies have

provided this assistance both in regulations and in various types of 

nonregulatory guidance. Our discussions with officials from state and 

local transportation agencies indicated, however, that current assistance 

has several key gaps and that—in some instances—proposed regulations 

and guidance still leave questions about what they need to do to comply. 

DOJ and DOT each issue regulations covering those aspects of the ADA 

for which they are responsible. These regulations, discussed below, have 

the force and effect of law.56

Federal Entities

Provide a Variety of 

Technical Assistance 

to Help with ADA 

Compliance, but Gaps 

Exist in Regulations 

and Guidance 

Assistance Takes Several 

Forms 

• DOJ’s regulations incorporate the Access Board’s guidelines as standards 

for accessible design. The regulations provide minimum design standards 

for the construction and alteration of places of public accommodation, 

commercial facilities, and state and local government facilities.57 Included 

in these standards are basic design criteria for sidewalks and curb ramps. 

DOJ’s regulatory standards must, at a minimum, meet the Access Board’s 

 56For the purposes of this report, we chose to include regulations in the discussion of 

technical assistance because the regulations provide information on how to implement the 

ADA. 

57The exception is transportation facilities, which are subject to similar standards in DOT 

regulations. 

Page 37 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
accessible design guidelines. DOJ also issues regulations on 

nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations 

and in commercial facilities, as well as nondiscrimination on the basis of 

disability in state and local government services. 

• DOT’s regulations focus on the provision of transportation services by 

public and private entities and include accessibility requirements as they 

pertain to vehicles (such as public transit, intercity passenger trains, and 

commercial buses) and stations. Under the ADA, DOT’s regulatory 

standards for accessible facilities and vehicles cannot be less stringent 

than the Access Board’s guidelines. DOT’s regulations also cover 

nondiscrimination (for example, an entity cannot require that a qualified 

individual with a disability be accompanied by an attendant) and 

requirements for complementary paratransit service, such as processes for 

determining eligibility. 

DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board also issue official guidance. This 

guidance does not have the force and effect of law and is intended to 

provide clarification to assist entities in complying with regulations. For 

example, DOJ guidance includes information for businesses on 

accommodating service animals and restriping parking lots, among other 

things. FTA has issued guidance to assist public transportation agencies in

their responsibility to transport passengers who use common 

wheelchairs.58 The Access Board has provided guidance to clarify technical 

requirements for buses, commuter and intercity railcars, and over-the-road 

bus systems. To coordinate DOT’s disability-related interpretations, 

guidance, and policies, the Secretary of Transportation established in 2003 

a working group known as the Disability Law Coordinating Council. DOT 

recently proposed codifying the council in regulation. For more 

information about the council, see appendix III. 

DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board all provide technical assistance through 

a variety of other sources, such as Web sites, conferences, and outreach 

through nongovernmental entities (see table 1 for examples). These other

informational sources provide state, local, and industry officials with a 

source of information ranging from the regulations themselves to one-on-

 58DOT’s regulations define a wheelchair as a “mobility aid belonging to any class of threeor four-wheeled devices, usable indoors, designed for and used by individuals with mobility 

impairments, whether operated manually or powered.” They define a common wheelchair

as such a device “which does not exceed 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length

measured two inches above the ground, and does not weigh more than 600 pounds when

occupied.” (See 49 CFR 37.3.) 

Page 38 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
one assistance with specific questions. On FMCSA’s Web site, for example, 

commercial bus companies can obtain a summary of DOT’s ADA 

regulations and information about their annual reporting requirements.59

Table 1: Other Examples of ADA Technical Assistance Sources Provided by DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board 

Source Example

Web site FMCSA’s Web site includes information on commercial bus companies’ ADA 

responsibilities and reporting requirements. 

Assistance line DOJ provides a toll-free assistance line to answer compliance questions for businesses 

and nonprofit transportation providers, local governments, and public transportation

providers. 

Training and conferences The Access Board provides training to state and local officials on public rights-of-way 

requirements. 

Oversight reviews As part of what is called Project Civic Access, DOJ provides reviews addressing facility 

modifications that will improve access, such as accessible parking and routes to and 

through buildings. 

Funding of federal and nongovernmental 

entitites 

Easter Seals Project ACTION, funded by FTA, provides information on ADA resources, a 

toll-free ADA information line, and training on transportation accessibility. 

FHWA funds the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which conducts 

research in problem areas that affect highway planning, design, construction, operation, 

and maintenance nationwide, including problem areas related to public rights-of-way. 

Source: GAO.

Finally, other federal and nongovernmental organizations not specifically

named under the ADA also provide technical assistance. For example, 

• The Department of Education funds Disability and Business Technical 

Assistance Centers, which provide training related to ADA. 

• The Department of Health and Human Services supports a nationwide 

system of state-level organizations that advocate for the rights of 

individuals with disabilities. 

• The American Bus Association, an industry organization, provides a 

newsletter to its members addressing ADA-related topics and 

requirements. 

 59For more information on sources and types of ADA-related federal technical assistance, 

see the National Council on Disabilities’ report titled “Promises to Keep: A Decade of

Federal Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” June 27, 2000.

Page 39 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
• Advocacy organizations such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the 

National Disability Rights Network inform transportation providers and 

individuals with disabilities about ADA rights and responsibilities. 

While a number of public transportation providers and state and local 

officials with whom we spoke found federal technical assistance sufficient 

for many of their needs, they identified two key areas in which confusion 

existed about complying with ADA requirements. These areas were 

(1) uncertainty about how ADA requirements pertain to emerging issues in 

public transportation, such as mobility devices that do not fit the 

definition of a common wheelchair, and (2) lack of clarity about planning 

for and designing accessible public rights-of-way. According to some state 

and local government officials, this uncertainty has made them

apprehensive about going forward with efforts to implement accessible 

rights-of-way, particularly those that go beyond the current ADA 

regulations such as installing accessible pedestrian signals. DOT is in the 

process of updating guidance on the emerging issues in public 

transportation. For public rights-of-way, however, federal agencies are not 

as far along in addressing areas of confusion. 

DOT has identified emerging areas in public transportation that it is 

addressing through an NPRM and anticipates finalizing the rule by the 

beginning of 2008.60 These issues include the increasing use of larger, 

heavier mobility devices on public transportation and the potential effect 

on DOT’s current definition for a common wheelchair; requirements for 

public transit agencies providing paratransit services; and platform 

requirements for intercity and commuter rail stations. 

Prior to issuing the NPRM, DOT promulgated guidance on these issues in 

2005; however, a number of public transportation providers and national 

industry groups with whom we spoke noted that the industry was unsure 

about how to implement some of the guidance. For example, as more 

people are using larger wheelchairs or scooters and similar devices, public 

transportation providers with whom we spoke are unclear about how to 

accommodate these devices because current regulations on wheelchairs 

Gaps in Technical 

Assistance for Public 

Transportation and Public 

Rights-of-Way Have Raised 

Uncertainty about ADA 

Compliance Requirements 

DOT Is Developing Regulations 

to Address Emerging Issues in 

Public Transportation 

 60Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies are generally required to publish an

NPRM that proposes regulations and allows interested parties to participate in the

rulemaking process by providing official comments (5 U.S.C. § 553 et seq.). According to

DOT officials, DOT has received more than 300 comments on its proposed ADA 

requirements for public transportation entities. 

Page 40 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
and mobility devices do not address devices that fall outside of the 

definition of a common wheelchair.61 Further, a number of transportation 

providers considered DOT’s 2005 guidance on how transit vehicles should 

transport two-wheeled, self-balancing Segway® personal transportation 

devices, to be unclear. Specifically, DOT guidance states that a 

transportation provider is not required to permit anyone to bring onto a 

vehicle a device that is too big or that is determined to pose a direct threat

to the safety of others;62 however, the guidance also directs transportation 

providers to accommodate Segways when used as a mobility device by a 

person with a disability, subject to these same limitations.63 Thus, to 

address these concerns, and others, the DOT issued an NPRM soliciting 

public comment on this topic, as well as on paratransit services and level 

boarding for rail station platforms. 

Advocacy and industry groups and state and local governments told us 

that current federal regulations and guidance have gaps or are unclear on

(1) ADA-required transition plans for assessing the accessibility of state 

and local governments’ structures including sidewalks and curb ramps and 

(2) technical requirements for installing accessible public rights-of-way. 

Many Jurisdictions Lack Information about Transition Plans for 

Correcting Public Rights-of-Way Deficiencies or Are Unaware They 

Have to Develop a Plan 

ADA regulations require state and local governments to assess local 

accessibility and draft a transition plan for upgrading the public rights-ofMore Clarity Needed for Public 

Rights-of-Way Requirements 

 61ADA regulations require that every transit vehicle that is over 22 feet in length have a 

minimum of two wheelchair securement areas (vehicles that are 22 feet or less must have 

one wheelchair securement area) and that these vehicles must accommodate “common 

wheelchairs,” as defined in DOT regulations. According to a 2005 National Council on 

Disability Report, as wheelchairs, scooters, and similar devices have become more varied, 

and more people are using these nonstandard mobility devices, an increasing number of 

individuals are no longer accommodated by the ADA definition for a common wheelchair.

Vehicle lifts, ramps, and securement devices are designed to hold common wheelchairs, 

but larger, heavier mobility devices may not fit properly. 

62Transportation providers have expressed concern regarding the safety of transporting

unsecured mobility devices, due to the potential for a mobility device to injure other riders

or drivers if not properly secured in a moving vehicle. DOT has indicated that there are no 

data to support this assertion. DOT also notes that a transportation provider is free to 

acquire equipment that can accommodate larger mobility devices, if desired. 

63An FTA official noted that, to the best of his knowledge, his office has not received any 

calls from transit providers with questions about this guidance. 

Page 41 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
way within their jurisdictions. Current regulations require any public 

entity that employs 50 or more persons to develop such a plan. If a public

entity has responsibility or authority over streets, roads, or walkways, its 

transition plan must include a schedule for providing curb ramps, or other 

sloped areas, where pedestrian walks cross curbs, including state and 

local government offices and facilities, transportation, and places of public 

accommodation.64 At a minimum, the plan must identify physical obstacles

that might limit the accessibility of programs or activities, describe in 

detail the methods that will be used to make facilities accessible, specify 

the schedule for taking identified steps, and indicate the official 

responsible for implementing the plan. However, gaps exist in the current 

federal regulations and guidance because they do not specify how to 

include that information in the plans and, if a jurisdiction has a plan, when

it should update the plan.65

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

surveyed state departments of transportation and concluded that 

considerable confusion exists among states about when and how to 

update transition plans. In addition, several members of an industry 

association (representing different states and localities) told us that 

jurisdictions are confused about what is supposed to be included in a 

transition plan and indicated that more specific federal guidance would be

helpful. For example, one state transportation official mentioned that 

federal guidance was unclear on what data should be collected for ADA 

transition plans and did not address field-level implementation of ADA 

requirements for transition plans. 

Without proper regulations and accompanying guidance from the federal 

government, states and localities face challenges creating these plans, or 

may not create them at all. DOJ Project Civic Access reviews typically

reveal that, most commonly, the responsible government has not 

established an ADA transition plan and the accompanying policies and 

procedures necessary to ensure the installation of curb ramps at public 

rights-of-way. Absent such plans, states and localities may neither assess 

 64Public accommodations include restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, and doctors’ offices, 

for example. 

65DOJ recently published an ADA tool kit to assist state and local governments in taking

steps to assess and address compliance with ADA requirements for curb ramps at 

pedestrian crossings, which includes similar elements as those required for transition 

plans.

Page 42 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
the status of the accessibility of their public rights-of-way nor develop a 

schedule for updating curb ramps and ensuring access to public services 

and programs, leaving themselves vulnerable to private lawsuits or federal 

compliance actions. Furthermore, without transition plans, it is difficult or

impossible for the federal government to assess compliance and collect 

information or data from state and local governments with regard to the 

accessibility of their public rights-of-way. 

FHWA has recognized the lack of information on ADA-required transition 

plans and other aspects of civil rights requirements and plans to complete 

civil rights program assessments of all state departments of transportation 

by the end of fiscal year 2008. This project should, among other things, 

enable FHWA to gauge the number of states that have developed and 

implemented a transition plan. The program assessments are designed to 

assess how state departments of transportation implement ADA 

requirements and ascertain the extent to which they are involved with 

local governments’ ADA implementation on projects and programs that 

are jointly funded by FHWA and a state department of transportation. 

While these program assessments are a first step, FHWA will not assess 

the content of state transition plans or determine whether the state 

transportation agencies are in compliance with the ADA. The assessments 

will also not address whether local governments throughout the country 

have created transition plans. 

FHWA has also drafted a tool kit for its division offices and state 

departments of transportation. The tool kit will assist staff tasked with 

compliance and oversight activities for ADA requirements, including 

oversight of transition plans for state departments of transportation. 

According to FHWA, this tool kit is under review by FHWA’s Office of 

Chief Counsel and is not yet available publicly. In addition, FHWA is 

involved in a federally funded research project by the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program focusing on the development of a 

guide for updating ADA transition plans for state departments of 

transportation. This project is aimed at helping states translate applicable 

laws and guidance into field-level implementation of ADA requirements for 

transition plans and related requirements and is anticipated to be 

completed in May 2008.

Technical Standards for Installing Public Rights-of-Way Are Not 

Finalized 

In addition to the transition plans required by the ADA, the Access Board 

developed ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for installing accessible 

Page 43 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
structures and devices such as curb ramps for sidewalks. These guidelines 

serve as the basis for DOJ and DOT’s current ADA regulations, originally 

published in 1991. However, ADA accessibility requirements in current 

regulations focus primarily on accessibility standards for building 

facilities, not public rights-of-way. In June 1994, the Access Board 

published an interim rule containing more information on public rights-ofway, among other accessibility topics, to supplement the ADA accessibility 

requirements. As the transportation community and others reviewed these 

guidelines, however, they were concerned about the magnitude of the 

work that would be needed to meet the public rights-of-way guidance. As a 

result, the Access Board withdrew the sections of the rule pertaining to 

public rights-of-way and began conducting education and outreach 

activities to inform the transportation industry about accessibility of 

public rights-of-way. Current ADA accessibility requirements, as codified 

in regulation, do not contain the Access Board supplement on public 

rights-of-way. 

In 1999, the Access Board resumed its efforts to develop final guidelines 

for public rights-of-way and, nearly a decade later, work continues on 

these draft guidelines. After soliciting input from a wide variety of 

stakeholders,

66 the Access Board released another draft of its public rightsof-way guidelines in 2002 for public comment and received an extensive 

public response. The board considered these comments and, in 2005, 

published revised draft guidelines for purposes of gathering additional 

information for an economic impact analysis, which is still under way by 

the Access Board. The new guidelines are expected to cover such subjects 

as pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets, including crosswalks, curb 

ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other parts of 

the public rights-of-way. They will likely also address issues such as access 

at street crossings for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision, 

wheelchair access to on-street parking, and constraints posed by space 

limitations, roadway design practices, slope, and terrain. According to 

Access Board and DOJ officials, the draft guidelines are more consistent 

with industry standards. 

 66The Access Board chartered a Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee to 

develop recommendations for accessible public rights-of-way, contained in the report

“Building a True Community” (Jan. 10, 2001). The review committee consisted of 33 

members representing disability organizations, public works departments, transportation 

and traffic engineering groups, design professionals and civil engineers, government

agencies, and standards-setting bodies. 

Page 44 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
The draft guidelines remain a work in progress. The Access Board is still 

working on the economic analysis, and, once it is complete, the draft 

guidelines will go out for public comment. As of July 2007, however, the 

Access Board was not able to provide an estimate for when the guidelines 

might be finalized. If codified into federal regulations and standards by 

DOJ, the Access Board draft guidelines would supplement the current 

ADA accessibility requirements and provide a comprehensive set of 

regulations for public rights-of-way. 

Various studies and advocacy and industry groups, as well as officials with 

whom we spoke, cited the lack of final, specialized standards for public 

rights-of-way as a problem. Some of their comments and findings are as 

follows: 

• According to a report by the National Academies of Sciences, 

improvements to pedestrian accessibility have lagged behind 

improvements to the rest of the transportation network, in part because no

enforceable regulations for making public rights-of-way accessible have 

been issued.67

• Officials with the National Council on Disabilities said that, absent such 

enforceable standards, localities continue to erect barriers, such as 

inaccessible bus stops, intersections without curb ramps or with 

improperly constructed curb ramps, and barriers blocking sidewalks. 

• Officials with a national industry association with whom we spoke said 

that localities are uncertain about requirements for and definitions of 

accessible pedestrian signals. The officials said that there is a strong bias 

for localities to delay in adding pedestrian signals, depending on what the 

final guidelines will require. For example, one city is conducting a major 

construction project downtown to add light rail. In the course of this 

construction, 60 pedestrian signals will be modified, but the city is unsure 

how to proceed since accessible pedestrian signals are not defined or 

covered in current ADA requirements. 

• Industry groups with whom we spoke noted that states and localities may 

not make an investment in accessibility improvements for public rights-ofway that go beyond current regulations for curb ramps, since draft 

 67The Future of Disability in America, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 

2007. FHWA officials clarified that no specialized standards have been adopted to mandate 

how to make public rights-of-way accessible. 

Page 45 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
guidelines will likely change. Furthermore, officials with whom we spoke 

identified aspects of current accessibility requirements that are not clear, 

such as detectable warning requirements for curb ramps. 

• Additionally, industry and advocacy groups and state and local 

governments said that differences between the draft guidelines, current 

ADA accessibility requirements, other federal guidelines, and national and 

state building codes create challenges for state and local governments that 

are trying to comply with applicable accessibility requirements for public 

rights-of-way.68

State and local government officials, as well as officials from advocacy and 

industry groups, pointed to the lack of finalized comprehensive standards 

for public rights-of-way as an obstacle to ensuring access to transportation 

for individuals with disabilities. FHWA, which implements ADA pedestrian 

access requirements for federal, state, and local government agencies that

build and maintain highways, has provided some guidance, but FHWA 

officials acknowledge that the effectiveness of the guidance is limited.69

Furthermore, FHWA directs states and localities to use the Access Board’s 

draft guidelines as best practices. In the absence of finalized 

comprehensive standards for public rights-of-way, DOJ and the Access 

Board have developed guidance on these issues. For example, DOJ has 

developed an online tool kit for state and local governments to use in 

identifying and fixing problems in public rights-of-way accessibility. 

However, according to federal officials, it is difficult to provide effective 

training and technical assistance for states and localities while Access 

Board draft guidelines are not final and codified in regulation. Federal 

officials have acknowledged that the draft guidelines will likely change as 

a result of the rulemaking process. 

Congress passed the ADA in part to help people with disabilities have 

access to transportation, but 17 years later the federal government cannot Conclusions 

 68For example, under current federal regulations, states and localities can choose between 

two sets of accessibility guidelines: the ADA Accessibility Standards and the Uniform 

Federal Accessibility Standards.

69FHWA has provided technical assistance and guidance on accessible public rights-of-way 

using existing research and standards. This includes Designing Sidewalks and Trails for 

Access, Part I of II: Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, FHWA-HEP-99-006 

(Washington, D.C.: July 1999) and Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of 

II: Best Practices Design Guide, FHWA-EP-01-027 (Washington, D.C.: September 2001). 

Page 46 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
determine the extent of its success for many transportation modes due to 

a lack of reliable data. While some improvements have been made in 

surface transportation accessibility, further advances are also hindered, in

part, by confusion among transportation providers and local governments 

about some of the more complex and emerging aspects of accessibility 

requirements and among federal agencies about their respective roles and

responsibilities. For state and local governments, a major source of 

confusion is the ADA’s requirement to develop and update transition plans 

that inventory the accessibility of public rights-of-way and identify steps 

and time frames for addressing deficiencies. Industry associations and 

state and local transportation agencies that we interviewed were unsure 

what should be included in the plan, what a successful plan would look 

like, and how often to update the plan. The problem is persistent enough

that the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is 

funded by FHWA and state transportation agencies, is conducting a study 

to develop a tool to help state transportation agencies with these plans. 

FHWA is also conducting program assessments of state transportation 

agencies to determine whether they have completed transition plans. 

There is also confusion among DOT’s modal administrations about what 

steps DOT is able to take to enforce the ADA. DOT established a Disability 

Law Coordinating Council to coordinate the agency’s disability-related 

guidance and policies, but this mission does not include coordination of 

oversight and enforcement efforts. FTA and DOJ crafted a memorandum 

of understanding that set out their respective responsibilities for shared 

enforcement of the ADA, and this was successful in that it helped develop 

working relationships that have furthered oversight and enforcement of 

accessibility requirements in public transportation. However, FMCSA does 

not conduct ADA compliance reviews or investigate complaints for 

commercial buses and has indicated that it cannot withhold or revoke a 

company’s operating authority for noncompliance with the ADA. A federal 

court directed FMCSA to reexamine the statute for further consideration. 

In addition, although FMCSA and DOT’s Office of the Secretary have not 

gathered and reviewed information on the accessibility of demandresponse and fixed-route commercial bus service and determined whether 

to retain or modify the ADA regulations governing such buses, as required, 

they recently developed a preliminary strategy for doing so in response to 

our preliminary findings. FRA also has had limited involvement in ADA 

enforcement and has not conducted periodic compliance reviews of 

Amtrak, as required by regulation, but FRA officials indicated that they

may do so in the future. Amtrak’s delay in conducting station assessments, 

including providing information on the steps necessary to bring them into

Page 47 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
compliance with the ADA by July 2010, hinders FRA’s ability to adequately 

oversee intercity passenger rail accessibility. 

When DOT does identify ADA violations—whether by local transit 

agencies, Amtrak, or other entities—DOT primarily relies on informal 

negotiations and reminders to attempt to obtain compliance with the ADA. 

In many cases, these informal methods are sufficient to correct the 

problem. Sometimes, however, an entity refuses to comply due to 

competing priorities for funds, lack of expertise, or other reasons. The 

ADA has been in effect for more than 17 years, and federal officials are 

less sympathetic to such reasons than they used to be. Other than the 

informal methods, DOT’s other enforcement options are withholding grant 

funds or pursuing litigation through DOJ. However, DOT has rarely used 

these options because they are too drastic or lengthy to effectively address 

the problem in many instances. There is very little middle ground 

available. Civil penalties are a tool that DOT uses to achieve other goals, 

but it does not have authority to use them for ADA violations. DOT’s Office

of the Secretary already has experience in administering civil penalties 

against air carriers for violations of the Air Carrier Access Act. Likewise,

FRA and FMCSA impose civil penalties against freight rail and commercial 

motor carriers, respectively, for safety violations. Similar authority for 

ADA violations would give DOT’s oversight and enforcement efforts more 

weight and help ensure that accessibility is a higher priority for public and 

private surface transportation providers and local governments. 

To improve the availability of data on ADA compliance and improve FRA’s 

ability to oversee Amtrak’s progress in implementing the ADA, we 

recommend that the President of Amtrak continue to report to FRA on the 

status of Amtrak’s review of the accessibility of its stations. As required by 

Amtrak’s fiscal year 2006 and 2007 grant agreements, this report should 

include data for each station and actions required to bring it into 

compliance, as well as an overall schedule for bringing all Amtrak stations 

into compliance. 

Given gaps in data on the status of ADA compliance of commercial buses, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the 

Administrator, FMCSA and DOT’s Office of the Secretary, to implement 

their plan to gather, review, and verify information on demand-response 

and fixed-route commercial bus service and determine whether to retain 

or modify the existing regulations, as required by DOT’s regulations. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Page 48 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
To reduce confusion among state and local entities regarding ADArequired transition plans, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to work with DOJ to use 

the results of both FHWA’s program assessments and the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program’s study to develop and 

disseminate guidance for creating and updating transition plans. 

To enhance DOT’s oversight of ADA compliance, we recommend that the

Secretary of Transportation take the following two actions: 

• develop criteria for determining circumstances under which DOT would 

withhold all or part of a grantee’s federal funds for instances of ADA 

noncompliance, which could streamline the process, and 

• direct the Administrator, FRA, to conduct the periodic reviews of Amtrak’s 

ADA compliance that are required by regulation.

To increase coordination and communication among DOT’s modal 

administrations and with DOJ, thereby improving DOT’s ability to oversee 

and enforce the ADA, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation 

direct the Administrators of FHWA, FMCSA, and FRA to enter into formal 

agreements with DOJ to clearly delineate responsibility for enforcing the 

provisions of the ADA pertaining to surface transportation and public 

rights-of-way. Furthermore, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation, through the Office of the Secretary, establish or designate

a formal working group or other coordinating body (such as the Disability 

Law Coordinating Council) to ensure a coordinated effort within DOT for 

overseeing and enforcing the ADA, including identifying ways to improve 

data for measuring compliance. 

To expand the range of options available to DOT modal administrations 

for enforcing the ADA for surface transportation and public rights-of-way, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation develop a legislative 

proposal that would give DOT the authority to impose civil penalties for 

ADA violations. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT, DOJ, the Access Board, and 

Amtrak for their review and comment. DOT and DOJ provided oral 

comments and agreed with our findings and conclusions. Further, DOJ 

agreed with our recommendations, and DOT agreed to consider them. The

Access Board provided oral comments and agreed with the report’s 

findings. Amtrak provided written comments (see app. IV) and stated that 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 49 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
our recommendations regarding enhancing DOT’s oversight and 

enforcement options would not be effective in cases where federal 

guidance was unclear and funding is not available to meet the technical 

requirements. DOT, DOJ, and Amtrak also provided technical comments 

via e-mail, which we incorporated throughout the report as appropriate. 

Specific comments on the report as well as our responses follow. 

DOT officials stated that since they had an existing body, the Disability 

Law Coordinating Council, to coordinate department regulations, they said 

that the council’s mission could potentially be expanded to coordinate 

oversight and enforcement of the ADA. We included the council in the 

recommendations. 

DOJ officials asked that we clarify DOJ and DOT’s statutory and 

regulatory authority and they provided additional examples of DOJ’s 

activities in ADA enforcement. We made changes to reflect these 

comments. 

Finally, Amtrak stated its commitment to making its railcars and stations 

accessible to passengers with disabilities and compliant with the ADA. It 

also delineated three concerns impeding and increasing the cost of 

Amtrak’s progress in constructing and renovating stations. First, Amtrak 

officials indicated DOT’s notice of proposed rulemaking on platform 

heights could require considerable changes to platform design, but they

are uncertain of when these rules will become final and, if they do, how 

the entities affected—including freight railroads—will be able to address 

these requirements. Second, they indicated the proposed rules are unclear 

regarding who is responsible for ADA compliance in areas where different 

public and private entities own stations. Finally, they stated these potential 

requirements are expensive, especially in the face of Amtrak’s funding 

difficulties. They conclude that many technical, ownership, and funding 

issues are involved in addressing ADA compliance. Thus, our 

recommendations that DOT clarify situations under which it can withhold 

grant funds and consider asking for the ability to assess civil penalties are 

likely to be ineffective for Amtrak without more funding and clearer 

federal requirements. 

We added further information clarifying Amtrak’s difficulties in the report.

We did not revise our recommendations since they apply to many 

situations beyond this one, such as commercial buses and public transit. 

Also, we believe that additional data and federal oversight of all modes of 

surface transportation, including Amtrak, would be beneficial in ensuring

continued progress in meeting the accessibility goals of the ADA. 

Page 50 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General, and 

other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

Katherine Siggerud, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 51 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That 

Are Used for ADA Compliance

The state and local transportation providers and government agencies that

we interviewed said that they used a variety of federal, state, and local

funding sources—as well as farebox revenues—to help them comply with 

the surface transportation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (ADA). The federal funding sources are listed in table 2. 

Table 2: Examples of Federal Funds that Are Used for ADA Compliance 

Dollars in millions 

Federal agency Program Use 

Total fiscal year 2007 

appropriation

Department of 

Transportation–Federal 

Highway Administration 

Surface Transportation Program 

(STP) 

STP funds may be used to construct 

pedestrian walkways and to modify 

public sidewalks to comply with the 

ADA. Ten percent of each state’s STP 

apportionment must be made available 

only for transportation enhancement 

activities (such as pedestrian 

facilities). Funds may be transferred to 

Federal Transit Administration formula 

programs. 

$6,247.9

National Highway System (NHS) NHS funds may be used to construct 

pedestrian walkways. Funds may be 

transferred to Federal Transit

Administration formula programs. 

$5,932.5

Congestion, Mitigation, and Air 

Quality Improvement Program

(CMAQ) 

CMAQ funds may be used for 

construction of pedestrian facilities. 

Under limited circumstances, CMAQ

funds may be used to support the 

operating costs of public 

transportation. Funds can also be 

transferred to Federal Transit

Administration formula programs. 

$1,693.7

Highway Bridge Replacement and 

Rehabilitation Program 

Funds may be used for replacement or 

rehabilitation of eligible highway bridge 

projects, including pedestrian 

walkways. 

$4,150.9

Department of 

Transportation–Federal 

Transit Administration 

Urbanized Area Formula Program Assists urbanized areas in financing 

capital projects for use in public 

transportation service; 10 percent of 

funds may be used to pay for

complementary paratransit operating 

costs as a capital expenditure.

Operating assistance may also be 

used to support complementary 

paratransit costs. Funds may also be

used to enhance access for people 

with disabilities to public 

transportation.

$3,606.2

Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That 

Are Used for ADA Compliance 

Page 52 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That 

Are Used for ADA Compliance

Dollars in millions 

Federal agency Program Use 

Total fiscal year 2007 

appropriation

Nonurbanized Area Formula 

Program 

Assists nonurbanized areas in

financing capital projects and 

operating expenses for use in public 

transportation service; projects that will 

help the area meet ADA requirements 

are eligible for a higher federal share 

of funding; 10 percent of funds may be 

used to pay for complementary

paratransit operating costs as a capital

expenditure. Operating assistance 

may also be used to support 

complementary paratransit costs. 

$404.0

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility 

Program 

Competitive grant program to help 

commercial bus companies finance 

the capital and training costs of

complying with ADA regulations. 

$7.6

Fixed Guideway Modernization 

Program and Bus and Bus Facility 

Grants 

Fixed Guideway Modernization 

Program provides capital assistance to 

maintain, modernize, or improve 

existing fixed guideway systems, 

including rail, bus, and other public 

transportation systems. Bus and Bus 

Facility Grants provide funding for the 

acquisition of buses and bus-related

facilities, including transfer facilities 

and passenger shelters. 

$2,329.8

Formula Program for Elderly 

Persons and Persons with

Disabilities 

This program provides formula funding 

to states for capital projects to assist 

private nonprofit groups in meeting the 

transportation needs of the elderly and 

individuals with disabilities when the 

public transportation service provided 

in the area is unavailable, insufficient, 

or inappropriate to meet these needs. 

$117.0

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

Community Development Block 

Grant 

Annual grants to provide services to 

the most vulnerable in U.S. 

communities. Projects benefit low- and 

moderate-income persons or address 

community development needs having 

a particular urgency because existing 

conditions pose a serious and 

immediate threat to the health or 

welfare of the community for which 

other funding is not available. 

$3,710.9

Source: GAO.

In addition, DOT recently implemented the New Freedom Program, which 

is a formula grant program designed to support new public transportation 

Page 53 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That 

Are Used for ADA Compliance

services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by 

the ADA. Congress apportioned $81 million for this program for fiscal year 

2007. This is a new program, and we reported in July 2007 that few 

governors had designated entities to receive the funds, and FTA had 

awarded few grants to date.1

 1

 For more information on the status of the program, see GAO, Transportation 

Disadvantaged: Progress in Implementing the New Freedom Program Has Been Limited,

and Better Monitoring Procedures Would Help Ensure Program Funds Are Used as

Intended, GAO-07-999R (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2007). 

Page 54 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

This report addresses the following three objectives: (1) what is known 

about the extent of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 

compliance for surface transportation and public rights-of-way,1

 (2) what 

difficulties, if any, the federal government faces in overseeing and 

enforcing compliance with the ADA, and (3) the sources of federal 

technical assistance that are available to help public transportation 

providers, businesses, and state and local governments comply with ADA 

requirements and what gaps, if any, exist. 

Surface transportation, for the purposes of this report, includes public 

transportation (such as buses, subways, trolleys, and commuter rail), 

ADA-complementary paratransit (provided within 3/4 of a mile of a bus 

route or rail station, at the same hours and days as fixed-route transit, for 

no more than twice the regular fixed-route fare), intercity passenger rail 

(National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as Amtrak), intercity 

buses, and privately operated transportation that is open to the public 

(such as taxis and airport shuttles). Maritime and aviation are excluded

from our scope, as are school transportation and the Alaska Railroad. 

To describe what is known about the extent of ADA compliance for 

surface transportation and public rights-of-way, we reviewed and analyzed 

relevant portions of the ADA, as well as related federal regulations and 

guidance. We also reviewed the literature on transportation accessibility, 

such as the National Council on Disability’s reports on the status of 

compliance with the ADA,2

 and interviewed federal officials from the U.S. 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board); the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division; and 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Office of Civil Rights and 

modal administrations, including the Federal Highway Administration, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad 

Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. In addition, we 

interviewed officials from the National Council on Disability and Amtrak. 

 1

Public rights-of-way include pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets, through 

crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and parking, among other things.

2

National Council on Disability, The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act: 

Assessing the Progress Toward Achieving the Goals of the ADA (Washington, D.C.: July 

26, 2007); Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Challenges, Best

Practices, and New Opportunities for Success (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007); The 

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

(Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2005); and Promises to Keep: A Decade of Federal 

Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2000).

Page 55 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology 

We obtained data from Amtrak and the Federal Transit Administration’s 

National Transit Database on the number of accessible vehicles and 

stations. To assess the reliability of these data, we spoke with agency 

officials about data quality control procedures and reviewed relevant

documentation. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. We also obtained accessibility data from reports 

by DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National Council on 

Disability, as well as from the National Organization on Disability’s 2004 

Harris Survey. Given that these data were used for background purposes, 

we did not assess their reliability. 

To identify any difficulties the federal government faces in overseeing and 

enforcing compliance with the ADA, we interviewed Access Board, DOJ, 

and DOT officials (including officials from one of the Federal Transit 

Administration’s regional offices) and analyzed documentation regarding 

oversight requirements and activities, including information on the type

and frequency of activity, processes by which entities are selected for 

review or investigation, and resulting enforcement activities, if applicable, 

as well as the processes for receiving, processing, and responding to 

complaints. We also obtained and analyzed DOJ and DOT’s ADA-related 

complaint data. In addition, we reviewed DOJ and DOT’s annual reports, 

strategic and performance plans, and other related documents to identify 

agency and program goals, performance targets, and data collected for 

performance indicators related to improving ADA compliance. 

To describe the sources of available federal technical assistance and

determine whether any gaps exist, we interviewed and obtained 

documentation from Access Board, DOJ, and DOT officials and key 

technical assistance providers (such as Easter Seals Project ACTION). We 

also obtained and analyzed information on the processes by which federal 

agencies determine how to target this assistance.

To address all three of the objectives, we also interviewed 14 national 

industry associations and disability organizations (see table 3) to obtain 

their perspective on what is known about ADA compliance; federal 

technical assistance, including any potential gaps in such assistance; and

federal ADA-related oversight and enforcement activities. 

Page 56 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology 

Table 3: National Industry Associations and Disability Organizations Interviewed for 

Our Review

Industry associations 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

American Bus Association 

American Public Transportation Association 

Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living 

Community Transportation Association of America 

Easter Seals Project ACTION

Institute of Transportation Engineers 

Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association

United Motorcoach Association 

Disability organizations 

American Council of the Blind

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

National Disability Rights Network 

National Organization on Disability 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Source: GAO.

To illustrate experiences that transportation providers and state and local 

governments have had with federal ADA-related technical assistance and

oversight and enforcement activities, we supplemented the information 

from our federal interviews and documentation with interviews with 

officials in eight cities. The interviews included officials from 2 state 

departments of transportation, 11 local transportation agencies, 6 private 

transportation providers, 4 local governments, 4 centers for independent

living, 2 technical assistance centers, and 2 local disability advocacy 

groups. We selected the eight cities to obtain diversity in the following 

criteria: 

• Experience with federal ADA oversight and enforcement processes—We 

identified cities in which public transportation providers or government 

entities had been subject to federal oversight and enforcement processes, 

including FTA compliance reviews and DOJ Project Civic Access reviews. 

We also included transportation providers (public and private) or 

government entities listed in DOJ’s complaint database, those with whom 

DOJ had negotiated a consent decree or settlement agreement, or those 

whom FTA had investigated in response to a complaint and issued a letter 

of finding. 

Page 57 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology 

• Population—We selected a mixture of urbanized areas with very large 

populations (greater than 1 million), large populations (200,000-1 million), 

and small populations (50,000-199,000), as defined by FTA. 

• Geographic diversity—We selected cities from around the United States.

• Other criteria—We also selected cities involved in additional 

transportation accessibility areas, including both National Organization on 

Disability Accessible America Award winners or runners-up in 2005 and

2006, and parties to private lawsuits identified through Internet searches, 

ADA-related literature, and our federal and national interviews. 

Table 4 lists the eight cities that we selected on the basis of these criteria

and the agencies that we interviewed. The results of these interviews 

cannot be used to make inferences about the entire population because 

the cities were selected from a nongeneralizable sample. However, we 

determined that the selection of these cities was appropriate for our 

design and objectives and that the selection would generate valid and 

reliable evidence to support our work. 

Table 4: State and Local Organizations Interviewed for Our Review

Location Organization

Albany, NY Capital District Coalition for Accessible Transportation

Capital District Transportation Authority 

Capitaland Taxi

New York Association on Independent Living

Chicago, IL Chicago Department of Transportation

Chicago Transit Authority 

Coach USA

City of Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities 

Disability Rights Consortium 

Equip for Equality 

Great Lakes ADA Center 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Metra–commuter rail

Pace Bus

University of Chicago 

Dallas, TX Dallas Area Rapid Transit 

Greyhound Bus Lines 

Hartford, CT Connecticut Department of Transportation 

Page 58 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology 

Location Organization

City of Hartford 

Joliet, IL City of Joliet 

Will County Executive 

Will-Grundy Center for Independent Living 

Kingston, NY Adirondack Trailways 

Kingston Citibus

Resource Center for Accessible Living, Inc. 

Ulster County Area Transit 

Los Angeles, CA Access Services, Inc. 

Los Angeles Metro 

Springfield, MA Peter Pan Bus Lines 

Pioneer Valley Transit Authority 

Stavros Advocates for Independent Living 

Source: GAO.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2006 through July 

2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 59 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix III: The Disability Law

Appendix III: The Disability Law Coordinating Council 

Coordinating Council 

In March 2003, the Secretary of Transportation established a working 

group known as the Disability Law Coordinating Council to coordinate the 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) disability-related interpretations, 

guidance, and policies. The council is led by the Office of General Counsel 

and includes representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

Its purpose, according to DOT officials, is to coordinate DOT’s disabilityrelated regulations and ensure that guidance and interpretations are 

consistent among DOT offices and consistent with DOT regulations that 

implement the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), among 

other acts. It meets once a month for members to discuss what each modal 

administration is doing, uncertainties or questions that have arisen and 

where additional guidance would be useful. The council conducts its 

business informally, without formal agendas, minutes, or notes from its 

meetings. 

DOT proposed to codify the council’s role in its February 2006 notice of 

proposed rulemaking. DOT states that the proposed regulatory change 

would codify DOT’s procedure with regard to the council and provide 

better notice to the public regarding the council’s actions. The proposal 

has generated some controversy, however. For example, one major 

industry association has expressed concern that DOT’s proposal does not 

discuss what authority the council would have to interpret the ADA and 

implement regulations and what balance would be struck between the 

council’s and FTA’s authority. 

Page 60 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Page 61 GAO-07-1126 

Appendix IV: Comments from the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

Transportation Accessibility
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

Page 62 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

Page 63 GAO-07-1126 Transportation Accessibility
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 64 GAO-07-1126 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834, or siggerudk@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors to this 

report were Catherine Colwell, Assistant Director; Ashley Alley; Jean

Cook; Catherine Kim; Jessica Lucas-Judy; Stan Stenersen; and Travis 

Thomson. 

 Transportation Accessibility

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542104) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER