Transportation Accessibility: Lack of Data and Limited Enforcement Options Limit Federal Oversight
Published: 2007-09-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 (FMCSA) 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 (FTA) has a memorandum of understanding in place with DOJ specifying each agency's responsibilities for public transit, while the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 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 rights-of-way. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Access to transportation and public rights-of-way 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.  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  access to transportation and public rights-of-way. Since ADA  requirements became effective, access to surface transportation has  improved. For example, reports from the National Council on Disability  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.
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-of- way, 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  continue to face barriers to accessible transportation. 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. A 2004 national survey found that  people with disabilities were twice as likely to have inadequate  transportation as people without disabilities. 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 paratransit 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 bus drivers—have refused to accommodate service animals,  such as guide dogs, as required by law. Finally, problems with public  rights-of-way include intersections without curb ramps or sidewalks  blocked by telephone poles.
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; (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, where we met with  officials from various entities, including transportation agencies, state  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: To help ensure that surface transportation—including public rights-of- way—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. 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:    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. These services are typically provided using wheelchair- accessible 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.
Existing “key stations” 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.
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.
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. 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.
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, 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  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.
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 lift-  and 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. 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). 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,  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.
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.)
section_title: Extent of ADA Compliance for Surface Transportation and Public Rights-of-Way Is Largely Unknown Because Little Reliable Information Is Available
paragraphs: 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. Much of the data for other modes,  however, are either unreliable or still being developed.
subsections: section_title: Some Data Are Available on the Percent of Accessible Vehicles and Stations
paragraphs: 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. By 2005, 97 percent were lift- or ramp-equipped,  according to FTA’s National Transit Database. 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  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).
Although available data indicate increasing accessibility of transit vehicles,  requirements in ADA regulations extend beyond having lift- and ramp- equipped 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 changes). According to  FTA, as of June 2007, of the 687 key rail stations identified in transit  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.
In addition to fixed-route transit, FTA also oversees ADA-complementary  paratransit, which will be discussed in the next section.
section_title: Less Is Known About the Extent of ADA Compliance for Public Rights-of-Way and Other Transportation Modes
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Intercity Passenger Rail (Amtrak)
paragraphs: 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). Amtrak has policies and procedures in  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. 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.  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  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.
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  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.
section_title: Commercial Bus
paragraphs: 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 companies 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. 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  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-response 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, 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. Little is known about compliance by small charter-tour  companies, but according to DOT officials, they have limited anecdotal  evidence suggesting that many such companies are unaware of ADA rules  or do not comply with them.
section_title: Public Rights-of-Way
paragraphs: 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.
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  accessibility obligations using DOJ guidance as a tool. 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.
section_title: Private Transportation (Other Than Commercial Bus)
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Complementary Paratransit
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Complaint Data
paragraphs: DOT and DOJ data indicate that relatively few individuals file  transportation-related ADA complaints with federal agencies. Examples of  this data are as follows:  In 2005, the most recent year for which complete data were available, FTA  received 124 ADA-related complaints, 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.
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  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. 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.
section_title: Federal Agencies Conduct Oversight and Enforcement Activities but Face Difficulties in Ensuring Compliance with the ADA
paragraphs: DOJ and DOT, which share responsibility for ADA oversight and  enforcement, 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.
subsections: section_title: Unevenness in Agencies’ Oversight Framework and Coordination Leads to Gaps in Oversight and Enforcement of Some Modes
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies’ Role in Oversight and Enforcement of Surface Transportation Accessibility Requirements Differs by Mode
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: DOJ, FTA, and FHWA Have an Oversight and Enforcement Framework in Place
paragraphs: 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. 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  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-of- way. 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  ramps in pedestrian facilities that are constructed with federal funds or  when roads with pedestrian crossings are newly constructed or altered.
section_title: FRA and FMCSA Do Not Have a Framework for Clarifying and Establishing Their Oversight Role
paragraphs: 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. 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 ADA- related 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  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. 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. 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.
section_title: Lack of Coordination also Contributes to Oversight Gaps or Duplication of Effort
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Agencies Lack Data with Which to Target and Evaluate the Effectiveness of Oversight and Enforcement Efforts
paragraphs: 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.
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.  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.
section_title: DOT Officials Consider Existing Enforcement Options to Be Limited
paragraphs: 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 funds 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:    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  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. 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. 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. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: DOT Has Another Option Available for Enforcing Airline Accessibility and Safety- Related Requirements
paragraphs: 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 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,  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.
section_title: Private Citizens Use Lawsuits and Settlement Agreements to Bring About Compliance
paragraphs: In a number of instances, compliance has come not through agency  enforcement but through private citizens filing lawsuits and negotiating  settlements. 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  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.
section_title: Federal Entities Provide a Variety of Technical Assistance to Help with ADA Compliance, but Gaps Exist in Regulations and Guidance
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Assistance Takes Several Forms
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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  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. 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- 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Gaps in Technical Assistance for Public Transportation and Public Rights-of-Way Have Raised Uncertainty about ADA Compliance Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: DOT Is Developing Regulations to Address Emerging Issues in Public Transportation
paragraphs: 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. 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  and mobility devices do not address devices that fall outside of the  definition of a common wheelchair. 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; 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. 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.
section_title: More Clarity Needed for Public Rights-of-Way Requirements
paragraphs: 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-of- 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. 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.
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  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  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-of- way, 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, the Access Board released another draft of its public rights- of-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.
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.
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-of- way that go beyond current regulations for curb ramps, since draft  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.
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.  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Congress passed the ADA in part to help people with disabilities have  access to transportation, but 17 years later the federal government cannot  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 demand- response 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
To reduce confusion among state and local entities regarding ADA- required 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That Are Used for ADA Compliance
paragraphs: 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.
In addition, DOT recently implemented the New Freedom Program, which  is a formula grant program designed to support new public transportation  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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, (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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix III: The Disability Law Coordinating Council
paragraphs: 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 disability- related 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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
paragraphs: Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.