Save the date, and be a part of the conversation!

Project ACTION will host a two-week, online event where participants from across the country will have the opportunity to discuss issues pertaining to ADA-complementary paratransit services. The Paratransit Online Dialogue begins July 26, 2010, the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Public transportation and disability services agencies are experiencing challenges in providing ADA paratransit service due to economic conditions and service cuts. Decisions are being made on how to best provide mobility on a tight budget, and in many cases that means cutting service or finding flexible ways to accommodate customers.

Share your experiences, paratransit practices, challenges, and recommendations this summer!

Join the Online Dialogue July 26th - August 6th!

• Receive updates on the Paratransit Online Dialogue by subscribing to the monthly email newsletter. Sign up by submitting your email and zip code in the left-hand navigation bar.
• Register for the Online Dialogue in July
• Download and distribute an informational flyer (PDF) to help us invite others to participate in the dialogue

The Office of Disability and Employment Policy (ODEP) announced an online resource that offers businesses practical information on how to build transportation programs that are easy to implement and inexpensive to maintain. The Transportation to Work Toolkit for the Business Community provides information on topics ranging from vanpools and shared ride programs to tax incentives and green transportation strategies. It also includes profiles of several companies that have successfully implemented transportation programs that benefit their employees, their communities and the environment—and make good business sense.

Lack of accessible transportation remains a significant barrier to employment and other opportunities for people with disabilities.

Tulsa World, By Susan Hylton, World Staff Writer

Published: 6/8/2010  2:21 AM

Last Modified: 6/8/2010  5:31 AM

This story reports the construction of sidewalks through rural towns in Oklahoma. While some of those interviewed seem to consider the expense extravagant, the projects did provide work for a number of small construction firms and their employees. Considering my last post here (What Does the ADA Have to Say about Public Rights-of-Way?), this represents just a drop in the bucket toward making communities universally accessible. Having seen individuals in rural Colorado towns pushing their wheelchairs in streets (sometimes unpaved streets) on many occasions, the construction of sidewalks in rural towns does not strike me as an excessive cost.

The cost of constructing one block of sidewalk, both sides of the street, is almost insignificant when compared to the cost of paving the street in between those sidewalks. The sidewalks can and will be used by everyone who lives in theses towns – especially in wet weather – while most of the traffic that flows through on the highways will be non-residents. This raises the question of whether infrastructure designed primarily to serve people or infrastructure that is designed primarily to serve automobiles is of greater value? Ponder this next time you’re taking a walk.

For the record, the “H-word,” which some of us  find to be offensive, is used twice in this story.

As I read Lynn Horsley’s article, in The Kansas City Star, about access in public rights-of-way (KC residents with disabilities are fed up, and fighting for compliance with ADA), two thoughts struck me. First, how much (or how little?) does the ADA address accessibility in public rights-of-way, that is, how much responsibility do Title II entities (state & local governments) have for making them accessible? Second, how, in light of the general lack of enforceable standards for accessibility in public rights-of-way, does the accessibility of public rights-of-way (or lack thereof) impact access to public transportation, employment, places of public accommodation, and participation in local government programs and activities (such as, voting)?

The ADA Accessibility Guidelines (aka, the ADAAG) are the technical provisions for architectural accessibility. The ADAAG became enforceable when it was adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice as Appendix A to Part 36 – Standards for Accessible Design. For the record, Part 36 is the regulation for “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities“, that is, for Title III that covers private businesses. In general terms, Appendix A/the ADAAG addresses elements of sites and facilities (buildings).  While it does include provisions for curb ramps and detectable warnings, it is not focused on public rights-of-way but rather toward the sites and facilities of places of public accommodation including parking and accessible routes into facilities from parking and, to some extent, connection to public-rights-of-way (see 4.3.2(1)). Traffic control devices are not covered in Appendix A.

State and local governments, unlike private businesses that, by contrast, have responsibilities to do readily achievable barrier removal, are required to ensure that their programs are nondiscriminatory.

A public entity may not deny the benefits of its programs, activities, and services to individuals with disabilities because its facilities are inaccessible. A public entity’s services, programs, or activities, when viewed in their entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This standard, known as “program accessibility,” applies to all existing facilities of a public entity. Public entities, however, are not necessarily required to make each of their existing facilities accessible. [TAM II-5.1000]

If the public transportation system in a city is an interconnected network of streets, sidewalks, bike paths, expressways, and rail infrastructure that can be viewed as a program, activity, or service of a Title II entity, then, is that entity required to extend (i.e., not deny) the benefits of that program, viewed in its entirety, to individuals with disabilities? Bear in mind that:

A public entity does not have to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. [TAM II-5.1000]

To some extent the jury is still our on this question. In 2004, the City of Sacramento, CA, settled on this issue before a class action suit could be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. A December, 2009, settlement by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) similarly recognized the obligation of public entities to provide equal access to pedestrian routes for people with disabilities. The fact that these cases were settled out of court means they did not set legal precedents. As far back as 1993, in Kinney v. Yerusalem, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that resurfacing a street was an alteration (see FR 35.151) and that, as such, the undue burden defense was not available to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the City of Philadelphia. However, Kinney v. Yerusalem did not determine that public entities must build sidewalks where none already existed. It merely states that when alterations in the public right-of-way are completed pedestrian facilities adjacent must be made accessible.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration regulations do not require the construction of accessible bus stops where non exist. The regulations require only that when existing bus stops are altered, or new ones are built, they must comply with ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities (Chapter 8, Section 810); Appendix D to Part 37 regulations states “… does not require that anyone build a bus stop pad; it does specify what a bus stop pad must look like, if it is constructed.”

In practice, the best of local governments are making a good faith effort, by implementing their transition plans, to make their public rights-of-way universally accessible. Best practices for universal accessibility in public rights-of-way include compliant curb ramps, installation of detectable warnings, removal of barriers such as utility poles, the installation of audible or vibrotactile traffic signals, walkable design features, such as bump-outs (that slow traffic and shorten the distance to cross vehicular traffic lanes), and other elements that make pedestrian space more user-friendly and more safe for all pedestrians. These elements are discussed in  Accessible Rights-of-Way: The Way to Go, by Nancy Horton, editor of the ADA in Focus Newsletter, for DBTAC: Mid-Atlantic ADA Center Fall Issue 2008. The U.S. Access Board’s Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way provide comprehensive guidance to making safe and accessible pedestrian ways in communities.

The second question, addressing the impact that accessible public rights-of-way – or lack thereof – have on access to public transportation, employment, places of public accommodation, and participation in local government programs speaks more to the current progress (or not) of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

To begin: how does good, accessible  pedestrian infrastructure affect the use and cost of public transportation? Where insufficient or inaccessible public rights-of-way prevent access to public transit, spontaneity, independence, and self-reliance are limited. In communities where a comprehensive network of pedestrian infrastructure connects people to citywide and regional transit systems, many people with disabilities can and do make spontaneous choices about where and when they go. As the use of fixed route transit systems becomes accessible and convenient, individuals with disabilities who might have relied on ADA complementary paratransit no longer need to schedule/negotiate rides in advance, pay higher fares, deal with “pick-up windows”, and endure the occasional excessively long trip on buses. Using fixed route buses emphasizes integration and independence. Also, as paratransit trips typically have a subsidized cost that runs four to five times as much as the same trip taken via a fixed route vehicle, huge savings can accrue by facilitating the migration of paratransit users to fixed routes. Simultaneously, the reduced demand on paratransit capacity can improve the quality of service for those who remain unable to access fixed routes, for all or some of their trips, due to ability-specific functional limitations.

In a 2009 survey, conducted by Meeting the Challenge, Inc., difficulty in accessing employment was a frequent theme when people were asked about how the lack of accessible public transportation impacted their lives. With regard to employment, significant mobility within one’s community, including both pedestrian and vehicular travel is still generally essential to employment opportunities. Many people with disabilities can and do drive cars, however, for those who are unable or choose not to drive, access to employment can be problematic. Scheduling work hours around the vagaries of ADA complementary paratransit (or even fixed routes that run limited hours/days) can be difficult. While employers must make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities, the schedule limitations caused by using public transit are frequently not reasonable. Good access to comprehensive public transit, including accessible public rights-of-way, can open the workplace to many people with disabilities.

Businesses benefit by being accessible to customers. Potential customers with significant discretionary income who are unable to leave their homes because of mobility barriers – such as the lack of an accessible route to the nearest bus stop – contribute less to the consumer economy than those who have access. While readily achievable barrier removal and new construction design standards of Title III have made strides toward making businesses accessible to people with disabilities, barriers in public rights-of-way remain and continue to limit the access that businesses have to customers with disabilities.

Civic participation is also limited when mobility is restricted by barriers in public rights-of-way. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is intended to open access to the programs of public entities. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is meant to make voting accessible to people with disabilities. As with places of public accommodation, even though legislation and enforcement have come a long way toward making the actual programs accessible, much remains to be fixed in public rights-of-way in order to bridge the gap between where people with disabilities live and where they attend public meetings, participate in public events, and vote.

Social interaction is arguably a desirable objective in the pursuit of happiness. We are social creatures. We enjoy being around family and friends, or just escaping to spend a sunny day in the park. Appearing frequently among the comments (in MTC’s 2009 survey), regarding how lack of transit access impacts people’s lives, were the following words: prisoner, isolated, trapped, homebound, dependent, restricted, unable, limited, disempowering, depressed.

Accessibility means being where one wants to be when wants to be there. Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute tells us:

The ultimate goal of most transportation is “access,” people’s ability to reach desired goods, services and activities.

If we understand that accessibility in our society requires mobility, then we understand also that the access promised to people with disabilities by the Americans with Disabilities Act will never be complete until every link in the accessible route is strong and sufficient to accommodate everyone. Those links include accessible housing, accessible workplaces, accessible businesses, accessible public programs (including accessible public facilities when necessary), accessible public transit, and accessible public rights-of-way.

By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff / March 28, 2010

This article in The Boston Globe explains the difficulty and expense of providing ADA complementary paratransit. MBTA’s per trip costs for paratransit have risen from $20, in 2000, to $43, today. The current fare is $2. Certainly some of MBTA’s costs are higher than they would be if the system were operated at a level that merely complied with the minimum FTA/ADA standards . That said, Mr. Bierman thoroughly discusses the ongoing efforts to provide a high level of customer service to individuals with disabilities and adults who are older.

Mr. Bierman states:

Under federal law, the MBTA is allowed to charge users of The Ride no more than twice the amount of the lowest fare on a bus or subway. The cheapest ride on the T is the $1.25 it costs to ride a bus using a CharlieCard, so theoretically the T could charge users of The Ride as much as $2.50.

Actually, FTA regulations allow ADA  complementary paratransit to charge up to twice the amount it would cost for a non-discounted fare for a comparable trip taken via fixed route service, including transfers. See, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 37, Subpart F, Section 37.131(c)(1-4).

On the one hand, Chris Hart (wheelchair user, consultant, and activist) says, “Very few people take paratransit because they want to take it. They take it because it’s the last option.’’

Nevertheless, there may be abuses:

Former MBTA general manager Daniel A. Grabauskas said the eligibility requirements for The Ride, which are determined by the federal government, are flexible enough that they may encourage some people whose disabilities would not prevent them from riding subways or buses to use The Ride.

In several ways, The Ride operates at service levels above and beyond FTA/ADA requirements.

• covering a larger geographic area than is required
• scheduling rides within 30 minutes of the time requested by each passenger, rather than the 60 minutes required
• providing door-to-door service for all Ride passengers, even though federal rules allow drivers to drop passengers at the curb

Also significantly, The Ride carries only 1.6 passengers/hour. I have heard transit professionals state that partransit systems typically achieve maximum efficiency at about 2 passengers per hour.

Finally, Mr. Bierman compares The Ride to Fitchburg, MA, providerMontachusett Regional Transit Authority, which operates a similar (though, apparently not ADA complementary paratranist) system at a cost of only $15.50/trip. He also says that the TriMet system in Portland, OR, uses travel navigators to mitigate its operating costs. Meanwhile, in Seattle, King County Metro Transit spends extra to keep ineligible individuals from abusing the system, “…even following passengers with cameras, in an effort to catch people who misuse the special service.”

As I have noted in the ADA Blog, previously (see my post of 4/22/2010: re Penny Everline’s “MetroAccess can save money while also saving rides“), there is a dynamic tension created by inability of fixed route transit systems to successfully attract and provide consistently accessible service to people with disabilities and paratransit systems that, as a result, are overburdened by increasing demand and spiraling costs. People with disabilities who depend on public transportation appear to be faced with the conundrum of meeting with barriers (such as inconsistent accessible routes in pedestrian rights-of-way or failure to provide consistent stop announcements on fixed routes or occasionally being passed-by because a driver would rather not stop and deploy his bus’s wheelchair lift) that prevent them from using fixed route systems, and alternately having paratransit eligibility denied.

Does it make sense that accessible public rights-of-way and truly accessible fixed route systems (i.e., elevators that work almost all of the time, stop announcements that are made as required, drivers who are trained to proficiency) would create enough independence for people with disabilities that it would be an incentive to use fixed route systems instead of paratransit? In the long run it seems this would be less expensive than an ever escalating cost to provide paratransit trips.

Commenting on an article from The Democrat and Chronicle.comby David Andreatta, posted  April 17, 2010

Dozens of people with disabilities and advocates for the disabled demonstrated Friday outside the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority on East Main Street, criticizing public transit for the handicapped as inadequate.

The protesters main complaint is that Rochester Transit Service buses  routinely bypass wheelchair users at stops. However,

An RGRTA spokeswoman said Lift Line fulfilled 99.9 percent of ride requests placed last year, far more than double the percentage 10 years ago when the authority was sued over its Lift Line service.

Nearly 20 years after passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, nearly all (national estimates are in the 98-99% range)  fixed route buses in the U.S. are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs. All new buses are equipped either with lifts or have ramped entrances. Despite that, claims that buses do not stop for, or do not allow wheelchairs to board were common in a transportation access survey completed by Meeting the Challenge last year. An expose series on KABC in 2009, showed that MTA (the Los Angels transit system) experienced similar problems.

The soon to be released, Riders’ Guide to Fixed Route & ADA Complementary Paratransit for People with Disabilities states:

The ADA states that when an accessibility feature such as a lift is out of order, the transit entity must take reasonable steps to accommodate individuals with disabilities who would otherwise use the feature. The driver is responsible for making alternate arrangements which would allow the rider to access that transit route. If the next bus is arriving in less than 30 minutes, those arrangements could involve waiting for that bus.  If the next bus will take longer than 30 minutes to arrive, the driver must make arrangements for a different bus to pick you up.

When a lift or ramp is damaged or out-of-order, the required repairs must be completed promptly. The affected bus must be taken out of service until repairs are made, unless there are no replacement vehicles available and taking that vehicle out of service will reduce service to the public. If there are no replacement vehicles available, transit providers can keep a vehicle with an inoperable lift in service on the fixed route for three to five days, depending on the size of the community.

I am commenting on an article from April 16, 2010, by Rachel Shapiro, in The Three Villages Times, regarding cuts to MTA paratransit (Able-Ride) service in New York.

The requirement for ADA complementary paratransit service extends 3/4 mile from fixed route services per Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 37, Subpart F, Section 37.131(a)(1)(i). It seems likely that, on review, this lawsuit will be dismissed by the court.

from: Greater Greater Washington – The Washington, DC area is great.  But it could be greater.

by Penny Everline •   posted April 14, 2010 2:09 pm

Ms. Everline’s suggestions are very much on target and certainly could be applied to many ADA complementary paratransit systems around the country. It is time to set aside the old paradigm, time to quit trying the same old solutions expecting to get different results.

There are (at least) two failures that need to be addressed with regard to the ADA model of fixed routes and complementary paratransit offering service comparable to fixed route systems. The first, is that, day-ahead reservations – indeed the very demand-responsive nature of paratransit – offer inherently less independent, more segregated access to transportation. The second, is that, providing transportation in the demand-responsive mode of paratransit ultimately costs about four to five times as much for the same trip taken via fixed route service; and that cost is unsustainable. The very cost of providing some percentage of trips via paratransit that might (given comprehensive, multi-modal, accessible, community transportation networks) be taken via fixed route buses, light rail or rapid rail, is detrimental to making those fixed route systems viable. Arguably, the barriers that still exist, preventing comparable access to fixed routes for people with disabilities, are real, even if frequently more attitudinal than tangible. But, we must ask: wouldn’t current investment in making permanent fixes to infrastructure and providing sufficient and ongoing training to adjust attitudinal and institutional barriers reduce the long-term operating costs of paratransit? Simultaneously, the independence and integration of people with disabilities, liberated from short buses, might take us a long way toward fulfilling the intent of the ADA.

The United States Department of Justice has announced the resolution of a lawsuit, filed by individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, against the Jackson Public Transportation System, in Jackson, Mississippi. A consent decree was approved by the City of Jackson on March 23rd, pending acceptance by the U.S. District Court in Jackson. The city has agreed to a number of requirements involving operation of its fixed route and ADA complementary Paratransit bus systems, including the following:

• Implement procedures for removing buses with inoperative lifts from service.
• Maintain in operative condition all wheelchair lifts and ramps on JATRAN buses and develop a preventative maintenance program.
• Provide alternative transportation whenever an inaccessible bus lift significantly delays transportation for a rider with a disability.
• Ensure that no riders are stranded without transportation to their destination before shutting down operations for the day.
• Design, fund, implement and operate Handilift service to satisfy all requests for next-day service.
• Meet agreed upon performance standards for Handilift service.
• Designate an ADA Coordinator in the City Department of Planning and Development.
• Train all vehicle operators, mechanics, and office staff, including managers, reservationists and dispatchers.
• Implement a process for rider complaints.
• Conduct public outreach according to the settlement, including updating of user manuals and JATRAN websites.
• Obtain approval from the United States before implementing certain changes or revisions to services or policies.
• Record and report data on compliance with these provisions.
• Fund an independent monitor to assess the city’s compliance with these provisions.
• Pay penalties for violation of these provisions, in the form of free vouchers to individual riders affected.

While the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require the existence of public transportation, it does require that:  No entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service. [Title 49, CFR Part 37, 37.5(a)]. At minimum, fixed route systems must have accessible vehicles and facilities. Where fixed route transit systems operate, ADA complementary Paratransit, offering service comparable to the fixed route service, must be available to individuals who are unable to use the fixed route system.

A common concern about public transportation service relates to the definition of a common wheelchair, requirements for structural accessibility of lifts, ramps and securement locations on buses, and policies that may deny rides to individuals whose combined weight of passenger and chair exceed 600 pounds or whose wheelchairs exceed the 48 inch by 30 inch (measured two  inches above the floor) footprint (clear floor space).

The requirements for wheelchair access are addressed in FTA’s regulations and technical provisions for accessible vehicles as follows:

49 CFR Part 37, 37.3, definition: “Wheelchair” means a mobility aid belonging to any class of three or four-wheeled devices, usable indoors, designed for and used by individuals with mobility impairments, whether operated manually or powered.  A “common wheelchair” is such a device which does not exceed 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length measured two inches above the ground, and does not weigh more than 600 pounds when occupied [http://www.adata.org/adaportal/Transportation/DOT_TAM/Part_37_A_37_3.html].

49 CFR part 37, 37.165(b): All common wheelchairs and their users shall be transported in the entity’s vehicles or other conveyances.  The entity is not required to permit wheelchairs to ride in places other than designated securement locations in the vehicle, where such locations exist[http://www.adata.org/adaportal/Transportation/DOT_TAM/Part_37_G_37_165.html].

This provision applies to both public and private entities.  All people using common wheelchairs (an inclusive term for mobility devices that fit on lifts meeting Access Board guideline dimensions — 30″ by 48″ and a maximum of 600 pounds for device and user combined — which includes three-wheeled scooters and other so-called non-traditional mobility devices) are to be allowed to ride the entity’s vehicles.

Entities may require wheelchair users to ride in designated securement locations.  That is, the entity is not required to carry wheelchair users whose wheelchairs would have to park in an aisle or other location where they could obstruct other persons’ passage or where they could not be secured or restrained.  An entity’s vehicle is not required to pick up a wheelchair user when the securement locations are full, just as the vehicle may pass by other passengers waiting at the stop if the bus is full.

49 CFR Part 38, 38.1: Purpose. This part provides minimum guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards in part 37 of this title for transportation vehicles required to be accessible by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).

49 CFR Part 38, 38.23(b): Vehicle lift–(1) Design load. The design load of the lift shall be at least 600 pounds. Working parts, such as cables, pulleys, and shafts, which can be expected to wear, and upon which the lift depends for support of the load, shall have a safety factor of at least six, based on the ultimate strength of the material. Nonworking parts, such as platform, frame, and attachment hardware which would not be expected to wear, shall have a safety factor of at least three, based on the ultimate strength of the material.

49 CFR Part 38, 38.23(c): Vehicle ramp–(1) Design load. Ramps 30 inches or longer shall support a load of 600 pounds, placed at the centroid of the ramp distributed over an area of 26 inches by 26 inches, with a safety factor  of at least 3 based on the ultimate strength of the material. Ramps shorter than 30 inches shall support a load of 300 pounds.

49 CFR Part 38, 38.23 (d)(2):  Location and size. The securement system shall be placed as near to the accessible entrance as practicable and shall have a clear floor area of 30 inches by 48 inches. Such space shall adjoin, and may overlap, an access path. Not more than 6 inches of the required clear floor space may be accommodated for footrests under another seat provided there is a minimum of 9 inches from the floor to the lowest part of the seat overhanging the space. Securement areas may have fold-down seats to accommodate other passengers when a wheelchair or mobility aid is not occupying the area, provided the seats, when folded up, do not obstruct the clear floor space required. (See Fig. 2)

A maximum of 6 inches of toe space of the 48 inches required for a wheelchair or mobility aid may extend under a seat, modesty panel, or other fixed element if there is a minimum of 9 inches of vertical clearance under the element. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3905.html]

The regulations define the weight and dimensions of a common wheelchair and specify the minimum weight and space requirements necessary to allow access on transportation vehicles. By strict interpretation, these rules mean that transportation providers may refuse a ride when an individual’s wheelchair or mobility device exceeds either the weight or size standards. However, there are circumstances where it is not permissible to deny a ride based on these minimum standards.

As these dimensions and weight requirements were written based on typical dimensions of common wheelchairs and buses (and lift equipment) in use in the early 1990s, it must be considered that many more power wheelchairs are currently in use and many buses currently in use are capable of loading (often via kneel-down/ramp designs) mobility devices that exceed the size and weight of the common wheelchair definition. Service cannot be denied simply because a wheelchair exceeds the defined specifications, if the bus is equipped to safely load a wheelchair that exceeds those specifications. The specifications are minimum standards. They require that, at minimum, it must be possible to board a passenger using a common wheelchair. 

In the event that a transportation provider has a stated policy that limits use of its vehicles to passengers using mobility devices meeting the definition of common wheelchairs, even though its vehicles are capable of safely loading larger or heavier mobility devices, it must make a reasonable modification of its policy and allow boarding of any passenger and her mobility device that can be safely loaded and located in a securement area (See TAM II 3.6000 and TAM III 4.2000). Discussion, at length, of requirements to comply with Department of Justice ADA regulations, above and beyond Department of Transportation/FTA regulations, can be found in the National Council on Disability’s report The Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the United States (June 13, 2005) [http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/current_state.htm]