MTM 290 Paper

This is the html version of the file http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/education/alumni/capstones/2004Kausch.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

These search terms have been highlighted:

the

ada

complementary

paratransit

requirement

case

studies

smaller

transit

agency

challenges

MTM 290 Paper

Page 1

MTI REPORT XX-XX

THE ADA COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT

REQUIREMENT:

Case Studies in Smaller Transit Agency Challenges and

Solutions

December 2004

Gregory M. Kausch

a publication of the

Mineta Transportation Institute

College of Business

San José State University

San José, CA 95112

Created by Congress in 1991

Page 2

Technical Report Documentation Page

Report No.

FHWA/CA/OR-

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipients Catalog No.

5. Report Date

December 2004

Title and Subtitle

THE ADA COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT

REQUIREMENT: Case Studies in Smaller Transit

Agency Challenges and Solutions

6. Performing Organization Code

Authors

Gregory M. Kausch

8. Performing Organization Report No.

10. Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Mineta Transportation Institute

College of Business

San José State University

San José, CA 95112

11. Contract or Grant No.

65W136

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

California Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of Research—MS42

Research & Special Programs Administration

P.O. Box 942873

400 7th Street, SW

Sacramento, CA 94273-0001

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Abstract

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and succeeding regulations issued by the

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) require the provision of complementary

paratransit services to qualified persons with disabilities who cannot access traditional

fixed route transit services. Complementary paratransit must be provided during the

same days and hours as fixed route services, and the transit agency may charge no more

than twice the comparable fixed route fare for a paratransit trip.

By considering the history of accessible transit servi ces, the specific requirements of the

ADA and succeeding regulations, the operating conditions of paratransit agencies

nationwide, and case studies of eight smaller transit agencies that offer complementary

paratransit services, this research seeks to gauge the specific challenges smaller agencies

face as a result of the complementary paratransit requirement and the specific solutions

these agencies use to effectively manage the requirement, and provide recommendations

for improvement.

17. Key Words

Transit, Paratransit, ADA,

Small Agency, Disability

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through

The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA

22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

Security Classifi. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

218

22. Price

$15.00

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Page 3

The Mineta Transportation Institute

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: XXXXXXXXXX

To order this publication, please contact the following:

The Mineta Transportation Institute

SJSU Research Center

210 North 4

Street, 4

Floor

San Jose, CA. 95112

Tel (408) 924-7560

Fax (408) 924-7565

E-mail: mti@mti.sjsu.edu

http://transweb.sjsu.edu

Page 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Support from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) was critical in framing

this research. I would like to thank Pamela Boswell and Lynne Morsen for helping to identify

transit agencies willing to participate in the project, and Jim Olivetti and Terry Bronson for

furnishing critical data and statistics. I am grateful to APTA as an organization for the

leadership and advocacy they provide.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the following public transit managers for sharing with me a wealth of

practical information and ideas, often on their own time or between important projects at their

own agencies:

• John Andoh – Palo Verde Valley (CA) Transit Agency

• Rick Cain – Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority

• Keith Carlson and James R. Krueger, Jr. – La Crosse (WI) Municipal Transit Utility

• Fred Cavanah and Bill Latham – City of Modesto (CA) Transit

• Judylynn Gries – Riverside (CA) Transit Agency

• Jim Heilig – Duluth (MN) Transit Authority

• Jeanne Krieg – Eastern Contra Costa (CA) Transit Authority

• Terry Parker – Lane (OR) Transit District

I would like to take this opportunity to thank both supervisors and co-workers at my current

employer, the Beaver County Transit Authority in Rochester, PA, and my former employer, the

California Department of Transportation – District 3 in Sacramento, CA for their moral and

financial support as I earned my degree.

Thanks are also in order for my fellow MSTM students, especially Gabriel Corley, Crystal De

Castro, Jeremy Ketchum, Jeff Spencer, and Haile Ford. It has been a pleasure working beside

you, learning from you, and laughing with you.

I appreciate the time and attention spent by all of my instructors in the MSTM program to teach

and challenge me. I extend special thanks to William D. Taylor, Esq. for not only providing me

with an understanding of transportation law and regulation, but also for instilling in me a lasting

appreciation for the effect of law and regulation on individuals and organizations. The latter is

the inspiration for my research.

Thanks to Viviann Ferea and Peter J. Haas, Ph.D. for their valuable assistance throughout the

program. When I left California over two years ago, I was not sure I would be able to finish my

degree. Their encouragement and advice kept me moving forward despite my physical location.

Most importantly, I would like to express my deepest love and gratitude for my parents, Dolores

and Harold; my sister, Jeannine; my stepmother, Christine; my dear friends, Greta and Bob; and

most especially, my wonderful companion, Mindy. Their love, patience, and support mean more

to me than they will ever possibly know.

Page 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY EVOLUTION OF ACCESSIBLE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (PL 88-352)

URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964 (PL 88-365)

ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT OF 1968 (PL 90-480)

URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1970

(PL 91-453)

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICES AND FACILITIES

CONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS OF 1970 (PL 91-517)

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973 (PL 93-87)

REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 (PL 93-112)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1975 (PL 93-391)

NATIONAL MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1974

(PL 93-503)

DOT SECTION 504 FINAL REGULATIONS, 1979

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1981 (PL 96-400)

DOT SECTION 504 INTERIM AMENDMENT, 1981

DOT SECTION 504 FINAL REGULATIONS, 1986

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADA

EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS

POTENTIAL FOR DUPLICATED, INEFFICIENT SERVICES

LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL IN PLANNING ACCESSIBLE

SERVICES

LOSS OF COORDINATION WITH HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES IN

PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION AS THE LINCHPIN IN THE FULL

REALIZATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

POTENTIAL COSTS TO SOCIETY INHERENT IN ISOLATION

Page 6

PUBLIC TRANSIT PROVISIONS OF THE ADA

TITLE I

TITLE II, SUBPART B

TITLE III

COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED

IN 49 CFR 37

ELIGIBLE GROUPS

ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION PROCESS

SERVICE CRITERIA

PARATRANSIT PLANS

UNDUE FINANCIAL BURDEN

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSIT

SERVICES

AMOUNT OF SERVICE SUPPLIED AND CONSUMED

COST CHARACTERISTICS

VEHICLES

WORKFORCE

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

CONTRIBUTION OF ADA PARATRANSIT TO THE OPERATING

CONDITIONS OF DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSIT SERVICES

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

CURRENT FUNDING TRENDS

CASE STUDIES OF SMALLER PARATRANSIT SYSTEMS

EASTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

DULUTH TRANSIT AUTHORITY

PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY

LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT

CITY OF MODESTO TRANSIT

LA CROSSE MUNICIPAL TRANSIT UTILITY

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY

Page 7

CENTRAL OKLAHOMA TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING

106

AUTHORITY

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

110

ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT AS A LENGTHY PROCESS OF

110

EVOLUTION

ATTITUDES WITH RESPECT TO ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC

111

TRANSPORTATION

EXPECTED AND ACTUAL OUTCOMES OF THE ADA

113

COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT MANDATE

FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR ADA COMPLEMENTARY

120

PARATRANSIT

CHALLENGES FACED BY SMALLER TRANSIT AGENCIES

125

SOLUTIONS EMPLOYED BY SMALLER TRANSIT AGENCIES

141

RECOMMENDATIONS

162

POLICY MODIFICATIONS

162

FUNDING AND REVENUE ENHANCEMENT

163

DATA COLLECTION

167

PARATRANSIT DEMAND MANAGEMENT

168

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY

173

CONCLUSION

179

APPENDIX A – ADA PARATRANSIT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

181

ENDNOTES

185

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

197

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

209

Page 8

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1

NUMBER OF TRANSIT AGENCIES PROVIDING

DEMAND RESPONSE SERVICE (FY 1990-2001)

FIGURE 2

UNLINKED DEMAND RESPONSE TRIPS PROVIDED

(FY 1990-2001 IN MILLIONS)

FIGURE 3

DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE MILES PROVIDED

(FY 1990-2001 IN MILLIONS)

FIGURE 4

DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE HOURS PROVIDED

(FY 1990-2001 IN MILLIONS)

FIGURE 5

DEMAND RESPONSE OPERATING COSTS (FY 1990-

2001 IN MILLIONS OF 2001 DOLLARS)

FIGURE 6

DEMAND RESPONSE OPERATING COST

COMPONENTS (FY 2001)

FIGURE 7

PERCENTAGE GROWTH IN DEMAND RESPONSE

OPERATING COST COMPONENTS (FY 1996-2001 IN

2001 DOLLARS)

FIGURE 8

DEMAND RESPONSE CAPITAL COSTS (FY 1992-2001

IN MILLIONS OF 2001 DOLLARS)

FIGURE 9

DEMAND RESPONSE CAPITAL COST COMPONENTS

(FY 2001)

FIGURE 10

NUMBER OF ACTIVE DEMAND RESPONSE

VEHICLES (FY 1990-2001)

FIGURE 11

NUMBER OF DEMAND RESPONSE OPERATING

EMPLOYEES (FY 1990-2001)

FIGURE 12

DEMAND RESPONSE OPERATING COST RECOVERY

RATIO (FY 1990-2001 BASED ON 2001 DOLLARS)

FIGURE 13

DEMAND RESPONSE PASSENGER TRIPS PER

REVENUE HOUR (FY 1990-2001)

FIGURE 14

DEMAND RESPONSE PASSENGER TRIPS PER

OPERATING EMPLOYEE (FY 1990-2001)

FIGURE 15

DEMAND RESPONSE OPERATING COST PER

PASSENGER TRIP (FY 1990-2001 IN 2001 DOLLARS)

FIGURE 16

DEMAND RESPONSE AVERAGE FARE COLLECTED

(FY 1990-2001 IN 2001 DOLLARS)

FIGURE 17

PERCENTAGE OF ADA PARATRANSIT OPERATING

COSTS RELATIVE TO TOTAL DEMAND RESPONSE

OPERATING COSTS (FY 1996-2001)

Page 9

FIGURE 18

PERCENTAGE OF ADA PARATRANSIT PASSENGER

TRIPS RELATIVE TO TOTAL DEMAND RESPONSE

PASSENGER TRIPS (FY 1996-1999)

FIGURE 19

TRANSIT OPERATING FUNDING BY SOURCE (FY

1990-2001 IN MILLIONS OF 2001 DOLLARS)

FIGURE 20

TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING BY SOURCE (FY 1990-

2001 IN MILLIONS OF 2001 DOLLARS)

Page 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the mid-1960s, Congress passed two critical pieces of legislation creating a strong

foundation for fully accessible public transportation to serve persons with disabilities. The Civil

Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race and religion, and established a

leadership role for the federal government in the protection of equality for all Americans. The

Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 provided federal funding for the development,

maintenance, and expansion of public transit infrastructure, thereby giving rise to a significant

degree of federal control over transit policy.

In the ensuing years, the federal government took considerable action to build upon this

foundation by further contributing to public transit development through financial support and

policy development, and facilitating access to transit systems for persons with disabilities.

Subsequent federal legislation mandated the physical accessibility of transit facilities and

vehicles, funded planning activities for accessible transit services, required curb cuts along

federal highways to provide access to transit stops located along these highways, and established

reduced transit fares for persons with disabilities.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the major precursor to the ADA, prohibiting discrimination

against persons with disabilities in all aspects of all federally funded programs – including public

transportation – and requiring significant affirmative action to establish accessibility. In 1979,

the FTA promulgated regulations, based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which

required transit agencies to completely reconfigure their systems to provide full access for

persons with disabilities. These regulations, however, were stuck down in court based largely on

a lack of statutory authority within the legislation upon which strict requirements could be set

and affirmative action mandated.

Accordingly, the FTA responded with a relaxed set of regulations, initiating the policy of local

option, under which local transit agencies were required to consult with the persons with

disabilities in their community and develop an accessibility plan that was suitable to the needs of

the community and practical with respect to the agency’s resources. Under the policy of local

option, transit agencies were not required to make their systems 100% accessible. Persons with

disabilities could be relegated to “separate but unequal” paratransit systems or subject to capacity

constraints on either fixed route or paratransit services.

During the late 1980s, persons with disabilities, advocates, and allies in Congress pressed for a

comprehensive piece of legislation that would strongly and clearly prohibit discrimination on the

basis of disability, establish specific rights for persons with disabilities – including full access to

local public transit services – and provide statutory authority to serve as the basis for strong

regulations. Thus was born the ADA. Prominent among the proposed transit provisions was a

requirement that agencies outfit all fixed route vehicles with wheelchair lifts or ramps, and

augment that action with a complementary paratransit system for persons unable to access the

fixed route.

In Congressional hearings to draft the ADA, transit managers and officials noted several

concerns with these requirements, specifically:

• The federal government did not propose an appropriations bill to facilitate compliance

• Full fixed route accessibility coupled with complementary paratransit could create

duplication and inefficiency

Page 11

• The transit agency, subject to strict laws and regulations, could lose the ability to create the

system most suitable to the unique needs of the service area

• Local human service agencies might dump their disabled clients onto mandatory

complementary paratransit services, overwhelming the transit agency’s available capacity

But persons with disabilities, advocates, and even transit managers themselves testified to the

importance of fully accessible public transportation to more complete and rewarding interaction

in society – including the ability to pursue employment and educational opportunities, maintain a

household, enjoy recreation, and build stronger relationships with family and friends. Moreover,

this testimony noted that the potential societal costs resulting from isolation would likely be far

greater than the financial costs of providing accessibility. These latter concerns ultimately

prevailed. The ADA passed Congress by an overwhelming margin and was signed into law by

president George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990.

With respect to public transit, the final version of the ADA and succeeding regulations mandated

that all fixed route vehicles purchased, going forward, be equipped with wheelchair lifts or ramps

and be fully accessible to persons with disabilities; the goal was to eventually create 100%

accessible fixed route fleets as vehicles were replaced and purchased for expansion. At the same

time, transit agencies were required by law and regulation to provide complementary paratransit

for customers unable, either by the nature of their disability or by deficiencies in vehicle or stop

accessibility, to utilize a fixed route service.

Complementary paratransit service is required within ¾-mile of either side or end of fixed bus

and rail routes, during the same days and hours as these fixed routes are operated. The transit

agency may charge no more than twice the comparable fixed route fare for paratransit, must

provide the ability to schedule and cancel paratransit trips on relatively short notice, must operate

the service without capacity constraints and trip denials, is required to maintain schedule

adherence and reasonable trip lengths and durations, and must provide capacity for a personal

care attendant and one companion to ride along if needed. The agency is permitted to determine

paratransit eligibility based on a strict interpretation of the provisions of the ADA and

succeeding regulations. Before implementing service, transit agencies were required to submit

paratransit plans to the FTA, and were eligible for a waiver of service if such service constituted

an undue financial burden.

Complementary paratransit is categorized as a demand response service. Since the passage of

the ADA, national demand response operating statistics reveal that this mode is characterized by:

• The highest number of providers of any transit mode – a number that grew rapidly during the

early 1990s

• Significant growth in the annual number of unlinked trips provided, but a low share of these

trips relative to other modes

• Very high growth in the number of annual vehicle miles of service provided, and a

significant share of vehicle miles provided relative to other modes

• The highest rate of growth, with respect to annual vehicle hours of service provided, of all

transit modes, and a significant share of vehicle hours provided relative to other modes

• An exceedingly high number of both vehicle miles and hours of service provided, relative to

the number of trips provided

Page 12

• The highest rate of operating expense growth, in real dollars, of any transit mode, but a low

share of operating expenses relative to other modes

• An operating cost structure dominated by purchased transportation, wages, and fringe

benefits, with the cost of fringe benefits, wages, and fuel growing significantly

• Unremarkable capital expense growth, in real dollars, and a low share of capital expenses

relative to other modes

• A capital cost structure overwhelming dedicated toward the purchase of rolling stock

• Very high growth in the number of active vehicles operated, and a significant share of fleet

size relative to other modes

• The highest rate of workforce growth of any mode, and a significant share of operating

employees relative to other modes

• Very low, and declining, productivity in terms of trips per operating employee

• The lowest operating cost recovery ratio in the industry – and cost recovery that is generally

stagnant to falling

• The lowest productivity in the industry in terms of passengers per revenue hour – and

productivity that is declining significantly

• The highest, and most sharply rising, operating cost per passenger trip of any mode of transit

• A high, and generally rising, average fare collected relative to other modes

• In terms of operating costs and passenger trips, significant, and slightly rising, influence of

the complementary paratransit requirement within the mode

Government sources, and transit agencies themselves, supply considerable amounts of operating

and capital funds to support transit services, including complementary paratransit as defined by

the ADA and succeeding regulations. The federal government administers ten major programs

to fund transit, with each program adhering to certain guidelines in terms of eligibility and

acceptable uses. Federal funding sources provide a very large, and significantly increasing, level

of support for transit capital purchases. But the federal government provides only limited, and

relatively stagnant, support for transit operating expenses.

State transit funding varies widely by location; some states offer very generous support for

public transit, while others offer none at all. State transit assistance can be allocated out of

general funds; can take the form of a dedicated portion of tax on income, sales, property, or

gasoline; can be provided out of road, bridge, and tunnel tolls; or might come from some other

source altogether. State sources provide a relatively low, and stagnant, level of support for

transit capital expenses, but do provide a more significant, and rising, level of support for transit

operating expenses.

Where federal and state transit funding sources do not cover all of a transit agency’s capital and

operating needs, local and directly generated funds assume a more prominent role. Local transit

assistance comes from many of the same sources as state assistance, and its availability is equally

complex. Directly generated revenue comes from passenger fares, advertising revenue, and

providing contracted services to other agencies. Local and directly generated funding sources

provide for the overwhelming majority of transit operating needs, and this level of support is

growing significantly. They also provide for a significant, and increasing, level of capital needs.

Clearly, the transit-related provisions of the ADA, including the complementary paratransit

requirement, provide an increased level of mobility and independence for persons with

disabilities. But based on their limited level of resources, smaller transit agencies are challenged

Page 13

by the ADA paratransit requirement. To determine the specific nature of these challenges, and to

evaluate the solutions employed by smaller transit agencies to meet these challenges, eight case

studies of smaller transit agencies were conducted as part of this research. The case studies

included documentation and evaluation of each agency’s:

• Background and history

• Service area characteristics

• Complementary paratransit implementation process

• Paratransit service policies

• Methods by which the service is delivered

• Funding sources

• Operating statistics and performance trends

• Unique challenges in providing complementary paratransit service

• Solutions employed to meet these challenges

• Suggestions for positive changes to the paratransit requirement

• Other relevant concerns

An examination of the history of public transit accessibility in the United States, the concerns

expressed by transit managers, officials, and persons with disabilities during the development of

the ADA, paratransit-related provisions as contained in the ADA and succeeding regulations, the

current and historical operating conditions of paratransit agencies across the nation, the funding

available for paratransit services at the federal, state, and local levels, and the practical

experiences of several smaller transit agencies in providing complementary paratransit service

reveals key pieces of information and trends with respect to the manner in which ADA

complementary paratransit is carried out in smaller transit agency service areas.

The evolution of accessible transit services, including the development of complementary

paratransit, is marked by considerable and incremental progress over a period of almost thirty

years. The rights afforded to persons with disabilities under the ADA are derived from years of

struggle on the part of persons with disabilities and advocates. Based on the increasing

utilization of accessible fixed route and complementary paratransit services, there is no question

that persons with disabilities benefit from the services that have evolved. Although meeting the

initial legal and regulatory proposals with skepticism, transit officials seem to support the goal of

full transit accessibility, but continue to lobby for measured progress and adequate funding

support from all levels of government. Transit managers, though challenged by the

requirements, generally approach these challenges with the highest sense of duty and purpose.

Implementation of ADA complementary paratransit was carried out in a much smoother manner

than was initially predicted. Smaller agencies implemented the service rather quickly, without

taking an undue financial burden waiver; previous experience in providing demand response

services seemed to contribute to a rapid implementation, and many agencies employed a staged

implementation to more effectively manage the new requirements. Coordination with local

human service agencies remains strong, and stands to improve even more through the “United

We Ride” initiative. Smaller transit agencies, however, are increasingly stretching their

complementary paratransit resources as more dialysis patients make use of the service.

Fixed route fares, level of service, and administrative staffing levels have not been adversely

affected solely as result of the ADA complementary requirement. Where fares have been raised,

Page 14

or services or staff cut, these effects can be attributed to a general deficiency in funding support

for transit services. Moreover, fixed route service continues to expand in many areas, especially

in areas of significant population growth. Some duplication does exist between fixed route and

complementary paratransit services, but in many cases, this is because the smaller transit agency

has not taken strong action to delineate between the two portions of the system.

Although many of the negative outcomes expected as a result of the ADA complementary

paratransit mandate did not come to pass, or have not harmfully impacted smaller transit

agencies to quite the degree predicted, these agencies still face real and pressing challenges in

providing paratransit services. A lack of adequate funding and a recent increase in dialysis

patients using paratransit systems are but two examples. Some of these additional challenges –

fixed route accessibility, eligibility requirements, the ¾-mile rule, trip scheduling, revenue

constraints, and high standards for service delivery – are inherent in the legal and regulatory

requirements. Others – such as data collection, population growth and density, climate, natural

barriers, political boundaries, late cancellations and no-shows, scheduling group trips, revenue

control, farebox recovery standards, and extent of and fare charged for non-ADA paratransit –

are unique to individual smaller transit agency service areas, although there are some

commonalities between agencies. Many of these challenges are reflected in operating statistics

and trends, both at the national and agency level.

Smaller transit agencies employ a wide variety of techniques to meet these challenges. These

solutions come in many forms, including technology, eligibility determination standards,

operating arrangements, funding and revenue generation, alternative service delivery methods,

fixed route accessibility, coordination and planning, and others.

The results of this research suggest a model for positive change to facilitate more effective

management and sustainability of ADA complementary paratransit service. Several minor

changes are needed to the policies prescribed by the ADA and succeeding regulations. Increased

and consistently applied funding is needed for complementary paratransit at the federal, state,

and local level, and individual agencies must do more to directly generate operating revenue.

Smaller agencies must improve their collection of paratransit data, so as to drive sound decision-

making and form the basis for policy improvements. Duplication between fixed route and

complementary paratransit must be minimized through demand management techniques. And

once the backbone of the ADA complementary paratransit system has been set, the agency must

make this service as efficient and productive as possible.

The ADA complementary paratransit requirement clearly challenges the resources and ingenuity

of the smaller transit agency. Fortunately, many smaller agencies already employ some sound

techniques for managing this requirement, and the knowledge base is adequate to support further

improvement. What is most critical is that elected officials, transit officials, transit managers,

and persons with disabilities take the necessary action to ensure that paratransit serves as a truly

complementary service, and that these services are supported by adequate funding sources and

operated in an efficient, productive, and high-quality manner.

Page 15

INTRODUCTION

In 1990, Congress passed, and President George H.W. Bush signed, the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). Perhaps the most comprehensive piece of civil rights legislation in

United States history, the ADA provides a solid legal basis for not only the protection of the

basic human rights of persons with disabilities, but also for significant affirmative action on the

part of businesses, agencies, and individuals to ensure the full and active participation of these

persons in American society. The ADA carries with it implications for virtually all aspects of

public service, including the public transit industry.

Specifically, the law and succeeding regulations provide for complementary paratransit services

for persons with disabilities who live near fixed route transit, but cannot access it due to the

nature of their disability, to this disability in combination with a physical barrier between a point

of origin or destination and a fixed route stop, or to a lack of accessible fixed route vehicles or

stops. ADA paratransit service usually consists of door-to-door transportation, using a fully

accessible vehicle and a driver who is able to assist the passenger. This service must be provided

during days and hours similar to fixed route service, with little advance reservation required,

even if there is no other demand for a similar trip. For this highly personalized service, the

transit agency can charge no more than twice its comparable fixed route fare.

There can be little doubt that ADA paratransit service contributes to improved mobility,

independence, and overall quality of life for persons with disabilities. But these benefits can

come at a very high cost to the transit agency, particularly a smaller one with limited financial,

capital, and human resources. The text of ADA did not authorize federal appropriations for the

actions required on the part of transit agencies to move toward compliance. Accordingly, the

complementary paratransit requirement may be the largest, most significant unfunded, or under-

funded, federal mandate to ever be imposed on transit providers.

Page 16

MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

This research seeks to answer the major question: How are smaller transit agencies managing

the ADA complementary paratransit requirement? This will be accomplished through the

exploration of several component research questions as follows:

• How did the transit-related provisions of the ADA evolve? – This question is answered

through a review of civil rights and transportation law and regulation, as found in the United

States Statutes at Large, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Register.

• What concerns did key stakeholders express regarding the transit-related provisions of the

ADA? – These are identified by a synthesis and representation of the opinions of public

transit managers and officials, persons with disabilities, and advocates. These opinions are

contained in the transcripts of Congressional Hearings leading up to the passage of the ADA.

• What transit-related provisions did the ADA contain, as ratified? – This question is answered

by a review of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (PL 101-336).

• How was the ADA complementary paratransit requirement interpreted in Department of

Transportation (DOT) regulations? – This question is answered by a review of Title 49, Part

37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 37).

• What are the national operating and performance trends in paratransit, as part of the demand

response mode, since the passage of the ADA? – These are calculated and synthesized by the

author from volumes of the American Public Transportation Association Public

Transportation Fact Book as well as the National Transit Database (NTD).

• What funding programs are available for paratransit operating and capital costs, and what are

the trends in transit funding at the federal, state, and local level? – These are identified

through a review of information from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), APTA and

the NTD.

• What specific challenges do smaller transit agencies face in providing ADA complementary

paratransit, and what methods do these agencies use to meet these challenges? – These are

identified through a series of eight case studies of smaller transit agencies that provide ADA

complementary paratransit services. For the purposes of this research, smaller agencies are

generally defined by the APTA Bylaws, which include an agency that “operates no more

than one hundred buses in any peak period.”

Two exception are made for agencies that have

grown from smaller ones to larger ones in the years after the passage of the ADA. The

agencies include:

•

Eastern Contra Costa (CA) Transit Authority

•

Duluth (MN) Transit Authority

•

Lane (OR) Transit District

•

City of Modesto (CA) Transit

•

Riverside (CA) Transit Agency

•

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority

•

La Crosse (WI) Municipal Transit Utility

•

Palo Verde Valley (CA) Transit Agency

Page 17

APTA solicited agency participation on behalf of the author. The agencies chosen to participate

in the research were selected to exhibit a wide range of operating conditions, so as to promote the

greatest possible understanding of issues and concerns. They range from very small to medium

in terms of fleet size and annual ridership. One agency operates in a service area that is strictly

rural in character, a few others in predominantly urban and suburban areas, but most provide

service in a mixed area. The size of the sample service areas range from about twenty square

miles to about 2,500 square miles. One agency’s service area is sparsely populated and several

are quite dense. Almost all of the agencies purchase their paratransit services from a private

contractor, but one directly operates its service. Most provided, or were a partner in providing,

paratransit services to senior citizens and persons with disabilities before the passage of the

ADA.

An extensive survey questionnaire was distributed to a manager or ADA coordinator from each

agency (Appendix A). This survey was designed to capture basic transit agency information, the

ADA paratransit implementation process, service characteristics, operating arrangements,

funding information, operating and performance trends, paratransit challenges realized by the

agency, and solutions employed to mitigate those challenges. The survey includes a section

allowing the respondent to include some thoughts concerning needed changes to the ADA

paratransit requirement.

Data from the survey responses is supplemented by information from each transit agency’s

printed informational materials and website, follow-up interviews with several of the

respondents, and operating data from the NTD. Each agency’s information is presented in a

strict format in the second half of this research project.

Page 18

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY EVOLUTION OF ACCESSIBLE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

The current state of accessible public transit in the United States is the cumulative result of two

key processes, operating over substantially the same timeline. The struggle for civil rights

reached critical mass in the mid-1960s, and, through the years, the movement grew to encompass

other groups of people forced for so long to exist on the periphery of American society. Today,

despite significant legislative efforts toward inclusion, equality for all Americans is a goal that is

not fully realized; existing civil rights programs continue to operate, and new provisions are

regularly being developed to eliminate the more insidious forms of discrimination and exclusion.

The condition of public transportation also reached a dire state in the mid-1960s. The postwar

boom in transit ridership quickly faded in the face of advancing home ownership, automobile

ownership, and suburbanization. Private transit services struggled to operate profitably, and

when they folded, urban residents living on low and fixed incomes found themselves without

reasonable options for mobility. The federal government stepped in to provide financial support,

and in doing so, assumed some authority for setting transit policy and regulation. As federal

funding for transit has increased, so too has this regulatory authority.

The transit-related provisions of the ADA represent the major meeting point of these dual

processes. As both evolved, however, there have been many other noteworthy intersections of

civil rights and transit policy, resulting in the following legislative and regulatory events.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352)

Mounting frustration over the marginalization of minorities erupted in the period between the

mid-1950s and the mid-1960s, resulting in boycotts, marches, “sit-ins”, and other forms of non-

violent protest that characterized the American Civil Rights Movement. Congress responded to

this moral crisis by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which codified basic human rights for

people of all races and creeds.

With a single statement, Title II of the Act dismissed the acceptability of “separate but equal”

facilities and services for people of different races and religions, and provided for:

full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and

privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public

accommodation […] without discrimination or segregation on the

ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Title II also prohibited discrimination and segregation under color of any provision of State or

local law, thus eliminating the ability of states, counties, towns, and other political subdivisions

to circumvent the federal mandate through their own legislative processes.

Title VI of the Act, constructed to ensure a leadership role for the federal government in the

establishment of equality for all Americans, declared that:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color,

or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or

activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Page 19

Though it did not specifically include persons with disabilities as a protected class, the language

and spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 served as a strong foundation for subsequent legislation

oriented toward the preservation of equality, including the ADA. Many of the Act’s definitions

and enforcement mechanisms are still in place today.

Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (PL 88-365)

In drafting the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Congress recognized the declining state

of privately owned and operated transit services, and found “that Federal financial assistance for

the development of efficient and coordinated mass transportation systems is essential to the

solution of […] urban problems”, including increased traffic congestion, decreased mobility for

the elderly, persons with disabilities, and low-income urban residents, and a weakened link

between transportation and land use planning.

The Act authorized the federal government, for the first time, to provide significant financial

assistance to state and local governments and public transit agencies for the purpose of

“financing the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and improvement of facilities and

equipment for use […] in mass transportation service in urban areas and in coordinating such

service with highway and other transportation in such areas.”

By accepting this assistance, a

government or agency was obligated to adhere to the terms of any applicable federal laws and

regulations, including, for example, the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (PL 90-480)

The primary thrust of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 was to increase the physical

accessibility of public and government buildings. This law authorized the General Services

Administration; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Defense; and

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to set regulatory standards “for the design,

construction, and alteration of buildings […] as may be necessary to insure that physically

handicapped persons will have ready access to, and use of, such buildings.”

Under the Act, most buildings “constructed,” “altered,” “leased,” or “financed” using federal

funds, following the adoption of applicable standards, were required to feature some form of

physical access for persons with disabilities.

This provision applied to certain public

transportation facilities built or modified with federal money.

Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 (PL 91-453)

While the objectives of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 included the creation of accessible

public transportation facilities, the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 was

Congress’ first attempt to ensure equal access to the benefits of public transportation services for

persons with disabilities. It amended the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 by including

the following statement of policy:

[…] that elderly and handicapped persons have the same right as

other persons to utilize mass transportation facilities and services;

that special efforts shall be made in the planning and design of

mass transportation facilities and services so that the availability to

elderly and handicapped persons of mass transportation which they

can effectively utilize will be assured; and that all Federal

Page 20

programs offering assistance in the field of mass transportation

(including the programs under this Act) should contain provisions

implementing this policy.

The Act further authorized appropriations to governments and public transit agencies to facilitate

the implementation of this policy, including small amounts for the study of relevant “information

and technology which is available to provide improved transportation facilities and services

planned and designed to meet the special needs of elderly and handicapped persons.” The Urban

Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 also clearly defined, for the first time, the term

“handicapped person” as it applied to mass transportation programs.

Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction

Amendments of 1970 (PL 91-517)

The Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Amendments of 1970

modified the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction

Act of 1963. It authorized federal financial assistance to “public or nonprofit private agencies”

for a range of activities intended to enhance the quality of life for persons with developmental

disabilities, generally defined in the Act as mental and cognitive impairments including or

similar to mental retardation.

The grants authorized by this Act applied to facility construction, planning, program operating

costs, employee training, and research, development, and demonstration projects to advance the

understanding, treatment, and living conditions of persons with developmental disabilities.

Congress constructed a broad definition of the term “services for persons with developmental

disabilities”, to include:

specialized services or specialized adaptations of generic services

directed toward the alleviation of a developmental disability or

toward the social, personal, physical, or economic habilitation or

rehabilitation of an individual with such a disability, [including]

diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, personal care, daycare,

domiciliary care, special living arrangements, training, education,

sheltered employment, recreation, counseling of the individual

with such disability and of his family, protective and other social

and socio-legal services, information and referral services, follow-

along services, and transportation services necessary to ensure

delivery of services to persons with developmental disabilities.

Inherent in this definition was the recognition of transportation, whether public, personal, or

provided by one agency specifically for the use of its own clients, as the linchpin of an effective

system of services designed to enhance independence and quality of life, and increase self-

actualization, for persons with developmental disabilities.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (PL 93-87)

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 contained a variety of provisions that increased access to

the benefits of public transit facilities and services. It authorized financial assistance to the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA or Washington METRO) “in

Page 21

amounts sufficient to finance 80 per centum of the cost of providing such facilities for the

subway and rapid rail transit system […] as may be necessary to make such subway and system

accessible by the handicapped” pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.

The Act also amended Title 23 of the United States Code (USC) to reflect two important

requirements. First, it prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded

transportation programs “through agency provisions and rules similar to those already

established, with respect to racial and other discrimination, under title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964.”

This continued the trend of inclusion for marginalized groups (in this particular case,

women) in the distribution of benefits provided by public transportation programs.

Second, it mandated the provision of “adequate and reasonable access for the safe and

convenient movement of physically handicapped persons, including those in wheelchairs, across

curbs constructed or replaced [with federal assistance] on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian

crosswalks [...]”

These curb cuts are necessary to ensure not only the accessibility of highway

and commercial facilities, but also that of fixed route transit stops.

In drafting the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Congress recognized that public transit

systems, on their own, could not possibly provide for all of the transportation needs of persons

with disabilities. Coordination between the public sector and private nonprofit groups was

necessary to yield a more comprehensive array of mobility options. Accordingly, the Act

amended the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 to include a small authorization for grants

and loans:

to private nonprofit corporations and associations for the specific

purpose of assisting them in providing transportation services

meeting the special needs of elderly and handicapped persons for

whom mass transportation services planned, designed and carried

out [by governments and transit agencies] are unavailable,

insufficient, or inappropriate […]”

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112)

The general purpose of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was to promote more meaningful and

independent living for persons with disabilities, particularly by supporting activities related to

education, training, and employment. In drafting the Act, Congress continued to recognize the

importance of accessible public transportation to this purpose, by including language similar to

the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Amendments of 1970.

The Act continued the trend of broadening the definition of “persons with disabilities”, by

including:

any individual who (A) has a physical or mental disability for

which such individual constitutes or results in a substantial

handicap to employment and (B) can reasonably be expected to

benefit in terms of employability from vocational rehabilitation

services provided pursuant to titles I and III of this Act.

Congress also established the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,

whose membership included the Secretary of Transportation. The Board’s charge was to

monitor and ensure compliance with the terms of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968,

Page 22

including all regulations and standards promulgated pursuant to the Act, to define the nature of

“architectural, transportation, and attitudinal barriers confronting handicapped individuals,

particularly with respect to […] public transportation”,

to examine potential solutions to these

problems, and to incorporate the best solutions into plans to eliminate current and future barriers

for persons with disabilities.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 contained an important and far-reaching provision

that profoundly changed the operation of all federally funded programs. By declaring that:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United

States, as defined in section 7(6), shall, solely by reason of his

handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or

activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

the Act granted persons with disabilities the same protected status as other groups covered under

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. Accordingly, federal

departments, state and local governments, and public transit agencies were obligated to construct

new rules, regulations, laws, policies, and procedures to support this mandate.

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation

Act, 1975 (PL 93-391)

Satisfactory compliance with the terms of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 compelled state and

local governments and public transit agencies to provide two key elements: accessible fixed

facilities and accessible vehicles. Accordingly, the Department of Transportation and Related

Agencies Appropriation Act for 1975 declared that:

None of the funds provided under this Act shall be available for the

purchase of passenger rail or subway cars, for the purchase of

motor buses or for the construction of related facilities unless such

cars, buses, and facilities are designed to meet the mass

transportation needs of the elderly and the handicapped.

As such, the Act made facility and vehicle accessibility a condition of federal transit capital

assistance, though it did not set any definitions or accessibility standards of for either vehicles or

facilities. As directed by the Rehabilitation Act, that particular responsibility rested with the

DOT as part of the regulatory process.

National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 (PL 93-503)

In drafting the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 to provide greater levels of

federal financial support for public transportation, Congress recognized two important points:

that transit was a critical service for persons with disabilities, especially for those that did not

have access to either an automobile, or transportation provided by family members, friends, or

human service agencies; and that persons with disabilities quite often lived on a fixed, severely

limited income. The Act initiated a half-fare transit program for persons with disabilities, by

amending the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 to provide that:

The Secretary shall not approve any project under this section

unless the applicant agrees and gives satisfactory assurances […]

Page 23

that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during

nonpeak hours for transportation utilizing or involving the facilities

and equipment of the project financed with assistance under this

section will not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to

other persons at peak hours, whether the operation of such

facilities and equipment is by the applicant or is by another entity

under lease or otherwise.

The Act, however, preserved the right of state and local governments and public transit agencies

to provide free transit services to senior citizens and persons with disabilities, if they elected to

use such a strategy to meet local needs. Such a government or public agency remained eligible

to receive federal financial assistance. Indeed, some transit systems do provide free fares for the

elderly and persons with disabilities, albeit under limited circumstances and with State or local

assistance.

DOT Section 504 Final Regulations, 1979

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 contained a blanket policy prohibiting

discrimination on the basis of disability in all federal programs. Following the lead of the

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, it was the responsibility of each individual

federal department and agency to promulgate regulations directing the manner in which their

own programs would be made accessible to persons with disabilities. After a lengthy period of

hearings and public comment, DOT published its final regulations in the Federal Register on

May 31, 1979. These were later included in a new Part 27 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR).

49 CFR 27 was divided into six subparts, each addressing a different component of

transportation accessibility. Subpart A set the general terms of compliance. It included the same

language as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and obligated all programs directly

receiving or otherwise benefiting from federal financial assistance to comply with the applicable

regulations. It also provided clear definitions for all terms found within the regulations,

including the most broad disability definition constructed to date. The regulations protected:

any person who (a) has a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more major life activities, (b) has a

record of such an impairment, or (c) is regarded as having such an

impairment.

This was the same definition that would later be used in the ADA.

Subpart A further directed that recipients of federal financial assistance make all

communications available to those “applicants, employees, and beneficiaries” with “impaired

vision and hearing”.

It gave DOT the authority to take action against any recipient not in

compliance with the regulations, and obligated each recipient to draft their own procedures for

providing due process to any complainant in the event of an alleged violation of the regulations.

Finally, Subpart A established federal preemption of any state and local laws or regulations that

provided a lesser degree of protection for persons with disabilities.

Subpart B addressed the employment practices of state and local governments, and public

agencies, receiving or benefiting from federal financial assistance. It prohibited discrimination

Page 24

on the basis of disability in recruiting and hiring processes, and required reasonable

accommodation to be extended to otherwise qualified employees with disabilities, as necessary,

to enable them to complete the core functions of their job.

Subpart C set general standards for accessibility across all federally funded transportation

programs. With respect to transportation facilities, the regulations largely left the decision to

achieve accessibility through equipment upgrades, facility renovation, new facility construction,

or some combination of these up to each individual government or agency. The regulations

generally required structural modifications be made to existing facilities to “as soon as

practicable, but in no event later than three years after the effective date of this regulation.”

If,

due to an excessively costly or complex project, more time was needed to complete structural

modifications, the recipient was obligated to submit a detailed explanation and proposed timeline

for completion. New and altered facilities were required to comply with the provisions of the

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. Along with fixed transportation facilities, Subpart C also

required renovated vehicles to be made accessible.

Subpart D addressed specific program accessibility requirements for air, rail, and highway

facilities and vehicles governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), respectively.

Subpart E applied the requirements of Section 504 to public transportation in several critical

areas: mass transit facilities, fixed route bus systems, rapid and commuter rail systems, light rail

systems, paratransit systems, and policies and procedures.

FACILITIES

This section generally restated the mandates contained in Subpart C, but further required that

particular emphasis be placed on accessible:

• “[F]are vending and collection systems”

• “[V]isual and aural information systems”

• Telecommunications devices useful to those with hearing disabilities and those in

wheelchairs

• Parking and vehicle boarding areas

FIXED ROUTE BUS SYSTEMS

To realize program accessibility, in addition to meeting the accessible facilities requirements,

fixed route bus systems were obligated to operate at least 50% of their peak-hour service using

accessible buses, and to place accessible vehicles into service before non-accessible vehicles

during the off-peak hours.

Each transit agency had up to three years to achieve program

accessibility, but could be given up to ten years in the event of “extraordinarily expensive”

vehicle or facility modifications, or new vehicle procurement.

All new vehicles put out for bid

after the effective date of the regulations were required to be accessible to persons with

disabilities.

RAPID AND COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEMS

For a rapid and commuter rail agency to realize program accessibility, all stations were required

to be accessible to persons with disabilities “who can use steps,” with certain “key stations”

accessible to persons in wheelchairs.

Key stations included:

Page 25

• Those with a high level of boarding and alighting activity

• Connection points, either within the system or to other modes of transportation

• Rail line termini

• Stations serving major trip generators, either for all persons in general or persons with

disabilities specifically

In similar fashion, all rapid and commuter rail vehicles were required to be accessible to those

with the ability to use steps, with at least one car per train accessible to persons in wheelchairs.

Except in rail systems where all stations were wheelchair accessible, a rail transit agency was

obligated to provide accessible connector service to bring persons with disabilities from areas

near non-accessible stations to an accessible station, and back again. The connector service,

“when combined with the [accessible] key stations, [had to] provide a level of service

comparable to that provided for a nonhandicapped person.”

This connector service was the

first precursor to the complementary paratransit services later required under the ADA.

As with fixed route bus systems, each rapid or commuter rail agency had up to three years to

achieve program accessibility, but, due to the costly nature of rail infrastructure, could be given

up to thirty years in the event of “extraordinarily expensive” facility modifications, five years for

rapid rail vehicle modification or procurement, or ten years for commuter rail vehicle

modification or procurement. Connector service was expected to be complete within thirty

years.

New rail vehicles put out for bid after the effective date of the regulations were generally

expected to be accessible to persons with disabilities, but in certain circumstances this deadline

was extended to January 1, 1983.

LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS

The standards for light rail program accessibility were very similar to those for rapid and

commuter rail, including the “key station” provision. No connector service of any kind was

required. Vehicle accessibility conditions were similar to those for fixed route bus systems, with

at least 50% of the peak-hour service required to use wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and an

obligation to place accessible vehicles into service before non-accessible vehicles during the off-

peak hours.

A light rail agency had up to three years to achieve program accessibility, but could be given up

to twenty years in the event of “extraordinarily expensive” vehicle or facility modifications, or

new vehicle procurement.

New vehicles put out for bid after January 1, 1983 were required to

be fully wheelchair-accessible.

PARATRANSIT SYSTEMS

Because most paratransit service was, at the time the 1979 regulations were published, already

oriented towards the elderly and persons with disabilities, accessibility standards were not as

stringent as for other modes. Program accessibility for paratransit systems required only that

“the system must operate a number of vehicles sufficient to provide generally equal service to

handicapped persons who need such vehicles as is provided to other persons.” As long as this

standard was met, no other modifications or new vehicles were necessary.

Paratransit was not

required, either outright or as a supplement to fixed route bus or rail transportation, but rather

was to be developed in response to local needs or as connector service if warranted.

Page 26

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

For any mode of transit, internal policies and procedures constructed or modified to support

inclusion and accommodation were critical components of program accessibility. Regulations

required, within three years, that new and/or revised policies and procedures be developed, as

necessary, to include:

• “[E]mergency” action and response

• “[S]ensitivity”

• Coordination with other transportation and human service agencies

• Vehicle maintenance

In general, the remainder of Subpart E compelled transit agencies to make continuous,

incremental progress toward program accessibility, according to the applicable deadlines for

each individual mode. In the case of a projected delay in achieving program accessibility, due to

expensive or complex facility modifications or vehicle procurement, agencies were obligated to

provide interim accessible transportation. Interim accessibility could involve, for example, bus

transportation in place of rail transportation, or accessible paratransit instead of bus or rail

transportation. Local persons with disabilities and advocacy groups were entitled to participate

in planning for interim accessibility strategies.

Subpart F set the terms of enforcement for the regulations, including public information

requirements, method and timing of compliance reviews, and responsibilities in providing due

process to complainants.

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation

Act, 1981 (PL 96-400)

The comprehensive and fairly rigid nature of the DOT Section 504 regulations elicited a

significant backlash, both within Congress and within the public transportation industry. Some

elected officials and transit managers, particularly those closely affiliated with the passenger rail

sector, were frustrated by the extensive costs inherent in full compliance with the regulations.

The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1981, weakened a

substantial portion of these regulations by limiting the use of urban discretionary grants provided

to rail transit agencies. In the Act, Congress directed that:

none of these funds shall be available to retrofit any existing fixed

rail transit system to comply with regulations issued pursuant to

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

With the passage of this Act, both the attainability on the part of transit agencies, and the

enforceability on the part of DOT, of many of the rail-related provisions of the DOT Section 504

regulations was cast into serious doubt.

DOT Section 504 Interim Amendment, 1981

Soon after DOT published final regulations implementing the provisions of Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, these regulations also came under judicial scrutiny. APTA

challenged the statutory authority of the Secretary of Transportation to issue the regulations. In

American Public Transportation Association v. Goldschmidt (485 F.Supp. 811), the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit considered whether the language of

Page 27

Section 504 provided an appropriate legal foundation for the DOT regulations, and subsequently

held that these regulations:

• “[D]id not exceed statutory authority”

• “[W]ere not procedurally defective”

• “[Were] not arbitrary and capricious”

The District Court did find, however, that the regulations were subject to the provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and therefore that DOT erred by not preparing an

environmental impact statement (EIS) regarding the potential effect of the regulations on the

natural and built environments. But the content and scope of the DOT regulations were upheld.

Shortly thereafter, APTA appealed the District Court’s ruling. In American Public

Transportation Association v. Lewis (655 F.2d 1272), the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court and struck down DOT’s regulations, by

finding that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973:

ban[ned] discrimination but [did] not mandate affirmative action to

accommodate the handicapped, and [that] the [succeeding]

regulations required extensive modifications of existing systems

and imposed extremely heavy financial burdens on local transit

authorities.

The Secretary of Transportation was thereby ordered to take one of two actions: determine

whether the statutory authority for the Section 504 regulations existed in some other piece(s) of

legislation; or promulgate new regulations that, allowing for modest proactive efforts on the part

of individual transit agencies, severely scaled back the standards for program accessibility.

Finding no other statutory authority for significant affirmative action to accommodate persons

with disabilities, DOT published an interim amendment to the Section 504 regulations in the

Federal Register on July 20, 1981.

This amendment deleted Subpart E of 49 CFR 27. A mass transit section was added to Subpart

D of 49 CFR 27, which generally required most recipients of federal transit assistance to “certify

that special efforts are being made in their service area to provide transportation that

handicapped persons, including wheelchair users and semiambulatory persons, can use.”

This

certification was required within sixty days after the effective date of the interim amendment, but

the specific nature of any “special efforts” to be undertaken was left for the local lead agency and

populace to decide.

With respect to the local transportation programming process, DOT advised, “projects designed

to benefit handicapped persons […] should appear in the annual element of the transportation

improvement programs.” Such projects were required to meet the following four conditions:

• “[T]he service and vehicles serve wheelchair users and semiambulatory persons”

• “[T]he service meets a priority need identified in [the local] planning process”

• “[T]he service is not restricted to a particular organizational or institutional clientele”

• “[A]ny fares charged are comparable to those which are charged on standard transit buses for

trips of similar length”

DOT also advised that the local planning process include “specific planning for [the

handicapped]”, input from “handicapped persons, including wheelchair users and

Page 28

semiambulatory persons”, and “genuine, good-faith progress.”

Clearly, the interim

amendments provided much more freedom to local agencies to determine the best course of

action to meet local needs, but did so at the expense of requirements for very specific and

measurable action.

DOT Section 504 Final Regulations, 1986

With the 1981 interim amendment in place, DOT had an opportunity to re-evaluate the level of

effort by recipients of federal transit assistance necessary and appropriate to comply with the

provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Based on the ruling of the Appellate

Court in APTA v. Lewis, some level of affirmative action was deemed appropriate, yet the costs

of compliance needed to be contained so as to preserve already-existing levels of transit service.

Following another lengthy period of hearings and public comment, DOT published a new set of

regulations in the Federal Register on May 23, 1986 – some seven years following the issuance

of the original regulations, and almost thirteen years after the passage of the Rehabilitation Act.

The 1986 regulations defined more substantial terms of compliance than the interim amendment,

but at levels of effort and expenditure far below those called for in the original regulations. They

replaced Subpart E in 49 CFR 27, deleted upon the adoption of the interim amendment, with a

new section applicable to most recipients of federal transit assistance who provided

“transportation services to the general public by bus.”

Requirements for rapid, commuter, and

light rail services were not defined by the 1986 regulations.

The regulations compelled certain public transit agencies to develop an accessibility program

with sufficient input from disabled customers and advocacy groups. Agencies were obligated to

consult, “as early as possible in the planning process, with handicapped persons and groups

representing them, [and] transportation and social service organizations,” among other parties.

Once a suitable local program was developed, it was subject to a sixty-day public comment

period, including “at least one public hearing.”

To foster the involvement of interested persons

with disabilities, the recipient was required to provide “all notices and materials pertaining to the

program, comment period, and public hearings […] in a form that persons with vision and

hearing impairments can use.”

Public participation was further required on a continual basis,

for the purpose of refining the accessibility program, and before any significant changes could be

made to the program.

Once each accessibility program cleared the public comment process, and was approved by

DOT, the recipient was required to “at all times, provide the service called for by its program

[…] to all eligible handicapped persons.”

Performance was subject to DOT compliance

reviews at least once every three years.

By contrast to the very specific and extensive requirements spelled out in the original

regulations, the 1986 regulations prescribed certain “minimum service criteria” for the following

three types of systems: special service systems, accessible bus systems, and mixed systems. The

required minimum criteria had to be met “as soon as reasonably feasible […] but in any case

within six years of the initial determination by [FTA] concerning the approval of its program.”

SPECIAL SERVICE SYSTEMS

These systems were obligated to be made available to “[a]ll persons who, by reason of handicap,

[were] physically unable to use the recipient’s bus service for the general public.”

Service was

Page 29

to be provided upon one day’s notice, without regard to trip purpose. Fares were required to be

“comparable to the fare for a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, charged to a user of

the recipient’s bus service for the general public.”

Service days, hours, and areas were all

required to be the same as those for general public service. Such service was a second precursor

to the complementary paratransit later required by the ADA.

ACCESSIBLE BUS SYSTEMS

For accessible mainline service, days and hours of operation were required to be the same as

those available to the general public. This standard involved accessible vehicles at adequate

intervals to allow persons with disabilities “ready use” of the system.

Such vehicles were to be

placed into service along all regular bus routes where a need had been established through the

public participation process. Fares were required to be no higher than those charged to members

of the general public, yet still include applicable reduced fares as mandated by the National Mass

Transportation Assistance Act of 1974.

On-call service was to be provided under standards

very similar to those for special service systems.

MIXED SYSTEMS

Systems consisting of some combination of special service, mainline accessible service, and/or

on-call accessible service were required to comply with all applicable provisions of the

regulations.

For any recipient with an approved accessibility program, annual costs of compliance were

capped at “3.0 percent of […] total annual average operating costs,” calculated using projected

operating costs for the current fiscal year, and actual operating costs for the previous two fiscal

years. Although nothing in the regulations precluded recipients from spending more than this

percentage, it was not required “even if, as a result, the recipient cannot provide service to

handicapped persons that fully meets the [minimum] service criteria.” In instances where full

compliance involved more than the maximum expenditure, the recipient was required to set

priorities through the public participation process.

Only capital and operating expenses directly

attributable to compliance with the approved accessibility program were eligible to be counted

towards the three percent limit.

Page 30

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADA

In the span of over twenty years following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress

made significant progress in protecting the basic rights of persons with disabilities. These

protections, however, were scattered across various pieces of legislation, making it difficult to

determine which provisions applied to different programs or people, and clouding the lines of

accountability and enforcement. Moreover, by the late 1980s, significant gaps still existed in the

protection afforded to persons with disabilities, and advocates generally expressed that the laws

and regulations in effect did not go far enough to prohibit discrimination.

Members of the disability community and advocacy groups were particularly vocal about the

accessibility of public transportation. The progress realized by opening up educational and

vocational opportunities, as well as public programs and accommodations, to persons with

disabilities, was tempered by a lack of adequate accessible transportation. Although Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was a strong statement of national policy on disability rights, in

terms of serving as a foundation for specific agency rules and regulations it was actually quite

weak.

In theory, the legal and administrative battles over the DOT Section 504 regulations reduced the

financial impact of accessibility on local transit agencies, and returned control over accessible

public transit to local “roundtables” comprised of the transit agency, metropolitan planning

organization (MPO), and members of the disability community – thus encouraging solutions that

met local needs within available resources. In practice, however, this local option sometimes

resulted in a separate, unequal service for persons with disabilities. As transit agencies were not

required to make 100% of their fixed route fleet accessible, passengers with disabilities could be

relegated to special paratransit services with longer wait times, longer trips times, advance

reservation requirements, and capacity constraints. Moreover, the six-year implementation

period and the cap on accessibility expenditures meant some accessibility needs would go unmet,

at least for some time, even if these needs were identified as significant through the public

participation process.

In April 1988, after receiving technical advice from the National Council on Disability, Senator

Lowell Weicker (R-Connecticut) and Congressman Tony Coelho (D-California) introduced the

original draft of the ADA into the Senate (as S. 2345) and House (as H.R. 4498), respectively.

Following a failed reelection campaign by Senator Weicker later in 1988, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)

and Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) assumed sponsorship of the ADA in the Senate. After

building an advisory committee comprised of federal department heads, businesspeople, and

persons with disabilities, the Congressional sponsors revised the draft of the ADA, and

reintroduced it into the Senate (as S. 933) and House (as H.R. 2273) in May 1989.

The revised draft of the ADA included, among numerous other provisions, requirements for the

procurement of accessible bus and rail vehicles, as well as an obligation to offer paratransit

services as a complement to accessible fixed route services. As the bills moved through both

houses of Congress, legislators, transit managers and industry representatives, persons with

disabilities, and advocates testified passionately to their opinions regarding these requirements.

These concerns fit into several broad categories.

Page 31

Extensive and Costly Unfunded Requirements

Transit professionals, including representatives of APTA, state public transit associations, and

individual transit agencies, were deeply concerned about the unfunded mandates proposed in

both the Senate and House versions of the ADA. As neither draft included federal appropriations

to cover the costs of compliance, these officials were understandably worried about how transit

agencies might bear these costs. Increasingly scarce federal transit funding, notwithstanding any

requirements proposed within the ADA, magnified these concerns.

In hearings before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on the

Handicapped, during May and June of 1989, Dennis D. Louwerse, Executive Director of the

Berks Area Reading (PA) Transportation Authority and member of the APTA Elderly and

Disabled Persons Task Force, entered a prepared statement testifying that:

APTA and the transit industry have consistently recognized that

providing for the mobility needs of our nation’s citizens who are

elderly and disabled is a major objective and challenge for public

transit systems across the country. Meeting the challenge over the

past few years has been made much more difficult because we

have experienced a drastic reduction in the federal transit program

of more than 50% in real dollars. Still deeper cuts have been

proposed by the Administration in the FY 90 budget which, if

adopted, would force major service cutbacks for all citizens,

including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

Accordingly, Louwerse’s statement goes on to implore:

If Congress chooses to mandate all of the requirements set forth in

the proposed legislation concerning mass transportation services,

[APTA] would urge that [Congress also] provide financial

assistance to ensure that its mandates can be carried out. Limited

funding forces increasingly difficult choices especially for smaller

operators in the use of available resources to provide services for

people who are elderly and disabled.

In his request, Louwerse implied, as many other transit officials did throughout the

Congressional hearings, that transit agencies would have to cut services to other deserving

groups of people in order to implement the ADA’s requirements, absent increased funding.

Louwerse further expressed his concern for small agencies, with smaller administrative staff and

tighter budgets, for which this effect would be even more dramatic.

Carol L. Lavoritano, Director of Program and Policy Analysis for the Southeastern Pennsylvania

Transportation Authority (SEPTA), echoed Louwerse’s sentiments. In a hearing before the

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on the Transportation and

Hazardous Materials, held September 28, 1989, Lavoritano entered a prepared statement

testifying that:

While supplemental paratransit requirements are only required to

the extent that they do not ‘impose an undue financial burden,’ the

term ‘undue financial burden’ is not clearly defined. [SEPTA is]

Page 32

greatly concerned about the increased cost of compliance with this

bill at a time when the federal government is continuing to reduce

assistance to public transit. For example, in the last ten years:

Operating assistance has been reduced by 50 percent; capital

assistance is down by 64 percent in terms of real buying power;

and the transit trust fund is frozen.

In this context, public transit authorities must resist any mandates

which are unfunded, especially in the face of demands for

expanded service of all types.

For many transit authorities, any additional expense for which new

funding is not provided constitutes an undue financial burden,

insofar as fares must be raised or other services cut in order to

provide new services. We would point out that fare increases and

service reductions cause serious hardship to other low and fixed

income riders, many of whom have no alternative means of

transportation. Therefore, we strongly urge the Congress to fund

the increased cost of compliance with the Americans with

Disabilities Act.

It is important to note that neither Louwerse nor Lavoritano seemed to be opposed to the ADA’s

requirements for accessible transportation. Indeed, Louwerse acknowledged the provision of

accessible public transit services as one of APTA’s primary objectives. Rather, both objected to

the imposition of costly requirements on public transit, an industry that has struggled mightily

even in the face of federal and state assistance, absent increased financial support.

Potential for Duplicated, Inefficient Services

Given finite government funding and ever-increasing service demands from the general public,

the transit industry has always been cognizant of the importance of efficiency in carrying out its

mission. Agencies must make the best possible use of their limited resources in order to provide

for the public good in the most effective manner. Moreover, as government support for transit

has increased, the standards of stewardship and accountability by which transit agencies are

judged have increased as well. During the development of the ADA, transit officials,

notwithstanding the issue of increased federal funding to cover the costs of ADA compliance,

expressed concern about the prospect of being required to operate overlapping services.

Lavoritano’s statement reflected this concern:

Eligibility for supplemental paratransit service is not well defined

in the Senate bill. The phrase ‘unable to use mainline

transportation’ can be broadly or narrowly interpreted. Our

experience has been that people often prefer to use paratransit

because it is difficult, but not impossible, for them to use

accessible fixed-route service.

Congress should avoid mandating a broad eligibility criteria for

supplemental paratransit because it will perpetuate costly dual

services for the disabled. We believe that majority of the disabled

would opt for the convenience of door-to-door services and the

Page 33

expenditure to retrofit our nation’s public transit systems will only

serve a small segment of the disabled population.

Lavoritano’s statement seemed to reflect the need for Congress to more clearly define a

boundary between accessible fixed route services and accessible paratransit services, so as to

make the two truly complementary. Further, it openly questioned whether full accessibility in

both systems would be utilized to the extent that the extra investment could be justified.

The draft of the ADA put forward by Congressional sponsors included provisions designed to

tighten the response time of paratransit. This was intended to address the potential for long wait

times, long trip times, and excessive trip denials that characterized paratransit services under the

DOT Section 504 regulations. Given the low customer density, flexible routing, and labor-

intensive level of passenger assistance inherent in the operating conditions of paratransit

services, however, some lead-time is required to plan paratransit trips so as to maximize their

efficiency. Lavoritano’s statement emphasized the importance of this ability to plan:

Short response time requirements for paratransit service can create

expensive vehicle requirements and scheduling inefficiencies. The

Senate report language raises questions as to what is intended as a

comparable response time. It is totally unrealistic to require that

paratransit response times be equivalent to fixed route headways,

and the committee report language should be revised to clearly

reflect this. SEPTA operates many bus routes with headways

between five and fifteen minutes. Such a response time

requirement is clearly impossible to meet; similar response times

are not even available with taxi service. If paratransit service is

intended to be truly supplemental, we recommend a response time

no shorter than twenty-four hours, to permit efficient scheduling

and routing of vehicles, in many cases utilizing computerized

systems which have been developed at considerable expense.

Loss of Local Control in Planning Accessible Services

Proponents of the ADA, especially disabled transit patrons, soundly criticized the level and

quality of public transportation services under the local option supported by the 1986 DOT

Section 504 regulations. These regulations, however, reflected a key principle of transportation

planning: that the potential for variance in each operating environment and in the needs of each

local citizenry is virtually infinite, therefore appropriate transportation solutions should be

developed in direct response to these conditions and needs. Louwerse stated APTA’s position on

this issue:

Our current industry policy, which is now under review by

APTA’s task force, is that each community should continue to be

permitted to determine the best means of providing service to the

elderly and those with disabilities by tailoring service to the

diverse needs, circumstances, and desires of the local

community.

Louwerse’s statement further testified as to the successful progress of transit accessibility in such

diverse locations as Reading, PA; San Diego, CA; Iowa City, IA; Duluth, MN; Memphis, TN;

Page 34

Arlington Heights, IL; Cleveland, OH; and Seattle, WA, noting that “[…] local transit

authorities, along with the local disabled community that they serve, are working together to

create transportation programs that are workable and successful at the local level.”

In a hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on

Transportation and Hazardous Materials, held September 28, 1989, Thomas Gagliano, Executive

Director of New Jersey Transit, entered a prepared statement testifying that:

H.R. 2733 would require a level of paratransit service

‘comparable’ to the level of service provided on a fixed route

basis. While we agree with the need for the Federal government to

guarantee disabled citizens the civil right of access to public

transportation, the issue of mobility as provided through a

paratransit system must remain a local issue. Some communities

may elect to provide paratransit services where no fixed route

service exists. Others who have fixed-route service may determine

that local conditions do not require comparable paratransit

services, and the resources may be more efficiently used

elsewhere. New Jersey’s paratransit system has been developed

with the input of the local disabled community. A Federal

requirement for a comparable paratransit system in conjunction

with a fixed-route transit system would inappropriately interfere

with this local decision making process.

Both Louwerse’s and Gagliano’s statements did not seem to argue against the establishment of

standards, albeit limited ones, of public transit accessibility. But they were in opposition to very

restrictive standards that would force the uniform implementation of transportation solutions not

necessarily appropriate to a certain geographic area or group of customers.

Loss of Coordination with Human Service Agencies in Providing

Transportation to Persons with Disabilities

In most areas, the working relationship between public transit agencies and other human service

agencies is a strong one. Some human services clients may be unable to obtain a valid driver

license, afford an automobile, or navigate direction from one point to another – making transit

services a necessary form of mobility. Moreover, human service agencies and transit more often

than not work together to ensure that where possible, the agencies are included along fixed bus

routes, and that social workers are trained in the intricacies of the transit system, so as to be able

to effectively explain mobility options to their clients.

Congress recognized the importance of these relationships in the language of the Federal-Aid

Highway Act of 1973, when it authorized transportation grants to human service agencies so

they could supplement the services offered by public transit. During the development of the

ADA, however, transit officials feared an erosion of these important relationships. In hearings

before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on the

Handicapped, during May and June of 1989, J. Roderick Burfield, Spokesman for the Virginia

Association of Public Transit Officials (VAPTO), entered a prepared statement testifying that:

‘Dumping’ has been occurring across the country for several years

and is accelerating because of reduced funding for social service

Page 35

programs. Basically, this phenomenon occurs when the social

service agency contacts the mass transit provider and informs them

that [the agency] will no longer be able to transport their [own]

clientele. The social service agency does not normally transfer any

funds in order to pay for the increased expenses of the mass transit

agency, since the ‘dumping’ occurred so they could reprogram

their transportation funds to other purposes.

Were most of these clients to migrate to a fixed route system, where increased passenger density

generally supports increased efficiency and levels of service, this would not be a problem. Given

the complexities and cost inherent in operating a paratransit service, however, more passengers

are not always better. In this respect, Burfield’s statement seemed to predict an unintended

second wave of challenges to public transit agencies as a result of the ADA.

Similar to the concerns expressed by Louwerse and Lavoritano, Burfield warned that a

deterioration of the working relationship between transit and human service agencies in

providing transportation services could place some human service clients in jeopardy,

particularly if, as a result of the costs of compliance with the ADA, a public transit agency was

forced to make service cutbacks:

A major problem that occurs is that some of the social service

clients who are ‘dumped’ are not classified as disabled under

current statutes or under the definitions contained in S. 933. What

happens to the elderly? What happens to dialysis patients? What

happens to homeless persons or drug and alcohol rehabilitation

patients? These persons are served by social service agencies but

frequently do not meet the definition of disabled under the law.

Burfield, as did many other transit officials, urged Congress to consider these important

questions before completing a final draft of the legislation.

Effective Transportation as the Linchpin in the Full Realization of Civil

Rights

Persons with disabilities and advocacy groups argued, with the same level of conviction as did

transit officials in highlighting the potential effects of the law, for extensive action toward fully

accessible public transportation facilities and services. Public transportation, they reasoned, is a

core human service linking a disabled person with all manner of other human services.

Moreover, transportation is a key component in connecting persons with disabilities to jobs,

education, medical appointments, shopping, cultural amenities, and families and friends.

In a hearing before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Select

Education, held October 6, 1989, Gregory S. Fehribach, attorney and Chairman of the Indiana

Governor’s Planning Council for People with Disabilities, entered a prepared statement that

testified:

Transportation is essential for a disabled person to maintain self-

sufficiency. There is not one of us […] who does not need some

form of transportation in order to pursue employment, to recreate,

or contribute effectively to society as a whole. Disabled people are

Page 36

disabled by the present transportation system in America today, but

ADA will allow the disabled to become ‘differently able’ to use

transportation as necessity dictates.

Not only was transportation viewed as a critical component of self-actualization, it was widely

regarded as the most critical component. In a hearing before the House Committee on Education

and Labor, Subcommittees on Employment Opportunities and Select Education, held September

13, 1989, Jay Rochlin, Executive Director of the President’s Committee on Employment of

People with Disabilities, directly testified that:

It makes little sense to protect an individual from discrimination in

employment if, for example, they have less than adequate

accessible public transportation services. We have conducted

surveys in 45 communities over the last seven years, and,

consistently, inaccessible transportation has been identified as the

major barrier, second only to discriminatory attitudes.

Rochlin argued that the sum of the provisions of the ADA, as proposed, would certainly serve to

assist persons with disabilities in overcoming both of these barriers. Others felt, however, that

the lack of accessible transportation actually reinforced and perpetuated these discriminatory

attitudes. In a hearing before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on

Select Education, held October 6, 1989, Marchell Hunt, Chairperson of Common Concerns, an

advocacy organization in Indianapolis, entered a prepared statement testifying that:

In response to […] concerns associated with the current

transportation system, paratransit has been proposed as a possible

solution. However, if solely implemented, such a system will

serve only to further segregate the disabled from the non-disabled

thereby feeding stereotyped public attitudes and beliefs concerning

persons with disabilities.

Such stereotypes include misplaced safety concerns, notions that

disabled people need to be protected and cared for, a lack of

understanding as to why persons with disabilities would even want

to leave their homes, and in the personal discomfort that some may

feel when coming into contact with people who are physically

different.

Giving persons with disabilities full access to the benefits of society through accessible public

transportation, Hunt reasoned, would promote interaction, and thereby understanding and

tolerance.

Potential Costs to Society Inherent in Isolation

During Congressional hearings regarding the provisions of the ADA, many business owners and

agency officials offered testimony that questioned the projected high costs of compliance with

the law. Persons with disabilities and advocacy groups found this type of testimony to be

particularly offensive. By opening up society through protection from discrimination,

particularly through accessible public transportation, they reasoned, persons with disabilities

Page 37

would be given a chance to be as independent and productive as all other members of society.

Fehribach’s statement argues:

Many consider the language of [the ADA] to be burdensome, yet

we must consider the burdensome costs that a citizen who is not

able to contribute to his own health and well being places on

society. Those who feel it is cheaper to institutionalize a citizen

than it is to work side by side with that same citizen have a false

perception […] ADA gives other Disabled Americans an

opportunity. The ADA will allow disabled people the privilege of

paying income tax and it will prevent them from using the welfare

system for their care and maintenance.

Public transit officials also argued in favor of many of the provisions of the ADA, for much the

same reason. In a field hearing before the House Committee on Education and Labor,

Subcommittee on Select Education, held August 28, 1989, Robert C. Lanier, Chairman of the

Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (Houston METRO), entered a prepared

statement testifying that:

The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of

Harris County, Texas (Houston METRO) formally voted to outfit

its new buses, vans, and mini-buses with wheelchair lifts,

commencing with the first purchases of 300 full size buses (60 per

year for 5 years), 51 mini-buses, and 35 micro-buses.

This Board action supplements a door-to-door pick-up service

presently funded with $5,894,000.00 of annual expenditures, well

above the level of most other cities.

The wheelchair lifts were added, not because we believe them to

be the most cost effective, but because we believe them to be right.

The controlling issue, as I see it, is an attempt to afford all our

citizens the right to fully participate in the economic and political

process. The analogy that comes to mind is the old contention that

minorities should be segregated under the ‘separate but equal

doctrine’. I do not subscribe to that, but subscribe to the notion

that, as best we can, we should afford all our citizens the right of

full participation. Houston METRO’s decision is a small step in

that direction. A step we are comfortable with because it is

soundly based in American values and overall economic health.

Many argue that allowing full participation takes people off the

welfare roll, makes them into tax-paying citizens. That is all true.

But I think there is a larger value […]

[…] Who knows what outstanding contribution lies dormant within

some handicapped person, that contribution teetering on the brink

of whether he or she is allowed full participation in our society?

The mobility provided by a wheelchair equipped bus fleet is an

important element of full participation in our society.”

Page 38

Lanier’s statement was a notable example of a large public transit agency not only complying

with the requirements of the DOT Section 504 regulations, but also really listening to the needs

of its local disabled community, and taking action to meet those needs at a greater level than the

regulations required.

Congress entertained a great deal of testimony, not only as part of these hearings but also many

others, hosted by several different Committees and Subcommittees. Although the final Senate

and House bills tightened up some of the ambiguities pointed out by public transit officials, the

requirements for accessible transit vehicles and facilities, as well as that for complementary

paratransit, remained largely the same as those contained in the drafts. Moreover, the final bills

did not include any additional authorizations for accessible public transit. Following conference

to clear up the discrepancies between the final Senate and House bills, the ADA was passed by a

377-28 margin in the House, and by a 91-6 margin in the Senate. President George H.W. Bush

signed the ADA into law on July 26, 1990.

Page 39

PUBLIC TRANSIT PROVISIONS OF THE ADA

Congress’ stated purpose in drafting and adopting the ADA was to, among other things, “provide

a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against

individuals with disabilities” and “provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards” by

which the fair and equitable treatment of persons with disabilities could be judged.

mandating specific actions in the legislation, rather than directing federal agencies to promulgate

their own rules and regulations around a loose set of general policies, the ADA minimizes the

issue of statutory authority that slowed progress in developing accessible transit services during

the 1980s.

Title I

Title I covers hiring and employment practices across all industries, in both the public and

private sectors, and generally provides that:

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual

with a disability because of the disability of such individual in

regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or

discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and

other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

This mandate applies to most public and private employers, including state and local

governments and public transit agencies. Much like the original DOT regulations established

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA requires that reasonable accommodation be

extended to otherwise qualified employees with disabilities, as necessary, to enable them to

complete the core functions of their job.

Title I also limits the types of questioning a potential employer can use during the job interview

process, eliminating those that might be used to screen out applicants with disabilities. It does,

however, allow questions and physical examinations directly related to the duties of the job, and

protects the right of an employer to conduct pre-employment, random, reasonable suspicion, and

return-to-duty tests for illegal drugs and alcohol. Such tests are instrumental in ensuring the

safety of the nation’s public transportation infrastructure, employees, and customers.

Title II, Subpart B

FIXED ROUTE SYSTEMS

Going forward, the ADA requires that all new vehicles leased or purchased by a fixed route

transit system, including buses, rapid rail, and light rail vehicles, to be “readily accessible to and

usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.”

This

mandate also applies to most used and remanufactured vehicles. With some limitations,

“historic” vehicles are exempt from this accessibility requirement.

A temporary waiver can be

provided, under certain circumstances, if a transit agency makes a “good faith” effort to procure

accessible vehicles but cannot due to a lack of suitable parts and/or manufacturers.

Page 40

COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT

Fixed route operators, including rapid and light rail systems, are required to provide “paratransit

and other special transportation services” to persons with disabilities who cannot utilize the fixed

route due to three general conditions:

• An inability to board, deboard, or ride the fixed route without assistance

• An inability to travel to or from a fixed route bus stop without assistance

• The lack of an accessible fixed route vehicle or stop on the needed route.

Section 223 also requires complementary paratransit service to be made available to at least one

companion wishing to travel along with the eligible person with a disability; more companions

can travel along on a space-available basis. Complementary paratransit service is mandated in

the same service area as the fixed route system.

Fixed route systems were permitted under the law to apply for an “undue financial burden”

waiver and subsequently be exempted from providing some portion, or all, of the complementary

paratransit service. Congress directs DOT to determine the guidelines for such a waiver, at their

own discretion, through the rulemaking process.

Each agency was required to submit to DOT, and update on an annual basis, a plan for providing

complementary paratransit services under Section 223 of the ADA. Much like the amended

Section 504 regulations promulgated by DOT, the ADA requires that the planning process

include ample opportunity for public participation and comment, particularly by members of the

local disability community. The law exempts fixed route systems from providing all or a portion

of complementary paratransit services if another agency in the service area is responsible for

providing those services.

Because the legislation requires that each of the provisions in Section 223(c) be included and

addressed in DOT regulations, it provides a very strong basis for these regulations, and

minimizes the opportunity for legal challenges, such as those that slowed the implementation of

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

DEMAND RESPONSIVE SYSTEMS

The ADA requires operators of demand responsive transit systems, whether already existing, or

newly formed as a result of the complementary paratransit requirement, to generally follow the

same procedures as fixed route systems for the procurement of vehicles “readily accessible to

and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” Systems

can be exempted from this requirement, however, if they have a sufficient number of accessible

vehicles in operation to provide a level of service for persons with disabilities “equivalent” to

that which is provided to other passengers.

FACILITIES

Public transit agencies are required to ensure that all new facilities or facility alterations are

constructed so as to be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,

including individuals who use wheelchairs.”

This requirement generally mirrors the provisions

of Subpart C of the original DOT Section 504 regulations, as well as the Architectural Barriers

Act of 1968. The ADA, however, does not merely apply to facilities constructed or modified

with federal funds, but to all public transportation facilities.

Page 41

Under the ADA, rapid rail and light rail transit agencies are subject to largely the same

requirement for accessibility of certain “key stations” as they were under the original DOT

Section 504 regulations. Key stations are required to accommodate all passengers with

disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, within three years. In the event of

“extraordinarily expensive structural changes” needed to make these stations fully accessible, an

extension can be granted up to thirty years; however, at least 2/3 of the key stations must be fully

accessible within twenty years.

The legislation also compels public transportation agencies to ensure that any “program or

activity” conducted in existing facilities is “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with

disabilities.” These provisions do not necessarily require 100% accessibility for existing

facilities, but that any program or activity be accessible “when viewed in the entirety.”

RAPID AND LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES

Rapid and light rail transit agencies are generally subject to the same “one car per train”

wheelchair accessibility requirement as contained in the original DOT Section 504 regulations.

Agencies are obligated to comply with this requirement within a five-year period. Exemptions

can be made available to agencies that operate trains consisting of only one car, or “historic

vehicles.”

REGULATIONS

The ADA directs the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations as necessary to

implement the requirements of the legislation. These regulations were to be issued within one

year of the passage of the ADA.

COMMUTER RAIL

Commuter rail agencies are required to adhere to the same “one car per train” requirements as

rapid and light rail agencies.

In the same manner as fixed route bus systems, new and used

commuter rail vehicles are required to be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with

disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.”

A “good faith” exemption, however,

is included for used vehicles.

Remanufactured commuter rail vehicles are also required to be

accessible, but, unlike buses and rapid and light railcars, the accessibility requirement only

applies to vehicles remanufactured “so as to extend its usable life for 10 years or more.”

Much like the requirements for fixed route bus, and rapid and light rail stations, all new and

modified commuter rail stations are required to be “readily accessible to and usable by

individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.”

Existing “key

stations” are required to be made accessible “as soon as practicable but in no event later than 3

years after the date of enactment of this Act.” If “extraordinarily expensive structural changes”

are required, this deadline can be extended to twenty years.

Title III

Title III prohibits discrimination:

on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any

Page 42

person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of

public accommodation.

with the term “public accommodation” generally referring to any place, such as a theatre,

restaurant, or shopping mall, operating under private ownership but being engaged in

“commerce” and available to any member of the general public. This prohibition is similar to

the provisions of Section 201(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Section 302 imposes requirements on fixed route and demand response systems operated by

private entities (not primarily engaged in the business of transportation) for public consumption

– for example, airport, hotel, and parking lot shuttles. Vehicle accessibility requirements consist

of language very similar to that applicable to public fixed route and demand response transit

systems, but include an exemption for vehicles with a total capacity of “16 passengers or less

(including the driver).” A system including such small vehicles is still required to be accessible

to persons with disabilities when the system is “viewed in its entirety.”

Rail vehicles are

specifically excluded from this requirement.

100

Section 304 imposes similar accessibility requirements, but does so for private entities “primarily

engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce” – for

example, a charter or tour operator. For these particular operators, the small vehicle exemption

is limited to vehicles “with a seating capacity of less than 8 passengers.”

101

Rail vehicles are

included in these requirements, but again an exemption for “historic vehicles” is provided.

102

Page 43

COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED

IN 49 CFR 37

The ADA delegates regulatory authority for transportation accessibility directly to the DOT.

These regulations are incorporated in 49 CFR 27, 37, and 38. The complementary paratransit

requirements are regulated by 49 CFR 37, and include the following provisions.

Eligible Groups

Complementary paratransit services are required to be provided to the following groups of

passengers:

• Persons with disabilities who cannot, without assistance, “board, ride, or disembark from” an

accessible fixed route vehicle placed into service by a transit agency

• Persons with disabilities who would independently use an accessible fixed route vehicle, but

cannot because one has not been placed into service by the transit agency at the needed

boarding place or time

• Those using a wheelchair of “common” size and shape that cannot be accommodated by an

otherwise accessible vehicle

• Those using a wheelchair and need to board or alight at a fixed route stop where “the lift

cannot be deployed, the lift will be damaged if it is deployed, or temporary conditions at the

stop, not under the control of the [transit agency], preclude the safe use of the stop by all

passengers”

• Persons with disabilities who desire to use a rail system but cannot due to the inaccessibility

of vehicles or “key stations”

• Those prevented by the specific nature of their disability, outright or in conjunction with

“architectural […] and environmental barriers,” from traveling to or from a fixed route stop

• One other individual traveling as a companion of a person with a disability between the same

origin and destination as that person

• A “personal care attendant” of a person with a disability

• Additional companions of a person with a disability on a space-available basis

• With some limitations, visitors eligible for complementary paratransit in another jurisdiction

who can provide documentation to that effect

103

Eligibility Determination Process

The regulations direct transit agencies to establish a process for determining complementary

paratransit eligibility in “strict” accordance with the criteria outlined in Section 37.123.

104

Several restrictions are placed on this eligibility process. First, the transit agency has to review

the application and related documentation, and make an determination of “eligible” or

“ineligible” within twenty-one days, or grant interim eligibility “until and unless” a

determination of “ineligible” is made.

105

The determination is required to be provided in writing

to the applicant, and this notification as well as all application materials are to be made available

in accessible formats (such as Braille, large-print, or audiotape) upon request.

Once a determination of “eligible” is made, the transit agency is required to provided

documentation or some form of identification verifying this eligibility. Any applicant found to

be ineligible is entitled to due process through the right of an appeal and hearing.

Page 44

Transit agencies are encouraged to develop policies and procedures to sanction eligible

customers who exhibit a “pattern or practice” of missing scheduled paratransit trips. The agency

is permitted to suspend service “for a reasonable period of time” upon written notice and after

providing due process.

106

Service Criteria

SERVICE AREA

Fixed route bus systems are required to provide complementary paratransit services within

corridors measuring ¾-mile on each side and at each end of a fixed route, plus to “small areas

not inside any of the corridors but which are surrounded by corridors.” Rail systems are required

to provide these services within and between areas with a radius of ¾-mile around all stations.

107

Exemptions are created for “commuter bus service”, defined as:

fixed route bus service, characterized by service predominantly in

one direction during peak periods, limited stops, use of multi-ride

tickets, and routes of extended length, usually between the central

business district and outlying suburbs. Commuter bus service may

also include other service, characterized by a limited route

structure, limited stops, and a coordinated relationship to another

mode of transportation.

108

An exemption is also established for service area corridors that traverse jurisdictional

boundaries, over which a transit agency is not permitted to operate. Transit agencies are,

however, required to take steps to resolve these jurisdictional issues where they exist.

RESPONSE TIME

The public transit agency is required to provide for all eligible complementary paratransit trips

scheduled at least “the previous day” and up to fourteen days in advance. This means that, for

example, a transit agency not operating Sunday services is still obligated to open up on Sunday

to take requests for Monday travel. Departure times cannot be scheduled “to begin more than

one hour before or after the individual's desired departure time.”

109

FARES

For a complementary paratransit trip, an agency can charge no more than twice the full fixed

route fare “for a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day.” This applies to any companions

as well, though a qualified personal care attendant is exempt from any fare.

110

TRIP PURPOSE

The regulations prohibit any “restrictions or priorities based on trip purpose.” A qualified rider

can expect equal treatment for trips involving work, school, medical appointments, shopping,

recreation, or visiting family and friends.

111

SERVICE DAYS AND HOURS

A fixed route agency is obligated to offer complementary paratransit service during the “same

hours and days” as any fixed route service operated.

112

Page 45

CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS

The regulations expressly prohibit any methods used to control complementary paratransit

service availability, including: restricting the number of trips a qualified passenger can take

during a given time period, establishing a waiting list for use of the service, knowingly degrading

the on-time performance of the service or missing trips entirely, or imposing inordinately long

trip lengths or times when compared to the fixed route service or an automobile trip. This

provision does not apply to unforeseen events, such as traffic or weather.

113

49 CFR 37.133 governs “subscription service”, or paratransit trips set aside for regular riders

who are issued a standing reservation by the transit agency. According to the regulations, such

trips “may not absorb more than fifty percent of the number of trips available at a given time of

day, unless there is non-subscription capacity.” This is to allow for spontaneous paratransit

travel by eligible persons with disabilities.

Paratransit Plans

Each fixed route agency obligated to provide complementary paratransit service was also

required to submit an initial plan for its implementation by January 26, 1992. The agency is

thereafter responsible for either updating the plan or certifying its compliance on an annual basis.

Generally, each agency was responsible for commencing implementation of its plan by January

26, 1992 and achieving full implementation no later than January 26, 1997.

114

Much like the 1981 DOT Section 504 interim amendment, and the subsequent 1986 regulations,

the regulations developed under the ADA require a substantial public participation process as

part of plan development. This includes early outreach to affected groups, targeted consultation

with the local disability community, and opportunities for public comment, both through public

hearings and on an “at-large” basis. This process is mandated on an ongoing basis; even after

plan approval and full implementation is achieved. In general, these plans need to include an

inventory of current fixed route and paratransit services and providers, demand and cost

projections, and a description of how the agency intends to meet all of the other requirements

outlined in the legislation and regulations.

115

Undue Financial Burden

Under limited circumstances, the regulations provide for a temporary waiver exempting a public

transit agency from meeting all or part of the complementary paratransit requirements.

Generally, these waivers were intended for agencies who, in preparing their implementation

plan, realized they could not realistically meet the 1997 deadline for full implementation, or

those who met some unforeseen circumstances after having their implementation plan

approved.

116

If such a waiver was granted, the agency might be required:

• To offer complementary paratransit services only “to the extent it can do so without incurring

an undue financial burden”

• To offer such service along certain fixed route corridors regardless of any undue financial

burden incurred

• To coordinate with other area transportation providers in order to allow for as much

accessible service in the area as possible

117

Page 46

It is important to note that such waivers were only intended as a temporary measure of relief, to

allow a fixed route transit agency to plan in more detail and make any organizational changes

necessary in order to fully implement the service.

In considering whether to grant a waiver of undue financial burden, the FTA committed to

reviewing such factors as: resulting effects on other fixed route or specialized services, fare

increases proposed to cover the costs of providing complementary paratransit, the accessibility of

existing facilities and vehicles within the system, the level of coordination between the agency

and other area providers and agencies, opportunities to maximize operating efficiency, and any

other unique factors present within the service area.

118

Page 47

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSIT

SERVICES

Paratransit services, including complementary paratransit as defined by the ADA, fall into the

demand response mode category. Demand response services do not adhere to the fixed routes

typical of other transit modes, but rather are characterized by a customer-driven labor and

vehicle scheduling process. Customers contact the transit agency by phone or computer to

request demand response trips as they are needed; usually this is done with at least some lead-

time to allow for more efficient routing and scheduling of resources.

Once the transit agency compiles all of the trip requests for a given block of time, a dispatcher or

scheduler looks for origin, destination, and temporal patterns in the requests, and sets logical

routes and schedules accordingly. In this manner, the trips provided are a direct response to the

demand of transit customers. Flexibility is the defining characteristic of demand response transit

services; however, these services do not necessarily operate as a taxi service. Demand response

customers are not only generally required to make a trip request in advance, they also must be

somewhat flexible with regard to their pick-up and drop-off times. Further, though demand

response services typically involve door-to-door, or at least curb-to-curb, transportation, a

customer must often share the vehicle with other like customers. Therefore, the trips provided

are not always direct.

Demand response services typically use smaller vehicles than do conventional fixed route bus

services, due in part to both a lower passenger density and the need to navigate narrower, local

streets to provide door-to-door or curb-to-curb service. These vehicles can include cutaways (a

bus-like body on a van or truck chassis), full-size vans, minivans, and even passenger sedans.

Demand response vehicles generally hold at least two, but no more than twenty passengers.

This particular mode exhibits a unique set of operating conditions, which reveal changes

following, but not necessarily directly related to, the enactment of the ADA and succeeding

regulations. These conditions are described below.

Amount of Service Supplied and Consumed

NUMBER OF AGENCIES

One method by which to examine the amount of demand response service available is to look at

the number of transit agencies supplying such service (Figure 1). The number of demand

response agencies is relatively flat between Fiscal Year (FY) 1990 and 1993, increases markedly

for FY 1994, then levels out again. As of FY 2001, there were 5,251 agencies providing demand

response transit, more than twice as many agencies as providing conventional fixed route bus

service. No modes other than demand response and fixed route bus involve more than 100

agencies.

119

This trend reveals two important points as to the nature of demand response transit. First, a

significant number of agencies provided such service before the passage of the ADA,

presumably either as part of a local plan to meet transportation needs for the elderly and persons

with disabilities, pursuant to the DOT Section 504 regulations of 1986; or as a means of

providing transit to areas that do not justify conventional fixed route bus or rail transit. Second,

the increase in agencies providing demand response services after the passage of the ADA is

Page 48

considerable (about 34%), and most probably includes many agencies that did not provide such

service under the DOT Section 504 regulations published in 1986 or earlier.

120

This would imply a significant level of inexperience within the transit industry, where paratransit

is concerned, in the years preceding the adoption of the ADA and succeeding regulations. Such

a lack of familiarity with the planning and operation of a paratransit system would almost

certainly contribute to the resistance to complementary paratransit service, as expressed by

transit managers and officials during the Congressional Hearing process.

3,500

3,700

3,900

4,100

4,300

4,500

4,700

4,900

5,100

5,300

5,500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 1 Number of Transit Agencies Providing Demand Response Service (FY 1990-2001)

ANNUAL UNLINKED TRIPS

Another method by which to determine the amount of paratransit service available is to examine

the number of trips taken by passengers. As the number of agencies providing demand response

transit service increases, so too does the number of trips provided by these agencies (Figure 2).

The increase in number of trips provided, however, occurs at a much more gradual rate. This

could imply several circumstances: that existing and new demand response agencies

implemented complementary paratransit service incrementally; that these agencies may have

taken significant measures to make their fixed route bus and rail services accessible, thereby

minimizing the immediate need for complementary paratransit; or that persons with disabilities

were slow to begin using the service available, perhaps due to a lack of awareness of the service

or the procedures followed to utilize it.

During FY 1990, demand response agencies provided roughly 68 million unlinked passenger

trips. This measure generally increases until the present. During FY 2001, roughly 105 million

demand response passenger trips were taken – an increase of about 54% during the twelve-year

period.

121

Between FY 1990 and 2001, in terms of percentage increase in annual unlinked passenger trips,

demand response is one of the fastest-growing modes of transit. Its growth rate over this period

is second only to light rail, which enjoyed a 92% increase due at least in part to a number of new

Page 49

system startups – a phenomenon not unlike that seen within the demand response sector – as well

as an operating environment characterized by high passenger densities. Moreover, the growth

rate of demand response passenger trips over the twelve-year period is well above that of transit

overall (about 9%).

122

But while demand response trips are increasing at a very rapid pace, this expansion does not

translate into a significant mode share. During FY 2001, demand response services carried many

times fewer passengers than fixed route bus and heavy rail, and several times fewer passengers

than commuter rail and light rail – modes that typically serve very densely populated areas.

123

100

120

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 2 Unlinked Demand Response Trips Provided (FY 1990-2001 in millions)

ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES

The number of demand response vehicle miles provided between FY 1990 and 2001 follows

much the same trend as seen in annual unlinked trips (Figure 3). During FY 1990, demand

response agencies provided almost 306 million vehicle miles of service – a number that increases

steadily until the present. During FY 2001, about 789 million vehicle miles of demand response

service were provided – well over twice the amount provided at the beginning of the twelve-year

period.

124

Between FY 1990 and 2001, demand response vehicle miles increased by about 158% - a rate of

growth second only to that exhibited by vanpool services as part of the “other” mode category

(about 325%), but still much higher than all other modes, as well as transit overall, which

experienced a growth rate of about 29% over the same period. That the growth rate of demand

response vehicle miles greatly outstrips that of demand response unlinked passenger trips over

the same period suggests that these demand response trips are getting longer over time, involve

more empty “deadheading” between demand response terminals and the individual pick-up and

drop-off points of each trip, or some combination of both. As the ADA and succeeding

regulations contain very stringent criteria to guarantee the availability of service on relatively

short notice, it is entirely conceivable that a vehicle could be dispatched to pick up and deliver a

single passenger within the service area before returning to the terminal.

125

Page 50

When one compares all modes of transit according to FY 2001 statistics, it becomes clear that

demand response provides a considerable number of overall vehicle miles of service – about 1/3

of that provided by fixed route bus agencies, but more than any other mode, and quite a bit more

than most other modes. Given the comparatively small number of demand response trips

provided, this suggests that such services are very vehicle-intensive, and therefore both very

labor-intensive, in terms of the number of employee hours required to operate, dispatch, and

maintain these vehicles, and more dependent on fuel on a per-passenger basis when compared to

other modes.

126

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 3 Demand Response Vehicle Miles Provided (FY 1990-2001 in millions)

ANNUAL VEHICLE HOURS

Vehicle hours provide still another means by which to examine the amount of demand response

service provided (Figure 4). For demand response services, vehicle hours follow a generally

upward trend very close to that exhibited by demand response vehicle miles, increasing from

roughly 24 million vehicle hours during FY 1990 to almost 54 million vehicle hours during FY

2001 – again, well over twice the amount provided at the outset of the twelve-year period. That

the number of demand response vehicle hours provided is growing at a slightly slower rate than

demand response vehicle miles implies that demand response vehicles exhibit a higher average

speed over time, perhaps because agencies have gained efficiencies in scheduling or routing

vehicles that increase the average speed, or because the vehicle miles provided include more

empty “deadheading” between the terminal and pick-up or drop-off points at highway speed.

127

When compared to that of other modes, the growth rate of demand response vehicle hours

provided over the period FY 1990-2001 indicates significant expansion. This expansion is

greater than that exhibited by all other modes of transit during the same period, as well as transit

overall (which grew by about 23%). As with vehicle miles, the number of demand response

vehicle hours provided during FY 2001 is considerable - about 1/3 of that provided by fixed

route bus services, but significantly higher than all other modes.

128

Page 51

Like the number of vehicle miles provided, the high number of demand response vehicle hours

provided, in light of the comparatively small number of passenger trips provided, suggests that

demand response services are very time-intensive, and much more vehicle- and labor-intensive

than other forms of transit. The ADA and succeeding regulations call for a complementary

paratransit service much more personalized than conventional fixed route bus or rail service. As

vehicle hours increase, so does the number of person-hours required to operate, maintain, and

dispatch the vehicles.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 4 Demand Response Vehicle Hours Provided (FY 1990-2001 in millions)

Cost Characteristics

ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS

To better determine the conditions under which demand response service operates, it is useful to

look at the trends in costs, and types of costs, involved in providing the service. During the

period from FY 1990 to 2001, demand response operating costs follow an increasing trend in

terms of 2001 dollars - from almost $702 million during FY 1990, to well over $1.7 billion

during FY 2001, with a very sharp jump during the last two years (Figure 5). This increase, of

about 150% in just twelve years, is somewhat to be expected, based on significant increases in

the number of agencies providing demand response service, the number of passenger trips taken,

and the number of vehicle miles and hours of service provided over the same period.

129

Moreover, increasing operating costs are common to all modes (except heavy rail) over the

period FY 1990 to 2001. Overall, in terms of 2001 dollars, transit services cost about 10% more

to operate during FY 2001 than they did during FY 1990. However, light rail (with a growth rate

of about 112%) and vanpool services as part of the “other” mode classification (with one of

about 85%) are the only modes that come close to equaling the growth in real dollars seen in

demand response operating costs. This growth could be the result of not only the increase in

demand response services supplied and consumed, but also of the cost to operate demand

response services relative to other types of transit services. Given the labor- and vehicle-

Page 52

intensive nature of demand response services, especially the manner of service prescribed by the

ADA and succeeding regulations, this is likely the case.

130

Despite the rapid growth rate of demand response operating costs, the mode is unremarkable in

terms of raw operating dollars expended on an annual basis. During FY 2001, the level of

demand response service on the street only cost about 1/7 as much as the level of conventional

fixed route bus service. On an annual basis, heavy rail and commuter rail service also cost more

to operate than demand response service.

131

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 5 Demand Response Operating Costs (FY 1990-2001 in millions of 2001 dollars)

OPERATING COST STRUCTURE

It is also important to note how demand response agencies allocate their operating expenses.

“Purchased transportation”, or services contracted out to private operating companies and

nonprofit organizations, is by far the largest single component of demand response operating

costs (Figure 6). During FY 2001, demand response agencies allocated over 72% of their total

annual operating expenditures to purchased transportation; this percentage represents a dollar

amount almost equal to the dollar amount spent by fixed route bus agencies for purchased

transportation, despite the much higher level of service furnished by fixed route bus agencies.

132

The purchased transportation expenditures by demand response agencies are critical, as they

indicate that an overwhelming number of such agencies, relative to other modes, rely on outside

organizations to manage the activities and competencies inherent in providing demand response

service. Some such agencies outsource only one or several portions of their service, operating

the remainder themselves.

Salaries and wages make up the next largest component of demand response operating costs,

followed by fringe benefits, services, other materials and supplies, and fuel and lubricants. All

other components account for a relatively negligible portion of operating costs.

133

The operating cost components, purchased transportation notwithstanding, that make up the

largest proportion of total demand response operating costs also seem the be the ones that exhibit

Page 53

the most rapid growth (Figure 7). During the period FY 1996 to 2001 (the years for which the

best data is available through the NTD), in terms of 2001 dollars, fringe benefit expenditures

grow by 34%, likely exhibiting a strong influence from rising health insurance costs. Salary and

wage costs grow by almost 16% over the same period. Fuel and lubricants, and other materials

and supplies grow by about 9% and 7.5%, respectively. As these operating cost components

both account for significant portions of overall operating costs, and are increasing somewhat

rapidly, it seems that paratransit managers need to make specific efforts to identify and

implement solutions to keep these costs in check.

134

72.07%

1.91% 1.43% 1.40% 0.96% 0.64% 0.44%

6.26%

14.90%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Purchased

Transportation

Fringe Benefits

Other

Materials and

Supplies

Casualty and

Liability

Utilities

Figure 6 Demand Response Operating Cost Components (FY 2001)

15.88%

9.22%

7.41%

34.00%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Fringe Benefits

Salaries/Wages

Fuel/Lubricants

Other

Materials/Supplies

Figure 7 Percentage Growth in Demand Response Operating Cost Components (FY 1996-

2001 in 2001 dollars)

Page 54

ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS

Demand response capital costs, which provide for the equipment needed to operate the service,

have also increased in terms of 2001 dollars since the early 1990s, from just over $85 million in

FY 1992 to about $154 million in FY 2001 – a difference of about 80% (Figure 8). Data is not

readily available for FY 1990 and 1991. When compared to other modes over the same period,

the growth rate of demand response capital expenses is unremarkable, well below that in real

dollars for trolleybus agencies (with a growth rate of about 235%), light rail agencies (with one

of about 115%), and fixed route bus agencies (with one of about 112%). Other modes likely

spend significant amounts of capital funds to make vehicles and facilities accessible, thereby

helping to minimize the need for complementary paratransit.

135

On both an outright and proportional basis, demand response services do not require a

particularly high level of capital investment. During FY 2001, demand response agencies spent

only a small fraction of the capital expenses of fixed route bus and rail modes. And with only

about $1 capital dollar spent for every $11 operating dollars, demand response transit is not

nearly as capital-intensive as these other modes, which often entail costly vehicles and facilities,

particularly in the rail sector. Demand response services are quite vehicle-intensive, but these

vehicles can be obtained far more inexpensively than a fixed route transit bus or rail vehicle.

136

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Figure 8 Demand Response Capital Costs (FY 1992-2001 in millions of 2001 dollars)

CAPITAL COST STRUCTURE

Vehicles, as opposed to facilities and other types of equipment and infrastructure, account for the

majority of demand response capital expenditures. During FY 2001, demand response agencies

allocated over 77% of their capital costs for such rolling stock (Figure 9). With the exception of

vanpool services as part of the “other” mode classification, all other modes dedicate a far greater

proportion of their capital expenditures to facilities and other equipment and infrastructure. This

statistic again underscores the strong importance of vehicles, as opposed to other capital

elements such as shelters and stations, within the demand response operating environment.

137

Page 55

In the case of demand response transit, many of the vehicle storage and maintenance facilities

used are already built, or are being built, for primary use by another mode – namely fixed route

bus service. In other cases, a small rural agency operating only demand response transit, for

example, can probably not bear the cost of an expensive new capital facility, and will likely elect

to lease a suitable existing facility at the lowest possible cost. Moreover, as much of the demand

response service on the street is currently contracted out to private companies and nonprofit

agencies, the individual contractor may be responsible for providing its own facilities, and, if this

is the case, will likely lease a local facility rather than building their own.

77.96%

8.17%

13.85%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Rolling Stock

Facilities

Other

Figure 9 Demand Response Capital Cost Components (FY 2001)

Vehicles

NUMBER OF ACTIVE VEHICLES

As the number of demand response agencies, and the level of demand response service provided

have increased, so too has the number of demand response vehicles – from almost 16,500 in FY

1990 to just over 35,500 in FY 2001, an increase of about 110% (Figure 10). Only vanpool

services as part of the “other” mode classification (with a growth in fleet size of about 378%

over the same period) exhibited a larger expansion than demand response transit. Over this

period, the number of active demand response vehicles grew at a much greater rate than the

number of demand response passenger trips, but at a slower rate than that exhibited by vehicle

hours and miles of service provided. This seems to suggest that while demand response services

are quite vehicle-intensive, and becoming more so, agencies are more fully utilizing their

existing vehicles by keeping them out in service for longer hours before making the decision to

add to their fleet. Such a scenario would place heavy importance on vehicle maintenance.

138

Moreover, expansion in the number of active demand response transit vehicles is most

pronounced between FY 1990 and FY 1994. This implies that agencies added vehicle capacity

rapidly at the time they initially implemented complementary paratransit service under the ADA.

Since that time, however, fleet growth has been comparatively slow even as the number of

Page 56

passenger trips continues to steadily increase, further suggesting that agencies are more fully

utilizing existing vehicles rather than purchasing additional ones.

Comparing the number of active demand response vehicles to other modes really highlights the

vehicle-intensive nature of the service. During FY 2001, demand response agencies used 34,661

active vehicles – just less than half the number used by conventional fixed route bus agencies,

but at least three times the number of active vehicles used by any other mode. It should be

noted, however, that most other modes, particularly in the rail sector, use vehicles that are

designed to carry very large numbers of passengers in dense urban environments.

139

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 10 Number of Active Demand Response Vehicles (FY 1990-2001)

Workforce

NUMBER OF OPERATING EMPLOYEES

Examining the number of operating employees is another way to determine the level of labor

involved in providing a given mode of transit service. Since FY 1990, the number of operating

employees working to provide demand response transit services has grown by approximately

145%, from almost 23,000 employees in FY 1990 to almost 56,000 in FY 2001 (Figure 11).

This growth rate is considerably higher than that exhibited by any other mode.

140

The number of demand response operating employees is expanding at a much higher rate than

the number of demand response passenger trips – suggesting, as with vehicles, that the service is

very labor-intensive, and likely becoming more labor-intensive over time. This could be for any

one of a number of reasons. For example, demand response clients may require a greater level of

operator assistance than in years past; more administrative employees may be needed to guide

clients through program or trip eligibility processes, or to set daily demand response routes and

schedules; or more maintenance may be required to keep vehicles in a reliable operating

condition.

As with the number of active demand response vehicles, however, expansion in the number of

demand response operating employees is primarily concentrated early after the adoption of the

Page 57

ADA and succeeding regulations. This implies that agencies added comparatively large numbers

of paratransit staff at initial implementation, but since that time are more fully utilizing their

existing employees – likely in the scheduling, dispatching, and maintenance areas, as the number

of bus operators would seem to be the most sensitive to the number of trips taken.

On an outright basis, when compared to other modes, demand response transit is clearly very

labor-intensive. Despite its relatively small modal share in terms of passenger trips provided,

during FY 2001 demand response agencies employed 55,846 people in operations – a little more

than 1/4 of the number employed in fixed route bus operations, but considerably more than any

other mode.

141

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 11 Number of Demand Response Operating Employees (FY 1990-2001)

Performance Measures

OPERATING COST RECOVERY RATIO

Operating cost recovery ratio is one of the more widely accepted measures of transit efficiency

and performance. This ratio is defined as the percentage of operating costs that are recovered

through the collection of passenger fares. For example, an operating cost recovery ratio of 50%

would mean that for every dollar in operating costs expended, fifty cents are brought in at the

farebox.

Since the early 1990s, in terms of 2001 dollars, the operating cost recovery ratio for demand

response transit exhibits pronounced upturns and downturns, but generally remains flat to

slightly increasing – from almost 8% during FY 1990 to just over 10% during FY 2001. Since

the mid-1990s, however, the operating cost recovery ratio of demand response services exhibits a

generally decreasing trend (Figure 12). This indicates that, in later years, demand response

transit agencies are receiving a declining return on their operating expenditures, and are

increasingly having to cover the costs of operating their service with other sources of federal,

state, and local funding, advertising revenue, etc.

142

Page 58

Per the ADA and succeeding regulations, complementary paratransit fares are directly tied to

fixed route fares. Therefore, to improve farebox recovery assuming stable incremental operating

costs, the transit manager must increase fixed route fares, often a zero-sum proposition due to

transit fare elasticity; find a method by which to attract larger number of passengers while

keeping the level of service consistent in terms of vehicle miles and hours; or gain other

operating efficiencies.

When compared to other modes of transit, demand response service exhibits the lowest operating

cost recovery ratio in the industry. During FY 2001, its measure of 10.35% was roughly 1/6 the

recovery ratio of heavy rail services, about 1/5 that of commuter rail services, about 1/3 that of

trolleybus, conventional fixed route bus, and light rail services, and about 1/2 that of “other”

services, including vanpool and miscellaneous rail services. Demand response services also

operate at a level of cost recovery well under the industry average. During FY 2001, the overall

operating cost recovery ratio for all transit services was 37.81%. While demand response

services are very labor- and vehicle-intensive, and are intended to operate in less densely

populated service areas than other forms of transit, this indicator certainly suggests room for

improvement in terms of efficiency and productivity.

143

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 12 Demand Response Operating Cost Recovery Ratio (FY 1990-2001 based on 2001

dollars)

UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS PER REVENUE HOUR

This performance measure indicates the efficiency and productivity of transit service, in terms of

the number of people transported for each hour each vehicle is used in providing service. As

such, it is also a measure of the level of vehicle-intensity of a given type of transit service. Since

the early 1990s, demand response trips per revenue hour decline slowly but steadily – from about

5.5 passenger trips per revenue hour during FY 1990 to just over 3 passenger trips per revenue

hour during FY 2001, a percentage decline of about 42% (Figure 13). This further indicates the

increasing vehicle-intensity of demand response service, relative to the number of passengers

carried.

144

Page 59

When compared to other modes, demand response services are becoming significantly less

efficient and productive, and more vehicle-intensive, in terms of passenger trips per revenue

hour. Only vanpool services as part of the “other” mode classification exhibit a greater

percentage decline in passengers per revenue hour (about 48%) than do demand response

services. All other modes exhibit either a very modest decline in this measure, or a slight gain.

Overall, transit services experience a decline of about 15% in passengers per revenue hour over

the twelve-year period.

145

The decline in demand response passenger trips per revenue hour is troubling, but considering

this measure on an outright basis relative to the rest of the transit industry is cause for even more

concern on the part of transit managers and officials. In these terms, demand response is by far

the least efficient and productive mode of transit. During FY 2001, demand response services

carried less than 1/30 the level of trips per revenue hour as did light and heavy rail services, and

about 1/13 the level of trips per revenue hour as did conventional fixed route bus services.

146

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 13 Demand Response Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (FY 1990-2001)

UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS PER OPERATING EMPLOYEE

In much the same manner as unlinked trips per vehicle hour, this performance measure indicates

the efficiency and productivity of transit service. It also measures the level of labor-intensity of

service, in terms of the number of unlinked passenger trips that can be provided with a given

workforce. Like demand response passenger trips per vehicle hour, since the early 1990s, this

measure slowly and steadily declines – from almost 3,000 passenger trips per operating

employee during FY 1990 to almost 1,900 passenger trips per operating employee during FY

2001, a percentage decline of about 37% (Figure 14).

147

In terms of the percentage decline in this measure, demand response services perform far worse

than the rest of the transit industry. Such services exhibit a much higher rate of decline in

passengers per operating employee than all other modes (rail modes actually enjoy an increase),

and transit overall, which exhibits a decline of 11% in passengers per operating employee over

Page 60

the same period. Thus, demand response services are seemingly becoming more labor-intensive

than the rest of the transit industry.

148

On an outright basis, demand response also seems by far the least efficient and productive, and

most labor-intensive, mode of transit. During FY 2001, in terms of passenger trips per operating

employee, demand response services were only about 1/9 as productive as the next most labor-

intensive mode (commuter rail), and about 1/14 as productive as transit services overall.

149

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 14 Demand Response Passenger Trips per Operating Employee (FY 1990-2001)

OPERATING COST PER UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIP

This performance measure reveals the average operating costs involved in providing one

unlinked passenger trip – essentially indicating how expensive a given mode of transit is to

provide per capita. In 2001 dollars, the cost of providing demand response service increases

steadily over the period between FY 1990 and 2001 – from roughly $10.32 per trip in FY 1990

to $16.70 per trip in FY 2001, an increase of about 62%. Per-trip operating costs also seem to

rise more sharply of late, between FY 1999 and 2001 (Figure 15). This trend matches that seen

in overall demand response operating costs, despite increasing ridership over the same period.

150

Although the per-trip operating costs of most modes of transit increase in real dollars over the

twelve-year period (these costs actually decline for commuter and heavy rail services), no other

mode of transit matches the percentage increase exhibited by demand response services.

Overall, the per-trip cost of transit services increases by .4% in 2001 dollars over the period

between FY 1990 and 2001. Thus, it appears that demand response service is becoming more

costly to operate, at a more rapid rate, than other modes of transit. The increasingly labor- and

vehicle-intensive nature of demand response service may be one possible explanation for this

trend.

151

In outright terms, demand response service is significantly more costly to operate on a per-trip

basis than other modes of transit. During FY 2001, the per-trip operating costs of providing

demand response service were almost three times that required to provided commuter rail

Page 61

service, the next most-costly mode. Moreover, the demand response per-trip cost of $16.70 was

about seven times higher than the operating costs involved in providing one average transit trip

overall ($2.44).

152

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 15 Demand Response Operating Cost per Passenger Trip (FY 1990-2001 in 2001

dollars)

AVERAGE FARE COLLECTED

This is an important performance measure to consider because it reveals the average amount of

fare revenue the transit agency takes in per trip provided. Since the early 1990s, much like the

operating cost recovery ratio, the average fare collected by demand response transit agencies in

2001 dollars exhibits pronounced upturns and downturns, but is generally increasing – from $.82

during FY 1990 to almost $1.75 during FY 2001 (Figure 16). Over the twelve-year period, this

represents an increase of about 111%.

153

Although the average fare in real dollars of all non-rail transit modes increase over the same

period, no other mode of transit matches the percentage increase exhibited by demand response

services, which is greater than seven times the percentage increase of any other mode. Overall,

the average fare collected by all transit services increases by 1% over the period between FY

1990 and 2001. This seems to suggest that demand response transit agencies are increasing fares

at a rate much greater than the rest of the rest of the industry to better cover the high costs of the

service. The paratransit agency’s statutory and regulatory ability to charge up to twice the

comparable fixed route fare for ADA complementary paratransit trips may explain such a

phenomenon.

154

In outright terms, demand response service collects a relatively high average fare. During FY

2001, the demand response average fare of $1.73 was second only to that collected by commuter

rail agencies ($3.44). More telling, however, is the gap between average fare and average per-

trip operating costs of the service. For demand response services, this gap remains the highest in

the industry, both in terms of raw dollars ($14.97) and percentage.

155

Page 62

That the average fare collected by demand response agencies is so low compared to the cost of

the service seems to imply that ADA complementary paratransit exerts a strong influence within

the demand response mode. ADA paratransit fares are capped at no more than twice the

comparable fixed route fare by law and regulation, which would artificially depress the average

fare and raise the gap between per-trip cost and per-trip fares. Transit agencies that offer

demand response services to the general public have more discretion in the fares they can charge

to passengers to make up this gap. Moreover, such properties that transport human service

agency clients can seek a greater level of funding from these agencies to cover the costs of the

service. Were the majority of demand response trips of a non-ADA nature, the average fare

collected would likely be higher.

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 16 Demand Response Average Fare Collected (FY 1990-2001 in 2001 dollars)

Contribution of ADA Paratransit to the Operating Conditions of

Demand Response Transit Services

It is somewhat difficult to gauge the specific operating conditions of ADA complementary

paratransit, as a subset of demand response transit services, using data available from APTA and

the NTD. Beginning with FY 1996, however, agencies were required to begin reporting to the

NTD very basic information regarding the level of ADA complementary paratransit service

provided, and the cost of operating this level of service. Both statistics allow one to draw some

limited conclusions with respect to the amount of ADA paratransit service available to the

public, as well as to the degree of influence the ADA complementary paratransit requirement

exerts on the overall operating conditions of demand response transit.

ADA PARATRANSIT OPERATING COSTS

In terms of ADA complementary paratransit costs relative to overall demand response operating

costs, the ADA paratransit requirement seems to exert significant influence on the general

operating condition of demand response services, at least within the systems that are obligated to

report operating and financial data to the NTD. During FY 1996, the first year in which agencies

were required to report ADA paratransit data to the NTD, ADA paratransit operating costs

Page 63

accounted for about 61% of total demand response operating costs. Between FY 1997 and 2001,

ADA paratransit costs consistently make up about 72%-73% of total demand response operating

costs (Figure 17).

156

This would seem to suggest that either public transit agencies limit the amount of demand

response service provided outside of the requirements of the ADA, devoting most of their labor,

fuel, and maintenance resources to fulfilling their ADA-related legal and regulatory

requirements, or that ADA paratransit services are more costly to operate, on an average basis,

than other types of demand response services. Given the strict standards set by the ADA and

succeeding regulations to guarantee the availability of paratransit service to eligible persons, the

latter seems very likely. Moreover, that the total percentage of demand response operating costs

allocated to ADA paratransit service remains relatively stable over the over the last several years

implies that transit managers have found some method by which to balance their investment in

ADA paratransit with their investment in other types of demand response services.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Figure 17 Percentage of ADA Paratransit Operating Costs Relative to Total Demand

Response Operating Costs (FY 1996-2001)

ADA PARATRANSIT UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS

The ADA paratransit requirement also seems to exert significant influence over the general

operating conditions of demand response transit services in terms of the number of passenger

trips provided. As with operating costs, a large percentage of total demand response trips are

comprised of those provided under the auspices of the ADA. During FY 1996, the first year in

which agencies were required to report ADA paratransit data to the NTD, ADA paratransit

passenger trips accounted for almost 59% of total demand response passenger trips. This

number climbs slowly but steadily over the last several years, and surpasses 64% during FY

2001 (Figure 18).

157

This trend implies that the availability and utilization of demand response services of a non-ADA

nature is limited, when compared to that of ADA complementary paratransit services, in many

transit service areas. This is not to suggest that transit agencies purposely withhold paratransit

Page 64

service to other suitable populations, such as senior citizens or persons traveling to and from

more rural and sparsely populated portions of their service area. Such service may not be

warranted given the unique market characteristics of certain populations and service areas.

That the proportion of ADA paratransit trips relative to total demand response passenger trips is

smaller than that of ADA paratransit operating costs relative to total demand response operating

costs implies that ADA complementary paratransit is at least slightly more costly to provide, on

an average basis, than other forms of demand response transit service. Both proportions seem to

suggest that the ADA complementary paratransit requirement is no small factor in many overall

demand response operating statistics and trends, including those related to the amount of service

supplied and consumed, cost characteristics, vehicle fleets, the workforce, productivity, and cost

recovery.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Figure 18 Percentage of ADA Paratransit Passenger Trips Relative to Total Demand

Response Passenger Trips (FY 1996-2001)

Page 65

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES

Federal Assistance

Beginning with the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, and continuing up to the present,

the federal government delivers increasing amounts of financial assistance to the maintenance

and expansion of public transportation systems. Over the years, this support has evolved into the

following series of major funding programs, generally referred to by their place in Title 49 of the

USC.

SECTION 5303

This program supports “cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive” planning for transportation

projects, including those involving a transit component, at the MPO level. Section 5303 funds

are distributed to individual states based on a formula that takes into account, among other

factors, “each State’s urbanized area population in proportion to the urbanized area population

for the entire Nation.” In turn, each state distributes their share of funds to the MPOs based on a

similar formula. Both levels of apportionment include provisions for minimum shares of

available funding. Section 5303 funds are not likely to be used for ADA complementary

paratransit purposes, other than perhaps the most basic level of regional planning and

coordination between systems.

158

SECTION 5307

These funds are intended to provide for transit capital and operating expenses in “urbanized

areas”, defined as an “incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as

such by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.” Distributed by formula,

Section 5307 funds can be used to support a wide variety of transit business activities, including

“some Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service costs.” In very large

urbanized areas “with populations of 200,000 or more”, however, these funds cannot be used to

offset operating expenses.

159

SECTION 5309

Distributed on a “discretionary basis”, these funds are for capital investments only – rolling

stock, facilities, maintenance, technology, passenger amenities, and the like. Though the

program does not generally place any qualifiers on, for example, service area population or

amount of service provided, the funds cannot be used for operating expenses. Section 5309

would conceivably be used to purchase the vehicles used to provide ADA complementary

paratransit services, as well as other accessible transit vehicles.

160

SECTION 5310

This program is designed to support “the special needs of the elderly and persons with

disabilities”, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. Funds are

provided on a formula basis directly to each state, taking into account the elderly and disabled

population of the state. Each state, in turn, typically allocates its share of funds to transit

agencies and nonprofit groups that provide transportation services which complement existing

public transit. Section 5310 funds generally offset capital expenses, but can also provide for the

“acquisition of transportation services under contract, lease or other arrangements.”

161

Page 66

SECTION 5311

In contrast to Section 5307, this program provides for transit capital, operating, and overhead

expenses both within and between nonurbanized areas of “less than 50,000” people. Section

5311 funds are allocated by formula to individual states using a method similar to that employed

by the Section 5307 program.

162

SECTION 5311(b)(2)

Also referred to as the “Rural Transit Assistance Program” (RTAP), these funds are allocated by

formula in tandem with Section 5311 funds to “assist in the design and implementation of

training and technical assistance projects and other support services tailored to meet the needs of

transit operators in nonurbanized areas.” In essence, they allow rural transit operators to use

their Section 5311 funds more efficiently and effectively by helping to build the knowledge base

within these smaller transit properties.

163

SECTION 5313(b)

This funding program supports a wide variety of “statewide planning and other technical

assistance activities” in both urbanized and nonurbanized areas. Section 5313(b) funds are

distributed by formula, and include minimum funding shares for each state. As with the Section

5303 program, Section 5313(b) funds likely only contribute to the operation of ADA

complementary paratransit services in terms of basic planning and coordination.

164

JOB ACCESS REVERSE COMMUTE

Authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21

Century (TEA-21) through FY 2003,

the JARC program is intended to help:

develop transportation services designed to transport welfare

recipients and low income individuals to and from jobs and to

develop transportation services for residents of urban centers and

rural and suburban areas to suburban employment opportunities.

165

JARC funds can be used to cover a number of transit operating, capital, and promotion expenses,

and are distributed on a discretionary basis, with a much larger proportion of funds set aside for

the largest urbanized areas. Though JARC cannot be used to offset ADA complementary

paratransit expenses, agencies implementing new fixed route bus routes under this program must

also necessarily consider the associated ADA implications.

166

NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

This federal program supports the research and development of transit technology applications

designed to increase ridership and efficiency, promote environmental stewardship, and enhance

“safety and security.” Research and technology funds are distributed on a discretionary basis,

with no minimum share guaranteed to any particular geographic area. These funds would seem

to be particularly useful in enhancing the productivity of ADA complementary paratransit

services through the development and implementation of technology-based solutions.

167

FLEXIBLE FUNDS

Initiated under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and

continued by TEA-21, these funds can be allocated to either highway or transit projects,

Page 67

depending on local needs and as decided by some combination of local MPO and state DOT

decision makers. If “flexed” to transit, these funds can supplement an area’s Section 5307,

Section 5311, or Section 5310 funds. This means that in larger urbanized areas, flexible funds

generally cannot be used for transit operating expenses – with the one exception being funds

“flexed” to transit under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)

Program.

168

State and Local Assistance

Despite significant investment in public transportation by the federal government, financial

support from states, local governments, and transit agencies themselves is necessary to maintain

and expand transit services. State and local transit assistance can be allocated out of general

funds; can take the form of a dedicated portion of tax on income, sales, property, or gasoline; can

be provided out of road, bridge, and tunnel tolls; or might come from some other source

altogether. Moreover, transit agencies can help their own financial position in several ways – for

example, by designing an efficient and effective system of services, so as to maximize fare

revenues while minimizing costs; by selling advertising space in and on their vehicles and

facilities; and by providing maintenance and transportations services under contract to other

organizations.

The sources, amounts, provisions, and rules of each of these state and local transit funding

programs are too numerous and varied to be included within the scope of this research. That

noted, state and local assistance for transit is just as, if not more, important than that which is

provided by the federal government. State and local funding provides for many of the needs not

covered by any federal program – for example, transit operating assistance in urbanized areas

with a population of over 200,000. Moreover, virtually every federal transit assistance program

requires a certain state or local match to fully fund a project or agency. Depending on the

specific program, the required match can be anywhere from 10% to 50%.

Accordingly, it is critical that state and local governments provide transit funding that is both

adequate and stable enough to allow constituent transit agencies to take full advantage of their

share of any federal apportionments. To do any less would be to forgo scarce federal resources.

Further, such state and local funding allows the transit agency to build a system of services that

more fully meets the needs of the populace, and is indicative of a commitment to public

transportation at the hometown level.

Current Funding Trends

Current amounts of federal, state, local, and directly generated transportation funding, as well as

trends in these types of funding over time, seem to reflect one primary concern of transit

managers expressed during the drafting of the ADA – the lack of federal funds with which to

operate ADA complementary paratransit services according to federal requirements imposed by

Congress and the FTA.

OPERATING FUNDS

Since the adoption of the ADA and succeeding regulations, demand response transit services

exhibit tremendous growth, expressed in real dollars, of annual operating costs. Moreover, of

late almost 75% of these costs are directly related to the ADA complementary paratransit

requirement. Transit services overall show an increase of about 10% in annual operating costs

Page 68

over the period FY 1990 to 2001, in terms of real dollars. Yet, federal operating funds exhibit a

modest decline in terms of 2001 dollars over the period – falling from about $1.3 billion during

FY 1990 to about $1.1 billion during FY 2001, a decrease of about 14% (Figure 19).

169

Accordingly, state and local governments and transit agencies need to make up the difference.

This can be accomplished through general funds, taxes, tolls, or increased operating revenue

generated by the transit agency. Both state and local/directly generated operating funds exhibit

an increase in terms of 2001 dollars over the period FY 1990 to 2001. State operating funds rise

from about $4 billion during FY 1990 to about $5.7 billion during 2001 – an upsurge of about

42% over the period. Local and directly generated funds show moderate growth over the same

period, rising from about $16.4 billion during FY 1990 to almost $18.5 billion in FY 2001 – an

increase of over 12%.

170

It is clear that state and local governments, as well as transit agencies themselves, are responsible

for a very large, and increasing, share of transit operating costs – including those brought about

by the ADA complementary paratransit requirement. Moreover, the level of total operating

funds is higher than the level of total operating expenses throughout the period, and it would

seem that the increase of about 16% in total transit operating funds over the period FY 1990 to

2001, expressed in 2001 dollars, is sufficient to cover the corresponding increase of about 10%

in transit operating costs over the same period. This would imply that transit agencies have the

funding they need to operate their current services, including ADA paratransit. The critical

issues, however, are the methods by which funds are distributed to each individual transit

agency, and the manner in which these funds are allocated to the different services offered by

each agency. Based on the widely varied transit services and funding programs in place in each

locale, as well as the restrictions placed on funding programs, it would seem that some agencies

inevitably get the funding they need while others fall short.

171

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Directly Generated and Local

State Government

Federal Government

Figure 19 Transit Operating Funding by Source (FY 1990-2001 in millions of 2001 dollars)

Page 69

CAPITAL FUNDS

The current levels of and trends in transit capital funding are much different than those relative to

operating funding. All sources – federal, state, and local/directly generated – are contributing

more to transit capital purchases over the period FY 1990 to 2001, in terms of 2001 dollars. In

contrast to operating funds, the federal government contributes the largest share of transit capital

funding. Moreover, this contribution increases substantially over time. From almost $3.9 billion

during FY 1990, federal capital funds rise to almost $5.8 billion during FY 2001 – an expansion

of about 48% (Figure 20).

172

Local and directly generated capital funds increase at an even higher rate in terms of real dollars

over the same period. These funds rise from about $1.85 billion during FY 1990 to almost $4.6

billion during FY 2001 – an increase of almost 148%. Although these sources still provide a

smaller amount of capital funding than do federal sources, this trend clearly shows that local

governments and transit agencies are assuming a very significant responsibility for transit capital

investment.

173

State transit capital funds exhibit a level to slightly upward trend, in terms of real dollars, over

the period FY 1990 to FY 2001. Over this period, state transit capital funds increase from about

$944 million during FY 1990 to almost $1.1 billion during FY 2001 – a modest rise of about

13%.

174

Overall, both transit capital funding and capital costs increased by about 70% in terms of 2001

dollars over the period FY 1990 to FY 2001, while demand response capital costs increased by

about 80% over the same period. Moreover, one might logically assume that a large share of

capital funding is dedicated to very capital-intensive rail modes. This suggests that ADA

paratransit providers might soon experience difficulty keeping up with their capital needs based

on available financial resources. Reliable and accessible vehicles within other modes

(specifically fixed route bus and rail), however, are of prime importance in providing a more

direct and cost-effective alternative to paratransit. Accordingly, the paratransit manager should

regard capital investments in these other modes as wise and beneficial choices.

175

Page 70

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Directly Generated and Local

State Government

Federal Government

Figure 20 Transit Capital Funding by Source (FY 1990-2001 in millions of 2001 dollars)

Page 71

CASE STUDIES OF SMALLER PARATRANSIT SYSTEMS

To better define the operating condition of ADA paratransit at the smaller transit agency level, a

series of eight case studies were conducted as part of this research. These studies attempt to

document and facilitate analysis of paratransit implementation policies, operational procedures,

statistics, specific challenges, and solutions employed to meet those challenges.

Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority

AGENCY INFORMATION

The Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (ECCTA), more commonly referred to as “Tri Delta

Transit”, was founded in 1977. Based in Antioch, CA, Tri Delta Transit serves a mix of “rural,

suburban, and small urban” communities, including the cities of Pittsburg, Brentwood, and

Oakley, and the unincorporated towns of Bay Point, Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Byron, and

Knightsen. Tri Delta Transit also provides commuter service to the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area

Rapid Transit District (BART) station, and to Livermore in neighboring Alameda County.

176

This long-haul service is exempt from ADA complementary paratransit requirements. The

service area spans 225 square miles and is home to 225,000 people – a population density of

about 1,000 persons per square mile. The service area population is generally increasing, which

brings about an expanding pool of customers for the agency.

177

When asked about any remarkable geographic, climatic, or topographic barriers to efficient

operation of ADA paratransit service, Tri Delta Chief Executive Officer Jeanne Krieg offers that

“[t]he weather is very hot in the summer […] and very foggy in the winter [and] the rural areas

are sparsely populated.

178

The extreme heat and fog of eastern Contra Costa County could bring

about seasonal increases in vehicle breakdowns and accidents, not only for ADA complementary

paratransit services, but also for all transit services. More pertinent to ADA paratransit,

however, is the thin population density of certain portions of Tri Delta Transit’s service area.

Given the labor- and vehicle-intensive nature of demand response transit service, these sparsely

populated areas would almost certainly contribute to productivity and cost concerns for the

agency.

During FY 2001, Tri Delta Transit provided just over 2.3 million unlinked passenger trips by

means of their “fixed route, commuter service, paratransit, [and] medical service.”

179

The

agency provided this level of service by using 58 vehicles (45 fixed route and 13 paratransit) in

maximum service. Tri Delta Transit’s fleet consists of a combination of fixed route transit buses,

commuter coaches, low-floor transit buses, “trolley replicas”, paratransit vehicles, and

“converted minivans.”

180

These minivans, insofar as they offer the necessary capacity and are

fully accessible to persons with disabilities, likely provide a more fuel-efficient, if not less heavy

duty, alternative to the traditional paratransit vehicle. Minivan operation would not typically

require a transit operator to hold a commercial driver license, nor would their maintenance

require a mechanic to obtain specialized qualifications in heavy-duty diesel technology.

Therefore, this type of vehicle would seem to be an alternative for which the agency has access

to a larger pool of qualified drivers and mechanics, at a lower labor cost.

Tri Delta Transit’s organizational structure is arranged by function, including departments for

“Administration, Operations, [and] Maintenance.”

181

Page 72

ADA PARATRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION

Tri Delta Transit has many years of experience providing demand response services, and

implemented ADA paratransit service quickly. According to Krieg, “paratransit service for

seniors and the disabled began in 1979 [and] general public ‘Dial-a-Ride’ was provided from

1981 until 1991.”

182

The FTA approved Tri Delta’s initial ADA paratransit plan in 1992, and

approved updates as required until 1996. The service itself “was phased in between January

1992 and December 1993” in the following stages:

Stage 1

• Collaborate with other Bay Area transit properties to develop “regional eligibility criteria”

and a “standard certification process” for ADA paratransit patrons

• Define the ADA paratransit service area

• Develop policies and procedures to limit paratransit expansion to “non-subscription” trips, as

Tri Delta already offered subscription paratransit service to persons with disabilities up to the

fifty percent limit as defined by 47 CFR 37.133

• Design a fixed route travel-training program

Stage 2

• Implement the regional eligibility and certification standards

• Given these standards, determine eligibility for existing riders

• Develop new staffing procedures to allow for “next day scheduling,” as directed by DOT

regulations

• Deploy the fixed route travel-training program

Stage 3

• Modify the paratransit fare structure to comply with the ADA

• Expand complementary paratransit service days to comply with the ADA

• Expand complementary paratransit service hours to comply with the ADA

183

During the implementation process, Tri Delta Transit did not request any undue financial burden

waiver or implementation extension from the FTA.

184

PARATRANSIT SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS

Tri Delta Transit currently offers “door-to-door” paratransit to ADA-eligible customers, and to

non-eligible seniors and the disabled “if they complete a travel training course.” Non-ADA

paratransit is offered during strictly limited hours, in contrast to the ADA service, which is

offered during days and hours comparable to the fixed route service. Tri Delta Transit’s non-

ADA paratransit service is also offered at a much higher fare ($3 per trip, increasing to $4 this

year) than complementary paratransit ($1.50 per trip, increasing to $2 this year). The fare

increases will bring ADA paratransit fares in line with legal and regulatory limits (no more than

twice the fixed route fare), and should help to improve the operating condition of the service, in

terms of average fare collected and operating cost recovery ratio.

185

Moreover, all paratransit service offered by Tri-Delta Transit utilizes the same eligibility policies

and procedures. To apply, a customer completes an application and submits it to the transit

agency. The transit agency then forwards the application to a doctor for review, and calls the

applicant in for a “functional test” if necessary. Once eligibility is determined, a customer can

call from one to three days in advance to schedule a trip reservation. Reservations are accepted

Page 73

“from 6am to 6pm, seven days per week.” According to Krieg, “[s]ame day trip requests are

accommodated if possible.” Customers must cancel reservations “at least 24 hours in advance,”

however, a customer is only charged with a no-show if the trip is not cancelled within an hour of

the scheduled pick-up time. A one-month suspension of service can be imposed for more than

three no-shows in any six-month period.

186

It seems that the advance notice required for a

cancellation could be increased somewhat, to discourage late notification and improve

scheduling ability while still providing for comparable, quality service within legal and

regulatory limits.

Coordination with other Bay Area transit properties is evident from the Tri Delta Transit website.

A link is provided to the Transit511.org website, which includes very detailed information about

ADA complementary paratransit and how it operates within the region.

187

PARATRANSIT OPERATING ARRANGEMENTS

According to Krieg, “all ECCTA paratransit service is provided under a contract with Laidlaw

Transit. They provide operators, dispatchers, trainers, and schedulers. ECCTA owns and

maintains the buses.” Moreover, Laidlaw also operates Tri Delta Transit’s fixed route service.

Tri Delta Transit has always contracted for service because, “it is less expensive.”

188

PARATRANSIT FUNDING

Tri Delta Transit operates its paratransit service using a mix of state, local, and directly generated

funding sources. For the coming FY, the service will be funded as follows:

• State of California funding from a ¼-cent sales tax:

32%

• Contra Costa County funding from a ½-cent sales tax:

24%

• Capitalized federal ADA funding:

32%

• Farebox revenues, interest income, other miscellaneous:

11%

Krieg explains that “ECCTA does not [currently] use federal funds for operating”, therefore the

flexible funding programs initiated by ISTEA and continued under TEA-21 have not yet

contributed to the operation of ADA paratransit services.

189

This, however, may change in future years, as Tri Delta Transit begins using “capitalized”

funding from the federal government to assist in the operation of its ADA complementary

paratransit service. Tri Delta Transit’s urbanized area is home to over 200,000 people; therefore

the agency has historically not been eligible to use its allocation of Section 5307 funding to

offset operating expenses. With the adoption of TEA-21, however, transit agencies in such

larger urbanized areas “may use up to 10 percent of their annual formula apportionment to pay

for ADA paratransit operating costs.” In larger urbanized areas with more than one transit

agency, it is “the responsibility of the Metropolitan Planning Office, working with transit

operators, to allocate the 10 percent of the urbanized area's apportionment that may be used for

ADA paratransit purposes.”

190

Krieg states that this relatively recent change in the type of funding used for the operation of

ADA complementary paratransit does not constitute a windfall, but rather “really just has to do

with the color of money.”

191

While Tri Delta Transit will now have a much-needed source of

additional operating funds for its ADA paratransit service, these funds will come out of a pool

that was heretofore used to cover equally important capital costs. Whether this has a negative

impact on the ability of the agency to purchase accessible fixed route and paratransit vehicles to

Page 74

expand or update their fleet remains to be seen. If the federal government elects to continually

provide increases in transit capital funding, the net effect may be positive. But, where a transit

agency shares an urbanized area with one or more other transit properties, as in the case of Tri

Delta Transit, there is no guarantee that the allocation of this ten percent of the urbanized area’s

apportionment will be equitable.

OPERATING STATISTICS AND PERFORMANCE TRENDS

In terms of annual unlinked passenger trips, Tri Delta Transit’s paratransit service is growing in

the years following the passage of the ADA. Beginning in FY 1993, paratransit ridership grows

from 68,468, peaks during FY 1998 at 110,105, and settles at 97,843 during FY 2001. This

represents growth of about 42% over the nine-year period, well above the national paratransit

growth of about 29% over the same period. It should be noted, though, that the growth in Tri

Delta Transit paratransit service includes some additional ridership resulting from the operation

of a senior bus service taken over from one of the cities within the service area.

192

Total annual operating costs, expressed in 2001 dollars, generally decrease and level out over the

period between FY 1993 and 2001 – from a little over $1.9 million in FY 1993 to about $1.65

million in FY 2001, a total decrease of about 14%. Likewise, operating costs per passenger trip,

also in terms of real dollars, generally decrease over the same period – from almost $28 during

FY 1993 to almost $17 during FY 2001, a total decrease of almost 40%. Although operating

costs, both on an annual and per passenger trip basis, seem to be on the rise of late, these figures

show that Tri Delta Transit is doing an acceptable job of controlling costs. The agency’s FY

2001 per-trip operating cost is just pennies above the national average, despite a service area

situated in one of the most expensive regions of the country. Moreover, annual and per-trip

operating costs, in terms of 2001 dollars, bottom out the year Tri Delta Transit absorbed

paratransit service previously operated by a city within the service area. This suggests that,

given unique service area characteristics, the additional trips fit well within the existing

system.

193

Tri Delta Transit’s capital costs, like those of most agencies, vary widely in terms of 2001 dollars

over the period between FY 1993 and 2001, ranging anywhere from $65,190 (during FY 1998)

to $794,470 (during FY 1997). The level of capital expenses can be influenced by a large

procurement of vehicles or other infrastructure.

194

Over the nine-year period between FY 1993 and 2001, the productivity of the agency’s

paratransit (as measured by both passengers per revenue mile and passengers per revenue hour)

increases. Though both revenue hours and revenue miles of service are growing on an annual

basis, productivity increases by about 27% in terms of passengers per revenue mile, and by about

6 % in terms of passengers per revenue hour. This suggests that, in contrast to the national

trends, the paratransit services offered by Tri Delta Transit are becoming less vehicle- and labor-

intensive. As in terms of operating costs, the system seems to operate at peak productivity

following the absorption of the additional senior bus service previously operated by a city within

the service area.

195

ADA PARATRANSIT CHALLENGES

According to Krieg, the primary challenge faced by Tri Delta Transit in operating ADA

paratransit services is that the “[d]emand for subscription service far exceeds our 50% cap. It

would be much more efficient to allow for 75% [or more] subscription service.”

196

The ADA

Page 75

does not allow standing orders to exceed 50% of the available daily capacity, in order to allow

for spontaneous trip taking. If the remaining 50% of capacity is not utilized on a short-notice

basis, however, the transit agency may be left with excess capacity that it is not permitted to fill

with latent subscription trip demand.

Tri Delta Transit has not changed the way it plans for new and expanded fixed route service, nor

has it cut fixed route service, raised fares, or reduced staffing levels as a direct result of the ADA

complementary paratransit requirement.

197

ADA PARATRANSIT SOLUTIONS

By its own account, Tri Delta Transit is very aggressive in taking actions to reduce the cost, and

increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of its paratransit service. Toward this end, the

agency is making a significant capital investment in its system by deploying the Trapeze® PASS

system.

198

PASS is an automated paratransit scheduling and dispatch software package that is

intended to:

• Optimize paratransit schedules

• Allow reservationists to provide more accurate information to customers with respect to pick-

up and drop-off times

• Facilitate real-time adjustments to service

• Determine trip eligibility relative to ADA requirements

• Assist in the generation of a host of operating and performance data

199

Tri Delta Transit elects to further enhance PASS with: an interactive voice response (IVR)

system that will allow paratransit customers to make automated trip reservations directly over the

phone, thereby freeing up administrative staff resources to concentrate on other paratransit-

related tasks; mobile data terminals (MDTs) for each paratransit vehicle, which will provide the

driver with schedule information and eliminate the need for paper trip manifests; new computer

hardware within the dispatch center, to increase reliability; and a second radio channel to

enhance driver/dispatch communications. PASS can also be enhanced with technology that

allows for trip reservation scheduling over the internet, though Tri Delta Transit has not yet

elected to pursue this enhancement.

200

With respect to personnel and training, Tri Delta Transit added a Paratransit Coordinator to its

staff. This likely helps to enhance and streamline cooperation between the transit agency and its

contractor. Tri Delta Transit also provides customer service and phone technique training to

contractor staff to help ensure competency and sensitivity in dealing with paratransit clients.

201

All Tri Delta Transit fixed route bus stops are wheelchair accessible. Moreover, the agency

provides travel training to help senior citizens and persons with disabilities to navigate the fixed

route system, and all public information materials are provided in accessible formats. These

actions help to increase customer comfort with the use of the Tri Delta Transit system, and steer

some passengers away from paratransit and onto more efficient, less costly fixed bus routes that

promote the greatest possible level of independence for the consumer. For passengers not

eligible under the ADA, travel training is a necessary prerequisite to use Tri Delta Transit’s

paratransit services. This policy likely helps to curb paratransit use while maximizing awareness

of and exposure to the accessible fixed route services offered.

202

Page 76

Once a client has been found to be at least conditionally eligible (based on certain limited

circumstances or trip needs) for the ADA paratransit services offered by Tri Delta Transit, the

agency automatically provides full eligibility. As shown by demand response operating

statistics, an increasing number of passengers often leads to an corresponding increase in

operating costs, and can possibly bring about a decline in productivity. Krieg explains, however,

that such a policy “means our employees (schedulers) don't have to make judgment calls about

whether a person is eligible or not. Black and white works better for a system our size.”

203

Tri Delta Transit develops strong partnerships with other local agencies. In the mid-1990s, they

assumed operating responsibility for a senior bus system operated by a city within the service

area, and successfully integrated these clients with their existing paratransit system. This action

lowered per-trip operating costs, and increased productivity, as described earlier in this case

study. The agency is also party to a maintenance agreement, whereby Tri Delta Transit

maintains the vehicles of a local human service agency. Such an arrangement might help to fill

gaps in the maintenance workload, and bring in extra revenue for the transit agency. Moreover,

Tri Delta Transit adheres to a uniform regional system of ADA paratransit eligibility criteria and

procedures, and coordinates with other Bay Area transit properties to provide regional trips. This

regional approach not only helps the consumer to navigate complex trips using several different

transit agencies, it spreads the administrative burden of client intake and certification across

several agencies.

204

With respect to funding, Tri Delta Transit is active in the process of reauthorizing the ½-cent

sales tax for transportation in Contra Costa County. This will help to ensure that adequate

funding is available to allow the agency to provide continued ADA complementary paratransit

service, as well as the other fixed route and medical services it offers.

205

Duluth Transit Authority

AGENCY INFORMATION

The Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) was incorporated as a public agency in 1969. Based in

Duluth, MN, the agency serves an area characterized as “small urban to suburban”, including the

cities of Duluth and Proctor, MN, and Superior, WI.

206

As such, DTA’s service area crosses

state and county lines, and includes Saint Louis County, MN and Douglas County, WI.

207

The

service area covers 143 square miles and, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, is home to about

123,000 people – a population density of about 860 persons per square mile. The service area

population growth trend is generally flat. This means that the agency has the operational

advantage of dealing with substantially the same client base over time.

208

DTA Director of Administration, Jim Heilig, is quick to point out the harsh climate of the region:

“We are in a northern area so we do have snow and ice. Sidewalks need to be shoveled.”

209

This

winter climate presents safety and access challenges not only to the transit agency, but to its

older and disabled clients as well. Specifically, operators and clients alike can be more easily

injured in a “slip-and-fall” accident, which can lead to increased insurance and worker’s

compensation liability, and higher insurance rates. Where access to homes and trip generators is

hindered by snow and ice, vehicle boarding, alighting, and dwell times are increased.

Accordingly, productivity can suffer and costs can increase. Moreover, according to Heilig, “we

are on Lake Superior so we are not circular in shape […] there are major barriers such as hills,

streams, and ravines that separate neighborhoods.”

210

Where these obstacles are not

Page 77

accompanied by access points – such as bridges and tunnels – the effective paratransit service

area can increase from a 1-1/2 mile corridor to one many times larger. Less direct trips, and

longer trip distances and times result, and therefore lower productivity and service quality

usually follow.

During FY 2001, DTA provided a total of 3,176,273 unlinked passenger trips through their fixed

route and ADA paratransit service.

211

This service was provided by using 72 vehicles (63 fixed

route and 9 paratransit) in maximum service.

212

DTA’s fleet consists of a mix of fixed route

transit buses, paratransit vehicles, and vans. The organization is arranged by functional area.

213

ADA PARATRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION

DTA has acquired over twenty years of experience operating paratransit service, but the

implementation of ADA paratransit was somewhat complex given the composition of the service

area, involving two distinct strategies and sets of emerging needs. According to Heilig,

[S]ervice started in 1982. Under the old [Section] 504

[regulations] cities had their choice of making buses accessible or

providing paratransit services. On the Minnesota side the

paratransit service was started as policymakers thought the harsh

winters and hills would make it impossible for disabled people to

use the regular [fixed] route system. On the Wisconsin side, which

has flatter terrain, regular [fixed] route buses were ordered to make

the system accessible.

214

The FTA approved DTA’s initial ADA paratransit plan in 1993. The service itself was staged:

“on the Minnesota side, demand often exceeded supply” in the early going, and so the level of

service was gradually increased as the agency made the adequate preparations and took lessons

from their early experiences. Here, the agency had the advantage of a basic paratransit operation

and fleet already in place. Heilig states “[o]n the Wisconsin side service was implemented in

June of 1995.” As the DTA elected to satisfy the Section 504 regulations on the Wisconsin side

with accessible fixed route transportation, the agency was able to use some of this existing

experience to their benefit with respect to ADA compliance, but did need to add to their

paratransit workforce and vehicle fleet.

215

During the implementation process, DTA did not request any undue financial burden waiver or

implementation extension from the FTA.

216

PARATRANSIT SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS

DTA currently offers STRIDE (Special Transit Ride) “curb-to-curb” paratransit to ADA-eligible

customers, and to persons with disabilities not eligible under ADA, but who have been

“grandfathered in” from the paratransit services operated under the old Section 504

regulations.

217

All new applicants must be ADA-eligible to use the service. This approach likely

helped DTA to maintain a good working relationship with the local disability community, and to

avoid the controversy and negative publicity that would have been the result of terminating

service to non-ADA eligible persons with disabilities. Given the harsh winters that characterize

the service area, the decision to offer “curb-to-curb” service as opposed to “door-to-door” service

might help to minimize vehicle dwell time and increase productivity, but does so with the

consequence of increased risk of a weather-related injury on the part of the passenger.

Page 78

Therefore, it becomes critical to clearly define the rights and responsibilities of both the

passenger and the transit agency, and to place an emphasis on safety in employee training

activities.

STRIDE fares are described as “$1 during off-peak hours and on weekends, and $2 during

weekday peak hours.”

218

This is exactly twice the fixed route fare during the same periods, and

seems quite reasonable given the costs involved in providing paratransit service.

219

To apply for STRIDE, the customer completes an application and submits it to their health care

professional. The professional then certifies the inform