Transit Cooperative Research Project
B-40:
Strategy Guide to
Enable and Promote the Use of Fixed-Route Transit by People with Disabilities
Research Funding and Sponsors
This national research is
being conducted for the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), which is
part of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS). The research is
supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The primary
contractor carrying out the research is TranSystems Corporation. Other members
of the research team are The Collaborative, KFH Group, and the Disability
Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF). Research activities are overseen
and directed by a panel that includes representatives from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), National Rural Transit Assistance Program (NRTAP),
Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), and transit system
managers and representatives from Ann Arbor, MI, Baltimore, MD, Chicago, IL,
Corpus Christi, TX, Tampa, FL, Odessa, FL, Philadelphia, PA, Portland, OR,
Tulsa, OK, Washington, DC, and Willoughby, OH.
Research Problem Statement
The purposes and goals of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) are set out in the preamble
of the law (Section 2). The eighth paragraph of the preamble states:
The Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with
disabilities are to ensure equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living and economic self-sufficiency…”
In keeping with these goals,
a main tenet of Title II of the ADA is to provide services in the most
integrated setting possible. Separate
programs designed just for individuals with disabilities are permitted to
achieve equal opportunity, but mainstream, integrated services are to be used
to the maximum extent appropriate.
For public agencies that provide
transportation services to the general public, the primary goal of the law is
to make mainstream fixed route bus and rail systems accessible and usable by
individuals with disabilities. The law recognizes, though, that some
individuals with disabilities will not have an equal opportunity to benefit
from public transit services even if bus and rail systems are fully accessible.
To ensure equal opportunity for these individuals, the law requires that complementary
paratransit service be provided.
To prevent complementary
paratransit service from becoming the primary service for people with
disabilities, eligibility for this service was defined in detail in the law and
in the implementing regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT). The DOT ADA regulations also
require that public entities establish a process for determining eligibility
for complementary paratransit service and that this process “strictly limit ADA
Paratransit Eligibility” to those individuals who meet the regulatory criteria.
These provisions and requirements are intended to ensure that public transit be
provided to individuals with disabilities using mainstream, integrated bus and
rail systems to the maximum extent possible.
Developing an appropriate
balance between accessible mainline transit services and complementary
paratransit services has been one of the most challenging aspects of ADA
implementation. For example, significant improvements have been made in the
accessibility of bus and rail transit systems. In a 2010 paper marking the 20th
anniversary of the passage of the ADA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
noted the following achievements in fixed route transit access:
·
98 percent
accessibility of the nation’s fixed route bus fleet
·
Functional
access to 648 of the 681 stations identified as “key stations” in the nation’s
oldest rail systems
·
Access to 76
percent of the nation’s intercity rail (Amtrak) stations that serve 97 percent
of all boardings
·
Access to 84
percent of the nation’s light rail stations and 100 percent access to new rail
systems built since 1990
Despite these improvements,
demand for complementary paratransit service has increased since the passage of
the ADA. The 2010 FTA paper estimates that 15 million rides were provided on
complementary paratransit services in 1991. This increased to 45 million rides
by calendar year 2000. In 2008, it was estimated that 67 million rides were
provided to individuals determined ADA
paratransit eligible. And this trend appears to have continued through 2010.
There are likely many
reasons for the growth in demand for complementary paratransit service despite
the increased accessibility of the nation’s fixed route transit systems. First, a usable fixed route transit system
requires more than just accessible vehicles and major facilities. Bus stops
must also be accessible and riders with disabilities must be able to reach
these stops and facilities. Some transit agencies have proactively begun to
identify and upgrade older inaccessible bus stops, and are also working with
cities and towns to improve pedestrian infrastructure. However, it is likely
that the lack of accessible paths of travel to stops and stations still
prevents many riders from using fixed route services.
Second, while many people
with disabilities may have the ability to use fixed route services, at least
for some of their trips, they may have very limited experience (or none at all)
traveling by bus or train. Prior to the passage of the ADA, some transit
systems opted not to provide accessible fixed route service and instead
provided only demand responsive service for persons with disabilities. In some
areas, these demand responsive programs were in operation for decades. Even
though it has been more than 21 years since the passage of the ADA, it is
likely that making the transition from demand responsive service to fixed route
service is still difficult for many. To assist in this transition, some transit
agencies have implemented travel training programs and others have provided
fare incentives to encourage use of fixed route services. Studies have shown
that travel training programs are effective, but participation may not be
required and getting current paratransit riders to participate can be a
challenge. Fare incentive programs have also been effective in encouraging
greater fixed route use, but have sometimes been found to have other impacts,
such as increased demand for ADA Paratransit Eligibility in order to qualify
for the reduced fares. It seems clear, though, that more must be done to
facilitate and encourage greater use of fixed route services.
Third, implementing
effective ADA Paratransit Eligibility determination processes has been a
challenge in many areas. Determining whether individuals with various types of
disabilities and different levels of ability can, with a reasonable level of
effort and risk, perform all of the tasks needed to use fixed route transit
services is difficult. Each applicant is unique and there is no simple “checklist”
that can be used to make accurate and thorough decisions. Given that many
applicants can use fixed route services only under certain conditions,
decisions must be detailed enough to allow these conditions to be identified
and assessed. For several years after the passage of the ADA, most transit
systems continued to rely on paper applications. The majority of the largest
public transit systems have more recently transitioned to in-person processes,
but some still rely solely on paper applications. And because of the cost of in-person
processes, many public transit systems in small urban and rural areas continue
to use only paper applications, with the vast majority of applicants determined
“unconditionally eligible.” Successful
implementation of trip-by-trip eligibility continues to be a challenge. There
still appear to be only a small number of systems that actually apply
conditions of eligibility to individual trip requests.
Finally, more needs to be
done to provide positive experiences to riders with disabilities who elect to
use fixed route buses and trains. Vehicle operator training and consistent
assistance with boarding, alighting and securement appear to be ongoing issues.
Properly accommodating all mobility aids in a safe and timely way also continues
to be a challenge in various communities. Another issue for some riders with
disabilities is the attention and perceived disruption to the service that
results from inefficient or problematic boardings and securement. And more
could probably be done to educate riders with disabilities about the increased
accessibility and usability of fixed route services. Without a concerted effort
to provide public information and to reach out to riders with disabilities,
past experiences and outdated perceptions are likely still keeping some from
using buses and trains.
Recognizing the importance
of this issue, the American Public Transit Association’s (APTA) Transit Board
Members ADA Subcommittee and Access Committee initiated this research project. They desire to assist their member agencies
and other providers of public transit to better understand how transit
providers can encourage and promote the use of fixed route service by people
with disabilities. They envision a
strategy guide that will provide this understanding and the tools, including
strategies, incentives, practices and more, that transit agencies can use to
build fixed route ridership among their riders with disabilities. This is an
important objective with the opportunity to not only assist public transit
agencies but also people with disabilities who may benefit from the mobility
offered by fixed route transit for some or all of their trips.
Research Goal and Approach
The goal of this research is
to:
Provide
a practitioner’s strategy guide to enable and promote the use of fixed route
service by people with disabilities.
The research will be
conducted in two phases. The specific
objectives and tasks of each phase are detailed below.
Phase 1
- Identify and review the relevant literature
concerning the use of fixed route public transit service by individuals
with disabilities. The findings and recommendations from the existing
literature will be summarized and will serve as a baseline for this
research. The research will build on this past research and will provide
additional insights, findings and recommendations.
- Research and document current use of fixed route
services by persons with disabilities. While ADA complementary paratransit ridership
is well documented, less is known about the use of fixed route services by
persons with disabilities.
Researching and documenting fixed route use is an important factor that
helps provide a baseline for the research.
- Conduct outreach to get input from persons with
disabilities on the factors that influence decisions to use fixed route
service and complementary paratransit service. This outreach and the
resulting findings will supplement the understanding of factors documented
in the existing literature and are key to helping identify and document
strategies that encourage fixed route use by people with disabilities.
- Prepare and conduct a brief and straightforward
nationwide survey to identify efforts by transit systems to enable and
promote the use of fixed route services by persons with disabilities. Use
the results of this survey to identify efforts by transit systems across
the country (of varying sizes, in various regions of the country, and
operating a full range of service modes) and to select systems for more
detailed study in Phase 2.
- Design methodologies for evaluating the success
of efforts to enable and promote use of fixed route service for use in the
Phase 2 case studies.
- Prepare an interim report summarizing Phase 1
efforts. Describe the key findings and recommendations from the current
literature. Provide data on current use of fixed route in selected systems
and compare this to complementary paratransit use by persons with
disabilities. Summarize and assess the input received from individuals
with disabilities on the factors that influence mode choice. Present the
results of the nationwide survey and summarize current efforts by transit
systems. Use the information from the literature search and survey to
select types of efforts and specific transit systems for more detailed study
in Phase 2. Include the proposed methodologies for evaluating the success
of selected efforts. Include a detailed approach for Phase 2 activities.
Phase 2
- Examine the issues of eligibility determination,
conditional eligibility and trip-by-trip eligibility determinations in
more detail through follow-up contacts and case study research. Use the
information from Phase 1 to identify systems that are doing conditional
and trip-by-trip eligibility. Gather additional information from selected
systems on strategies employed. Evaluate the efforts using the methodology
developed in Phase 1. Summarize successful examples and develop detailed
guidance for inclusion in the final report.
- Examine in more detail through follow-up
contacts and “mini-case studies” incentives used to attract people with
disabilities to use fixed route services. Use the information from Phase 1
to identify systems. Gather additional information from selected systems
on the types of incentives offered and the strategies used. Evaluate the efforts
using the methodology developed in Phase 1. Summarize successful examples
and develop detailed guidance for inclusion in the final report.
- Examine in more detail, again through case study
research, efforts made by selected transit systems to improve the paths of
travel to and from bus stops and rail stations. Use the information from
Phase 1 to identify systems that have improved the pedestrian environment
and then gather additional information. Document funding used, cooperative
partnerships with local jurisdictions, and other key strategies. Evaluate
the efforts using the methodology developed in Phase 1. Summarize
successful examples and develop detailed guidance for inclusion in the
final report.
- Identify other efforts from the Phase 1 work
that appear to have been particularly effective and that respond to
factors influencing mode choice by riders with disabilities (obtained in
3. above). Gather additional information from selected systems, evaluate
the efforts using the methodologies developed in Phase 1, and summarize
successful examples. Develop detailed guidance for inclusion in the final
report.
- Develop methods to assess the benefits to riders
of use of fixed route services. Also develop methods for communicating
these benefits to riders and practitioners.
- Based on the detailed case studies of each type
of effort, revise the methodologies for evaluating success and
effectiveness. Develop metrics, measures and criteria for evaluating each
type of effort, including determining the cost savings and/or cost
avoidance from greater fixed route use.
- Prepare a final research report summarizing all
research efforts and findings. Also
prepare a strategy guide for use by transit agencies and other
practitioners for selecting, implementing and evaluating appropriate
efforts. The strategy guide will be usable by transit systems of various
sizes, systems operating various modes, and systems with varying levels
and types of resources.
In addition to examining
individual efforts and approaches for encouraging and facilitating increased
use of fixed route services, the study will look at the benefits of combining
multiple approaches. Systems that have been most successful in encouraging
fixed route service employ and integrate multiple efforts. For example, travel
training efforts tend to be more effective when integrated with eligibility
determination processes. Fare incentive programs also can be more cost
effective, and the unintended consequences limited, if implemented along with
more thorough eligibility determination processes. And efforts to improve the
pedestrian infrastructure can be more effective when priority stops are
identified using information from travel training and eligibility determination
processes. The study’s final report and strategy guide will present and stress
a holistic approach to encouraging fixed route use.
