Initiative ~ Executive Order ~ HHS Role ~ News & Additional Resources

Delivering on the Promise
Table of Contents

U.S. Department of Transportation
[Complete Report: HTML = 139K / PDF = 154K]
Table of Contents ~ Part I ~ Part II ~ Part III ~ Part IV ~ Part V
Part VI ~ Part VII ~ Part VIII ~ Part IX ~ Part X ~ Part XI

Self-Evaluation to Promote
Community Living for People with Disabilities

Report to the President
on Executive Order 13217

What transportation and transportation-relate barriers to full community inclusion are there to people with disabilities?

Curb Cuts:

People with disabilities often state that their first priority in making transportation infrastructure accessible is building and maintaining curb cuts in America's cities, towns, and suburbs. Curb cuts, also called curb ramps, are the sloping transitions between sidewalks and streets and roads. These make mobility by people with mobility impairments, such as wheelchair users, much easier, because such users can independently move from sidewalk to street as part of an accessible route. Curb cuts contribute significantly to independent travel by people with mobility impairments. Although these curb cuts have been in essence required in entities that receive federal financial assistance since 1973, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of curb cuts have not been built. Many curb cuts that have been built are not properly maintained, or were not built properly. Curbs cuts cost approximately from $500 to $2600 each when retrofitted to existing sidewalks/curbs/streets, with a commonly quoted cost of $1200 each. Curb cuts have synergistic benefits to many other users, such as families pushing baby strollers, people pulling home grocery carts, and children on bicycles and roller blades. At least one group of people with disabilities has expressed reservations about curb cuts -- some blind advocacy groups state that sharp, angled, distinctions between sidewalks and streets are easier for the blind to locate by feel. DOT generally has jurisdiction over curb cuts because curbs run along the edges of streets and roads, and curbs are often rebuilt when a road is fixed.

Solutions:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):

In July 1999, the DOT issued an Accessibility Policy Statement pledging a fully accessible multimodal transportation system. Accessibility in Federally-assisted programs is governed by the DOT regulations (49 CFR part 27) implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794). The FHWA has specific ADA policies for statewide planning in 23 CFR 450.220(a)(4), for metropolitan planning in 23 CFR 450.316(b)(3), and for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in 23 CFR 771.105(f). These regulations require application of the ADA requirements to Federal-aid projects, including Transportation Enhancement Activities (TE). Some TE projects may not require installation of accessible facilities, such as a project which consists solely of acquisition of a scenic easement. Others require full compliance with ADAAG, such as a newly constructed interpretive center for a scenic highway. Parking, restrooms, water fountains, telephones, and similar facilities built as part of a TE project must be accessible. Alterations of historic facilities are covered under 28 CFR 36.405, which provides some alternatives within ADAAG, but applies only to private facilities subject to title III of the ADA.

FHWA has issued a document on "Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision Making," which includes a substantial section on the ADA, and involving people with disabilities. It notes, "Agencies' efforts are not fully inclusive of everyone's ideas until they include people with disabilities. This requires an expansive approach to accommodate the population that is disabled and that would not otherwise be accommodated in transportation plans or processes." It also states, "Every State and MPO [metropolitan planning organization] should make events accessible."

Transportation facilities must include features that will allow people of all abilities to use them. The federal-aid highway program can work hand in hand with the ADA which requires many pedestrian facilities be accessible for people with disabilities. Accessibility is not an exclusive or separate issue. Rather, accessibility design is fundamental to the walking environment, because all pedestrians with or without disabilities benefit from accessibility design. Accessibility is an intrinsic part of planning, retrofitting and constructing pedestrian facilities, along with safe accommodation and good design. Accessibility is a safety issue, because if a facility is not accessible, then it is not safe for more than 54 million people in this country who have some form of disability.

FHWA has issued Volume 2 of "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access." Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I, A Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, covers accessibility standards, legislation requirements, users' abilities and needs, the planning process, analysis of current design practices. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II, Best Practices Guide, is a guide for people responsible for constructing sidewalks and trails (engineers, designers, public works, contractors, developers, landscape architects, and planners). It is a step by step approach to creating usable pedestrian facilities, and takes into account all users' needs (universal design). FHWA has made it clear that waivers to constructing accessible routes of travel are difficult to obtain: "A waiver may be applied for to the requirements of paragraph (a) above on a case-by-case basis. In general a waiver is difficult to obtain and based on severe local conditions. Provision of an alternate accessible routing in lieu of making a pedestrian overpass or underpass accessible also requires a waiver.... The design of all new and altered rest area facilities and parking facilities must comply with the requirements of accessible design."

FHWA is also obligated to provide technical information to the field about how to comply with highway-related ADA provisions -- how to ensure that new design and construction is in compliance and how to implement effective procedures for reducing vulnerability to complaints. Another area in which this technical guidance is particularly necessary is in the right-of-way program. In the course of this program, FHWA frequently appraises, acquires, and disposes of structures subject to ADA provisions -- that is, public accommodations such as business or commercial facilities. FHWA right-of-way personnel have to understand how ADA affects the appraisal value, management, and resale of these structures; they must also understand the impacts and intricacies of relocating people with disabilities from these structures. To this end, FHWA's right-of-way program has developed a white paper for state departments of transportation and local public agencies. FHWA is also developing a course to ensure universal design standards are incorporated in all new work and on all repairs.

Paratransit, Innovations, Alternatives:

Paratransit is the parallel public transit system set up under the ADA to provide accessible transportation to people with mobility impairments who live in areas served by fixed route public transit systems that are not fully accessible. Many transit properties complain that they cannot comply fully with the requirements for ADA Complementary Paratransit because of budget constraints. Disability advocates are concerned with capacity constraints by transit providers, lack of timely service, missed calls for pick-ups, and other issues.

Capacity constraints are illegal limits placed on quantity of service made available by operators. The ADA requires fixed route operators to provide Complementary Paratransit service for passengers with disabilities who cannot use buses and subways or other "fixed-route service."

A dramatic increase in demand has lead to record ridership, resulting in capacity constraints. In some cases, resources have not been allocated by transit properties to meet the increased demand. In many cities, advocates have had to wage long battles for the basics: purchase and use of accessible buses, regular maintenance of bus accessibility features (especially wheelchair lifts), implementation of effective paratransit programs, and alteration of key stations in rail systems to provide access. Compliance is challenging in key stations because they were built at different times, with different facility standards.

There are an estimated 54 million Americans who have a significant physical or mental disability that significantly limits one or more major life activity. Approximately 70% of adult persons with disabilities are unemployed. Even with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, lack of adequate transportation continues to be a primary barrier to work for people with disabilities: one-third of people with disabilities report that inadequate transportation is a significant problem. There is a need for programs that would expand the transportation mobility options available to persons with disabilities beyond the minimum required under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA only makes existing transportation accessible. It does not address the transportation gaps that exist. There are many continuing and unique challenges faced by persons with disabilities that stretch beyond the ADA, or that could be better addressed than by current methods being applied. The following are examples of remaining issues:

The Olmstead court decision is de-institutionalizing persons with cognitive disabilities so that they may be part of their communities. These individuals have many unique transportation challenges that need to be addressed and solutions found. In addition, President Bush issued an Executive Order in which he expanded the concepts in the Olmstead Supreme Court decision to include federal agencies evaluating their programs and taking necessary actions for greater community inclusion of people with disabilities. Transportation is a vital part of such inclusion, for example, from home-based services to jobs or training.

There is a need to test emergency evacuations systems for persons with disabilities, especially in view of terrorist attacks.

Current ADA complementary demand-responsive transportation systems do not respond to real time trip needs, but instead respond to next day trip reservations. Persons with disabilities cannot always precisely plan trip needs in advance. Current paratransit services provided by transit providers are expensive, heavily subsidized, and result in a large number of administrative complaints due to lack of service or poor service.

Paratransit and Fixed Route Public Transit:

For those individuals who use either paratransit or fixed route transportation, there continue to be concerns in several areas:

1. Working Equipment: Are lifts, elevators, and other equipment that facilitates access in working order?

2. Stop Announcements: Are drivers consistently calling out stops?

3. Securement: Are drivers knowledgeable about the securement system, and can they secure an individual effectively and efficiently?

4. Driver Training: In addition to the areas of securement and stop announcements, have drivers received training to adequately assist passengers with disabilities in a courteous and respectful manner?

5. Scheduling: For those individuals who use Paratransit, do services operate in a timely and efficient way? Is there a chance that services will not be dispatched, or those services will be significantly delayed without any notification?

Solutions:

Federal Transit Administration (FTA):

FTA has responsibility for enforcing the ADA regulations regarding paratransit. It has included accessibility in its strategic plan: "Shape America's future by ensuring a transportation system that is accessible, integrated, efficient, and offers flexibility of choices."

Under the ADA, FTA enforces the following provisions: (1) No transportation entity is permitted to discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service; (2) All new vehicles purchased by public and private entities after August 25, 1990, must be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs; (3) Public entities that provide fixed route transit must provide complementary paratransit service for persons with disabilities, who are unable to use the fixed route system, that is comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities; and (4) Public entities operating light, rapid or commuter rail systems must designate key stations which were to be made accessible by July 26, 1993, unless the operator received a statutory time extension.

The Formula Grants for Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities provides transit capital assistance, through the States, to organizations that provide specialized transportation services to elderly persons and to persons with disabilities. The Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities provides financial assistance for the specialized transportation service needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. The program is administered by the States and may be used in all areas (urbanized, small urban, and rural). The Nonurbanized Area Formula Program provides financial assistance for the provision of public transportation services in nonurbanized areas and is also administered by the States.

FTA continues to monitor the implementation of the ADA to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to mass transit services as required by law. FTA oversight concentrates on three primary areas: the provision of ADA Complementary Paratransit Service, the accessibility of the fixed route service, and the accessibility of rail service as required for existing designated key stations, newly built stations and those undergoing major alterations. In addition to the triennial review and oversight activities, it also has a process in place for addressing complaints from riders regarding the ADA.

ADA enforcement has been a major component in reaching the current standing of over 80% of America's public transit fleet vehicles and key existing subway, commuter rail, and light rail stations being accessible. Since 1996, FTA has resolved approximately 200 ADA complaints per year. FTA's ADA Team received and fielded more than 5200 telephone calls through the ADA hotline in calendar year 2000. The ADA Team responds to electronic inquiries from across the country, providing assistance to persons with disabilities, transit properties, local and state governments, public service agencies, attorneys, and the general public. FTA expanded the range of information on its public web site including an ADA complaint form and a copy of the DOT ADA regulations. FTA conducts Triennial Reviews of all grantees receiving FTA capital funds to ensure that certain requirements are met.

Geographic Distribution of Population with Disabilities:

People with disabilities are broadly distributed geographically throughout the U.S. population. Because they are not concentrated, it is harder to serve them using models that have been tried for some other transportation disadvantaged populations, such as those based on race or ethnicity. Lack of critical mass of numbers makes economies of scale difficult to achieve.

Solutions:

As an agency with nation-wide reach, DOT is helping to identify and serve the transportation needs of people with disabilities everywhere in the United States.

Rural Issues:

Despite more than 20 years of federal involvement in supporting rural transit programs, nearly 1,300 rural counties in the U.S. have no public transportation. (Community Transportation Association of America) Forty percent of all rural residents live in an area with no form of public transportation, another 28% live in areas with very low levels of service provision (Rucker, 1994; CTAA, 1998). Nearly 80% of rural counties have no public bus service, compared to 2% of metro counties (Federal Highway Administration, 1995). One in every 14 households in rural America has no vehicle. Nearly 57% of the rural poor do not own a car (Rucker, 1994). Ninety-six percent of public assistance recipients have no personal automobile (Miller, 1997). (Rural Policy Research Institute)

The lack of transportation is one of the most frequently cited problems facing people with disabilities living in rural areas. There are approximately 13.2 million people with disabilities living in rural areas of the U.S. Despite the significance of the problem, few models for delivering transportation to people with disabilities in rural areas have been reported. Accessible rural public transportation systems are rare and costly to operate due to low usage and long distances traveled.

The Department of Health and Human Services has created a Rural Task Force to conduct a department-wide examination of how HHS programs can be strengthened to better serve rural communities. The Task Force, assigned to report its findings to HHS Secretary Thompson by October 25, 2001, asked for and received public comments on programs serving rural communities. To date comments received by HHS have identified the lack of transportation (especially for people with disabilities) as a major obstacle in the delivery of HHS programs in rural areas. In response to these comments HHS and DOT have initiated discussions to determine how they can jointly address the identified problems.

Solutions:

The Federal Transit Administration bears the primary responsibility within DOT for addressing the needs of people with disabilities who lives in rural areas. Please see the discussion of FTA's responsibilities, projects, and accomplishments.

The purpose of the Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program, administered through the FTA, (Web site: www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/rtaccess.htm), is to help over-the-road bus operators finance the incremental capital and training costs of complying with the Department's final rule on accessibility of over-the-road buses. Eligible projects include the incremental costs of ADA accessibility for operators of over-the-road buses in intercity fixed-route service and other service such as local fixed route, commuter, charter and tour service. There is a competitive grant selection process. Funding is $24.3 million for FYs 1999-2003. DOT is developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a variety of rural issues. Rural accessible transportation could be included in that MOU.

Over-the-Road Buses:

Some of the most active disability advocacy groups feel strongly that over-the-road buses (OTRBs) should be fully accessible to people with mobility impairments. These are large intercity buses that typically carry luggage and packages under the passenger area. Currently almost no such buses are accessible. They provide one of the few kinds of public transportation in rural areas, and are used largely by low-income people. Many people with disabilities are also low-income, because of the very high unemployment rate among people with disabilities.

Solutions:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:

DOT issued regulations under the ADA in 1998, requiring the phased-in accessibility of over-the-road buses. The rulemaking was highly controversial. Long sought by members of the disability community and strongly opposed by the OTRB industry, the rule was issued more than five years after the ADA's statutory deadline. The rule contained information collection requirements to respond both to disability community concerns that bus companies would not provide the required accessible buses and service and to industry concerns that the cost of accessibility would have few benefits as measured by increases in ridership by persons with disabilities. Over-the-road bus companies raised alleged adverse economic impacts on their profitability if they had to make their buses accessible.

TEA-21 provides a modest subsidy to OTRB companies to assist in compliance with ADA requirements. Due to past financial problems in the OTRB industry, the bus companies also receive a partial federal fuel tax exemption, which is effectively a subsidy. The grant program is administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). FTA has administrative enforcement authority under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 with respect to recipients of such subsidy funds. DOT has a statutory and regulatory responsibility to implement ADA requirements effectively with respect to the OTRB industry. DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has an ongoing regulatory relationship with OTRB companies with respect to safety matters, and so has existing channels of communication with the industry that it can use for OTRB ADA program purposes. It has staff who collect and compile data concerning other aspects of OTRB operations, as well as resources in information systems and program expertise.

The DOT regulation required large, fixed-route over-the-road bus like Greyhound, whose service is the backbone of the intercity bus system, to make sure that all new buses they obtain are accessible, with wheelchair lifts and tie-downs that allow passengers to ride in their own wheelchairs. The rule requires fleets to be completely accessible by 2012. Most smaller fixed-route companies also will acquire accessible new buses, although they do not have a deadline for fleet accessibility. They also can provide equivalent service in lieu of obtaining accessible buses. Charter and tour companies will have to provide service in an accessible bus on 48 hours' advance notice. Fixed-route companies must also provide this kind of service on an interim basis until their fleets are completely accessible. The rule makes carriers accountable for providing this advance notice service by requiring them to compensate passengers when they fail to provide the required service on time. Small carriers which provide mostly charter or tour service and also provide a small amount of fixed-route service can meet all requirements through 48-hour advance-reservation service. Small carriers have an extra year to begin complying with the requirements, which apply to them starting in October 2001, compared to October 2000 for large carriers.

Over-the-road buses are an important link in the U.S. transportation system, especially for low income people and rural families. DOT estimates that the cost of compliance will be $22-$30 million annually, and that new passenger traffic will reduce the cost to an estimated net cost of $15-$26 million per year. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized an average of $4.86 million in federal assistance from fiscal 1999 to 2003 to over-the-road bus companies to help pay for accessible costs. Another TEA-21 program makes available an additional $31.4 million per year over the same period for rural intercity bus service.

Car Ownership:

There is a strong correlation between not owning a car, poverty and the infirmities associated with aging. Not owning a car is most prevalent among the poor -- including the elderly poor, the working poor and the unemployed. Physical disabilities associated with aging are another significant correlate of not owning a car. Physical disabilities that require wheelchair use are widely recognized as a powerful correlate of mobility disadvantage, but affect a much smaller population than the low rate of car ownership associated with poverty and/or aging. Not owning a car is also strongly correlated with urban location. Lack of car ownership is most isolating for those who live alone in suburban communities. Not owning a car seems to be least isolating for those with a large friendship circle and least immobilizing for those who live in urban settings suited to walking and the use of public transportation. The mobility available to those who do not own cars hinges on the ability of others to provide transportation when and where it is needed. These "others" include transit agencies, taxi companies, paratransit providers, family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, schools, churches, senior centers and social service agencies.

The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) reports that there are more than 100 million low-income, older Americans, and people with disabilities at risk of being unable to provide or afford their own transportation and who are likely to be dependent upon others for their mobility. The President's New Freedom Initiative will help address these problems.

Solutions:

DOT does not yet have programs that provide for acquisition of cars by people with disabilities. However, in its Welfare-to-Work programs, DOT has distributed information on charity car and car sharing programs. As discussed elsewhere in this Report, NHTSA has programs that provide consumer and safety information to people with disabilities who wish to purchase adapted vehicles. Several of the major automobile manufacturers have programs to provide some financial assistance to people with disabilities who wish to purchase adapted versions of their products. The Department of Veterans Affairs will, under certain circumstances, help provide monetary assistance to veterans with disabilities in the purchase of such a vehicle. At least one state provides revolving microloans to assist in purchase of vehicles by people with disabilities.

Interrelationship of Housing and Transit:

One difficulty in providing accessible, integrated transit services is the lack of a requirement in other programs, such as HUD or HHS programs, that transit transfer locations be provided in their projects, particularly in renovation and new construction projects. Often it is an afterthought to put in a bus stop or paratransit transfer point. If planned correctly, transit can provide accessibility to facilities and programs for employees, customers, and clients. If it is not considered early the location can be too far from entrances or driveways may not provide enough room to provide the requested services.

Solutions:

There are currently no programs in DOT to address this issue, beyond the very broad range of public transit services supported by DOT. The housing services issues may be a fruitful one for HUD to address with the help of DOT. DOT provides federal financial assistance to public transit providers, which are motivated to locate public transit routes and stops near housing concentrations.

Job Access Placement and Transportation:

In job placement not every job is a good job. If the cost of providing transportation to remote locations exceeds the weekly pay of the returning worker, after a subsidy is exhausted, then the person will not be able to keep the position. If transportation needs to be provided, the job developer and agencies must consult and work with the transit operator to ensure that the service that is needed is available and affordable to the worker before they complete the placement.

Solutions:

FTA has addressed some of these issues through its Job Access and Reverse Commute program, and expanding efforts to work with the Department of Labor on issues relating to the role of local One-Stop Career Center Systems in addressing individuals' transportation needs, as they relate to employment. In terms of responding to the opportunity issues in transportation, the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program has been established. This Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) initiative has two major goals: 1) to provide transportation services in urban, suburban and rural areas to assist welfare recipients and low income individuals access to employment opportunities, and 2) to increase collaboration among the transportation providers, human service agencies, employers, metropolitan planning organizations, states, and affected communities and individuals. The guaranteed funding levels will increase annually from $50 million in FY1999 (actual funding for FY 1999 is $75 million) up to $150 million in FY2003. One of the criteria for project selection is the degree to which collaborative and consensus-based planning and decision-making processes have been utilized, with particular evaluation of participation by non-traditional/grass-roots organizations. Many of the projects are focused on expanding early morning, nite owl and weekend services.

The Job Access and Reverse Commute grant program provides funding on a competitive basis to communities trying to address gaps in transportation services to low-income people who are trying to work. As noted elsewhere, many people with disabilities are low-income and unemployed. It aims to establish a regional approach to job access challenges through the establishment of an Area-Wide Job Access and Reverse Commute Transportation Plan to facilitate region-wide collaboration among transportation and human service providers to connect welfare recipients and low-income individuals to employment activities. For more information, see www.fta.dot.gov/wtw.

Non-Peak Hours Access:

Some people have commented that transit operators need to provide better accessibility and more mobility during non-peak hours. There are potential benefits of improving transit accessibility and mobility during non-peak hours but not all transportation system needs can be met with the limited funds available.

Solutions:

TEA-21 requires that the planning process for metropolitan areas consider projects and strategies that "...increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people..." as well as "...promote efficient system management and operation..." FHWA and FTA encourage transit operators and metropolitan planning organizations to consider the benefits and costs of these types of transit service improvements during the development of the revenue constrained plans and programs.

Availability of Oxygen on Commercial Flights:

FAA regulations prohibit passengers from bringing their own oxygen on board for use during flight. Passengers can, however, check empty oxygen cylinders as baggage for retrieval at their destinations. Only carriers can provide medical oxygen for passenger use in flight. A few do not provide it at all, citing training and other costs. Most do provide it, at an additional charge that deters some oxygen users from traveling. The disability community would like DOT to require all carriers to provide it, at no or nominal charge, through an amendment to the ACAA regulations. For a number of years disability advocates have asked the Department to issue a regulation requiring air carriers to provide oxygen to passengers needing it.

Solutions:

General Counsel's Office:

At a May 2001 forum organized by DOT's General Counsel's Office, the airline industry and disability groups agreed to discuss the issue of air carriers providing oxygen to passengers with disabilities and try to reach a joint recommendation they could make to DOT. They are currently in discussions concerning service animals traveling with people with disabilities and have agreed to tackle the issue of oxygen next. The Department will consider issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject in the near future. Representatives from the disability community and industry groups have expressed a willingness to work together to determine the feasibility of participating in a private negotiation on the use of oxygen aboard aircraft by passengers with disabilities. This commitment by disability community organizations and airline associations was a result of our first forum on "Working Together to Improve the Air Travel of Passengers with Disabilities." A joint proposal by disability groups and industry on oxygen use aboard aircraft would make the task of drafting a regulation concerning oxygen on commercial flights significantly more efficient.

There remain a number of accessibility issues unresolved. These include the following:

• Accessible terminal transportation systems;
• Boarding chair standards;
• Substitute transportation for persons unable to board small aircraft;
• Accessible lavatories on narrow body aircraft;
• Open captioning for in-flight movies and videos;
• TT service on aircraft.

A second forum was held on January 29, 2002. Topics included the following:

• Boarding and deplaning assistance;
• Stowage of wheelchairs and other assistive devices;
• New security procedures and their impact on passengers with disabilities.

Trip Planning:

According to Project Action, trip planning is the most critical segment of travel for people with disabilities. Here, they must use the telephone or Internet, maps, advice of others familiar with the transportation system's barriers and problems, and other aids to assess the feasibility of the trip. Ascertaining feasibility requires anticipating the barriers that the trip will present and "mentally" overcoming them beforehand. Only when feasibility is firmly established can travelers with disabilities begin the trip with substantial likelihood of successfully completing it.

Solutions:

Easter Seals' Project Action, a grantee of the Federal Transit Administration, has initiatives dealing with trip planning for people with disabilities.

Heavy Rail Vehicles:

According to DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1999," "the percentage of transit vehicles providing accessible service under the ADA varied dramatically by type of transit, but was generally higher in 1997 than in 1993. About 68% of buses were ADA accessible in 1997, up from 53% in 1993. Only 29% of commuter rail vehicles were accessible in 1997, but this was higher than the 18% in 1993. A relatively large percentage of heavy-rail vehicles were ADA accessible, 78% in 1997, but there has been no improvement since 1994." In fact there has been a reported slight decline in accessibility of heavy-rail vehicles since 1994. There are reports that this decline may be an artifact of statistical reporting. Note that these statistics apply to public transit vehicles, and not AMTRAK. The Federal Railroad Administration does not appear to have statistics available on the number and percent of accessible AMTRAK passenger cars. At current rates of improvement in accessibility, all commuter rail vehicles will not be accessible until about the year 2015. There are also problems experienced with platform to car gaps.

Solutions:

There are some definitional issues regarding heavy rail vehicles. Some are public transit vehicles, under the jurisdiction of FTA, discussed elsewhere in this document. Others are AMTRAK passenger railroad cars, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which has jurisdiction over the ADA compliance of AMTRAK. FRA is developing new compliance review initiatives for monitoring the accessibility of AMTRAK rolling stock and facilities.

Call Boxes:

Emergency call boxes along highways are not always accessible to people with disabilities. Advocates believe that the Federal Highway Administration and other appropriate state and local agencies should ensure that highway emergency call boxes are accessible and that traffic signals and poles show flashing lights when emergency vehicles are approaching. However, it should be noted that call boxes are not necessarily under the jurisdiction of the FHWA, and that they are to a certain extent being superceded by cell phones.

Solutions:

Individual entities that control call boxes are moving to make them accessible, including installing TTY-type interfaces. But cell phones and intelligent transportation systems (including proprietary "On-Star" type car-and-dispatcher types systems) are superceding call boxes for obtaining emergency assistance.

Speed Bumps and Humps:

There is concern among some segments of the disability community, especially among those with back pain and with spine, hip and muscle problems who use wheelchairs and/or who drive, that speed bumps in roads affect them adversely. For example, the Commission on Disability of the City of Berkeley, California, testified to the City of Berkeley Transportation Commission and has received input from citizens concerning the access problems that speed humps cause for the disabled community. For some people with disabilities, the pain and injury that can result from driving or riding over speed humps makes these "traffic calming devices" into virtual barricades. For others, the unpredictable outcome of going over humps results in a deterrent to travel. When speed humps are located in the only clear path (sometimes the side of the roadway), they can also be an obstacle for pedestrians using wheelchairs. Those who believe strongly in this subject state that speed bumps are designed to cause discomfort for the average driver and that what is uncomfortable for a healthy person is at best extremely painful and at worst injurious to certain, fragile, disabled individuals.

Solutions:

DOT and local jurisdictions have been in the position of encouraging use of speed bumps and humps for safety and traffic calming reasons. More research and legal analysis may be needed to determine if that enthusiasm is producing situations that unnecessary adversely affect people with disabilities.

Roundabouts:

Roundabouts, or the modern version of traffic circles, are generally difficult, bordering on inaccessible, for people with mobility and cognitive impairments to navigate. This is because traffic never stops, and pedestrian routes of travel are longer than with signalized intersections. However, roundabouts are becoming popular in the United States, and more cities, towns, and suburbs are installing them.

Solutions:

The Federal Highway Administration, which in DOT has general jurisdiction over pedestrian accessibility, noted in its document, "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Best Practices Design Guide," as a research recommendation, "Develop design strategies for improving pedestrian access at roundabouts. Currently, most roundabouts in the United States are difficult for people with vision impairments to use because they cannot determine when it is safe to cross the street. European and Asian designs...which use pedestrian-controlled traffic signals and set the crosswalks back four car lengths from the intersection, should be investigated."

Alleged Abuse of Systems:

There is a common undercurrent of criticism by some nondisabled people of alleged abuse of accessible transportation systems. These criticisms are heard most commonly in regard to alleged abuse of disability parking placards by people who are not visually mobility impaired. In addition, people with disabilities often criticize use of parking spaces designated for people with disabilities by people without disabilities.

Solutions:

Eligibility criteria for disability parking placards are largely under the jurisdiction of local entities, with guidelines provided by FHWA. DOT has received and investigated a few ADA complaints about abuse of this local discretion. Lack of police enforcement of ADA requirements is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.

Commercial Drivers Licenses:

A number of individuals with disabilities and disability advocacy organizations, especially the American Diabetes Association, have noted that DOT has blanket regulatory exclusions for a wide range of disabilities in obtaining commercial drivers licenses for over-the-road interstate trucks and buses. There is a desire on the part of a number of individuals with covered disabilities to obtain such licenses to engage in their desired livelihood.

Solutions:

On July 31, 2001, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice seeking comments on a proposal to issue exemptions to FMCSA regulations that normally prohibit people with insulin-controlled diabetes from obtaining commercial drivers licenses (CDLs), primarily for over-the-road (OTR) interstate trucks. This is long-standing matter of some controversy. In TEA-21, there was a provision for a study to be done by FMCSA to evaluate the safety of lowering the barriers to obtaining CDLs by insulin-controlled diabetics. FMCSA conducted this study and provided the results to Congress last summer. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities (PTF) expressed great interest in the subject, especially as a possible precursor to lowering barriers to people with a wide range of other disabilities/medical conditions named and excluded from CDLs in the 1930's-era CDL regulations, and strongly encouraged the barrier-lowering.

The comment period ran thru October 1, 2001. Safety issues get raised regarding diabetic truck drivers. Because of the physiological conditions that can happen to people with diabetes if they do not monitor their body conditions and medications very carefully, there is fear in some circles of how safe they are behind the wheel. Many, however, drive privately owned cars, light trucks, SUVs, and recreational vehicles. The licensing requirements are very different for such vehicles as opposed to OTR trucks. FMCSA's proposal contains many conditions that have to be met before an exemption would be granted. DOT was involved in discussions among EEOC, DOJ, and the PTF. No date has been set for issuing final regulations.

Historically, medical certification has been denied to people with vision impairments (that is, whose corrected vision is not at least 20-40 in each eye), hearing impairments, diabetes, and epilepsy. Since the time these regulations went into effect -- which was about 1937 -- many medical and technological advances have been made. When the ADA was passed, Congress directed DOT to determine whether these absolute standards barring employment were still appropriate and necessary.

FMCSA decided to keep people on the roads, to keep good people working. Monocular (one-eyed) drivers have been working in intrastate commerce for years. Some who "slipped through the cracks" have been working in interstate commerce. So have deaf drivers and insulin-dependent diabetics. Recent tougher enforcement of FMCSA certification regulations at the state level was threatening these drivers with the loss of their jobs. This circumstance -- taken together with the congressional directive to study the situation -- led FMCSA to embark on a proactive "waiver study."

The first part of the study began in July 1992 and allowed a sample of drivers to waive the vision standard if certain conditions were met. These conditions included a clean driving record as a motor carrier, at least 20-40 vision in their better eye, and a doctor's report stating that this driver has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle. The study ended in March 1996. Most of the drivers selected for inclusion in the vision study were grandfathered into the general driving population and are being monitored to ensure that these exceptions to the standard are in the public interest (i.e., they provide employment opportunities for those who would otherwise be denied employment) and pose no adverse impact to public safety. Following the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century, which changed FMCSA's authority to issue waivers and exemptions, FMCSA began considering all requests for exemptions from the vision requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. To date, the findings from all the waiver programs indicate that the waived or exempted drivers do not present an excessive risk on the Nation's roads.

Cruise Ship Access:

There have been a few administrative complaints filed with federal agencies, and law suits alleging lack of accessibility of cruise ships to people with disabilities, especially those who are blind or have mobility impairments. Federal agencies, including DOT, DOJ and the Access Board are now addressing the issue of accessibility of cruise ships and other passenger vessels.

Solutions:

United States Coast Guard (USCG):

The USCG participated on the Access Board's Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (PVAAC). The USCG served as technical advisors to the committee. The committee's report to the Access Board, issued in November 2000, contains detailed recommendations for accessibility guidelines for the design, new construction, and alteration of passenger vessels. The Access Board is currently developing proposed passenger vessel accessibility guidelines. The DOT will follow the Federal rulemaking process to adopt into Department regulations the passenger vessel accessibility guidelines issued by the Access Board.

These recommendations will assist the Board in developing a rule under the ADA, which will propose accessibility guidelines for the design, new construction and alteration of passenger vessels. Any proposed rule concerning passenger vessel access will be made through the federal rulemaking process. During its deliberations, the Access Board will receive input from the Department of Justice because a representative from the Department of Justice serves on the Access Board. The PVAAC's recommendations to the Access Board are background material and are not part of any rulemaking. The PVAAC report should provide an early opportunity to study and comment on the recommended accessibility guidelines before regulations are issued.

Traffic Signals:

DOT has heard concerns from blind and low vision advocacy organizations that its guidance on pedestrian traffic signals does not sufficient address their needs.

Solutions:

Federal Highway Administration:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was first published in 1935, and provides standards and guidelines for traffic control devices such as signs, signals, markings and devices placed on, over or adjacent to a street or a highway by authority of a public body that has jurisdiction to regulate, warn or guide traffic. Uniform traffic control devices help ensure highway safety by providing for the orderly and predictable movement of all traffic, motorized and non-motorized, throughout the nation. The new MUTCD, published in December 2000, included language to allow, on an optional basis, the use of "accessible pedestrian signals". The MUTCD sets the standards for design and operation of the accessible ped devices, if a jurisdiction decides to install them. Federal Highway Administration staff work on the MUTCD.

A Federal Register document was published on May 17, 2001, to propose revisions to Sections of the MUTCD in response to letters FHWA received from organizations representing the blind community and the practicing community of state and local traffic engineers. Use of accessible pedestrian signals remains optional in the MUTCD. The Access Board is now developing guidelines for accessible public rights-of-way that may include guidelines for accessible pedestrian signals. However, given the cost issues to State and local jurisdictions, the end result of the regulatory process is not known now.

Individual jurisdictions are moving ahead in this area. For example, the Alexandria (Virginia) Commission on Persons With Disabilities and the City of Alexandria are working on a pilot program to purchase, program, install, monitor, and evaluate audible pedestrian traffic signals at several intersections throughout the City.

Last revised: May 9, 2002