In many American cities, ADA complementary paratransit service is still evolving. It has been more than 20 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and many transit agencies continue to struggle with the quality of service, costs and difficulties encountered in contracting the service.
One of the most basic policy decisions an agency must make involves whether to provide door-to-door, or only curb-to-curb service. The more I work in the field, and the more I get to know real people with disabilities, the more I believe that door-to-door service is the way to go. Why? Because in many cases, curb-to-curb is simply not enough.
RELATED: "METRO's 2013 Paratransit Survey."
In retrospect, I think it is fair to say that most transit agencies were dragged kicking and screaming into the provision of demand-responsive paratransit. A majority of agencies chose the option of providing curb-to-curb service. What many of them lacked, however, was an understanding that the key phrase in the ADA regulations was not curb-to-curb or door-to-door, it was origin to destination:
• The basic mode of service for complementary paratransit is demand-responsive, origin to destination service... The local planning process should decide whether, or in what circumstances, this service is to be provided as door-to-door or curb-to-curb service.
— 49 CFR, Part 37.129.
In a recent survey of the websites of 34 agencies, 14 say that they provide door-to-door ADA service, 16 are clearly curb-to-curb and four are unclear. Of the 16 agencies that identified themselves as “curb-to-curb,” only six specifically mention that they will provide additional (i.e. door-to-door) service upon request. Interestingly, two of the largest agencies in the country prohibit going beyond the curb.
There have been a number of clarifications issued by the Federal Transit Administration on the subject of origin to destination service, since at least as early as 2005. Here is one of the most definitive:
• The U.S. Department of Transportation issued an item of “Disability Law Guidance” entitled Origin-to-Destination Service, dated Sept. 1, 2005. The purpose of the guidance, as stated in the introduction, is to answer the question: “What are the obligations of transit providers to ensure that eligible passengers receive ‘origin-to-destination’ service?”
The document discusses the subject at length and concludes:
• Under the ADA rule, it is not appropriate for a paratransit provider to establish an inflexible policy that refuses to provide service to eligible passengers beyond the curb in all circumstances. On an individual, case-by-case basis, paratransit providers are obliged to provide an enhancement to service when it is needed and appropriate to meet the origin-to-destination service requirement. We recognize that making individual, case-by-judgments may require additional effort, but this effort is necessary to ensure that the origin-to-destination requirement is met.
The above also comes with a corresponding requirement that reasonable efforts be made to inform the riding public that such additional service is available.
Given the requirements for “origin-to-destination” service, the choices are to have door-to-door service all the time or some of the time. If the choice is “some of the time,” then the policy is “curb-to-curb, and if you want help from there you have to ask for it.” In addition, such a policy must be communicated to customers, and it must be understood by staff and drivers, as well as customers. It seems complicated and fraught with potential problems.
If you have to provide door-to-door service some of the time, why not just do it all the time? Wouldn’t that be a far better policy decision?
For additional information on this topic, read the related White Paper: "The Benefits of Door-to-Door Service in ADA Complementary Paratransit."
Zavisca is an independent consultant specializing in paratransit. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
In case you missed it...
Read our METRO blog, "Bus simulation, ensuring its proper place in a training curriculum."
...as a transportation planner who has worked on bus rapid transit-style systems in the greater Washington region, I’ve noticed a disconnect in the public’s expectations versus the reality of the systems they’re getting. It got me wondering: do people have an accurate picture of what BRT means or the benefits the systems provide? During public-planning sessions, I’ve heard a lot of feedback on BRT. The gist is, “That’s really nice that the bus is a different color and the station platform is fancy, but I just want it to be on time.”
After acts of terrorism — domestic or international — law enforcement agencies are almost always asked: “How are you ‘ramping up’ your security efforts?”
Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent buying buses and railcars every year. Although the national unemployment rate has declined since the Great Recession, for low-income families and communities of color, the unemployment rate remains in the double-digits and good, family-supporting jobs can’t come fast enough. We need strategies that revive U.S. manufacturing and other industries that can create the kind of jobs we want.
The recently adjourned 2016 Democratic National Convention put Philadelphia in the national — and international — spotlight once again. For the third time in four years, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority transported thousands of visitors to the City of Brotherly Love and its surrounding counties. As with the U.S. Open in 2013 and the World Meeting of Families and Papal Visit in 2015, public transit was a key component for all event activities.
Everywhere, evidence reveals how we’re moving into a less-consumptive, sharing-based society. Whether it’s people’s homes, torrent files or a car ride downtown, sharing is in. As environmentally conscious and economically prudent reducers and re-users, millennials are choosing non-traditional forms of transportation. This behavior has already had a huge impact on the way the transit industry is planning for its future.