This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1126
entitled 'Transportation Accessibility: Lack of Data and Limited
Enforcement Options Limit Federal Oversight' which was released on
September 19, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2007:
Transportation Accessibility:
Lack of Data and Limited Enforcement Options Limit Federal Oversight:
GAO-07-1126:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1126, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provides people with
disabilities the legal right to access transportation and public rights-
of-way, including sidewalks and street crossings. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) and Department of Justice (DOJ) share
responsibility for overseeing ADA compliance.
GAO was asked to review federal oversight and enforcement of ADA
compliance, including (1) what is known about compliance, (2)
difficulties the federal government faces in overseeing and enforcing
compliance, and (3) the sources of federal help and any gaps in that
help. GAO’s work encompassed a wide range of federal agencies and other
entities, such as industry associations, transportation providers, and
disability advocacy groups, as well as detailed reviews in eight cities
across the country.
What GAO Found:
While data indicate accessibility is improving for public transit, the
extent of ADA compliance for other modes of transportation and public
rights-of-way is unknown due to the lack of reliable data. For example,
there are no national data on compliance with requirements for ADA
paratransit—transit service that complements bus or rail transit. The
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration solicits compliance data
from registered commercial bus companies, but the response rate is low
(13 percent in 2006), and the agency has not verified or analyzed the
data. In other instances, such as the accessibility of Amtrak’s train
stations, data are still being developed.
Federal agencies face three main difficulties overseeing and enforcing
compliance. First, they differ greatly in the degree to which they have
an oversight framework in place. For example, the Federal Transit
Administration has a memorandum of understanding in place with DOJ
specifying each agency’s responsibilities for public transit, while the
Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration have no formal mechanism for coordinating with DOJ.
Second, federal agencies’ lack of data about compliance limits DOT’s
ability to target its oversight and enforcement efforts. Only the
Federal Transit Administration uses data in this manner. Third, DOT
officials regard their enforcement options, such as withholding grant
money, as lengthy and complex processes that would not be undertaken
lightly. DOT officials said the authority to impose fines—an option
they lack—would be more useful.
Federal agencies provide a variety of technical assistance to help
entities comply with the ADA, but gaps in regulations and guidance
exist. For example, one gap involves a requirement for local
governments to develop plans for identifying and correcting
accessibility problems with public rights-of-way (such as shown in the
figure below). As a result, GAO found confusion about which entities
needed to develop the plans and how to use and update plans once they
were developed. DOJ officials said most localities had not developed
such plans, leaving themselves open to private lawsuits and federal
enforcement action.
Figure: Example of Inaccessible Sidewalk in a Downtown Area.
[See PDF for image]
Note: This is a recent construction project in a downtown area where a
median was installed in the main street, but curb ramps were not
installed in the existing sidewalks, as required.
Source: GAO.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes several recommendations to DOT and Amtrak to improve data and
guidance for ADA compliance, increase coordination and communication
across federal agencies, and develop a legislative proposal to enable
DOT to impose fines for noncompliance with the ADA. DOT agreed to
consider the recommendations. Amtrak officials said the recommendations
are likely to be ineffective for them without more funding and clearer
federal requirements.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1126].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at
(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Extent of ADA Compliance for Surface Transportation and Public Rights-
of-Way Is Largely Unknown Because Little Reliable Information Is
Available:
Federal Agencies Conduct Oversight and Enforcement Activities but Face
Difficulties in Ensuring Compliance with the ADA:
Federal Entities Provide a Variety of Technical Assistance to Help with
ADA Compliance, but Gaps Exist in Regulations and Guidance:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That Are Used for ADA Compliance:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: The Disability Law Coordinating Council:
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak):
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Other Examples of ADA Technical Assistance Sources Provided by
DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board:
Table 2: Examples of Federal Funds that Are Used for ADA Compliance:
Table 3: National Industry Associations and Disability Organizations
Interviewed for Our Review:
Table 4: State and Local Organizations Interviewed for Our Review:
Figures:
Figure 1: Examples of Accessible Transportation Features:
Figure 2: Percentage of People Reporting Problems with Transportation
and Public Rights-of-Way, by Mode and Disability Status in 2002:
Figure 3: Inaccessible Sidewalks and Medians in a Downtown Area:
Abbreviations:
Access Board: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board:
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
ADAAG: ADA Accessibility Guidelines:
Amtrak: National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
CMAQ: Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality Improvement Program: DOJ:
Department of Justice:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
NCD: National Council on Disability:
NHS: National Highway System:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
NPRM: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation:
STP: Surface Transportation Program:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 19, 2007:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Dear Chairman Olver:
Access to transportation and public rights-of-way[Footnote 1] is
critical to helping people with disabilities live independently--
allowing individuals to gain access to the goods, services, employment
opportunities, and social contacts that support their quality of life.
According to recent estimates, there are about 40-50 million people
with disabilities in the United States.[Footnote 2] These include
people with spinal cord injuries or other mobility impairments, who may
use a wheelchair or other mobility aid; people who are blind or
visually impaired, who may need assistance in reading signs or locating
crosswalks; people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, who may have
difficulty hearing stop or route announcements; people with cognitive
impairments, who may have difficulty negotiating the public
transportation system; and others.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) protects the legal
rights of people with disabilities and requires the provision of
services, including access to transportation and public rights-of-
way.[Footnote 3] Since ADA requirements became effective, access to
surface transportation has improved. For example, reports from the
National Council on Disability[Footnote 4] and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics found that more public and private
transportation vehicles are accessible now than at the time the ADA was
enacted.[Footnote 5]
To help ensure that people with disabilities have such access, the
federal government is responsible for monitoring, overseeing, and
enforcing ADA requirements, as well as providing technical assistance.
Specifically, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) issues guidelines that show how buildings,
facilities, and vehicles covered by the law can be made accessible to
individuals with disabilities. These guidelines form the basis for
enforceable standards when incorporated into federal regulations. The
Department of Transportation (DOT) issues regulations for both public
and private transportation and is responsible for reviewing compliance
among public entities. The Department of Justice (DOJ) issues
regulations setting rules and standards for access in public and
commercial facilities, including public rights-of-way, and has
responsibility for litigation on the government's behalf in enforcing
the ADA upon referral of a finding of noncompliance by DOT or by
intervention in a privately filed lawsuit. DOJ is also responsible for
enforcing compliance among both publicly and privately operated
transportation systems that serve the general public.
Despite overall improvements in accessibility since the ADA's enactment
and these federal oversight responsibilities, individuals with
disabilities continue to face barriers to accessible
transportation.[Footnote 6] For example, a national study conducted by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2002 found that
approximately 12 percent of individuals with disabilities had
difficulties obtaining the transportation they need, compared with 3
percent of people without disabilities.[Footnote 7] A 2004 national
survey found that people with disabilities were twice as likely to have
inadequate transportation as people without disabilities.[Footnote 8]
In addition, research has shown that compliance gaps still pose
significant problems for many individuals with disabilities. For
example, a 2005 National Council on Disability report found that some
transit agencies fail to comply with the ADA regulatory requirement to
announce bus or rail stops, making it difficult for people with visual
or cognitive impairments to know when to get off the bus or train.
Elevators at rail stations may not be in working order, rendering those
stations inaccessible to people with certain mobility impairments. The
ADA requires public transit operators to provide paratransit[Footnote
9] service for persons with disabilities who cannot use the regular
transit system, but many of these complementary paratransit systems
have timeliness problems, providing rides either too early or too late,
preventing riders from reaching their jobs or appointments in a timely
manner. Further, some transportation providers--including taxi and
commercial bus[Footnote 10] drivers--have refused to accommodate
service animals, such as guide dogs, as required by law. Finally,
problems with public rights-of-way include intersections without curb
ramps or sidewalks blocked by telephone poles.[Footnote 11]
This report responds to your request that we review the federal
government's oversight of compliance with the ADA. Specifically, it
addresses: (1) what is known about the extent of ADA compliance for
surface transportation and public rights-of-way;[Footnote 12] (2) what
difficulties, if any, the federal government faces in overseeing and
enforcing compliance with the ADA; and (3) the sources of federal
technical assistance that are available to help public transportation
providers, businesses, and state and local governments comply with ADA
requirements and what gaps, if any, exist. In addition, we provided
information on several sources of federal financial assistance for ADA-
related activities (see app. I).
To address these questions, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and
policies governing ADA requirements for surface transportation modes
and public rights-of-way; reviewed relevant literature; and gathered
and analyzed available federal agency data on ADA compliance. To assess
the reliability of accessibility data from the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the Federal Transit Administration's
National Transit Database, we spoke with agency officials about data
quality control procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We
determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report. We interviewed officials from DOJ, DOT's Office of the
Secretary, and the various offices responsible for specific surface
transportation modes (transit, rail, commercial bus, and pedestrian
access). These offices included the Federal Transit Administration,
Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, and Federal Highway Administration. We also interviewed
officials from the Access Board, Amtrak, industry associations, and
national-level disability organizations. We also made site visits to
eight cities,[Footnote 13] where we met with officials from various
entities, including transportation agencies, state departments of
transportation, municipal governments, centers for independent living,
and local disability advocacy groups. These cities were selected on the
basis of several factors, including size, experience with federal ADA
oversight processes, and geographic diversity. We conducted this
performance audit from November 2006 through July 2007, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. The details of
our objectives, scope, and methodology are in appendix II.
Results in Brief:
Although there are indications that accessibility is improving, the
extent of compliance with the ADA's requirements for surface
transportation and public rights-of-way is unknown because, except for
public transit, little reliable information is available. For transit,
data are available on the percent of vehicles and rail stations that
are wheelchair accessible in urban areas, as well as more limited data
on accessibility in rural areas. These data reflect increasing
compliance: for example, transit agencies reported that the percent of
accessible transit buses in urban areas increased from 36 percent in
1989 to 97 percent in 2005 as new, accessible vehicles replaced older
ones. However, problems persist in compliance with other ADA
requirements, such as maintaining lifts and ramps and announcing
transit stops. For compliance in public rights-of-way and other
transportation modes, such as commercial bus and paratransit, however,
less is known. While there are no national data on compliance with ADA
paratransit requirements, for example, information from DOT reviews and
disability interest groups indicate that problems remain, such as some
transportation providers having policies to determine who is eligible
for paratransit that are not consistent with the ADA and federal
regulations. In some cases, data are available but unreliable. For
example, DOT rules require commercial bus carriers to provide
compliance data to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, but
the percent of commercial bus carriers providing this data is low (13
percent in 2006), and DOT does not verify the data it receives. DOT
also has not analyzed the information as required by DOT regulation,
although the agency has developed a preliminary strategy for doing so
and plans to finish its analysis by 2008. In other cases, data are
still being developed. For example, Amtrak, which faces an ADA
requirement to make most of the stations that it serves accessible by
2010, is gathering station-by-station information on accessibility but
has not developed a comprehensive schedule for achieving full
compliance with ADA station accessibility requirements, as required by
its grant agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration. Amtrak
officials said that this is due, in part, to station ownership issues
and the sufficiency and timing of funding. DOT and DOJ also have data
on ADA-related complaints for all modes of transportation, of which
there are relatively few, but the number of complaints alone is not a
good indicator of compliance with ADA requirements.
DOJ and DOT face three main difficulties in overseeing and enforcing
compliance with the ADA, according to our discussions with officials
and our site visits:
* Uneven level of oversight and enforcement provided by DOT modal
administrations. Within DOT, the various modal administrations differ
greatly in the degree to which they have an ADA oversight framework in
place. DOJ, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Highway
Administration have a framework, including processes for conducting
regular reviews of ADA compliance and, in the case of DOJ and the
Federal Transit Administration, a formal memorandum of understanding
that specifies each agency's oversight and enforcement
responsibilities. In contrast, officials in other modal administrations
do not have a framework in place to enforce the ADA. For example,
although the Federal Railroad Administration does not conduct periodic
reviews of Amtrak's compliance, ADA regulations require DOT to conduct
such reviews of all entities receiving financial assistance from DOT,
including Amtrak.[Footnote 14] Federal Railroad Administration
officials stated that they may begin such reviews in the future.
Additionally, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration officials
have maintained in an ongoing court case that, although they can
penalize commercial bus companies for safety violations, they cannot
withhold operating authority or issue civil penalties for ADA
violations. These two modal administrations also lack a formal
mechanism for coordinating with DOJ, although the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration shares information with DOJ. As a result, there
appear to be gaps in oversight and enforcement for Amtrak and
commercial buses.
* Lack of data for targeting oversight and enforcement activities. Just
as a lack of data precludes knowing the extent of compliance with the
ADA, it also restricts federal agencies' oversight and enforcement
efforts. One exception that demonstrates the advantage of using such
information is the Federal Transit Administration, which identifies and
targets higher risk public transit providers using complaint data and
results of reviews it conducts regularly. The Federal Transit
Administration also focuses its ADA compliance reviews on areas it has
identified through data analysis and experience as problematic, such as
whether transit providers are following requirements for vehicle lifts.
Other federal agencies lack such data, although the Federal Railroad
Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration collect
and use data to target non-ADA safety oversight and enforcement
efforts. Without the necessary information on the extent of compliance,
agencies are not able to target their enforcement efforts where most
needed or to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts.
* Lack of useful enforcement options. Officials of DOT modal
administrations said they rarely use available enforcement options
because the options are too drastic or lengthy to bring about
compliance. For example, Federal Transit Administration officials said
while they have the authority to withhold grant funds from a public
transit system for ADA violations, doing so is a lengthy and complex
process that would not be undertaken lightly because it could affect
the entire transit system and the mobility of all riders, including
those with disabilities. DOT also has the option to refer cases to DOJ
for investigation, but has used this option twice to date. There are
many steps that DOT must undertake before it can refer a case to DOJ
and many conflicts are resolved informally before they are referred.
DOT officials told us that other options, such as the authority to levy
civil penalties similar to the authority DOT has under the Air Carrier
Access Act, would be useful. They said such authority would provide a
more focused tool for enforcing ADA compliance than withholding program
funds, and the resulting penalties could be used to improve
accessibility. DOT already has this ability with regard to air carriers
and, between 2000 and 2006, DOT assessed approximately $8.4 million in
penalties. DOT provided incentives for airlines to offset the majority
of the penalties by improving accessibility, such as increasing the
number of wheelchair-assistance personnel at airports.
Federal entities--including DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board--provide a
variety of technical assistance, including federal regulations and
guidance, to help entities comply with the ADA, but gaps in regulations
and guidance exist, creating uncertainty at the state and local levels.
Sources for federal assistance include Web sites and toll-free
assistance lines. Public transportation providers and states and
localities that we interviewed said that, in many respects, this
technical assistance was helpful. However, they identified gaps in
guidance available to address certain issues in public transportation
and public rights-of-way, such as how to accommodate mobility devices
that can be too heavy or large for transit vehicle lifts and how to
plan for and design accessible public rights-of-way. For example, ADA
regulations require state and local governments to develop transition
plans that inventory the accessibility of their public rights-of-way,
including curb ramps, and identify corrective actions. Some officials
we interviewed from state and local governments were unsure about how
to create a transition plan or when to update the plan they had
developed. Federal guidance on the content and required updates of
these plans is limited--for instance, a state transportation official
explained that federal guidance did not clearly define what data should
be collected for ADA transition plans. Thus, state and local government
officials are confused about how to develop the plans. According to DOJ
officials, the majority of localities they have reviewed have not yet
developed transition plans. Without such plans, state and local
governments lack a systematic method of identifying areas of
noncompliance, hindering accessibility of public rights-of-way, and
leaving themselves open to private lawsuits and possible federal
enforcement action, as well as limiting the potential for collecting
compliance data. Furthermore, the Access Board has not finalized its
draft guidelines that would provide specific technical standards and
definitions for installing public rights-of-way, and could not provide
a date by which those draft guidelines would be finalized. Various
studies and advocacy and industry groups cited the lack of final
specialized standards for public rights-of-way as an obstacle to
accessible transportation for individuals with disabilities because the
draft standards are not enforceable. According to industry group
officials with whom we spoke, states and localities may not be willing
to invest in accessibility improvements for public rights-of-way that
go beyond current regulations since draft standards would likely change.
We are making several recommendations to DOT, its modal
administrations, and Amtrak. These recommendations are designed to
improve DOT's knowledge of the status of ADA compliance, obtain
additional data needed to oversee ADA implementation, clarify and
streamline DOT's process for withholding grant funds for ADA
violations, and increase coordination and communication between DOJ and
DOT modal administrations. In addition, we are recommending that DOT
develop a legislative proposal that would give DOT the authority to
impose civil penalties in instances of noncompliance. This would
provide DOT with more options for overseeing and enforcing the ADA and
help ensure that accessibility is a higher priority for public and
private surface transportation providers and local governments.
DOT, DOJ, the Access Board, and Amtrak reviewed a draft of this report.
DOT officials agreed with our findings and conclusions and agreed to
consider our recommendations. DOJ officials agreed with the report's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The Access Board agreed
with our findings. Amtrak officials stated that they have made strides
in increasing accessibility of their trains and the stations that they
and others own; however, they expressed concerns about the design of
train platforms in the future because DOT is proposing regulations that
Amtrak officials think freight railroads are unlikely to accept and
that could be very costly to implement, especially over a short period
of time. Thus, they believe that our recommendations that DOT clarify
and develop more targeted oversight and enforcement actions will be
ineffective for them without more funding and clearer federal
requirements. Finally, DOT, DOJ, and Amtrak provided technical comments
that we incorporated throughout the report as appropriate.
Background:
To help ensure that surface transportation--including public rights-of-
way--is accessible, the ADA includes specific provisions for public
entities (in Title II) and private entities (in Title III) for
providing accessible transportation. Transportation-related
requirements in the ADA and associated regulations vary by
mode.[Footnote 15] In general, however, new vehicles that were
purchased or leased after August 1990, and buildings or facilities that
are constructed or altered after August 1990, must be accessible. Other
requirements include the following:
* Transit authorities must provide comparable paratransit services to
those individuals who are unable to use fixed-route bus or rail
services because of a disability.[Footnote 16] These services are
typically provided using wheelchair-accessible vans, small buses, or
taxis.
* Existing intercity rail (Amtrak), commuter rail, light rail, and
rapid rail systems were to have at least one accessible car per train
as of July 26, 1995.
* Existing "key stations"[Footnote 17] in rapid rail, commuter rail,
and light rail systems were to have been made accessible by 1993 unless
certain extensions permitted by law were granted.
* Most existing stations currently served by Amtrak must be accessible
by July 26, 2010.[Footnote 18]
* Commercial bus companies must provide an accessible bus with 48-hour
notice, among other things.
* Entities such as hotels that generally offer transportation (shuttle
service to the airport, for instance) must provide equivalent
transportation services for people with disabilities.
* For public rights-of-way, all projects for new construction that
provide pedestrian facilities must incorporate accessible pedestrian
features. Projects altering the usability of the roadway must also
incorporate accessible pedestrian improvements.
Figure 1 shows examples of some of these accessible transportation
features.
Figure 1: Examples of Accessible Transportation Features:
[See PDF for image]
Images (from left to right) include a low-floor transit bus with a
wheelchair ramp, a paratransit vehicle, and a curb ramp with a tactile
warning.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
A number of federal agencies have a role in implementing, overseeing,
and enforcing the ADA's surface transportation requirements. We will
discuss them in more detail later in this report, but their general
roles and responsibilities are as follows:
* The Access Board is an independent federal agency devoted to
accessibility for people with disabilities.[Footnote 19] The board
develops and maintains design criteria for facilities and transit
vehicles (these design criteria are not enforceable until implemented
in DOJ or DOT regulations). It also provides technical assistance and
training on these requirements and on accessible design.
* DOJ has responsibility for publishing federal regulations governing
access to public and commercial services. DOJ also has responsibility
for investigating alleged ADA violations by private entities, including
transportation providers, and conducting compliance reviews. DOJ refers
allegations of ADA violations by public transportation entities to DOT
for investigation. DOJ also may commence civil action in U.S. district
court under certain circumstances.
* DOT is responsible for publishing federal regulations for carrying
out the transportation provisions of the ADA. Offices within DOT have
the following responsibilities:
- Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) promulgated DOT's
regulations for the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. OST
also coordinates and approves DOT guidance and interpretation for
transportation accessibility. For example, OST issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in February 2006 in which it proposed
changes to ADA regulations, including revising commuter and intercity
rail station platform requirements and clarifying public transit
providers' responsibilities to modify their services when needed to
ensure program accessibility. OST also sought comment on how to
accommodate changes in mobility devices used by individuals with
disabilities, among other things.
- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for
implementation of program access to individuals with disabilities by
state departments of transportation and other FHWA aid recipients,
including pedestrian rights-of-way access requirements from the ADA.
- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) informs
commercial bus companies of their ADA responsibilities and collects
data on ADA compliance.
- Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for overseeing
federal grants to Amtrak, including ADA provisions.
- Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is responsible for overseeing
federal grants for public transportation,[Footnote 20] which includes
compliance with ADA requirements for public transportation systems,
including ADA-complementary paratransit.
Two other agencies--one inside DOT, the other outside--also have roles
in ADA compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), within DOT, establishes federal motor vehicle safety standards
for platform lifts and vehicles equipped with platform lifts (including
commercial buses and public transportation vehicles). NHTSA is also
responsible for ADA compliance of state motor vehicle agencies that
receive federal funds. In addition, the National Council on Disability
(NCD), an independent federal agency, gathers information about the
implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the ADA. NCD also reviews
and evaluates federal policies, programs, practices, and procedures
concerning people with disabilities, and all statutes and regulations
pertaining to federal programs that assist people with disabilities, to
assess their effectiveness in meeting those needs.[Footnote 21]
Several major interest groups and industry associations also play a
role. For example, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
provides ADA-related training, technical assistance, and legal
services, and advocates on behalf of people with disabilities. Also,
the American Public Transportation Association has an Access Committee
designed to promote successful implementation of the transportation
provisions of the ADA by facilitating information sharing and
monitoring and reporting to its members on the status of pending
litigation, among other activities.
A number of reports by national organizations indicate that
transportation accessibility has improved since Congress passed the
ADA. For example, NCD reported that the ADA has resulted in a
significant expansion of lift-and ramp-equipped buses, more accessible
fare collection technology, and increased availability of formats for
disseminating accessible information. Because of increased regulation,
vehicles are of higher quality, and travel has become more
efficient.[Footnote 22] However, disability advocates have said (and
many federal agencies and industry associations agree) that there are
still problems. In a 2002 survey conducted by DOT's Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, a greater percentage of people with
disabilities reported having problems with several modes of
transportation as compared with people without disabilities (see fig.
2).[Footnote 23] Complaints and lawsuits, among other sources of
information, indicate accessibility problems persist. DOJ has referred
more than 500 ADA-related surface transportation complaints to DOT
since 2000 and is investigating 36 additional cases, as of July 2007,
according to DOJ officials. Also, additional complaints go directly to
DOT. Finally, private parties have filed numerous lawsuits alleging
violations of surface transportation and public rights-of-way
accessibility requirements.
Figure 2: Percentage of People Reporting Problems with Transportation
and Public Rights-of-Way, by Mode and Disability Status in 2002:
[This is a vertical bar graph representing the percentage of people
reporting problems (vertical axis) in seven modes of transportation for
both people with disabilities and people without disabilities.
(horizontal axis)]
Mode of transportation: As pedestrian;
People with disabilities: 47 percent (approximate depiction);
People without disabilities: 36 percent (approximate depiction).
Mode of transportation: As cyclist;
People with disabilities: 40 percent (approximate depiction);
People without disabilities: 35 percent (approximate depiction).
Mode of transportation: At bus stops;
People with disabilities: 41 percent (approximate depiction);
People without disabilities: 34 percent (approximate depiction).
Mode of transportation: On buses;
People with disabilities: 32 percent (approximate depiction);
People without disabilities: 22 percent (approximate depiction).
Mode of transportation: At subway stations;
People with disabilities: 36 percent (approximate depiction);
People without disabilities: 37 percent (approximate depiction).
Mode of transportation: With paratransit;
People with disabilities: 28 percent (approximate depiction).
[See PDF for image]
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
[End of figure]
Providing accessible transportation and public rights-of-way can be
expensive, especially if an entity has to modify existing structures or
purchase new equipment. Congress recognized this and phased in many of
the requirements over time. Unlike other situations in which Congress
identifies transportation priorities and provides grants or other
funding sources to help entities address those priorities, there are
few funds that are specifically targeted for ADA compliance. The ADA is
a civil rights law, not a transportation program; however, many federal
transportation funding sources can be used to comply with ADA
requirements. (See app. I for more information on these sources.)
Extent of ADA Compliance for Surface Transportation and Public Rights-
of-Way Is Largely Unknown Because Little Reliable Information Is
Available:
Other than for public transit, the extent of compliance with the ADA's
requirements for surface transportation and public rights-of-way is
unknown because little reliable information is available, although
there are indications that accessibility is improving. DOT collects
some accessibility data from urban public transit agencies and helped
fund several surveys to determine certain accessibility information for
rural and specialized transportation services.[Footnote 24] Much of the
data for other modes, however, are either unreliable or still being
developed.
Some Data Are Available on the Percent of Accessible Vehicles and
Stations:
For public transit, data are available on the percent of vehicles and
stations that are wheelchair accessible in urban areas. DOT reports
that accessibility in the urban transit vehicle fleet is increasing as
new, accessible vehicles are replacing older ones, since the ADA
requires that all new or refurbished transit vehicles be accessible. In
1989, before passage of the ADA, 36 percent of public transit buses in
the United States were accessible.[Footnote 25] By 2005, 97 percent
were lift-or ramp-equipped, according to FTA's National Transit
Database.[Footnote 26] However, accessibility varies significantly by
mode of transportation. For example, only 51 percent of commuter
railcars were accessible in 2005. ADA regulations do not require that
transportation providers make all railcars accessible immediately;
rather, that they make the fleet accessible over time as they purchase
or lease new cars, and that they provide at least one accessible car
per train. According to FTA officials, transit buses are more likely to
be accessible than railcars because, on average, railcars have a longer
life span. For example, buses are replaced about every 10 to 15 years,
while according to Amtrak officials, railcars are planned for
replacement after 30 to 40 years but may last over 50 years under
certain circumstances. The ADA also requires that new transit
facilities (including stations) and alterations to existing facilities
comply with federal accessibility standards, and FTA has tracked this
since 2002. By 2005, FTA's National Transit Database reflected that
transit agencies reported that 71 percent of total transit stations
were ADA-compliant.
Also, while limited, some dated estimates of accessibility in rural
areas and for special service transportation exist. In a survey
conducted by the Community Transportation Association of America in
2000, an estimated 60 percent of the transit fleet in rural areas was
lift-or ramp-equipped, as compared with 40 percent in 1994. Also, in
2002, approximately 37,700 special service vehicles were used by
approximately 4,800 special service providers including religious
organizations, senior centers, rehabilitation centers, and other
private and nonprofit organizations to transport seniors and persons
with disabilities. The majority of the special service providers were
located in rural areas. Of the special service vehicles purchased in
2002, about 76 percent were accessible (approximately 28,700
vehicles).[Footnote 27]
Although available data indicate increasing accessibility of transit
vehicles, requirements in ADA regulations extend beyond having lift-and
ramp-equipped vehicles. Other requirements include properly maintaining
the vehicle lifts and ramps and announcing transit stops. According to
an FTA official, there are no national data on compliance with these
two requirements, although FTA's periodic compliance reviews provide
the agency with some information about the state of compliance. We
heard from a number of federal agencies and local and national
disability groups that these areas continue to be a problem for transit
agencies, making it difficult for individuals with disabilities to
access the public transit system.
FTA also maintains data on key rail stations, which were required by
the ADA to be fully accessible by 1993 (with extensions permitted
through July 2020 for extraordinarily expensive structural
changes[Footnote 28]). According to FTA, as of June 2007, of the 687
key rail stations identified in transit systems nationwide, 321 were
found to be fully compliant with ADA requirements, 311 were
functionally accessible but not fully compliant, 28 were not
accessible, and 27 were proceeding under approved time extensions.
While the number of ADA-compliant stations is still relatively low,
this is a substantial improvement over the 52 key rail stations (8
percent) that FTA identified as fully compliant in 2000.[Footnote 29]
In addition to fixed-route transit, FTA also oversees ADA-complementary
paratransit, which will be discussed in the next section.
Less Is Known About the Extent of ADA Compliance for Public Rights-of-
Way and Other Transportation Modes:
For public rights-of-way and many modes of surface transportation, such
as intercity passenger rail, less is known about ADA compliance because
much of the information is unreliable or still being developed. DOT and
DOJ data indicate that relatively few individuals file transportation-
related ADA complaints with federal agencies; however, complaints are
not a reliable indicator of compliance.
Intercity Passenger Rail (Amtrak):
For intercity passenger rail service, Amtrak has data on the
accessibility of its railcars but is still developing information on
station accessibility. Amtrak officials indicate that all new or
remanufactured Amtrak equipment is accessible, in accordance with the
ADA. For example, all of the cars on the Acela high-speed rail service
in operation on the Northeast Corridor are accessible because the cars
were manufactured and placed in service in or around 2000-2001,
according to Amtrak officials. As of June 2007, 82 percent of Amtrak's
1,451 passenger cars were fully accessible to people in wheelchairs.
FRA officials said that Amtrak appears to be on schedule to have all of
its passenger cars ADA-compliant by the end of 2008.
Every train is also required to have a number of wheelchair spaces (for
those who want to sit in their chairs) and accessible seats (for those
who want to store their chairs and sit in a seat) equal to the number
of coaches. For instance, if a train has four passenger cars it must
have at least four wheelchair spaces and four accessible seats
somewhere on that train (but not more than two in each car).[Footnote
30] Amtrak has policies and procedures in place to ensure that these
requirements are met. The requirements are specifically explained in
the station master's guidance for each route and updated every 6 months
when schedules change. Amtrak keeps an internal record of instances
when it is unable to meet the accessibility requirements for each
train, due to such things as mechanical failure.
In addition to requirements for accessible cars, the ADA requires
Amtrak to make most of the stations that it serves fully accessible by
July 2010, even if Amtrak does not own the station.[Footnote 31]
According to Amtrak, transportation personnel check each station for
wheelchair accessibility and report that information to Amtrak every 6
months for inclusion in Amtrak's timetable. As of June 2007, 45 percent
of the 479 stations that Amtrak serves were fully accessible to people
in wheelchairs. An additional 31 percent had barrier-free access
between the street or parking lot, station platform, and trains,
although individual facilities (such as restrooms and ticket counters)
may not be accessible. Amtrak officials said that these stations serve
97 percent of passenger boardings and deboardings.
ADA requirements extend beyond wheelchair accessibility, however, such
as requiring accessible telephones and detectable warnings at
platforms.[Footnote 32] One difficulty that Amtrak cited in making
existing stations accessible is that ADA regulations define "stations"
to include platforms, making it difficult to determine who is
responsible for making and paying for changes when one entity owns the
station building (often a public entity), and another entity owns the
platforms (typically a private entity such as a freight railroad).
Amtrak officials said that this is impeding Amtrak's overall progress
in ensuring that stations are ADA compliant.
Although Amtrak has had 17 years to make its stations accessible, in
its 2008 grant and legislative request, Amtrak said that insufficient
time and funding are likely to prevent full compliance at all station
stops by the required deadline. Amtrak estimated the cost of compliance
for all stations to be approximately $250 million and requested $50
million in ADA funding for fiscal year 2008 above its base grant
request. In addition, Amtrak asked Congress for an extension of at
least 5 years after promulgation of DOT's final regulations on station
platforms (discussed in the next paragraph) to meet its statutory
obligation on ADA compliance.
Amtrak officials say that they requested the extension in part because
DOT issued an NPRM in February 2006 that would raise the required
height for certain new intercity passenger and commuter rail station
platforms to eliminate the need for wheelchair lifts. DOT plans to
finalize this rule by early 2008 and has received a significant number
of comments on it. Amtrak officials said that, if DOT finalizes the
regulation in its current form, implementing the rule would take
significant additional cost (potentially more than twice as much as it
would cost without the proposed rule) and time to comply. In addition,
Amtrak officials expressed concern that if the cost of complying with
that regulation becomes too high, Amtrak may have to eliminate service
at certain smaller stations rather than make those stations fully
accessible. The officials also expect to receive complaints from
freight railroads that the elevated platforms would interfere with
their freight railcars that run on the same tracks as Amtrak. On the
other hand, DOT officials believe the cost differential between the
current requirements and the additional proposed requirements is
negligible for many of the Amtrak stations to which these proposed
requirements would apply. Moreover, FRA officials believe that
conflicts with freight traffic are likely to be minimal and that there
are well known and moderately priced techniques that can mitigate
conflicts that occur. Further, the other station accessibility
requirements--such as for restrooms, parking, signage, and curb ramps-
-have not changed since 1991, and DOT officials said that their
proposed regulations should not be at fault for any delay or other
problems Amtrak may face in addressing ADA requirements.[Footnote 33]
In part due to Amtrak's slow progress in implementing the ADA, FRA's
grant agreements for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 required Amtrak to
assess the accessibility of the stations that it serves, identify the
steps needed to make them accessible, and report to FRA by September
2006 and May 2007 on its status. Amtrak is in the process of surveying
intercity passenger rail stations to determine their accessibility and
has hired a contractor to help in this effort, but the study has not
been completed to date, limiting the available information on ADA
compliance. Of the 479 stations that are required to be fully
accessible, Amtrak had assessed 371 (77 percent) by June 2007 and
expects to have the remaining assessments completed by December 2008,
according to an Amtrak official. Amtrak reported some preliminary
findings in a briefing to its board of directors in June 2007; however,
the briefing did not include specific, station-by-station information
on accessibility, the estimated cost to bring each station into
compliance, or a schedule for achieving full compliance. An Amtrak
official said that Amtrak cannot determine the cost or time frame for
achieving compliance without knowing whether DOT's proposed
requirements for rail platforms will be finalized or whether Congress
will appropriate additional funds. Additionally, ADA regulations
require that DOT periodically conduct reviews of Amtrak's compliance
with ADA requirements. FRA does not conduct such reviews, further
limiting the availability of data on Amtrak's ADA compliance[Footnote
34].
Commercial Bus:
There are limited data available on ADA compliance among commercial bus
companies. ADA regulations require all commercial bus companies to
provide accessible service within 48 hours of a request--either using
the company's own buses or contracting services from another company.
Large, fixed-route companies[Footnote 35] must also purchase lift-
equipped buses when acquiring new vehicles and were to have 50 percent
of their vehicle fleets accessible by 2006 and to have 100 percent of
the fleets accessible by 2012.[Footnote 36] DOT regulations require
commercial bus companies to report to FMCSA annually on the number of
their accessible vehicles, requests for accessible service, and their
ability to meet those requests. FMCSA includes information about this
reporting requirement on its Web site and sent letters and e-mails to
all registered companies starting in 2004, reminding them of their
obligations. The two major industry associations also urged their
members to respond to FMCSA's data request. However, 13 percent of
companies reported this required data in 2006, compared with 21 percent
in 2005 and 16 percent in 2004, and FMCSA does not have the authority
to fine companies for failure to comply with these reporting
requirements. FMCSA also does not verify the reliability of the
commercial bus companies' self-reported data before forwarding the data
to DOJ.
Furthermore, DOT's regulations stated that DOT would analyze data on
demand-response[Footnote 37] commercial bus companies by October 2006
to determine the extent of ADA compliance and evaluate whether the
agency's regulations should be revised. DOT was to also conduct a
similar study for fixed-route commercial buses by October 2007. Neither
study has been completed to date. After an internal disagreement within
DOT about which agency is responsible for conducting these studies,
officials from DOT's OST and FMCSA recently decided--in response to our
preliminary findings--to work jointly to produce these reports, with
participation from FTA and other DOT modal administrations. According
to DOT, its General Counsel's office will meet with key officials from
FMCSA and other concerned DOT organizations to finalize plans for
completing the study. DOT expects to issue its results during the first
quarter of calendar year 2008. In the meantime, however, the status of
compliance of commercial bus companies is unknown.
According to agency officials, FMCSA has received two ADA-related
complaints regarding commercial bus passenger service since
2001,[Footnote 38] and DOJ has received relatively few complaints about
the accessibility of commercial buses. However, FMCSA identified
several possible ADA violations among small commercial bus companies
during compliance reviews and forwarded that information to DOJ for
possible investigation. Furthermore, despite the small number of
complaints to federal agencies, reports in the media and several recent
and ongoing court cases indicate that there may be compliance issues
among some commercial bus companies. For example, in November 2006,
Peter Pan Bus Lines brought suit against FMCSA with the allegation that
the modal administration had not ensured that another commercial bus
company was complying with the ADA.[Footnote 39] Little is known about
compliance by small charter-tour companies, but according to DOT
officials, they have limited anecdotal evidence suggesting that many
such companies are unaware of ADA rules or do not comply with them.
Public Rights-of-Way:
There are no national data on the accessibility of public rights-of-
way, in part because there are no requirements for either FHWA or DOJ
to collect such information, although individual localities may collect
this information. The ADA does not require localities to retrofit
existing public rights-of-way (such as curb ramps) to make them
accessible, unless deemed necessary to ensure public access to programs
or services--including state and local government offices, places of
public accommodation, places of employment, and transportation, among
other things. However, after January 26, 1992, any new construction,
alteration, or renovation (including road resurfacing) must comply with
DOJ regulations. Many localities are also required to inventory the
accessibility of public rights-of-way under their jurisdiction as part
of developing an ADA-required transition plan for improving that
accessibility. Many of the national and local disability advocacy
groups we spoke with, however, said that access to public rights-of-way
is still a major barrier to the mobility of people with disabilities.
For example, a local disability advocacy group cited several recent
examples in which a locality had a major construction project in the
downtown area where the renovated sidewalks and medians did not include
curb ramps and were inaccessible (see fig. 3). Some groups added that
inaccessible routes to bus stops also hinder access to public transit.
Figure 3: Inaccessible Sidewalks and Medians in a Downtown Area (two
photographs):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
(a) There are no curb ramps in the raised median of the street crossing
or on either end of the two connecting sidewalks. (b) There are no curb
ramps in either direction of this sidewalk.
Note: These images were taken in March 2007 of a recent construction
project in a downtown area where a median was installed in the main
street, but curb ramps were not installed in the median to make the
crosswalk accessible. Also, curb ramps were not installed for existing
sidewalks. A local disability advocacy group told us that the new
construction project was also in front of a polling place.
[End of figure]
Also, we heard from local officials that, in some instances, curb ramps
have been installed, but are not fully compliant with federal
regulations. For example, officials from one major urban area said that
although the locality installed curb ramps, the ramps are too steep and
are not well maintained. One difficulty is in determining who is
responsible for making rights-of-way accessible. For example, providing
access to bus stops can require coordination among the public transit
provider, the local government office that oversees the street, and the
local government office that oversees the sidewalk.
FHWA officials agreed that no data are available on the status of
compliance with public rights-of-way. However, they have started to
visit states to determine if they have transition plans or plans to
meet accessibility obligations using DOJ guidance as a tool.[Footnote
40] While this will not provide data on actual accessibility, it should
provide information on whether or not a state has a plan to meet
accessibility requirements.
Private Transportation (Other Than Commercial Bus):
There are also no data at the national level on the accessibility of
private transportation--including taxi and limousine service--because
there are no requirements to collect this information. Available
anecdotal information suggests some successes in improving access to
private transportation, including rental car shuttles and hotel
shuttles, but the lack of national data precludes determining the
extent of accessibility among various private transportation providers.
The ADA does not impose any fleet accessibility requirements for
private providers and does not require that most individual vehicles
(e.g., taxis) be accessible. Under ADA regulations, however, private
providers must accommodate service animals (such as guide dogs) and may
not discriminate against people with disabilities or charge them a
premium for accessible service. Several private companies and trade
associations told us that providers may choose not to purchase
accessible vehicles because the economic benefits do not outweigh the
additional overhead cost and maintenance expenses.
Complementary Paratransit:
According to an official from FTA, there are no data at the national
level to accurately measure how well entities are complying with the
requirements under the ADA to provide complementary paratransit service
to individuals with disabilities who are unable to use the fixed-route
system. Individual transportation providers collect information on the
number of paratransit rides provided and report these data to FTA, but
the number of rides is not a good measure for determining ADA
compliance because the data do not indicate whether transportation
providers are granting rides in all eligible circumstances or whether
response times are comparable to fixed-route service, for example.
Likewise, FTA collects data on the number of demand-response trips--
that is, trips in which vehicles respond to passenger requests for
service. While ADA-complementary paratransit trips constitute the
majority of such trips, the FTA official said the two types of data are
not interchangeable and cannot be used to determine the extent of
compliance with paratransit requirements under the ADA. FTA officials
noted that, while they do not have nationwide data on compliance with
the requirement for ADA-complementary paratransit service, FTA does
have standards that systems are expected to meet. FTA also has
knowledge about the compliance of individual systems that it has
reviewed or investigated. According to FTA officials, ADA compliance
rates are subsequently high among the paratransit systems that they
have reviewed.
Paratransit ridership has increased since the ADA, and although more
individuals with disabilities are being served, anecdotal evidence
suggests compliance with some ADA regulations is still a problem. For
example, according to Easter Seals Project ACTION and a 2005 National
Council on Disability report, some paratransit providers deny rides to
people who may be eligible under the law or fail to provide rides to
eligible individuals in response to requests made the previous day, as
required by federal regulation. Transit agencies also struggle to
balance providing complementary paratransit service with the increased
cost of accommodating a growing ridership.
Complaint Data:
DOT and DOJ data indicate that relatively few individuals file
transportation-related ADA complaints with federal agencies. Examples
of this data are as follows:
* In 2005, the most recent year for which complete data were available,
FTA received 124 ADA-related complaints,[Footnote 41] FRA received 22,
and FHWA received 22.
* DOJ forwarded 112 transportation-related ADA complaints to DOT in
2005. According to DOT officials, many of these are included in the
totals listed above.
* FMCSA has received at least two ADA-related complaints regarding
commercial bus passenger service since 2001.[Footnote 42]
A relatively low number of federal complaints may not indicate a high
level of compliance with regulations. For example, in another civil
rights area, fair housing, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development conducted several studies of discrimination against
individuals looking for housing. Their findings indicated that
discrimination occurred at higher rates than the number of complaints
would indicate; one study showed that only 1 percent of individuals who
believed they had experienced housing discrimination reported the
discrimination to a government agency.[Footnote 43] We heard from a
number of local and national disability groups that most transportation
users are not aware they can file a complaint at the federal level.
Federal Agencies Conduct Oversight and Enforcement Activities but Face
Difficulties in Ensuring Compliance with the ADA:
DOJ and DOT, which share responsibility for ADA oversight and
enforcement,[Footnote 44] face three main difficulties in ensuring
compliance with the ADA. First, there are uneven levels of oversight
and enforcement among the DOT modal administrations, leading to gaps
for some transportation modes. Second, the same lack of data that
precludes a clear understanding of the extent of compliance also
prevents agencies from targeting oversight and enforcement activities
and evaluating the effectiveness of these efforts. Third, DOT officials
indicate their enforcement options are of limited use, which suggests a
need for additional options. In a number of instances, compliance has
not come through federal agency enforcement but through private
citizens filing lawsuits and negotiating settlements.
Unevenness in Agencies' Oversight Framework and Coordination Leads to
Gaps in Oversight and Enforcement of Some Modes:
The ADA divides oversight and enforcement authority between DOJ and
DOT, but there are differences depending on the type of transportation.
Although some agencies have a framework in place that allows
comprehensive oversight, the lack of such a framework in other agencies
and the manner in which responsibility is shared results in gaps in
oversight and enforcement for intercity passenger rail and commercial
bus and to possible duplication of effort for public rights-of-way. For
public transit, DOJ and FTA have used formal means to clarify
responsibilities and ensure coordinated and consistent oversight and
enforcement.
Federal Agencies' Role in Oversight and Enforcement of Surface
Transportation Accessibility Requirements Differs by Mode:
Under the ADA, responsibility for oversight and enforcement rests
partly with DOT and partly with DOJ. In general, DOJ issues regulations
that govern public rights-of-way and oversees and enforces compliance
with those regulations and has enforcement authority over public and
private transportation providers. DOT issues regulations that govern
both public and private transportation providers and oversees public
compliance with those regulations.[Footnote 45] Under the regulations
issued by both agencies, DOJ and DOT have authority to receive and
investigate complaints of discrimination and to perform compliance
reviews. In addition, DOT's modal authorities--primarily FTA, FHWA, and
FRA--distribute federal grant money to many of the entities they
oversee. Any recipient of federal financial assistance from DOT must
certify that it is in compliance with applicable federal laws,
including the ADA.
DOJ, FTA, and FHWA Have an Oversight and Enforcement Framework in Place:
DOJ, FTA, and FHWA have established an oversight and enforcement
framework that includes investigating complaints and performing various
types of reviews to identify noncompliance with regulations. For
example, in response to a complaint, DOJ investigated a taxi company
for refusing to provide a ride to a person who is blind and uses a
guide dog. DOJ entered into a settlement agreement with the taxi
company, which agreed to provide ADA training to all its current and
future drivers and dispatchers. In another example, DOJ negotiated
settlement agreements with six taxi service providers to eliminate
surcharges or bans on travelers with service animals or wheelchairs.
DOJ officials told us that because they receive few transportation-
related complaints regarding private entities, and they consider
transportation to be a high-priority area, DOJ investigates almost all
transportation-related complaints that appear to state a
violation.[Footnote 46] FTA and FHWA also have a record of receiving
and investigating complaints. In one instance, complaints in one state
regarding the installation of accessible pedestrian signals triggered
FHWA to work with the state highway office to draft a plan to address
pedestrian accessibility issues.
Similarly, these agencies conduct reviews to determine compliance with
their respective regulations. Following are examples of some of these
reviews:
* In one such effort, DOJ initiated a program called Project Civic
Access that, as of June 2007, had included reviews of 143 localities'
compliance with accessibility requirements, in some cases including
public rights-of-way. DOJ selects the entity to be reviewed based on a
number of criteria, including complaints, relative population of people
with disabilities, and geographic diversity. These reviews usually
result in a formal agreement between DOJ and the entity, which includes
specific steps to be taken to come into compliance and a time line for
completion. For example, DOJ conducted a review of the City of Omaha,
Nebraska, and, based on the results of the review, entered into an
agreement whereby the city agreed to provide, over a 9-year period,
curb ramps at all intersections that had been built or modified since
the effective date of the ADA.
* FTA conducts at least two different types of oversight reviews of
recipients of its grant programs and, in cases where it identifies
noncompliance, works with the audited entities to ensure they comply.
These oversight reviews include periodic comprehensive reviews of all
grant recipients (such as statutorily required triennial reviews and
state management reviews) and discretionary targeted ADA compliance
reviews. The latter category are usually focused on one of the
following discrete areas: ADA-complementary paratransit service; fixed-
route bus lift or ramp maintenance and reliability; fixed-route bus
stop announcements and route identification; rail stop announcements
and route identification; or key, new, or renovated rail station
compliance. For example, FTA found in the course of a compliance review
that one local agency was improperly denying ADA- complementary
paratransit service to some individuals who should be eligible under
the ADA. The agency made several changes to its eligibility
determination process in response to FTA's recommendations.
* FHWA conducts three types of reviews of state transportation
agencies--process reviews, program reviews, and compliance reviews--
each of which can focus on ADA-related issues. For example, FHWA
conducts a compliance review to determine whether a state
transportation agency is properly fulfilling its legal or regulatory
responsibilities when it receives a complaint or other indication that
a state may not be in compliance with the ADA. The review would
determine whether the state is installing curb ramps in pedestrian
facilities that are constructed with federal funds or when roads with
pedestrian crossings are newly constructed or altered.
FRA and FMCSA Do Not Have a Framework for Clarifying and Establishing
Their Oversight Role:
The two other modal administrations, FRA and FMCSA, have taken much
more limited roles and do not have a framework for conducting ADA
oversight. FRA does not have authority over Amtrak's day-to-day
customer service, but Amtrak is defined by law as a public entity for
ADA purposes and is, therefore, subject to DOT's regulatory enforcement
provisions. ADA regulations require DOT to conduct investigations and
initiate compliance procedures.[Footnote 47] FRA does not conduct any
reviews that assess Amtrak's compliance with ADA regulations, although
FRA is monitoring Amtrak's progress in assessing station accessibility.
FRA officials also told us that they plan to conduct reviews of
Amtrak's service delivery to riders with disabilities in the future.
FRA officials said that when they receive ADA-related complaints about
Amtrak, the first step in the investigation is to forward the complaint
to Amtrak for its review, investigation, and possible settlement. FRA
officials said they do not have sufficient resources to investigate all
complaints themselves. They said that they review Amtrak's proposed
resolution including, in many cases, contacting the complainant to
determine if he or she is satisfied with the outcome. In a few
instances, FRA did not agree with Amtrak's proposed resolution or
determined that a complaint reflected an area of broad significance and
intervened. In those instances, FRA further investigated the complaint
and had Amtrak sign agreements with FRA describing steps Amtrak will
take to prevent future discrimination.
FRA officials described other ways in which the agency provides ADA-
related oversight of Amtrak besides reviewing complaints or conducting
compliance reviews. For example, FRA provides oversight through
administration of Amtrak's grant agreements, as previously discussed.
In addition, FRA reviews and approves the plans or designs for certain
new passenger cars and station platforms, upon referral by Amtrak. FRA
officials have physically inspected new or soon-to-be renovated
stations to give technical advice on how to assure compliance,
according to FRA. Nevertheless, without FRA conducting direct
oversight, Amtrak is largely responsible for ensuring its own
compliance with the ADA.
FMCSA's role is also limited: FMCSA officials told us that they have
the authority to conduct oversight of ADA compliance by commercial
buses but do not do so because of competing priorities for their
oversight resources, such as safety issues. In addition, FMCSA has
asserted that it does not have the authority to withhold or revoke a
bus company's operating authority on the basis of noncompliance with
the ADA, although this position has been disputed in court, which
reversed FMCSA's decision and directed FMCSA to reexamine the
statute.[Footnote 48] FMCSA officials told us that they forward any
complaints to DOJ because they do not have enforcement authority for
the ADA. In addition, officials said that if they become aware of
possible violations of ADA regulations, they will forward that
information to DOJ for resolution. For example, as part of a concerted
effort to inspect commercial buses for safety violations in 2005, FMCSA
identified 10 possible instances of ADA violations and provided the
information to DOJ for further review.[Footnote 49] FMCSA officials
also said that they are considering developing a checklist that would
include some component of ADA compliance for use in some or all of
their safety inspections, but this idea is in the very early stages of
development.
Lack of Coordination also Contributes to Oversight Gaps or Duplication
of Effort:
FTA and DOJ have taken a formal step to clarify and strengthen their
respective roles and ensure coordinated and consistent enforcement. In
2005, these two agencies signed a memorandum of understanding
addressing each agency's role in ADA oversight and enforcement. The
memorandum provides that FTA will, with assistance from DOJ,
investigate suspected violations of the ADA, seek informal resolution
in instances of noncompliance, and refer cases to DOJ or withhold
federal funding if it is unable to resolve compliance issues. For its
part, DOJ will, once FTA refers a case, pursue further enforcement
action with coordination and assistance from FTA. Although the
agreement has not resulted in any referrals from FTA to DOJ, officials
from both agencies told us that simply having a formal relationship and
a requirement to meet periodically has been helpful.
FRA and FMCSA do not have formal working relationships with DOJ or a
memorandum of understanding to clarify their respective
responsibilities in overseeing ADA compliance. Gaps appear in ADA
oversight for Amtrak and commercial buses because responsibility is not
clearly defined, as follows:
* Amtrak--FRA provides limited oversight of Amtrak but has not referred
any suspected instances of noncompliance with ADA regulations to DOJ
for further enforcement action.
* Commercial buses--FMCSA does not conduct oversight of commercial
buses for compliance with ADA regulations. FMCSA conducts oversight of
commercial buses for compliance with safety regulations, however, and,
therefore, appears to be in an ideal position to conduct ADA oversight.
DOJ officials said they have responded to information provided by FMCSA
and initiated reviews of some commercial bus operators. DOJ officials
also commended FMCSA for being proactive in sharing information and
said that the informal relationship they have developed over the last 3
years has been mutually beneficial. However, neither FMCSA nor DOJ has
a program in place to conduct ADA oversight reviews on an ongoing basis.
While there does not appear to be a similar gap in oversight of public
rights-of-way, DOJ and FHWA could also benefit from better
coordination. DOJ and FHWA officials said they work closely on ADA
issues, but they do not do so formally. Both agencies provide
compliance assistance and conduct similar oversight of public rights-
of-way efforts, which could potentially overlap if the agencies are not
aware of each other's activities. DOJ and FHWA officials told us that
the agencies could benefit from better coordination by sharing data and
expertise and by eliminating possible duplication of effort.
Agencies Lack Data with Which to Target and Evaluate the Effectiveness
of Oversight and Enforcement Efforts:
Most agencies lack the information needed to target their ADA
enforcement efforts and to determine the effectiveness of their
oversight activities. The exception is FTA, which collects data on
accessibility and compliance through its triennial, state management,
and ADA compliance reviews and uses this information to evaluate each
grantee annually to determine the appropriate level of oversight
required. FTA also focuses its ADA compliance efforts on areas that it
has identified through experience and data analysis as problematic:
paratransit operations, bus lift maintenance and usage, and stop
announcements. By contrast, FRA, FMCSA, and FHWA lack reliable data to
determine the extent of compliance with the ADA requirements for which
they are responsible. Without this information, agencies cannot target
their oversight activities, establish performance goals and measures,
or monitor progress to gauge the effectiveness of their oversight
efforts.
The general lack of data about ADA compliance at FMCSA, FRA, and FHWA
is in marked contrast to those agencies' use of data to target
oversight activities in other areas. For example, in reporting on
FMCSA's motor carrier truck enforcement efforts in 2005, we noted that
FMCSA's enforcement approach uses major risk factors identified as
contributing to crashes and that FMCSA targets its enforcement
resources at the motor carriers that it assesses as having the greatest
crash risk. The agency uses information that it collects and maintains
about carriers' safety performance (including crash history and results
of roadside inspections and compliance reviews) to identify these
unsafe carriers to be targeted.[Footnote 50] In addition, FMCSA has
several information systems and a program to help it identify high-risk
carriers and drivers and to assist it in enforcing safety regulations.
FRA and, to a lesser extent FHWA, have similar programs to target
oversight or enforcement based on collected information. For example,
many of FHWA's division offices conduct risk assessments and use this
information to target their oversight efforts for highway projects.
DOJ might have difficulty collecting information similar to the DOT
modal administrations because there are no ADA reporting requirements
for most of the public and private entities over which DOJ has
enforcement authority. One example, introduced earlier, is that many
municipalities are required to develop transition plans about improving
rights-of-way access but are not required to report this information.
DOJ officials said that, based on their experience with Project Civic
Access reviews conducted so far, most municipalities did not have a
transition plan in place. However, this information is not specific
enough to help DOJ target future entities to review.
DOT Officials Consider Existing Enforcement Options to Be Limited:
In general, DOT's modal administrations attempt to resolve instances of
noncompliance informally by working with the offending entity to
achieve a mutually satisfactory result. If these efforts are not
successful, there are two enforcement options available: withholding
federal funds[Footnote 51] or referring cases to DOJ for investigation
and further enforcement action. DOT has rarely used these options,
however.
DOT regulations encourage resolving complaints and compliance issues
informally before initiating stronger methods. We found informal ADA
resolution processes in use at most DOT modal administrations, but not
all, as follows:
* FTA and FHWA officials told us that they are generally successful in
working with grantees to achieve compliance, usually by developing a
list of problems and providing technical assistance. For example, if
FTA identifies a deficiency in the course of a triennial or compliance
review, FTA requires the entity to take steps to correct the deficiency
and monitors its progress. FTA keeps reviews open until problems are
resolved, which could occur quickly or take years. For example,
entities sometimes refuse to comply due to competing priorities for
funds, lack of expertise, or other reasons. In those instances, FTA
continues to try to work with the entity. In the case of one transit
agency, for example, FTA completed a compliance review in January 2001
and has been monitoring the agency on a quarterly basis since that
time. For public rights-of-way, FHWA seeks ADA compliance through the
investigation and resolution of complaints through a settlement
agreement. FHWA also approves state standards and reviews projects
constructed or programs funded with FHWA funding, training, and
technical assistance.
* For Amtrak, FRA has entered into voluntary compliance agreements in
some instances. For example, Amtrak and FRA signed a compliance
agreement in which Amtrak agreed to develop ADA-related training after
FRA had investigated a complaint from a customer who alleged poor
treatment on the basis of his disability. However, FRA investigates few
complaints about Amtrak because most complaints are forwarded to Amtrak
for resolution.
* Although FMCSA uses informal resolution methods for its safety
oversight activities, it does not do so for ADA. FMCSA recently
introduced a proposal to add ADA items to its safety audit of new
commercial bus companies, but this would be for educational purposes
and would not affect the outcome of the safety audit.
At all modal administrations, DOT officials said they have rarely used
the following two available enforcement mechanisms:
* Withholding funds--DOT agencies we spoke with had never used this
enforcement option because, in most cases, withholding all or a portion
of grant funds for noncompliance with ADA regulations is a lengthy and
administratively complex process.[Footnote 52] DOT agencies are
required to hold a hearing in front of, and gain approval from, the
Secretary of Transportation prior to withholding funding. According to
FRA and FTA, the process to withdraw any funding would not be taken
lightly given its effect and the need for the Secretary to weigh all
the factors involved. In addition, withholding all or a portion of a
transportation provider's funding could affect the entire transit
system and the mobility of all riders, including those with
disabilities.[Footnote 53] For example, for issues other than the ADA,
we have previously reported that FRA has not withheld funds from Amtrak
for noncompliance with grant agreements--despite the legal authority to
do so--because withholding grant funds would involve large sums and
could have a severe impact on Amtrak's continued operations and the
mobility of riders who depend on the service.[Footnote 54] Finally,
FHWA officials said that they have never withheld federal funding
because they have been able to resolve compliance violations
voluntarily.
* Referral to DOJ--DOT modal administrations have the option of
referring a case on ADA noncompliance to DOJ for enforcement action.
However, to date, FHWA and FTA have each formally referred one case to
DOJ. FMCSA has not formally referred any cases, although it has
provided information to DOJ on possible ADA violations, as previously
mentioned. An FTA official said that, prior to implementing the
memorandum of understanding, FTA did not have the formal working
relationship necessary to provide an avenue for regular communication
about ongoing cases. FTA officials also indicated that DOJ
investigations can be lengthy and said there are a number of steps that
FTA has to pursue internally before referring a case. In several
instances, however, FTA collected sufficient proof of persistent
noncompliance and indicated to the grantee its intent to refer the case
to DOJ, according to FTA officials. In each instance, according to FTA,
grantees have then indicated willingness to make additional
improvements, negating the need for a referral at that time.
DOJ's enforcement options are also somewhat limited, unless the
transportation entity is privately owned. For public transportation
entities, DOJ can pursue enforcement action if DOT refers the entity
and, in such cases, DOJ can initiate a lawsuit, seek mediation, or
negotiate a consent agreement. As mentioned previously, DOT has
referred two cases formally to DOJ for investigation. DOJ can also
intervene in existing private suits. For example, DOJ joined a private
suit against a large city and reached a consent agreement in which the
city agreed to address alleged ADA violations involving its fixed-route
public bus systems. For private transportation entities, DOJ can, and
has, initiated its own lawsuits, joined existing private lawsuits, used
mediation, signed settlement agreements, and sought civil penalties.
For example, DOJ reached a consent decree with a private entity
providing fixed-route service between Memphis and the Little Rock
airport, alleging that it had failed to provide accessible
transportation. In another example, DOJ reached a settlement agreement
with a large, door-to-door airport shuttle company in which the company
agreed to add accessible vehicles to its fleet, train its employees on
providing equivalent service, and pay a civil penalty. DOJ officials
said that they may increase their use of civil penalties for ADA
violations in the future because the ADA has been in effect for 17
years and entities should be familiar with their responsibilities.
DOT Has Another Option Available for Enforcing Airline Accessibility
and Safety-Related Requirements:
In contrast to surface transportation cases involving the ADA, DOT has
at least one other option, the ability to levy monetary penalties,
available for enforcement in similar situations. Following are examples
of monetary penalties:
* DOT has the ability to levy monetary penalties against airlines that
violate the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, which largely governs
accessibility issues in air transportation. DOT has levied penalties
against commercial air carriers for violations of this law and has
allowed carriers to use a portion of the penalties to improve their
compliance. For example, in 2002, DOT found that Northwest Airlines had
violated the Air Carrier Access Act and assessed civil penalties of
$700,000 with certain provisions that allowed the airline to offset a
portion of the penalties. In this case, Northwest could offset up to
$550,000 by taking steps such as increasing the number of wheelchair
assistance personnel at airports, purchasing and installing grab bars
in airplane lavatories, and establishing an Air Carrier Access Act
Quality Assurance Program. Between 2000 and 2006, DOT imposed
approximately $8.4 million in penalties.
* Such penalties are also an option for many safety violations. FRA and
FMCSA impose civil penalties against freight rail and commercial motor
carriers, respectively, for safety violations, and FTA and OST
officials said that extending this type of enforcement tool to FTA for
use against transit agencies would be very useful and would help their
ADA compliance efforts.
Agency officials indicated the threat of a fine would serve to
encourage compliance but would also be useful to gain compliance for
relatively minor acts of noncompliance. For example, FTA officials said
that during the course of investigating a complaint against a transit
agency, the agency agreed there was a problem but refused to correct
it. The transit agency understood the problem was a small one and that
it was unlikely that FTA would pursue one of the more extreme
enforcement options available. However, if FTA were able to levy a fine
for this particular instance, the transit agency would be much more
likely to comply.
Private Citizens Use Lawsuits and Settlement Agreements to Bring About
Compliance:
In a number of instances, compliance has come not through agency
enforcement but through private citizens filing lawsuits and
negotiating settlements.[Footnote 55] The ADA authorizes private
citizens or their representatives to file suit in cases of
discrimination, providing another avenue of oversight for both public
and private entities where federal oversight has not resolved problems.
In addition, citizens are not required to pursue resolution through
complaints prior to filing suit. Lawsuits are not without limitations,
however. For example, the ADA does not provide for punitive damages.
Also, although the ADA does allow for recovery for legal fees, recent
court decisions have made these fees more difficult to obtain.
The terms of lawsuits and settlement agreements reached by people with
disabilities have resulted in more than just requiring transportation
providers and state and local governments to conform to the
requirements of the ADA. For example, a group of passengers in Boston
brought suit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in
2002 alleging discrimination based on disability. The passengers and
the transit agency eventually reached a settlement agreement that
includes a commitment by the agency to ensure bus lifts are properly
maintained and functional, as required by ADA regulations, and also a
pledge to purchase new low-floor (rather than high-floor) buses that
employ ramps instead of lifts--lifts are often deemed to be less
reliable. Notably, FTA has been monitoring Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority for compliance with ADA requirements to
announce transit stops and maintain bus lifts since July 2000.
Federal Entities Provide a Variety of Technical Assistance to Help with
ADA Compliance, but Gaps Exist in Regulations and Guidance:
The ADA requires DOT, DOJ, and the Access Board to provide technical
assistance that will help transportation providers, businesses, and
state and local governments comply with ADA requirements. The agencies
have provided this assistance both in regulations and in various types
of nonregulatory guidance. Our discussions with officials from state
and local transportation agencies indicated, however, that current
assistance has several key gaps and that--in some instances--proposed
regulations and guidance still leave questions about what they need to
do to comply.
Assistance Takes Several Forms:
DOJ and DOT each issue regulations covering those aspects of the ADA
for which they are responsible. These regulations, discussed below,
have the force and effect of law.[Footnote 56]
* DOJ's regulations incorporate the Access Board's guidelines as
standards for accessible design. The regulations provide minimum design
standards for the construction and alteration of places of public
accommodation, commercial facilities, and state and local government
facilities.[Footnote 57] Included in these standards are basic design
criteria for sidewalks and curb ramps. DOJ's regulatory standards must,
at a minimum, meet the Access Board's accessible design guidelines. DOJ
also issues regulations on nondiscrimination on the basis of disability
by public accommodations and in commercial facilities, as well as
nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in state and local
government services.
* DOT's regulations focus on the provision of transportation services
by public and private entities and include accessibility requirements
as they pertain to vehicles (such as public transit, intercity
passenger trains, and commercial buses) and stations. Under the ADA,
DOT's regulatory standards for accessible facilities and vehicles
cannot be less stringent than the Access Board's guidelines. DOT's
regulations also cover nondiscrimination (for example, an entity cannot
require that a qualified individual with a disability be accompanied by
an attendant) and requirements for complementary paratransit service,
such as processes for determining eligibility.
DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board also issue official guidance. This
guidance does not have the force and effect of law and is intended to
provide clarification to assist entities in complying with regulations.
For example, DOJ guidance includes information for businesses on
accommodating service animals and restriping parking lots, among other
things. FTA has issued guidance to assist public transportation
agencies in their responsibility to transport passengers who use common
wheelchairs.[Footnote 58] The Access Board has provided guidance to
clarify technical requirements for buses, commuter and intercity
railcars, and over-the-road bus systems. To coordinate DOT's disability-
related interpretations, guidance, and policies, the Secretary of
Transportation established in 2003 a working group known as the
Disability Law Coordinating Council. DOT recently proposed codifying
the council in regulation. For more information about the council, see
appendix III.
DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board all provide technical assistance through
a variety of other sources, such as Web sites, conferences, and
outreach through nongovernmental entities (see table 1 for examples).
These other informational sources provide state, local, and industry
officials with a source of information ranging from the regulations
themselves to one-on-one assistance with specific questions. On FMCSA's
Web site, for example, commercial bus companies can obtain a summary of
DOT's ADA regulations and information about their annual reporting
requirements.[Footnote 59]
Table 1: Other Examples of ADA Technical Assistance Sources Provided by
DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board:
Source: Web site;
Example: FMCSA's Web site includes information on commercial bus
companies' ADA responsibilities and reporting requirements.
Source: Assistance line;
Example: DOJ provides a toll-free assistance line to answer compliance
questions for businesses and nonprofit transportation providers, local
governments, and public transportation providers.
Source: Training and conferences;
Example: The Access Board provides training to state and local
officials on public rights-of-way requirements.
Source: Oversight reviews;
Example: As part of what is called Project Civic Access, DOJ provides
reviews addressing facility modifications that will improve access,
such as accessible parking and routes to and through buildings.
Source: Funding of federal and nongovernmental entitites;
Example: Easter Seals Project ACTION, funded by FTA, provides
information on ADA resources, a toll-free ADA information line, and
training on transportation accessibility; FHWA funds the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, which conducts research in
problem areas that affect highway planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance nationwide, including problem areas related
to public rights-of-way.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Finally, other federal and nongovernmental organizations not
specifically named under the ADA also provide technical assistance. For
example,
* The Department of Education funds Disability and Business Technical
Assistance Centers, which provide training related to ADA.
* The Department of Health and Human Services supports a nationwide
system of state-level organizations that advocate for the rights of
individuals with disabilities.
* The American Bus Association, an industry organization, provides a
newsletter to its members addressing ADA-related topics and
requirements.
* Advocacy organizations such as the Paralyzed Veterans of America and
the National Disability Rights Network inform transportation providers
and individuals with disabilities about ADA rights and responsibilities.
Gaps in Technical Assistance for Public Transportation and Public
Rights-of-Way Have Raised Uncertainty about ADA Compliance Requirements:
While a number of public transportation providers and state and local
officials with whom we spoke found federal technical assistance
sufficient for many of their needs, they identified two key areas in
which confusion existed about complying with ADA requirements. These
areas were (1) uncertainty about how ADA requirements pertain to
emerging issues in public transportation, such as mobility devices that
do not fit the definition of a common wheelchair, and (2) lack of
clarity about planning for and designing accessible public rights-of-
way. According to some state and local government officials, this
uncertainty has made them apprehensive about going forward with efforts
to implement accessible rights-of-way, particularly those that go
beyond the current ADA regulations such as installing accessible
pedestrian signals. DOT is in the process of updating guidance on the
emerging issues in public transportation. For public rights-of-way,
however, federal agencies are not as far along in addressing areas of
confusion.
DOT Is Developing Regulations to Address Emerging Issues in Public
Transportation:
DOT has identified emerging areas in public transportation that it is
addressing through an NPRM and anticipates finalizing the rule by the
beginning of 2008.[Footnote 60] These issues include the increasing use
of larger, heavier mobility devices on public transportation and the
potential effect on DOT's current definition for a common wheelchair;
requirements for public transit agencies providing paratransit
services; and platform requirements for intercity and commuter rail
stations.
Prior to issuing the NPRM, DOT promulgated guidance on these issues in
2005; however, a number of public transportation providers and national
industry groups with whom we spoke noted that the industry was unsure
about how to implement some of the guidance. For example, as more
people are using larger wheelchairs or scooters and similar devices,
public transportation providers with whom we spoke are unclear about
how to accommodate these devices because current regulations on
wheelchairs and mobility devices do not address devices that fall
outside of the definition of a common wheelchair.[Footnote 61] Further,
a number of transportation providers considered DOT's 2005 guidance on
how transit vehicles should transport two-wheeled, self-balancing
Segway® personal transportation devices, to be unclear. Specifically,
DOT guidance states that a transportation provider is not required to
permit anyone to bring onto a vehicle a device that is too big or that
is determined to pose a direct threat to the safety of others;[Footnote
62] however, the guidance also directs transportation providers to
accommodate Segways when used as a mobility device by a person with a
disability, subject to these same limitations.[Footnote 63] Thus, to
address these concerns, and others, the DOT issued an NPRM soliciting
public comment on this topic, as well as on paratransit services and
level boarding for rail station platforms.
More Clarity Needed for Public Rights-of-Way Requirements:
Advocacy and industry groups and state and local governments told us
that current federal regulations and guidance have gaps or are unclear
on (1) ADA-required transition plans for assessing the accessibility of
state and local governments' structures including sidewalks and curb
ramps and (2) technical requirements for installing accessible public
rights-of-way.
Many Jurisdictions Lack Information about Transition Plans for
Correcting Public Rights-of-Way Deficiencies or Are Unaware They Have
to Develop a Plan:
ADA regulations require state and local governments to assess local
accessibility and draft a transition plan for upgrading the public
rights-of-way within their jurisdictions. Current regulations require
any public entity that employs 50 or more persons to develop such a
plan. If a public entity has responsibility or authority over streets,
roads, or walkways, its transition plan must include a schedule for
providing curb ramps, or other sloped areas, where pedestrian walks
cross curbs, including state and local government offices and
facilities, transportation, and places of public
accommodation.[Footnote 64] At a minimum, the plan must identify
physical obstacles that might limit the accessibility of programs or
activities, describe in detail the methods that will be used to make
facilities accessible, specify the schedule for taking identified
steps, and indicate the official responsible for implementing the plan.
However, gaps exist in the current federal regulations and guidance
because they do not specify how to include that information in the
plans and, if a jurisdiction has a plan, when it should update the
plan.[Footnote 65]
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
surveyed state departments of transportation and concluded that
considerable confusion exists among states about when and how to update
transition plans. In addition, several members of an industry
association (representing different states and localities) told us that
jurisdictions are confused about what is supposed to be included in a
transition plan and indicated that more specific federal guidance would
be helpful. For example, one state transportation official mentioned
that federal guidance was unclear on what data should be collected for
ADA transition plans and did not address field-level implementation of
ADA requirements for transition plans.
Without proper regulations and accompanying guidance from the federal
government, states and localities face challenges creating these plans,
or may not create them at all. DOJ Project Civic Access reviews
typically reveal that, most commonly, the responsible government has
not established an ADA transition plan and the accompanying policies
and procedures necessary to ensure the installation of curb ramps at
public rights-of-way. Absent such plans, states and localities may
neither assess the status of the accessibility of their public rights-
of-way nor develop a schedule for updating curb ramps and ensuring
access to public services and programs, leaving themselves vulnerable
to private lawsuits or federal compliance actions. Furthermore, without
transition plans, it is difficult or impossible for the federal
government to assess compliance and collect information or data from
state and local governments with regard to the accessibility of their
public rights-of-way.
FHWA has recognized the lack of information on ADA-required transition
plans and other aspects of civil rights requirements and plans to
complete civil rights program assessments of all state departments of
transportation by the end of fiscal year 2008. This project should,
among other things, enable FHWA to gauge the number of states that have
developed and implemented a transition plan. The program assessments
are designed to assess how state departments of transportation
implement ADA requirements and ascertain the extent to which they are
involved with local governments' ADA implementation on projects and
programs that are jointly funded by FHWA and a state department of
transportation. While these program assessments are a first step, FHWA
will not assess the content of state transition plans or determine
whether the state transportation agencies are in compliance with the
ADA. The assessments will also not address whether local governments
throughout the country have created transition plans.
FHWA has also drafted a tool kit for its division offices and state
departments of transportation. The tool kit will assist staff tasked
with compliance and oversight activities for ADA requirements,
including oversight of transition plans for state departments of
transportation. According to FHWA, this tool kit is under review by
FHWA's Office of Chief Counsel and is not yet available publicly. In
addition, FHWA is involved in a federally funded research project by
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program focusing on the
development of a guide for updating ADA transition plans for state
departments of transportation. This project is aimed at helping states
translate applicable laws and guidance into field-level implementation
of ADA requirements for transition plans and related requirements and
is anticipated to be completed in May 2008.
Technical Standards for Installing Public Rights-of-Way Are Not
Finalized:
In addition to the transition plans required by the ADA, the Access
Board developed ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for installing
accessible structures and devices such as curb ramps for sidewalks.
These guidelines serve as the basis for DOJ and DOT's current ADA
regulations, originally published in 1991. However, ADA accessibility
requirements in current regulations focus primarily on accessibility
standards for building facilities, not public rights-of-way. In June
1994, the Access Board published an interim rule containing more
information on public rights-of-way, among other accessibility topics,
to supplement the ADA accessibility requirements. As the transportation
community and others reviewed these guidelines, however, they were
concerned about the magnitude of the work that would be needed to meet
the public rights-of-way guidance. As a result, the Access Board
withdrew the sections of the rule pertaining to public rights-of-way
and began conducting education and outreach activities to inform the
transportation industry about accessibility of public rights-of-way.
Current ADA accessibility requirements, as codified in regulation, do
not contain the Access Board supplement on public rights-of-way.
In 1999, the Access Board resumed its efforts to develop final
guidelines for public rights-of-way and, nearly a decade later, work
continues on these draft guidelines. After soliciting input from a wide
variety of stakeholders,[Footnote 66] the Access Board released another
draft of its public rights-of-way guidelines in 2002 for public comment
and received an extensive public response. The board considered these
comments and, in 2005, published revised draft guidelines for purposes
of gathering additional information for an economic impact analysis,
which is still under way by the Access Board. The new guidelines are
expected to cover such subjects as pedestrian access to sidewalks and
streets, including crosswalks, curb ramps, street furnishings,
pedestrian signals, parking, and other parts of the public rights-of-
way. They will likely also address issues such as access at street
crossings for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision, wheelchair
access to on-street parking, and constraints posed by space
limitations, roadway design practices, slope, and terrain. According to
Access Board and DOJ officials, the draft guidelines are more
consistent with industry standards.
The draft guidelines remain a work in progress. The Access Board is
still working on the economic analysis, and, once it is complete, the
draft guidelines will go out for public comment. As of July 2007,
however, the Access Board was not able to provide an estimate for when
the guidelines might be finalized. If codified into federal regulations
and standards by DOJ, the Access Board draft guidelines would
supplement the current ADA accessibility requirements and provide a
comprehensive set of regulations for public rights-of-way.
Various studies and advocacy and industry groups, as well as officials
with whom we spoke, cited the lack of final, specialized standards for
public rights-of-way as a problem. Some of their comments and findings
are as follows:
* According to a report by the National Academies of Sciences,
improvements to pedestrian accessibility have lagged behind
improvements to the rest of the transportation network, in part because
no enforceable regulations for making public rights-of-way accessible
have been issued.[Footnote 67]
* Officials with the National Council on Disabilities said that, absent
such enforceable standards, localities continue to erect barriers, such
as inaccessible bus stops, intersections without curb ramps or with
improperly constructed curb ramps, and barriers blocking sidewalks.
* Officials with a national industry association with whom we spoke
said that localities are uncertain about requirements for and
definitions of accessible pedestrian signals. The officials said that
there is a strong bias for localities to delay in adding pedestrian
signals, depending on what the final guidelines will require. For
example, one city is conducting a major construction project downtown
to add light rail. In the course of this construction, 60 pedestrian
signals will be modified, but the city is unsure how to proceed since
accessible pedestrian signals are not defined or covered in current ADA
requirements.
* Industry groups with whom we spoke noted that states and localities
may not make an investment in accessibility improvements for public
rights-of-way that go beyond current regulations for curb ramps, since
draft guidelines will likely change. Furthermore, officials with whom
we spoke identified aspects of current accessibility requirements that
are not clear, such as detectable warning requirements for curb ramps.
* Additionally, industry and advocacy groups and state and local
governments said that differences between the draft guidelines, current
ADA accessibility requirements, other federal guidelines, and national
and state building codes create challenges for state and local
governments that are trying to comply with applicable accessibility
requirements for public rights-of-way.[Footnote 68]
State and local government officials, as well as officials from
advocacy and industry groups, pointed to the lack of finalized
comprehensive standards for public rights-of-way as an obstacle to
ensuring access to transportation for individuals with disabilities.
FHWA, which implements ADA pedestrian access requirements for federal,
state, and local government agencies that build and maintain highways,
has provided some guidance, but FHWA officials acknowledge that the
effectiveness of the guidance is limited.[Footnote 69] Furthermore,
FHWA directs states and localities to use the Access Board's draft
guidelines as best practices. In the absence of finalized comprehensive
standards for public rights-of-way, DOJ and the Access Board have
developed guidance on these issues. For example, DOJ has developed an
online tool kit for state and local governments to use in identifying
and fixing problems in public rights-of-way accessibility. However,
according to federal officials, it is difficult to provide effective
training and technical assistance for states and localities while
Access Board draft guidelines are not final and codified in regulation.
Federal officials have acknowledged that the draft guidelines will
likely change as a result of the rulemaking process.
Conclusions:
Congress passed the ADA in part to help people with disabilities have
access to transportation, but 17 years later the federal government
cannot determine the extent of its success for many transportation
modes due to a lack of reliable data. While some improvements have been
made in surface transportation accessibility, further advances are also
hindered, in part, by confusion among transportation providers and
local governments about some of the more complex and emerging aspects
of accessibility requirements and among federal agencies about their
respective roles and responsibilities. For state and local governments,
a major source of confusion is the ADA's requirement to develop and
update transition plans that inventory the accessibility of public
rights-of-way and identify steps and time frames for addressing
deficiencies. Industry associations and state and local transportation
agencies that we interviewed were unsure what should be included in the
plan, what a successful plan would look like, and how often to update
the plan. The problem is persistent enough that the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is funded by FHWA and state
transportation agencies, is conducting a study to develop a tool to
help state transportation agencies with these plans. FHWA is also
conducting program assessments of state transportation agencies to
determine whether they have completed transition plans.
There is also confusion among DOT's modal administrations about what
steps DOT is able to take to enforce the ADA. DOT established a
Disability Law Coordinating Council to coordinate the agency's
disability-related guidance and policies, but this mission does not
include coordination of oversight and enforcement efforts. FTA and DOJ
crafted a memorandum of understanding that set out their respective
responsibilities for shared enforcement of the ADA, and this was
successful in that it helped develop working relationships that have
furthered oversight and enforcement of accessibility requirements in
public transportation. However, FMCSA does not conduct ADA compliance
reviews or investigate complaints for commercial buses and has
indicated that it cannot withhold or revoke a company's operating
authority for noncompliance with the ADA. A federal court directed
FMCSA to reexamine the statute for further consideration. In addition,
although FMCSA and DOT's Office of the Secretary have not gathered and
reviewed information on the accessibility of demand-response and fixed-
route commercial bus service and determined whether to retain or modify
the ADA regulations governing such buses, as required, they recently
developed a preliminary strategy for doing so in response to our
preliminary findings. FRA also has had limited involvement in ADA
enforcement and has not conducted periodic compliance reviews of
Amtrak, as required by regulation, but FRA officials indicated that
they may do so in the future. Amtrak's delay in conducting station
assessments, including providing information on the steps necessary to
bring them into compliance with the ADA by July 2010, hinders FRA's
ability to adequately oversee intercity passenger rail accessibility.
When DOT does identify ADA violations--whether by local transit
agencies, Amtrak, or other entities--DOT primarily relies on informal
negotiations and reminders to attempt to obtain compliance with the
ADA. In many cases, these informal methods are sufficient to correct
the problem. Sometimes, however, an entity refuses to comply due to
competing priorities for funds, lack of expertise, or other reasons.
The ADA has been in effect for more than 17 years, and federal
officials are less sympathetic to such reasons than they used to be.
Other than the informal methods, DOT's other enforcement options are
withholding grant funds or pursuing litigation through DOJ. However,
DOT has rarely used these options because they are too drastic or
lengthy to effectively address the problem in many instances. There is
very little middle ground available. Civil penalties are a tool that
DOT uses to achieve other goals, but it does not have authority to use
them for ADA violations. DOT's Office of the Secretary already has
experience in administering civil penalties against air carriers for
violations of the Air Carrier Access Act. Likewise, FRA and FMCSA
impose civil penalties against freight rail and commercial motor
carriers, respectively, for safety violations. Similar authority for
ADA violations would give DOT's oversight and enforcement efforts more
weight and help ensure that accessibility is a higher priority for
public and private surface transportation providers and local
governments.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the availability of data on ADA compliance and improve FRA's
ability to oversee Amtrak's progress in implementing the ADA, we
recommend that the President of Amtrak continue to report to FRA on the
status of Amtrak's review of the accessibility of its stations. As
required by Amtrak's fiscal year 2006 and 2007 grant agreements, this
report should include data for each station and actions required to
bring it into compliance, as well as an overall schedule for bringing
all Amtrak stations into compliance.
Given gaps in data on the status of ADA compliance of commercial buses,
we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
Administrator, FMCSA and DOT's Office of the Secretary, to implement
their plan to gather, review, and verify information on demand-response
and fixed-route commercial bus service and determine whether to retain
or modify the existing regulations, as required by DOT's regulations.
To reduce confusion among state and local entities regarding ADA-
required transition plans, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the Administrator, FHWA, to work with DOJ to use
the results of both FHWA's program assessments and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program's study to develop and disseminate
guidance for creating and updating transition plans.
To enhance DOT's oversight of ADA compliance, we recommend that the
Secretary of Transportation take the following two actions:
* develop criteria for determining circumstances under which DOT would
withhold all or part of a grantee's federal funds for instances of ADA
noncompliance, which could streamline the process, and:
* direct the Administrator, FRA, to conduct the periodic reviews of
Amtrak's ADA compliance that are required by regulation.
To increase coordination and communication among DOT's modal
administrations and with DOJ, thereby improving DOT's ability to
oversee and enforce the ADA, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the Administrators of FHWA, FMCSA, and FRA to
enter into formal agreements with DOJ to clearly delineate
responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the ADA pertaining to
surface transportation and public rights-of-way. Furthermore, we
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation, through the Office of
the Secretary, establish or designate a formal working group or other
coordinating body (such as the Disability Law Coordinating Council) to
ensure a coordinated effort within DOT for overseeing and enforcing the
ADA, including identifying ways to improve data for measuring
compliance.
To expand the range of options available to DOT modal administrations
for enforcing the ADA for surface transportation and public rights-of-
way, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation develop a
legislative proposal that would give DOT the authority to impose civil
penalties for ADA violations.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT, DOJ, the Access Board, and
Amtrak for their review and comment. DOT and DOJ provided oral comments
and agreed with our findings and conclusions. Further, DOJ agreed with
our recommendations, and DOT agreed to consider them. The Access Board
provided oral comments and agreed with the report's findings. Amtrak
provided written comments (see app. IV) and stated that our
recommendations regarding enhancing DOT's oversight and enforcement
options would not be effective in cases where federal guidance was
unclear and funding is not available to meet the technical
requirements. DOT, DOJ, and Amtrak also provided technical comments via
e-mail, which we incorporated throughout the report as appropriate.
Specific comments on the report as well as our responses follow.
DOT officials stated that since they had an existing body, the
Disability Law Coordinating Council, to coordinate department
regulations, they said that the council's mission could potentially be
expanded to coordinate oversight and enforcement of the ADA. We
included the council in the recommendations.
DOJ officials asked that we clarify DOJ and DOT's statutory and
regulatory authority and they provided additional examples of DOJ's
activities in ADA enforcement. We made changes to reflect these
comments.
Finally, Amtrak stated its commitment to making its railcars and
stations accessible to passengers with disabilities and compliant with
the ADA. It also delineated three concerns impeding and increasing the
cost of Amtrak's progress in constructing and renovating stations.
First, Amtrak officials indicated DOT's notice of proposed rulemaking
on platform heights could require considerable changes to platform
design, but they are uncertain of when these rules will become final
and, if they do, how the entities affected--including freight
railroads--will be able to address these requirements. Second, they
indicated the proposed rules are unclear regarding who is responsible
for ADA compliance in areas where different public and private entities
own stations. Finally, they stated these potential requirements are
expensive, especially in the face of Amtrak's funding difficulties.
They conclude that many technical, ownership, and funding issues are
involved in addressing ADA compliance. Thus, our recommendations that
DOT clarify situations under which it can withhold grant funds and
consider asking for the ability to assess civil penalties are likely to
be ineffective for Amtrak without more funding and clearer federal
requirements.
We added further information clarifying Amtrak's difficulties in the
report. We did not revise our recommendations since they apply to many
situations beyond this one, such as commercial buses and public
transit. Also, we believe that additional data and federal oversight of
all modes of surface transportation, including Amtrak, would be
beneficial in ensuring continued progress in meeting the accessibility
goals of the ADA.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General, and
other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That Are Used for ADA Compliance:
The state and local transportation providers and government agencies
that we interviewed said that they used a variety of federal, state,
and local funding sources--as well as farebox revenues--to help them
comply with the surface transportation provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The federal funding sources are listed
in table 2.
Table 2: Examples of Federal Funds that Are Used for ADA Compliance
(dollars in millions):
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Highway
Administration;
Program: Surface Transportation Program (STP);
Use: STP funds may be used to construct pedestrian walkways and to
modify public sidewalks to comply with the ADA. Ten percent of each
state's STP apportionment must be made available only for
transportation enhancement activities (such as pedestrian facilities).
Funds may be transferred to Federal Transit Administration formula
programs;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $6,247.9.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Highway
Administration;
Program: National Highway System (NHS);
Use: NHS funds may be used to construct pedestrian walkways. Funds may
be transferred to Federal Transit Administration formula programs;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $5,932.5.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Highway
Administration;
Program: Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ);
Use: CMAQ funds may be used for construction of pedestrian facilities.
Under limited circumstances, CMAQ funds may be used to support the
operating costs of public transportation. Funds can also be transferred
to Federal Transit Administration formula programs;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $1,693.7.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Highway
Administration;
Program: Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program;
Use: Funds may be used for replacement or rehabilitation of eligible
highway bridge projects, including pedestrian walkways;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $4,150.9.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Transit
Administration;
Program: Urbanized Area Formula Program;
Use: Assists urbanized areas in financing capital projects for use in
public transportation service; 10 percent of funds may be used to pay
for complementary paratransit operating costs as a capital expenditure.
Operating assistance may also be used to support complementary
paratransit costs. Funds may also be used to enhance access for people
with disabilities to public transportation;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $3,606.2.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Transit
Administration;
Program: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program;
Use: Assists nonurbanized areas in financing capital projects and
operating expenses for use in public transportation service; projects
that will help the area meet ADA requirements are eligible for a higher
federal share of funding; 10 percent of funds may be used to pay for
complementary paratransit operating costs as a capital expenditure.
Operating assistance may also be used to support complementary
paratransit costs;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $404.0.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Transit
Administration;
Program: Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program;
Use: Competitive grant program to help commercial bus companies finance
the capital and training costs of complying with ADA regulations;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $7.6.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Transit
Administration;
Program: Fixed Guideway Modernization Program and Bus and Bus Facility
Grants;
Use: Fixed Guideway Modernization Program provides capital assistance
to maintain, modernize, or improve existing fixed guideway systems,
including rail, bus, and other public transportation systems. Bus and
Bus Facility Grants provide funding for the acquisition of buses and
bus-related facilities, including transfer facilities and passenger
shelters;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $2,329.8.
Federal agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Transit
Administration;
Program: Formula Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with
Disabilities;
Use: This program provides formula funding to states for capital
projects to assist private nonprofit groups in meeting the
transportation needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities
when the public transportation service provided in the area is
unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to meet these needs;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $117.0.
Federal agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Program: Community Development Block Grant;
Use: Annual grants to provide services to the most vulnerable in U.S.
communities. Projects benefit low-and moderate-income persons or
address community development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health
or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available;
Total fiscal year 2007 appropriation: $3,710.9.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In addition, DOT recently implemented the New Freedom Program, which is
a formula grant program designed to support new public transportation
services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required
by the ADA. Congress apportioned $81 million for this program for
fiscal year 2007. This is a new program, and we reported in July 2007
that few governors had designated entities to receive the funds, and
FTA had awarded few grants to date.[Footnote 70]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report addresses the following three objectives: (1) what is known
about the extent of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
compliance for surface transportation and public rights-of-way,
[Footnote 71] (2) what difficulties, if any, the federal government
faces in overseeing and enforcing compliance with the ADA, and (3) the
sources of federal technical assistance that are available to help
public transportation providers, businesses, and state and local
governments comply with ADA requirements and what gaps, if any, exist.
Surface transportation, for the purposes of this report, includes
public transportation (such as buses, subways, trolleys, and commuter
rail), ADA-complementary paratransit (provided within 3/4 of a mile of
a bus route or rail station, at the same hours and days as fixed-route
transit, for no more than twice the regular fixed-route fare),
intercity passenger rail (National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
known as Amtrak), intercity buses, and privately operated
transportation that is open to the public (such as taxis and airport
shuttles). Maritime and aviation are excluded from our scope, as are
school transportation and the Alaska Railroad.
To describe what is known about the extent of ADA compliance for
surface transportation and public rights-of-way, we reviewed and
analyzed relevant portions of the ADA, as well as related federal
regulations and guidance. We also reviewed the literature on
transportation accessibility, such as the National Council on
Disability's reports on the status of compliance with the ADA,[Footnote
72] and interviewed federal officials from the U.S. Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board); the U.S.
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division; and the U.S.
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Civil Rights and modal
administrations, including the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration,
and Federal Transit Administration. In addition, we interviewed
officials from the National Council on Disability and Amtrak.
We obtained data from Amtrak and the Federal Transit Administration's
National Transit Database on the number of accessible vehicles and
stations. To assess the reliability of these data, we spoke with agency
officials about data quality control procedures and reviewed relevant
documentation. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report. We also obtained accessibility data from
reports by DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National
Council on Disability, as well as from the National Organization on
Disability's 2004 Harris Survey. Given that these data were used for
background purposes, we did not assess their reliability.
To identify any difficulties the federal government faces in overseeing
and enforcing compliance with the ADA, we interviewed Access Board,
DOJ, and DOT officials (including officials from one of the Federal
Transit Administration's regional offices) and analyzed documentation
regarding oversight requirements and activities, including information
on the type and frequency of activity, processes by which entities are
selected for review or investigation, and resulting enforcement
activities, if applicable, as well as the processes for receiving,
processing, and responding to complaints. We also obtained and analyzed
DOJ and DOT's ADA-related complaint data. In addition, we reviewed DOJ
and DOT's annual reports, strategic and performance plans, and other
related documents to identify agency and program goals, performance
targets, and data collected for performance indicators related to
improving ADA compliance.
To describe the sources of available federal technical assistance and
determine whether any gaps exist, we interviewed and obtained
documentation from Access Board, DOJ, and DOT officials and key
technical assistance providers (such as Easter Seals Project ACTION).
We also obtained and analyzed information on the processes by which
federal agencies determine how to target this assistance.
To address all three of the objectives, we also interviewed 14 national
industry associations and disability organizations (see table 3) to
obtain their perspective on what is known about ADA compliance; federal
technical assistance, including any potential gaps in such assistance;
and federal ADA-related oversight and enforcement activities.
Table 3: National Industry Associations and Disability Organizations
Interviewed for Our Review:
Industry associations: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
Industry associations: American Bus Association.
Industry associations: American Public Transportation Association.
Industry associations: Association of Programs for Rural Independent
Living.
Industry associations: Community Transportation Association of America.
Industry associations: Easter Seals Project ACTION.
Industry associations: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Industry associations: Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association.
Industry associations: United Motorcoach Association.
Disability organizations: American Council of the Blind.
Disability organizations: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
Disability organizations: National Disability Rights Network.
Disability organizations: National Organization on Disability.
Disability organizations: Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To illustrate experiences that transportation providers and state and
local governments have had with federal ADA-related technical
assistance and oversight and enforcement activities, we supplemented
the information from our federal interviews and documentation with
interviews with officials in eight cities. The interviews included
officials from 2 state departments of transportation, 11 local
transportation agencies, 6 private transportation providers, 4 local
governments, 4 centers for independent living, 2 technical assistance
centers, and 2 local disability advocacy groups. We selected the eight
cities to obtain diversity in the following criteria:
* Experience with federal ADA oversight and enforcement processes--We
identified cities in which public transportation providers or
government entities had been subject to federal oversight and
enforcement processes, including FTA compliance reviews and DOJ Project
Civic Access reviews. We also included transportation providers (public
and private) or government entities listed in DOJ's complaint database,
those with whom DOJ had negotiated a consent decree or settlement
agreement, or those whom FTA had investigated in response to a
complaint and issued a letter of finding.
* Population--We selected a mixture of urbanized areas with very large
populations (greater than 1 million), large populations (200,000-1
million), and small populations (50,000-199,000), as defined by FTA.
* Geographic diversity--We selected cities from around the United
States.
* Other criteria--We also selected cities involved in additional
transportation accessibility areas, including both National
Organization on Disability Accessible America Award winners or runners-
up in 2005 and 2006, and parties to private lawsuits identified through
Internet searches, ADA-related literature, and our federal and national
interviews.
Table 4 lists the eight cities that we selected on the basis of these
criteria and the agencies that we interviewed. The results of these
interviews cannot be used to make inferences about the entire
population because the cities were selected from a nongeneralizable
sample. However, we determined that the selection of these cities was
appropriate for our design and objectives and that the selection would
generate valid and reliable evidence to support our work.
Table 4: State and Local Organizations Interviewed for Our Review:
Location: Albany, NY;
Organization: Capital District Coalition for Accessible Transportation.
Location: Albany, NY;
Organization: Location: Capital District Transportation Authority.
Location: Albany, NY;
Organization: Location: Capitaland Taxi.
Location: Albany, NY;
Organization: New York Association on Independent Living.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Chicago Department of Transportation.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Chicago Transit Authority.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Coach USA.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: City of Chicago Mayor's Office for People with
Disabilities.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Disability Rights Consortium.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Equip for Equality.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Great Lakes ADA Center.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Illinois Department of Transportation.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Metra-commuter rail.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: Location: Pace Bus.
Location: Chicago, IL;
Organization: University of Chicago.
Location: Dallas, TX;
Organization: Dallas Area Rapid Transit.
Location: Dallas, TX;
Organization: Greyhound Bus Lines.
Location: Hartford, CT;
Organization: Connecticut Department of Transportation.
Location: Hartford, CT;
Organization: City of Hartford.
Location: Joliet, IL;
Organization: City of Joliet.
Location: Joliet, IL;
Organization: Will County Executive.
Location: Joliet, IL;
Organization: Will-Grundy Center for Independent Living.
Location: Kingston, NY;
Organization: Adirondack Trailways.
Location: Kingston, NY;
Organization: Location: Kingston Citibus.
Location: Kingston, NY;
Organization: Location: Resource Center for Accessible Living, Inc.
Location: Kingston, NY;
Organization: Ulster County Area Transit.
Location: Los Angeles, CA;
Organization: Access Services, Inc.
Location: Los Angeles, CA;
Organization: Los Angeles Metro.
Location: Springfield, MA;
Organization: Peter Pan Bus Lines.
Location: Springfield, MA;
Organization: Pioneer Valley Transit Authority.
Location: Springfield, MA;
Organization: Stavros Advocates for Independent Living.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We conducted this performance audit from November 2006 through July
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix III: The Disability Law Coordinating Council:
In March 2003, the Secretary of Transportation established a working
group known as the Disability Law Coordinating Council to coordinate
the Department of Transportation's (DOT) disability-related
interpretations, guidance, and policies. The council is led by the
Office of General Counsel and includes representatives from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Its purpose, according to DOT officials, is to coordinate DOT's
disability-related regulations and ensure that guidance and
interpretations are consistent among DOT offices and consistent with
DOT regulations that implement the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA), among other acts. It meets once a month for members to
discuss what each modal administration is doing, uncertainties or
questions that have arisen and where additional guidance would be
useful. The council conducts its business informally, without formal
agendas, minutes, or notes from its meetings.
DOT proposed to codify the council's role in its February 2006 notice
of proposed rulemaking. DOT states that the proposed regulatory change
would codify DOT's procedure with regard to the council and provide
better notice to the public regarding the council's actions. The
proposal has generated some controversy, however. For example, one
major industry association has expressed concern that DOT's proposal
does not discuss what authority the council would have to interpret the
ADA and implement regulations and what balance would be struck between
the council's and FTA's authority.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak):
Amtrak:
National Railroad Passenger Corporation:
September 6, 2007:
Ms. Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: GAO Report on Transportation Accessibility:
Dear Ms. Siggerud:
Thank you for giving Amtrak the opportunity to review and comment on
GAO's draft report on Transportation Accessibility. We appreciate your
willingness to incorporate Amtrak's comments into the final report.
Amtrak is committed to making its rail cars and stations accessible to
passengers with disabilities and compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and has made significant progress in this area
over the years. However, it is important to note that Amtrak's progress
in implementing plans to construct and renovate stations has been, and
is continuing to be, impeded and made more costly by the following
factors:
1. Uncertain Regulatory Requirements on Platform Height.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued Guidance in September
2005 and proposed regulations in February 2006 which, if adopted, would
significantly change the rules for achieving ADA-compliant
accessibility to trains from station platforms. The proposed
regulations would generally mandate the construction of full-length,
high level platforms for new platform construction or substantial
rehabilitation. (While not having the force of law, the 2005 Guidance
has been implemented consistent with the proposed regulations.)
Previously, Amtrak had been relying on existing regulations which
permit ramps, wheelchair lifts and mini-high platforms as acceptable
means for making trains accessible to mobility-impaired passengers.
The uncertainty concerning the scope and timing of the proposed
regulations has created significant problems for Amtrak in meeting the
ADA mandated station accessibility requirements. First, there is
significant resistance to the Guidance and proposed regulations by the
host freight railroads which own the majority of the track over which
Amtrak operates. Gaining cooperation and concurrence among Amtrak, the
host railroads and state and local governmental entities which often
own the station structures is creating challenges for Amtrak in meeting
the statutory schedule for ADA compliance. Second, until DOT finalizes
the regulations (currently, not expected before 2008), Amtrak is
prevented practically from developing designs and constructing
improvements to the platforms and to those elements of the station
structures which are impacted by the configuration of the platforms
(e.g., entrances, signage). Finally, if the proposed regulations become
law, the cost of making the platforms ADA compliant will increase
significantly.
Amtrak has opposed the proposed regulations in extensive comments which
were filed on July 28, 2006. Likewise, dozens of public transit
providers and freight railroads have opposed the proposed regulations.
The freight railroads are concerned that high-level platforms will
introduce safety problems and will interfere with clearances required
for operation of freight trains. Amtrak has recommended that the DOT
suspend the proposed rulemaking and engage in collaborative rulemaking
to develop regulations which are acceptable to the DOT, the Access
Board, DOJ, freight railroads, commuters railroads and Amtrak, as well
as to the community of disabled passengers.
2. Uncertain Regulatory Requirements on "Responsibility" for ADA
Compliance.
Pursuant to the ADA, "responsibility" for compliance with station
accessibility requirements is tied to ownership of the "station." The
term "station" is defined in the ADA and applicable DOT regulations to
include a broad set of assets, including platforms, as well as the
station structure. For a preponderance of Amtrak's stations, the
freight railroads own the platforms and lease them (or provide
operating rights) to Amtrak, while the station structure may be owned
by Amtrak, a private entity or a local public entity. The proportion of
any one entity's ownership in the "station" cannot be discerned from
the regulations as they currently stand. Therefore, when different
entities own the various components of a station (i.e., station
structure, platform and parking lot), it is often difficult, if not
impossible, to determine which entity bears the responsibility for ADA
compliance. This lack of clarity in the regulations is impeding
Amtrak's efforts at determining which entity is responsible for
particular stations and its overall progress in ensuring that the
stations for which it is responsible will be ADA compliant by the dates
set forth in the ADA. Amtrak has requested assistance from the Federal
Railroad Administration in clarifying the regulations. In the absence
of such assistance, it is likely that the issue of responsibility may
have to be addressed on a station-by-station basis through negotiated
agreement with applicable station stakeholders.
3. Lack of Funding.
Amtrak anticipates that, under the current DOT regulations (those
permitting lifts, ramps, mini-high platforms as acceptable means of
providing access to trains), it will cost approximately $250-$500
million to make ADA mandated modifications to all of those stations for
which it may bear responsibility. (Taking into consideration the
uncertainty concerning "responsibility" addressed in Section 2 above,
Amtrak estimates that it could bear responsibility for complying with
ADA station accessibility requirements at a preponderance of the 479
Amtrak-served stations that require ADA compliance.) If the proposed
platform regulations become law, then the cost may increase more than
two-fold. As you are aware, Amtrak has faced numerous funding
challenges over the years. Each year, limited capital funds are
apportioned among various competing projects (e.g., refurbishing and
replacing aging infrastructure and equipment) most of which are
essential to Amtrak's mission of providing safe and cost efficient
national intercity passenger rail service. This past February, as part
of its FY2008 grant and legislative request, Amtrak requested that
Congress allocate $50 million (above its base grant request) toward the
funding of ADA station improvement projects and that the deadline for
achieving ADA compliance be extended to five years beyond the date the
proposed regulations on platforms are finalized. To date, neither the
additional funding nor the time extension has been granted. Amtrak will
continue to advocate for this additional funding and time extension.
Conclusion
The draft GAO report focuses on government oversight and enforcement of
the ADA. However, for the most part, the report overlooks the
difficulties which transportation providers like Amtrak face in
defining "compliance" and in establishing a compliance program with
time and funding commitments as regulations change over time or remain
unresolved. Amtrak is committed to meeting the requirements of the ADA,
just as it is to continuing to execute its publicly mandated and
significantly publicly funded transportation mission. However, to do
both will require additional funding and time. Critical to Amtrak's
ongoing efforts to achieve full accessibility of its stations are the
following: clarity on the goal, clarity on what constitutes compliance,
and clarity on which entities are ultimately responsible. Until
unambiguous, realistic, and static requirements are established in the
regulations and the means (funding) to implement the ADA program is
identified, the proposed new oversight and enforcement actions
recommended by the GAO will likely be ineffective.
If you have any questions concerning Amtrak's position in this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely Yours,
Signed by:
Eleanor D. Acheson
Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834, or siggerudk@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors to
this report were Catherine Colwell, Assistant Director; Ashley Alley;
Jean Cook; Catherine Kim; Jessica Lucas-Judy; Stan Stenersen; and
Travis Thomson.
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Public rights-of-way include pedestrian access to sidewalks and
streets, through crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and
parking, among other things.
[2] The U.S. Census Bureau's 2002 Survey of Income and Program
Participation reported that 51.2 million noninstitutionalized civilians
had some level of disability. In its 2005 American Community Survey,
the bureau found that 39.7 million noninstitutionalized civilians age 5
and over had one or more disabilities. According to the bureau, the
definition of a disability varies between these surveys and, therefore,
disability statistics vary depending on the purpose for which they are
being used and the survey collecting the information.
[3] The precursor to the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified person
with a disability in any program or activity that receives federal
financial assistance. Section 504 also gave certain authority to the
federal government for oversight and enforcement. The ADA extended the
nondiscrimination principles established under Section 504 to both
public and private entities without regard to receipt of federal
financial assistance.
[4] The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency
that makes recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the
quality of life for people with disabilities and their families.
[5] National Council on Disability, The Current State of Transportation
for People with Disabilities in the United States (Washington, D.C.:
June 2005); and U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2007).
[6] The ADA requires transportation to be accessible, but it does not
require transportation to be available. As a result, people with
disabilities may face mobility challenges if they live in suburban or
rural areas that are not served by public transportation, or in areas
that do not have sidewalks. We have discussed such mobility challenges
in several reports, including GAO, Surface and Maritime Transportation:
Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge, GAO-
02-775 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002); and Transportation-
Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs
Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist, GAO-03-697
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003).
[7] U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, Freedom to Travel (Washington, D.C.: 2003). DOT officials
pointed out that this information is 5 years old; however, this is
DOT's most recent study of the subject.
[8] National Organization on Disability, Harris Survey of Americans
with Disabilities (Washington, D.C.: June 2004).
[9] The ADA refers to this service as "complementary paratransit
service." In general, ADA complementary paratransit service must be
provided within 3/4 of a mile of a bus route or rail station, at the
same hours and days, for no more than twice the regular fixed route
fare.
[10] The ADA and federal regulations refer to these as over-the-road
buses. For the purposes of this report, we use the term "commercial
bus."
[11] National Council on Disability, Current State of Transportation.
[12] For the purposes of this report, surface transportation includes
public rights-of-way, public transportation (such as buses, subways,
trolleys, and commuter rail), ADA-complementary paratransit, intercity
passenger rail (Amtrak), intercity buses, and privately operated
transportation that is open to the public (such as taxis and airport
shuttles). Maritime and aviation are excluded from our scope, as are
school transportation and the Alaska Railroad.
[13] Albany, NY; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; Hartford, CT; Joliet, IL;
Kingston, NY; Los Angeles, CA; and Springfield, MA.
[14] For the purposes of this report, ADA regulations refer to
regulations promulgated under the ADA as well as Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.
[15] Airlines are not covered under the ADA; rather, they are governed
by the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986. Passenger vessels (such as
cruise ships) are covered under the ADA, but there are currently no
federal standards specific to ships. The Access Board is in the process
of developing guidelines for passenger vessels, and DOT issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking in January 2007 to amend its ADA regulations to
include operating requirements for passenger vessels.
[16] If a transit agency can demonstrate that providing ADA-
complementary paratransit would impose an undue financial burden, DOT
can provide a partial, temporary waiver until DOT determines that full
compliance is possible.
[17] DOT's regulations state that each public entity is to determine
which stations on its rail system are key stations, taking into
consideration the following criteria: (1) stations where passenger
boardings exceed average station passenger boardings on the rail system
by at least 15 percent, unless such a station is close to another
accessible station; (2) transfer stations on a rail line or between
rail lines; (3) major interchange points with other transportation
modes, including stations connecting with major parking facilities, bus
terminals, intercity or commuter rail stations, passenger vessel
terminals, or airports; (4) end stations, unless an end station is
close to another accessible station; and (5) stations serving major
activity centers, such as employment or government centers,
institutions of higher education, hospitals or other major health care
facilities, or other facilities that are major destinations for
individuals with disabilities.
[18] Amtrak serves 525 stations, 479 of which must be accessible. Those
that are not required to be accessible include 9 stations in Canada, 25
"flag stops" (at which Amtrak only stops on passengers' request), and
12 stations for which service was suspended after Hurricane Katrina.
[19] The board is structured to function as a coordinating body among
federal agencies and to directly represent the public, particularly
people with disabilities. It is composed of officials from most of the
federal departments as well as members of the public appointed by the
President, a majority of whom must have a disability.
[20] Public transportation includes fixed-route bus service (e.g.,
buses operating according to a regular schedule along a prescribed
route with designated bus stops), demand-responsive bus service (e.g.,
vehicles operating in response to calls from passengers), heavy rail
(e.g., subways), commuter rail (provide service from outlying suburbs
or small cities to a central downtown area), light rail (e.g.,
streetcars or trolleys), and automated guideway (guided, fully
automated vehicle), among other modes.
[21] For example, NCD has issued several reports on transportation
accessibility that include recommendations to DOJ and DOT, among others.
[22] NCD, Current State of Transportation.
[23] Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Freedom to Travel.
[24] Special service transportation includes vehicles that are used to
provide service to seniors and persons with disabilities and receive
funding through an FTA-administered formula grant to states. Special
service vehicle funding is directed toward private nonprofit
organizations (such as religious organizations, senior centers, and
rehabilitation centers), although in certain cases specified by law, a
public agency may be approved as a grantee.
[25] NCD, Current State of Transportation.
[26] FTA officials noted that data in the National Transit Database are
self reported and FTA officials do not verify the data. Also, the
database does not capture whether the lifts are operational.
[27] FHWA and FTA, 2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges and
Transit: Conditions and Performance (Washington, D.C.: 2007). ADA
regulations require certain types of special service vehicles to be
accessible based on a number of criteria, such as number of passengers.
[28] ADA regulations define these as installations of elevators, or
alterations of magnitude and cost similar to installing an elevator or
raising the entire passenger platform (49 C.F.R. § 37.51).
[29] For more information on accessible transit vehicle and station
data as maintained by DOT, see FHWA and FTA's 2006 Conditions and
Performance report.
[30] In addition, each individual car that is required to be accessible
much have at least one, but not more than two wheelchair spaces and at
least one, but not more than two accessible seats.
[31] As footnoted earlier, Amtrak serves 525 stations, 479 of which
must be accessible. The majority of the 479 stations are owned by
entities other than Amtrak, including freight railroads and local
government entities.
[32] Detectable warnings are walking surfaces that are primarily
intended to provide a tactile cue to pedestrians who are visually
impaired. They are installed at locations such as the edge of a train
platform or at the transition between the sidewalk and the street to
warn pedestrians of the potential hazard that lies ahead.
[33] Amtrak officials noted that changes to platform requirements could
also affect certain aspects of the station building, such as station
egress.
[34] Although it does not conduct compliance reviews, FRA does have
other oversight activities that will be discussed in the next section.
[35] Fixed-route service is where vehicles run on regular, scheduled
routes, without variation. Fixed-route services typically use printed
schedules or timetables and designated bus stops where passengers board
and get off the vehicle. Under DOT's regulatory definition, a large
commercial bus company has gross annual transportation revenue equal to
or exceeding $7.7 million.
[36] There are different requirements for small fixed-route operators,
demand-response operators, and small operators that provide both fixed-
route and demand-response service.
[37] For the purposes of commercial bus service, demand-response
service includes many charter and tour bus operations.
[38] FMCSA has received other ADA-related complaints, but many of these
involve disability-related commercial driver's licensing issues rather
than bus service.
[39] We will discuss this case in more detail in the next section. See
Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. and Bonanza Acquisition, LLC, v. Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 471 F. 3rd 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
[40] This guidance is in the form of a tool kit, "ADA Best Practices
Toolkit for State and Local Governments," which has a chapter on curb
ramps and pedestrian crossings.
[41] According to FTA, of the 124 complaints that it received, 95 were
handled informally and 29 required formal investigation.
[42] FMCSA has one official who is responsible for processing
complaints and forwarding them to DOJ for possible investigation;
however, we found one instance in which another division within FMCSA
had received an ADA-related complaint and independently forwarded it to
DOJ.
[43] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Office of
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report on
Fair Housing, (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2007).
[44] For the purposes of this report, oversight includes administrative
efforts such as investigating complaints and conducting compliance
reviews. Enforcement includes taking legal action such as filing
lawsuits and reaching settlement agreements.
[45] DOJ and DOT share responsibility for some areas. For example,
public accommodations that are not primarily in the business of
transporting people but that provide transportation (such as hotels or
shopping centers that provide shuttle service) must comply with DOJ's
regulations as well as with DOT's regulations for transportation
vehicles and systems. In another example, DOT and DOJ share
responsibility for facility access regulations. DOT has issued
accessibility standards for access to facilities used in public transit
(such as subway stations), while DOJ's barrier removal requirements
apply to facilities used in certain private transportation.
[46] DOJ forwards all transportation-related complaints pertaining to
public entities to DOT for investigation.
[47] 49 C.F.R. § 37.11.
[48] A private bus company brought suit against FMCSA in 2005 alleging
that FMCSA granted an application for operating authority from another
bus company despite that company's unwillingness to comply with DOT's
ADA regulations. FMCSA concluded that the statute that gives it
authority to issue operating authority prevents it from considering
whether the bus company is in compliance with DOT's ADA regulations. A
U.S. Court of Appeals ruling reversed FMCSA's decision to grant
operating authority and directed FMCSA to reexamine the statute and
determine whether it has authority to withhold or revoke licenses for
ADA violations. FMCSA officials told us they are reviewing this case.
See Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. and Bonanza Acquisition, LLC, v. Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 471 F. 3rd 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
[49] FMCSA officials said that they have no plans to conduct another
similar effort due to the need to address other priority areas.
[50] GAO, Large Truck Safety: Federal Enforcement Efforts Have Been
Stronger Since 2000, but Oversight of State Grants Needs Improvement,
GAO-06-156 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2005).
[51] The authority to withhold federal funds comes from Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
[52] FMCSA does not provide grant funding to commercial bus operators
and thus cannot withhold federal funds.
[53] For example, FTA provides $3.6 billion to cities through its
Urbanized Area Formula Program, for capital projects for use in public
transportation service.
[54] GAO, Amtrak Management: Systemic Problems Require Actions to
Improve Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability, GAO-06-145
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2005).
[55] As previously mentioned, DOJ has filed amicus ("friend of the
court") briefs in a number of private lawsuits. DOT officials also
noted that DOT and DOJ have sometimes provided assistance to the court
or to one of the parties in a suit.
[56] For the purposes of this report, we chose to include regulations
in the discussion of technical assistance because the regulations
provide information on how to implement the ADA.
[57] The exception is transportation facilities, which are subject to
similar standards in DOT regulations.
[58] DOT's regulations define a wheelchair as a "mobility aid belonging
to any class of three-or four-wheeled devices, usable indoors, designed
for and used by individuals with mobility impairments, whether operated
manually or powered." They define a common wheelchair as such a device
"which does not exceed 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length
measured two inches above the ground, and does not weigh more than 600
pounds when occupied." (See 49 CFR 37.3.)
[59] For more information on sources and types of ADA-related federal
technical assistance, see the National Council on Disabilities' report
titled "Promises to Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the
Americans with Disabilities Act," June 27, 2000.
[60] Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies are generally
required to publish an NPRM that proposes regulations and allows
interested parties to participate in the rulemaking process by
providing official comments (5 U.S.C. § 553 et seq.). According to DOT
officials, DOT has received more than 300 comments on its proposed ADA
requirements for public transportation entities.
[61] ADA regulations require that every transit vehicle that is over 22
feet in length have a minimum of two wheelchair securement areas
(vehicles that are 22 feet or less must have one wheelchair securement
area) and that these vehicles must accommodate "common wheelchairs," as
defined in DOT regulations. According to a 2005 National Council on
Disability Report, as wheelchairs, scooters, and similar devices have
become more varied, and more people are using these nonstandard
mobility devices, an increasing number of individuals are no longer
accommodated by the ADA definition for a common wheelchair. Vehicle
lifts, ramps, and securement devices are designed to hold common
wheelchairs, but larger, heavier mobility devices may not fit properly.
[62] Transportation providers have expressed concern regarding the
safety of transporting unsecured mobility devices, due to the potential
for a mobility device to injure other riders or drivers if not properly
secured in a moving vehicle. DOT has indicated that there are no data
to support this assertion. DOT also notes that a transportation
provider is free to acquire equipment that can accommodate larger
mobility devices, if desired.
[63] An FTA official noted that, to the best of his knowledge, his
office has not received any calls from transit providers with questions
about this guidance.
[64] Public accommodations include restaurants, hotels, movie theaters,
and doctors' offices, for example.
[65] DOJ recently published an ADA tool kit to assist state and local
governments in taking steps to assess and address compliance with ADA
requirements for curb ramps at pedestrian crossings, which includes
similar elements as those required for transition plans.
[66] The Access Board chartered a Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory
Committee to develop recommendations for accessible public rights-of-
way, contained in the report "Building a True Community" (Jan. 10,
2001). The review committee consisted of 33 members representing
disability organizations, public works departments, transportation and
traffic engineering groups, design professionals and civil engineers,
government agencies, and standards-setting bodies.
[67] The Future of Disability in America, Institute of Medicine of the
National Academies, 2007. FHWA officials clarified that no specialized
standards have been adopted to mandate how to make public rights-of-way
accessible.
[68] For example, under current federal regulations, states and
localities can choose between two sets of accessibility guidelines: the
ADA Accessibility Standards and the Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards.
[69] FHWA has provided technical assistance and guidance on accessible
public rights-of-way using existing research and standards. This
includes Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I of II:
Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, FHWA-HEP-99-006
(Washington, D.C.: July 1999) and Designing Sidewalks and Trails for
Access, Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, FHWA-EP-01-027
(Washington, D.C.: September 2001).
[70] For more information on the status of the program, see GAO,
Transportation Disadvantaged: Progress in Implementing the New Freedom
Program Has Been Limited, and Better Monitoring Procedures Would Help
Ensure Program Funds Are Used as Intended, GAO-07-999R (Washington,
D.C.: July 19, 2007).
[71] Public rights-of-way include pedestrian access to sidewalks and
streets, through crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and
parking, among other things.
[72] National Council on Disability, The Impact of the Americans with
Disabilities Act: Assessing the Progress Toward Achieving the Goals of
the ADA (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007); Implementation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act: Challenges, Best Practices, and New
Opportunities for Success (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007); The
Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the
United States (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2005); and Promises to Keep:
A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2000).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: