Transportation Accessibility: Lack of Data and Limited		 
Enforcement Options Limit Federal Oversight (19-SEP-07, 	 
GAO-07-1126).							 
                                                                 
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. 	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1126					        
    ACCNO:   A76490						        
  TITLE:     Transportation Accessibility: Lack of Data and Limited   
Enforcement Options Limit Federal Oversight			 
     DATE:   09/19/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Accessibility					 
	     Accountability					 
	     Aid for the disabled				 
	     Federal agencies					 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Local governments					 
	     Persons with disabilities				 
	     Railroad industry					 
	     Railroad regulation				 
	     Standards						 
	     Transportation law 				 
	     Transportation policies				 
	     National Cooperative Highway Research		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1126

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]Extent of ADA Compliance for Surface Transportation and Publ

          * [4]Some Data Are Available on the Percent of Accessible Vehicle
          * [5]Less Is Known About the Extent of ADA Compliance for Public

               * [6]Intercity Passenger Rail (Amtrak)
               * [7]Commercial Bus
               * [8]Public Rights-of-Way
               * [9]Private Transportation (Other Than Commercial Bus)
               * [10]Complementary Paratransit
               * [11]Complaint Data

     * [12]Federal Agencies Conduct Oversight and Enforcement Activitie

          * [13]Unevenness in Agencies' Oversight Framework and Coordination

               * [14]Federal Agencies' Role in Oversight and Enforcement of
                 Surfa
               * [15]DOJ, FTA, and FHWA Have an Oversight and Enforcement
                 Framewo
               * [16]FRA and FMCSA Do Not Have a Framework for Clarifying and
                 Est
               * [17]Lack of Coordination also Contributes to Oversight Gaps
                 or D

          * [18]Agencies Lack Data with Which to Target and Evaluate the Eff
          * [19]DOT Officials Consider Existing Enforcement Options to Be Li

               * [20]DOT Has Another Option Available for Enforcing Airline
                 Acces

          * [21]Private Citizens Use Lawsuits and Settlement Agreements to B

     * [22]Federal Entities Provide a Variety of Technical Assistance t

          * [23]Assistance Takes Several Forms
          * [24]Gaps in Technical Assistance for Public Transportation and P

               * [25]DOT Is Developing Regulations to Address Emerging Issues
                 in
               * [26]More Clarity Needed for Public Rights-of-Way
                 Requirements

                    * [27]Many Jurisdictions Lack Information about
                      Transition Plans f
                    * [28]Technical Standards for Installing Public
                      Rights-of-Way Are

     * [29]Conclusions
     * [30]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [31]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [32]Appendix I: Examples of Federal Funds That Are Used for ADA
     * [33]Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
     * [34]Appendix III: The Disability Law Coordinating Council
     * [35]Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger C
     * [36]Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

          * [37]GAO Contact
          * [38]Staff Acknowledgments

               * [39]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [40]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

          * [41]Order by Mail or Phone

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

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5
Background 9
Extent of ADA Compliance for Surface Transportation and Public
Rights-of-Way Is Largely Unknown Because Little Reliable Information Is
Available 15
Federal Agencies Conduct Oversight and Enforcement Activities but Face
Difficulties in Ensuring Compliance with the ADA 26
Federal Entities Provide a Variety of Technical Assistance to Help with
ADA Compliance, but Gaps Exist in Regulations and Guidance 37
Conclusions 46
Recommendations for Executive Action 48
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 49
Appendix I Examples of Federal Funds That Are Used for ADA Compliance 52
Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 55
Appendix III The Disability Law Coordinating Council 60
Appendix IV Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) 61
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64

Tables

Table 1: Other Examples of ADA Technical Assistance Sources Provided by
DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board 39
Table 2: Examples of Federal Funds that Are Used for ADA Compliance 52
Table 3: National Industry Associations and Disability Organizations
Interviewed for Our Review 57
Table 4: State and Local Organizations Interviewed for Our Review 58

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Accessible Transportation Features 11
Figure 2: Percentage of People Reporting Problems with Transportation and
Public Rights-of-Way, by Mode and Disability Status in 2002 14
Figure 3: Inaccessible Sidewalks and Medians in a Downtown Area 23

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

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, 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.

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^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.^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.^3 Since ADA
requirements became effective, access to surface transportation has
improved. For example, reports from the National Council on Disability^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.^5

^1Public rights-of-way include pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets,
through crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and parking, among
other things.

^2The 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.

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.^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.^7 A 2004 national
survey found that people with disabilities were twice as likely to have
inadequate transportation as people without disabilities.^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^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^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.^11

^3The 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.

^4The 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.

^5National 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).

^6The 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,
[42]GAO-02-775 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002); and
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among
Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist,
[43]GAO-03-697 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003).

^7U.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.

^8National Organization on Disability, Harris Survey of Americans with
Disabilities (Washington, D.C.: June 2004).

^9The 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.

^10The ADA and federal regulations refer to these as over-the-road buses.
For the purposes of this report, we use the term "commercial bus."

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;^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,^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.

^11National Council on Disability, Current State of Transportation.

^12For 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.

^13Albany, NY; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; Hartford, CT; Joliet, IL;
Kingston, NY; Los Angeles, CA; and Springfield, MA.

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:

           o 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.^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.

           o 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.

^14For the purposes of this report, ADA regulations refer to regulations
promulgated under the ADA as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act.

           o 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.^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:

           o 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.^16 These services are typically
           provided using wheelchair-accessible vans, small buses, or taxis.

           o 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.
			  
^15Airlines 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.

^16If 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.			  

           o Existing "key stations"^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.

           o Most existing stations currently served by Amtrak must be
           accessible by July 26, 2010.^18

           o Commercial bus companies must provide an accessible bus with
           48-hour notice, among other things.

           o Entities such as hotels that generally offer transportation
           (shuttle service to the airport, for instance) must provide
           equivalent transportation services for people with disabilities.

           o 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.

^17DOT'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.

^18Amtrak 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.

Figure 1: Examples of Accessible Transportation Features

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:

           o The Access Board is an independent federal agency devoted to
           accessibility for people with disabilities.^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.

           o 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.
			  
^19The 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.			  

           o DOT is responsible for publishing federal regulations for
           carrying out the transportation provisions of the ADA. Offices
           within DOT have the following responsibilities:

                        o 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.

                        o 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.

                        o Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
                        informs commercial bus companies of their ADA
                        responsibilities and collects data on ADA compliance.

                        o Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is
                        responsible for overseeing federal grants to Amtrak,
                        including ADA provisions.

                        o Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is responsible
                        for overseeing federal grants for public
                        transportation,^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.^21
			  
^20Public 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.

^21For example, NCD has issued several reports on transportation
accessibility that include recommendations to DOJ and DOT, among others.		  

           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.^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).^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.
			  
^22NCD, Current State of Transportation.

^23Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Freedom to Travel.

           Figure 2: Percentage of People Reporting Problems with
           Transportation and Public Rights-of-Way, by Mode and Disability
           Status in 2002

           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.^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.^25 By 2005, 97 percent were lift- or ramp-equipped,
           according to FTA's National Transit Database.^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.

^24Special 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.

^25NCD, Current State of Transportation.

^26FTA 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.

           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).^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^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.^29

^27FHWA 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.

^28ADA 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. S 37.51).

           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).^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.
			  
^29For more information on accessible transit vehicle and station data as
maintained by DOT, see FHWA and FTA's 2006 Conditions and Performance
report.

^30In 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.
			  
           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.^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.^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.
			  
^31As 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.

^32Detectable 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.			  

           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.^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.^34
			  
^33Amtrak officials noted that changes to platform requirements could also
affect certain aspects of the station building, such as station egress.

^34Although it does not conduct compliance reviews, FRA does have other
oversight activities that will be discussed in the next section.

             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^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.^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.
			  
^35Fixed-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.

^36There are different requirements for small fixed-route operators,
demand-response operators, and small operators that provide both
fixed-route and demand-response service.

           Furthermore, DOT's regulations stated that DOT would analyze data
           on demand-response^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,^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.^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.
			  
^37For the purposes of commercial bus service, demand-response service
includes many charter and tour bus operations.

^38FMCSA has received other ADA-related complaints, but many of these
involve disability-related commercial driver's licensing issues rather
than bus service.

^39We 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).

             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

           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.

           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.^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.
			  
^40This 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.

           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:

           o In 2005, the most recent year for which complete data were
           available, FTA received 124 ADA-related complaints,^41 FRA
           received 22, and FHWA received 22.

           o 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.

           o FMCSA has received at least two ADA-related complaints regarding
           commercial bus passenger service since 2001.^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.^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.
			  
^41According to FTA, of the 124 complaints that it received, 95 were
handled informally and 29 required formal investigation.

^42FMCSA 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.

           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,^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.
			  
^43U.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).

^44For 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.

             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.^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.^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.
			  
^45DOJ 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.

^46DOJ forwards all transportation-related complaints pertaining to public
entities to DOT for investigation.

           Similarly, these agencies conduct reviews to determine compliance
           with their respective regulations. Following are examples of some
           of these reviews:

           o 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.

           o 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.

           o 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.^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.^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.^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.

^4749 C.F.R. S 37.11.

             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.
			  
^48A 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).

^49FMCSA officials said that they have no plans to conduct another similar
effort due to the need to address other priority areas.

           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:

           o 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.

           o 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.^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.
			  
^50GAO, Large Truck Safety: Federal Enforcement Efforts Have Been Stronger
Since 2000, but Oversight of State Grants Needs Improvement,
[44]GAO-06-156 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2005).

           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^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:

           o 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.

           o 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.

           o 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.
			  
^51The authority to withhold federal funds comes from Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

           At all modal administrations, DOT officials said they have rarely
           used the following two available enforcement mechanisms:

           o 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.^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.^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.^54 Finally, FHWA officials said
           that they have never withheld federal funding because they have
           been able to resolve compliance violations voluntarily.

           o 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.
			  
^52FMCSA does not provide grant funding to commercial bus operators and
thus cannot withhold federal funds.

^53For example, FTA provides $3.6 billion to cities through its Urbanized
Area Formula Program, for capital projects for use in public
transportation service.

^54GAO, Amtrak Management: Systemic Problems Require Actions to Improve
Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability, [45]GAO-06-145 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 4, 2005).

           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:

           o 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.

           o 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.^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.
			  
^55As previously mentioned, DOJ has filed amicus ("friend of thecourt")
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.

           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.^56

           o 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.^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.
			  
^56For 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.

^57The exception is transportation facilities, which are subject to
similar standards in DOT regulations.

           o 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.^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.^59
			  
^58DOT'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.)

Table 1: Other Examples of ADA Technical Assistance Sources Provided by
DOJ, DOT, and the Access Board

Source                    Example                                          
Web site                  FMCSA's Web site includes information on         
                             commercial bus companies' ADA responsibilities   
                             and reporting requirements.                      
Assistance line           DOJ provides a toll-free assistance line to      
                             answer compliance questions for businesses and   
                             nonprofit transportation providers, local        
                             governments, and public transportation           
                             providers.                                       
Training and conferences  The Access Board provides training to state and  
                             local officials on public rights-of-way          
                             requirements.                                    
Oversight reviews         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.                                       
Funding of federal and    Easter Seals Project ACTION, funded by FTA,      
nongovernmental entitites 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.

Finally, other federal and nongovernmental organizations not specifically
named under the ADA also provide technical assistance. For example,

           o The Department of Education funds Disability and Business
           Technical Assistance Centers, which provide training related to
           ADA.

           o The Department of Health and Human Services supports a
           nationwide system of state-level organizations that advocate for
           the rights of individuals with disabilities.

           o The American Bus Association, an industry organization, provides
           a newsletter to its members addressing ADA-related topics and
           requirements.
			  
^59For 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.			  

           o 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.^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.^61 Further, a number of transportation
           providers considered DOT's 2005 guidance on how transit vehicles
           should transport two-wheeled, self-balancing Segway(R) 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;^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.^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.
			  
^60Under 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. S 553 et seq.). According to DOT officials, DOT has received more
than 300 comments on its proposed ADA requirements for public
transportation entities.

^61ADA 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.

^62Transportation 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.

^63An 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.

             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.^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.^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.
			  
^64Public accommodations include restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, and
doctors' offices, for example.

^65DOJ 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.

           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,^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.
			  
^66The 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.

           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:

           o 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.^67

           o 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.

           o 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.

           o 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.
			  
^67The 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.

           o 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.^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.^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.
			  
^68For 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.

^69FHWA 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).

           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:

           o 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

           o 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 http://www.gao.gov.

           If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please
           contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]. 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,

           Katherine Siggerud, Director
			  Physical Infrastructure Issues
			  
			  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                                                        
                                                                 Total fiscal 
                                                                    year 2007 
Federal agency         Program         Use                   appropriation 
Department of          Surface         STP funds may be used      $6,247.9 
Transportation-Federal Transportation  to construct                        
Highway Administration Program (STP)   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.                   
                          National        NHS funds may be used      $5,932.5 
                          Highway System  to construct                        
                          (NHS)           pedestrian walkways.                
                                          Funds may be                        
                                          transferred to                      
                                          Federal Transit                     
                                          Administration                      
                                          formula programs.                   
                          Congestion,     CMAQ funds may be          $1,693.7 
                          Mitigation, and used for construction               
                          Air Quality     of pedestrian                       
                          Improvement     facilities. Under                   
                          Program (CMAQ)  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.                   
                          Highway Bridge  Funds may be used for      $4,150.9 
                          Replacement and replacement or                      
                          Rehabilitation  rehabilitation of                   
                          Program         eligible highway                    
                                          bridge projects,                    
                                          including pedestrian                
                                          walkways.                           
Department of          Urbanized Area  Assists urbanized          $3,606.2 
Transportation-Federal Formula Program areas in financing                  
Transit Administration                 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.                     
                          Nonurbanized    Assists nonurbanized         $404.0 
                          Area Formula    areas in financing                  
                          Program         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.                  
                          Over-the-Road   Competitive grant              $7.6 
                          Bus             program to help                     
                          Accessibility   commercial bus                      
                          Program         companies finance the               
                                          capital and training                
                                          costs of complying                  
                                          with ADA regulations.               
                          Fixed Guideway  Fixed Guideway             $2,329.8 
                          Modernization   Modernization Program               
                          Program and Bus provides capital                    
                          and Bus         assistance to                       
                          Facility Grants 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.                           
                          Formula Program This program provides        $117.0 
                          for Elderly     formula funding to                  
                          Persons and     states for capital                  
                          Persons with    projects to assist                  
                          Disabilities    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.                        
Department of Housing  Community       Annual grants to           $3,710.9 
and Urban Development  Development     provide services to                 
                          Block Grant     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.                          

Source: GAO.

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.^1

^1 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, [46]GAO-07-999R (Washington,
D.C.: July 19, 2007).

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,^1 (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,^2 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.

^1Public rights-of-way include pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets,
through crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and parking, among
other things.

^2National 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).

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 
American Bus Association                                           
American Public Transportation Association                         
Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living               
Community Transportation Association of America                    
Easter Seals Project ACTION                                        
Institute of Transportation Engineers                              
Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association                       
United Motorcoach Association                                      
Disability organizations                                           
American Council of the Blind                                      
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund                       
National Disability Rights Network                                 
National Organization on Disability                                
Paralyzed Veterans of America                                      

Source: GAO.

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:

           o 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.
           o 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.

           o Geographic diversity--We selected cities from around the United
           States.

           o 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        Organization                                               
Albany, NY      Capital District Coalition for Accessible Transportation   
                   Capital District Transportation Authority                  
                   Capitaland Taxi                                            
                   New York Association on Independent Living                 
Chicago, IL     Chicago Department of Transportation                       
                   Chicago Transit Authority                                  
                   Coach USA                                                  
                   City of Chicago Mayor's Office for People with             
                   Disabilities                                               
                   Disability Rights Consortium                               
                   Equip for Equality                                         
                   Great Lakes ADA Center                                     
                   Illinois Department of Transportation                      
                   Metra-commuter rail                                        
                   Pace Bus                                                   
                   University of Chicago                                      
Dallas, TX      Dallas Area Rapid Transit                                  
                   Greyhound Bus Lines                                        
Hartford, CT    Connecticut Department of Transportation                   
                   City of Hartford                                           
Joliet, IL      City of Joliet                                             
                   Will County Executive                                      
                   Will-Grundy Center for Independent Living                  
Kingston, NY    Adirondack Trailways                                       
                   Kingston Citibus                                           
                   Resource Center for Accessible Living, Inc.                
                   Ulster County Area Transit                                 
Los Angeles, CA Access Services, Inc.                                      
                   Los Angeles Metro                                          
Springfield, MA Peter Pan Bus Lines                                        
                   Pioneer Valley Transit Authority                           
                   Stavros Advocates for Independent Living                   

           Source: GAO.

           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.

           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.

           Appendix IV: Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
           (Amtrak)

           Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  GAO Contact

           Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834, or [email protected]
			  
			  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.

(542104)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? [47]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
[email protected].

Highlights of [48]GAO-07-1126 , a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

September 2007

TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY

Lack of Data and Limited Enforcement Options Limit Federal Oversight

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.

[49]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.

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.

Example of Inaccessible Sidewalk in a Downtown Area

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.

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 ( [50]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
[51]www.gao.gov and select "E-mail 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,
DC 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: [52]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [53][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [54][email protected] , (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [55][email protected] , (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
DC 20548

References

Visible links
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-775
  43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-697
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-156EUR
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-145EUR
  46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-999R
  47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1126
  48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1126
  50. http://www.gao.gov/
  51. http://www.gao.gov/
  52. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  53. mailto:[email protected]
  54. mailto:[email protected]
  55. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***