Americans With Disabilities Act: Challenges Faced by Transit Agencies in
Complying With the Act's Requirements (Letter Report, 03/11/94,
GAO/RCED-94-58).

The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the
basis of disability. The law requires transit systems to gradually make
their buses and rail systems accessible to the disabled, including
wheelchair users, and provide alternative transportation to those unable
to use the transit systems' fixed-route service. Alternative
transportation, called paratransit or door-to-door service, is generally
provided by vans, minibuses, or taxis. This report (1) reviews the early
experiences of transit agencies in phasing in the act's paratransit
requirements and notes challenges to successful implementation; (2)
provides information on transit agencies' projections of costs and time
periods to implement the act's paratransit requirements; and (3)
identifies variables affecting the reliability of projections and the
magnitude of potential costs.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-58
     TITLE:  Americans With Disabilities Act: Challenges Faced by 
             Transit Agencies in Complying With the Act's Requirements
      DATE:  03/11/94
   SUBJECT:  Ground transportation operations
             Handicapped persons
             Elderly persons
             Local governments
             Transportation costs
             Transportation law
             Future budget projections
             Compliance
             Intergovernmental relations
             Mass transit operations

             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1994

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT -
CHALLENGES FACED BY TRANSIT
AGENCIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE
ACT'S REQUIREMENTS

GAO/RCED-94-58

Disabilities Act Challenges Transit Agencies


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ADA - Americans With Disabilities Act
  APTA - American Public Transit Association
  DOT - Department of Transportation
  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  GAO - General Accounting Office

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-255454

March 11, 1994

The Honorable Donald W.  Riegle, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Alfonse M.  D'Amato
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Banking, Housing
 and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Norman Y.  Mineta
Chairman
The Honorable Bud Shuster
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Public Works
 and Transportation
House of Representatives

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (P.L.  101-336)
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and applies to,
among other things, public transit systems.  Under the ADA, transit
systems must progressively make their buses and rail systems
accessible to persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users,
and must provide alternative transportation to those who are unable
to use the transit systems' fixed-route service.  Alternative
transportation, called paratransit (door-to-door) service, is
typically provided in accessible vans or minibuses and sometimes by
taxis. 

Previously, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 gave
transit agencies the option of providing either accessible
fixed-route service or paratransit service, and many chose to offer
the latter.  The ADA requires that fixed-route transit be accessible
and that paratransit service be comparable to fixed-route service. 
The Department of Transportation (DOT) defined comparable service in
terms of six criteria.  For example, paratransit service must be
available during the same days and hours that fixed-route service is
available.  DOT also defined the criteria for determining eligibility
for service, requiring that comparable paratransit service be offered
to those individuals who are functionally incapable of using
accessible fixed-route transit service.  DOT gave transit agencies up
to 5 years from January 1992 to comply with the paratransit
requirements, although agencies can apply for a waiver, on the basis
of an undue financial burden, to extend the deadline.  No deadline
was established for achieving fixed-route accessibility, but most
transit vehicles purchased or leased after August 1990 must be
accessible. 

As agreed with your offices, we (1) reviewed the early experiences of
transit agencies in phasing in the ADA's paratransit requirements and
identified challenges to successful implementation, (2) obtained
information on transit agencies' projections of costs and time
periods to implement the ADA's paratransit requirements, and (3)
identified variables that affect the reliability of projections and
the magnitude of potential costs.  We visited 12 transit agencies to
discuss their experiences with implementing the ADA's requirements. 
We also obtained 474 updated paratransit plans from transit agencies
and analyzed their projections of costs and time periods to comply
with the ADA's paratransit requirements.  (App.  I provides more
details on our scope and methodology.)


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Among the challenges transit agencies face in complying with the
ADA's paratransit requirements are (1) determining who meets the
ADA's criteria for paratransit eligibility, (2) financing the level
of paratransit service required by the ADA, and (3) deciding whether
they will continue to serve individuals who have been receiving
paratransit service but do not meet the ADA's eligibility criteria
for such service.  Difficulties in establishing an eligibility
process included getting agreement from affected groups on the levels
of service to be offered, making arrangements for the professional
review of eligibility applications, and developing appeal procedures
for those whose eligibility is denied.  DOT officials told us in
November 1993 that most transit agencies had established processes
for determining eligibility but that many had not begun using them. 
DOT's regulations require that paratransit eligibility be determined
for each trip a person requests, depending on factors that might pose
a hardship for the disabled person, such as weather conditions. 
However, transit agencies told us they were skeptical of the
practicality of this provision. 

Previous paratransit service has often been affected by budget
constraints that limited the number of vehicles and drivers.  These
limitations led to restraints on the hours of service and types of
trips that could be made.  Meeting the paratransit service levels
required by the ADA will involve expanding most agencies' paratransit
capacity.  Confronted with higher costs to achieve the ADA's service
criteria, transit agencies must decide whether to limit paratransit
to those persons who are eligible under the ADA or continue to also
serve many elderly and disabled persons who feel dependent on
paratransit but are not eligible under the ADA. 

We could not estimate the total costs of implementing the ADA's
paratransit requirements because many of the transit agencies' 1993
updated plans contained incomplete financial data and projections. 
For the 389 plans that projected total paratransit costs through
1996--the end of the 5-year phase-in period--annual costs were
expected to rise to about $920 million in 1993 dollars.  The 352
plans that provided pre-ADA baseline data estimated an increase in
constant dollars of more than 100 percent in paratransit costs from
the pre-ADA period through the end of the phase-in period.  After
working with transit agencies to better refine their cost
projections, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the DOT agency
responsible for overseeing the implementation of the ADA's transit
requirements, estimated that the annual paratransit costs will be
about $700 million (1993 dollars).  However, FTA characterized that
estimate to us as an "aggregate of educated guesses." While
approximately 61 percent of the agencies expected to be in compliance
before 1996, about 39 percent planned to take the full 5-year
phase-in period.  As of November 1993, only two agencies had
requested waivers delaying full compliance, and action is still
pending on the requests.  Some officials believe waiver requests will
increase as the deadline approaches. 

A projection of paratransit costs is subject to considerable
uncertainty for several reasons:  (1) Improved service may stimulate
demand from persons who have made little use of paratransit service;
(2) social service agencies that have been providing transportation
to clients may decide to rely more on transit agencies; and (3)
although the gradual acquisition of accessible fixed-route buses
could moderate the demand for paratransit, transit agencies may have
limited success in persuading paratransit riders to switch to
fixed-route service. 


   THE ADA IMPOSES NEW MINIMUM
   REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against
disabled persons in several areas, including public transit.  Before
the ADA became law, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, effectively required public transit agencies to offer
disabled persons either accessible fixed-route service or special
door-to-door service--paratransit.  Senate and House reports
accompanying the ADA stated that paratransit service was often
inadequate, and the act required that (1) most transit vehicles
purchased or leased after August 1990 be accessible to disabled
persons, including those in wheelchairs; (2) rail transit systems be
made accessible; and (3) paratransit service comparable to
fixed-route service be offered to those who are unable to use the
accessible fixed-route systems.  Accessible transit vehicles commonly
have hydraulic lifts for wheelchair users, but a low-floor vehicle
may be accessible with a ramp.  Figure 1 illustrates paratransit and
accessible fixed-route vehicles. 

   Figure 1:  Paratransit and
   Accessible Fixed-Route Services

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Paratransit passenger boarding
   a van with a wheelchair lift.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Passenger boarding an
   accessible fixed-route bus.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Port Authority of
   Allegheny County
   (Pennsylvania).

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The ADA also required each public transit agency operating a
fixed-route system to submit an annual paratransit plan to the
Secretary of Transportation; the first plan was due 18 months after
the ADA's enactment, or January 26, 1992, detailing how compliance
with the paratransit requirements will be achieved.  FTA specified
that these plans include estimates of the costs and time periods for
achieving compliance. 

No deadline was established for making fixed-route service
accessible, but DOT allowed transit agencies up to 5 years from
January 26, 1992, to comply with six criteria for making paratransit
service comparable to fixed-route service.  DOT decided that
paratransit service would be essentially comparable to fixed-route
service if


  no policies or practices result in capacity constraints (that is,
     enough service is available for all eligible trips requested);

  the service areas are comparable;

  service can be scheduled from 1 (next-day service) to 14 days in
     advance;

  trips are allowed for any purpose;

  paratransit fares are no more than twice the fixed-route fares
     (recognizing the much higher cost of paratransit trips); and

  paratransit service is available during the same hours and days as
     fixed-route service. 

If a transit agency determines that meeting one or more of these
criteria by January 26, 1997, will cause an undue financial burden,
the agency may submit to FTA a request to delay compliance.  If
granted by FTA, the waiver allows the agency only to delay--not
avoid--full compliance. 

The act defined, on the basis of a person's functional ability to use
fixed-route transit, three categories of eligibility for paratransit
service:  (1) persons who are unable to independently board, ride, or
exit a fixed-route bus or rail car that is accessible to persons in
wheelchairs; (2) disabled persons who could use accessible
fixed-route vehicles, but who wish to travel a route that does not
yet have accessible vehicles; and (3) persons who have specific
impairment-related conditions that prevent travel to or from
fixed-route boarding locations. 


   TRANSIT AGENCIES FACE
   CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING THE
   ADA'S PARATRANSIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Transit agencies face varying challenges as they move forward to
implement the paratransit provisions of the ADA.  Increased spending
to upgrade paratransit service will constitute the majority of the
costs to comply with the ADA, but transit agencies will also need to
invest in making rail systems accessible and acquiring lift-equipped
buses as older ones are retired.  Agencies are finding the
paratransit eligibility process difficult and administratively
burdensome because of the complexity and subjectivity of deciding who
is functionally unable to use accessible fixed-route service. 
Agencies also face the dilemma of deciding whether they can satisfy
all eligible requests for trips and continue serving persons who have
been using paratransit but are not eligible under the ADA. 


      ADA WILL AFFECT SOME TRANSIT
      AGENCIES MORE THAN OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The ADA's impact on transit agencies will vary according to (1) the
extent to which their fixed-route service was accessible before the
ADA's enactment and (2) the amount of paratransit service they
offered before the enactment.  While many agencies offered
paratransit service, they often had less capacity than was needed to
satisfy all trip requests, and service hours were more restricted
than those of the fixed-route systems.  Much of the available
capacity was consumed by recurring trips for work or medical
services, such as dialysis.  The remaining trips might be limited to
certain purposes, such as visits to the doctor, or provided simply on
a first-come, first-served basis. 

The transit agencies we visited varied in the extent to which their
fixed-route service was accessible and their paratransit service
approached the ADA's criteria.  For example, one large agency we
visited had chosen under section 504 of the 1973 act to make its
fixed-route service accessible but offered relatively little
paratransit service; therefore, it must spend substantial sums to
increase paratransit capacity.  Another large agency had modest
fixed-route accessibility but an extensive paratransit service that
is expected to be in compliance with the ADA's requirements by early
1994.  More commonly, the agencies we visited had some accessible bus
routes and some level of paratransit service but needed to invest
considerably in both to achieve compliance. 

Paratransit service is expensive.  For the 12 transit agencies we
visited, the cost per paratransit trip varied from $7.11 to $25.68 in
1992; the overall average was $11.63.  By comparison, the national
average for fixed-route service, according to the American Public
Transit Association (APTA),\1 was $1.75 per trip.  In 1993, FTA
estimated that the cost of complying with the ADA's paratransit
requirements would be $700 million (1993 dollars) annually through
1999, accounting for about 78 percent of all costs in complying with
the act.  FTA estimated that about 86 percent of the cost of meeting
paratransit requirements would be operating costs (for drivers,
dispatchers, fuel, etc.).  In addition to the paratransit costs, FTA
estimated that transit agencies would spend $65 million annually to
make their fixed-route buses and railcars accessible and $130 million
annually to make rail stations accessible.  The $65 million includes
$50 million for adding and maintaining bus wheelchair lifts or
ramps.\2 According to an APTA report,\3 about half of the 51,625
transit motor buses in the nation were accessible to wheelchairs at
the end of 1992.  FTA reported that lift manufacturers estimate that
the transit bus fleet will be fully accessible by 2001. 


--------------------
\1 A professional organization representing major commuter rail
operations, motor bus and rapid rail transit systems, and
organizations responsible for planning, designing, constructing,
financing, and operating transit systems. 

\2 In addition to wheelchair lifts or ramps, the ADA's accessibility
requirements also call for safety features and equipment, such as
slip-resistant floors, handrails, signs, and public information
systems. 

\3 1993 Transit Passenger Vehicle Fleet Inventory, American Public
Transit Association, Apr.  1993. 


      DETERMINING PARATRANSIT
      ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE ADA IS
      VIEWED AS A DIFFICULT
      PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The ADA's eligibility criteria are based on the premise that
disability alone does not qualify a person for paratransit service. 
Rather, the impairment must be functionally evaluated to demonstrate
that the disability, rather than simply making travel difficult or
unpleasant, prevents the person from independently using the
fixed-route system.  For example, in the case of an elderly person
with arthritis, a determination would have to be made of whether the
person is capable of ascending the steps of a bus.  DOT also
introduced the concept of trip-by-trip eligibility--a determination
for each requested trip of whether an individual actually needs
paratransit service and cannot use the fixed-route service. 

Officials at 11 of 12 transit agencies we visited told us that
establishing eligibility processes has been difficult and
time-consuming, citing reasons such as the following: 

  The requirement for public participation in developing the process,
     especially individuals' and interest groups' concerns about
     losing paratransit service. 

  The many arrangements that need to be made, such as developing
     application forms and review procedures for making eligibility
     determinations, establishing new relationships with
     eligibility-screening professionals (including physicians and
     nonprofit agencies with experience in assessing a wide range of
     disabilities), and developing appeal mechanisms.\4

  The need to develop criteria for serving new types of clients, such
     as mentally impaired persons. 

Progress in implementing eligibility processes has been slow.  Of the
12 transit agencies we visited, only 3 had eligibility processes in
place at the end of 1992.  The 12 agencies planned to use varied
approaches in determining paratransit eligibility.  For example, one
agency planned to screen all applicants by using basic skills tests
to determine their functional inability to use fixed-route service. 
Another agency planned to screen application forms before applicants
are certified by professionals; after the initial screening, some
applicants will be referred to professionals for an evaluation of
functional ability.  DOT officials told us in November 1993 that
according to the agencies' updated plans for 1993, most transit
agencies had developed processes for determining eligibility. 
However, while agencies may have processes on paper, many have little
experience with implementing those processes. 

While the establishment of an eligibility process may be challenging,
some officials said that applying it to persons who believe that they
need paratransit service may be even more difficult.  For example,
two persons, each living three blocks from a fixed-route stop for an
accessible bus and each confined to a wheelchair, may appear
objectively to be able to use the fixed-route service.  But one may
feel capable of traveling to the stop and waiting for the bus, while
the other may feel very insecure and dependent on paratransit
service.  Transit officials must decide whether to insist that the
latter person is capable of using fixed-route service and is thus
ineligible for paratransit service.  Some transit officials we spoke
with expect their eligibility processes to evolve as they learn from
determining eligibility on a day-to-day basis and from addressing
appeals. 

To assist transit operators with their eligibility processes, FTA
issued the Americans with Disabilities Act Paratransit Eligibility
Manual in September 1993.  This manual provides guidance to transit
operators in developing and implementing the ADA's paratransit
eligibility determination processes, including experience gained
during the first 1-1/2 years that the ADA's paratransit provisions
were in place.  Furthermore, on September 15, 1993, Project ACTION
issued a request for proposals for two to three demonstration
projects to, among other things, develop a model eligibility
determination process and instructional guidance on assessing the
functional skills and capabilities of disabled individuals.\5 These
activities are designed to improve transit agencies' ability to make
eligibility determinations. 

Under DOT's interpretation of the ADA, individuals in all three
categories of eligibility may meet the eligibility standards for some
paratransit trips but not for others.  (See app.  II.) For example, a
disabled person's ability to get to and from transit stops may be
affected by the weather.  Similarly, some disabilities can be
episodic in nature, affecting disabled persons' mobility more at some
times than at others.  Trip-by-trip eligibility determinations could
be viewed as a way to contain costs, since some trips may be denied;
however, most transit agency officials told us they considered the
concept of denying trips impractical.  They cited (1) the difficulty
of having all of the information necessary to make eligibility
decisions on a trip-by-trip basis, (2) the administrative burden that
the requirement creates for transit agencies, and (3) the potential
liability in denying requests for paratransit service.  Under DOT's
regulations, a transit agency does not have to limit service on a
trip-by-trip basis if it can provide all of the trips that eligible
persons request.  However, agencies may have to keep records based on
trip-by-trip eligibility to demonstrate that they are complying with
the ADA or to support an eventual request for a waiver because of an
undue financial burden.  DOT requires that only ADA-eligible trips be
counted as a cost in waiver requests. 

None of the 12 transit agencies we visited had attempted determining
trip-by-trip eligibility; some intend to try it, or a variation of
it.  For example, some transit agencies plan to try seasonal
eligibility for persons whose mobility depends on good weather.  Some
are also considering the acquisition of a sophisticated computer
capability to attempt trip-by-trip eligibility determinations. 
Officials of one large transit agency said that, because of safety
and liability concerns, they are reluctant to allow their dispatchers
to deny service to persons with specific impairment-related
conditions.  They said that, with perhaps 1 million such decisions a
year, service denials would inevitably result in unfortunate errors. 
Transit agencies may find it easier to just take a requester's word
that paratransit service is needed.  It must be noted, however, that
such an approach would not provide the cost containment that
providing service at the minimum level allowed under the ADA could
provide. 


--------------------
\4 As part of the eligibility process, transit agencies must include
a process for individuals to appeal the denial of eligibility. 

\5 Project ACTION is a national research and demonstration program
designed to improve access to transportation services for people with
disabilities and assist transit providers in implementing the ADA. 
It is funded through a cooperative agreement with FTA and
administered by the National Easter Seal Society. 


      TRANSIT AGENCIES' GREATEST
      CHALLENGE:  FINANCING
      PARATRANSIT SERVICE UNDER
      THE ADA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Securing the financial resources to provide all eligible trips is
transit agencies' greatest challenge in meeting the ADA's paratransit
requirements, according to officials at all 12 of the agencies we
spoke with.  Meeting the paratransit service levels required by the
ADA will involve expanding the agencies' trip capacity.  Even though
the existing paratransit systems at these agencies differ
significantly, all 12 of the transit agencies we visited expected to
expand service in one or more ways.  In addition to overcoming
capacity constraints, meeting the ADA's service criteria may require
agencies to expand their days and hours of operation, reduce travel
times, improve timeliness, and provide more convenient reservation
systems.  These improvements may require transit agencies (and their
contractors) to add new vehicles, drivers, support staff, and
equipment. 

Officials at 9 of the 12 transit agencies visited told us that higher
paratransit costs and the absence of new funding could force them to
reduce existing fixed-route service or delay planned service
expansion in order to make additional funding available for
paratransit service.  In the absence of additional funds from
federal, state, or local sources, transit agency officials said they
would also have to consider options such as (1) restricting
paratransit service to those persons who meet the ADA's criteria, (2)
requesting a waiver to delay full compliance with the ADA, and (3)
increasing fares for all service.  While the ADA did not provide
funds for transit agencies to comply with the act's requirements,
assistance could be available through existing federal transit
assistance programs.  However, traditionally the federal government
has provided just a small share of total dollars needed to cover
transit operating expenses.  For example, federal subsidies in 1990
provided 5 percent of the total dollars available nationwide to cover
transit operating costs.  Since operations represent about 86 percent
of the cost of paratransit, federal dollars may not go very far in
helping transit operators with the costs of implementing the ADA's
requirements. 


      THE COST OF MEETING THE
      ADA'S SERVICE CRITERIA COULD
      RESULT IN THE LOSS OF SOME
      PARATRANSIT SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

The financial impact of the ADA's paratransit requirements may be
greater than just the cost of providing upgraded service to persons
who meet the ADA's criteria.  In response to section 504
requirements, many transit agencies have provided paratransit service
to a broader population of disabled persons than the ADA requires;
for example, agencies have often extended this service to elderly
persons.  Although serving a broader population, transit agencies
often had inadequate capacity before the ADA's passage and thus
limited service in other ways, as described earlier.  Confronted with
higher costs to achieve the ADA's service criteria, transit agencies
must decide whether to limit paratransit to persons who meet the
ADA's criteria or continue to also serve many elderly and disabled
persons who feel dependent on paratransit but are not eligible under
the ADA. 

According to a DOT regulatory impact analysis, which assessed the
cost of compliance with the ADA's paratransit requirements, a 1990
survey of 160 transit agencies reported that about half limited
paratransit service to the disabled, while the remainder also served
elderly persons who had difficulty using fixed-route buses.  The
survey also indicated that many agencies accepted certification of
disability from a physician, rather than evaluating the individual's
functional need for paratransit service. 

We found similar situations in our visits to transit agencies.  Seven
of the agencies served both elderly and disabled persons, while five
served only the disabled.  Two of the five that served only the
disabled used a person's functional abilities as criteria for
eligibility.  The remaining three used less-stringent standards,
thereby potentially serving a part of the disabled population that is
not eligible for paratransit service under the ADA's criteria. 

The seven agencies that served elderly and disabled persons who did
not meet the ADA's eligibility criteria plan to continue providing
them with service.  Two of the five agencies that served only the
disabled plan to continue serving disabled persons not eligible under
the ADA.  Officials from these agencies told us that expectations for
this service had been created, and some said that restricting service
to persons meeting the ADA's criteria would engender resistance from
current riders and groups representing disabled persons. 

Transit agencies must also decide whether to limit the paratransit
service area to corridors, as defined in DOT's regulations.  Before
the ADA's passage, agencies typically provided paratransit service
communitywide but DOT defined the ADA's minimum service area as a
combination of a core area and corridors adjacent to fixed routes. 
Corridors must extend at least 0.75 mile on either side of fixed
routes and may extend up to 1.5 miles.  Thus, under the regulations
some trips that were provided before the ADA's passage may no longer
be eligible trips, if they originate or terminate outside of the
corridors.  Moreover, this limitation could mean that some persons
who meet the physical requirements of eligibility under the ADA but
live outside of a paratransit service corridor would not be eligible
for pickup at their residences. 

Only 1 of the 12 transit agencies we visited intended to limit
paratransit service to DOT-defined corridors.  DOT's guidance to
transit agencies stated that the regulations are not intended to make
transit agencies reduce their paratransit service areas to minimum
criteria but to ensure that eligible persons receive the level of
service required by the ADA.  FTA's handbook for transit agencies
points out that several features of the ADA and the regulations could
be considered cost-containment measures by transit agencies that
choose to offer minimum service levels and take the full 5 years to
phase in a paratransit system.  These features include the
corridor-based definition of the paratransit service area, the
requirement that eligibility be limited to persons who cannot
otherwise use fixed-route service, and the 5-year phase-in period. 


   TRANSIT AGENCIES' PROJECTIONS
   OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND TIME
   PERIODS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Many of the transit agencies' updated 1993 paratransit plans we
reviewed contained incomplete financial data and projections, making
it impossible to estimate the overall cost of implementing the ADA's
paratransit requirements.  When we totaled cost and time projections
of those agencies that had complete information, they indicated,
among other things, that paratransit costs would increase by more
than 100 percent from 1991 through 1996.  While about 61 percent of
the updated plans projected that the transit agencies would comply
with the paratransit requirements before 1996, the remainder expected
to take the full 5-year phase-in period.  Although few agencies have
requested waivers delaying full compliance, some officials believe
that such requests will increase as the deadline approaches. 


      TRANSIT AGENCIES EXPECT
      PARATRANSIT COSTS TO DOUBLE
      UNDER THE ADA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Of the 474 updated plans we received, 389 projected 1996 paratransit
costs, estimating them at about $920 million in 1993 dollars.  For
352 plans, a comparison could be made with 1991, the last year before
the ADA was implemented; these plans projected that paratransit costs
would increase in constant dollars more than 100 percent by 1996. 
Transit agencies located in large urban areas projected about a
129-percent increase, medium-sized urban areas about a 100-percent
increase, small urban areas about a 127-percent increase, and
nonurban areas about a 63-percent increase.  FTA officials told us
that many of the transit agencies' updated plans contained cost
projections that were too high.  To help to address this problem, FTA
worked with transit operators to revise their plans; however, FTA
officials told us they still believe in many cases that the estimates
are still educated guesses.  Therefore, FTA aggregated costs from the
revised updated plans and further adjusted this total downward to
$700 million annually (1993 dollars) through 1999.  The following
section of this report explains the uncertainties involved in
projecting the demand for paratransit (and thus the costs) under the
ADA. 

For the 291 plans we received that contained complete data on total
transit costs, paratransit costs were projected to rise from 2.6
percent of total transit costs in 1992 to 3.7 percent in 1996.  It
should be noted that these percentages do not include other costs
that will be incurred to implement the ADA, such as acquiring
accessible fixed-route buses and making rail systems accessible. 
However, as mentioned earlier, FTA has estimated that paratransit
improvements will account for about 78 percent of the ADA's
compliance costs. 


      MANY AGENCIES' PROJECTED
      TARGET FOR COMPLIANCE IS
      1996
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

According to the 1993 updated plans we received, many transit
agencies are taking advantage of the 5-year phase-in provisions of
DOT's regulations.  As shown in figure 2, of the 335 plans reporting
projected compliance dates, about 39 percent do not anticipate full
compliance until the fifth year--1996.  However, about 9 percent have
already reported achieving full compliance.  Of the 474 updated plans
we received, 139 did not include projected compliance dates.  Because
of funding pressures, achieving adequate paratransit capacity will
usually be the last step in full compliance with the ADA's
paratransit requirements. 

   Figure 2:  Projected Year for
   Compliance With the ADA's
   Paratransit Requirements

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note 1:  139 of the 474 plan updates did not contain information on
the projected year for compliance. 

Note 2:  1996 includes transit systems reporting a January 1997
compliance date. 

Source:  Transit agencies' 1993 paratransit plan updates. 


      REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS TO
      EXTEND COMPLIANCE DEADLINE
      ARE LIKELY TO INCREASE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Several FTA officials as well as officials from some of the transit
agencies we visited told us that the frequency of requests for
waivers to extend the compliance deadline may increase as the date
for full compliance draws near.  Transit agencies that believe
financial burdens will prevent them from achieving full compliance
within the required time period may request a waiver from FTA to
delay their compliance with one or more of the paratransit service
criteria.  DOT has interpreted the act to mean that a waiver approval
extends only the time allowed for reaching compliance with the
service criteria; a waiver does not excuse a transit agency from
meeting the ADA's other paratransit requirements, such as
establishing a process to determine eligibility. 

As of November 23, 1993, FTA had received only two requests for a
waiver from transit agencies.  Decisions on the disposition of both
requests are still pending.  None of the transit agencies we visited
intended to apply for a waiver, but over half said they had not ruled
it out.  As mentioned earlier, transit agencies that believe they
might apply for a waiver in the future would have to compile data on
the trips eligible under the ADA even when they are providing service
on a broader basis.  This compilation is required because FTA will
consider only the costs to provide such trips when evaluating waiver
requests. 


   PROJECTIONS OF DEMAND FOR
   PARATRANSIT, AND THUS COSTS,
   ARE SUBJECT TO MUCH UNCERTAINTY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Demand and cost projections for paratransit services under the ADA
are uncertain because of many factors, including the following:  (1)
Improved service may stimulate demand from persons who had made
little use of paratransit service; (2) social service agencies may
reduce their own paratransit service and place increased reliance on
public transit agencies to transport their clients; and (3) although
the gradual acquisition of accessible fixed-route buses could
moderate the demand for paratransit, transit agencies may have
limited success in shifting paratransit riders to fixed-route
service.  While transit agencies widely expect much higher demand for
paratransit--and therefore higher costs--because of the ADA,
considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of these increases
remains.  Both FTA and transit agency officials consider the demand
for paratransit service under the ADA to be the most important
variable for understanding the ADA's impact on costs.  Yet transit
officials acknowledge that the demand under the ADA is very difficult
to predict with any degree of accuracy and is therefore difficult to
plan for.  Cost estimation is critical because estimates that best
reflect the future costs of implementing the ADA will be needed by
the Congress, not only to monitor the ADA's implementation, but as
input to FTA's biennial report on the transit needs of the nation and
to DOT's budget requests for mass transit capital and operating
funds. 


      IMPROVED SERVICE MAY
      INCREASE DEMAND
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Estimating the demand for paratransit under the ADA is difficult for
transit agencies because of uncertainty about the size of the
eligible population and the extent to which improved paratransit
service will stimulate demand.  Officials at some of the transit
agencies we visited told us that many people have not been using
paratransit service, or use it less often than they would like to,
because they have become discouraged by limits on its availability
and quality.  Most officials said that meeting the ADA's service
criteria, including providing sufficient capacity for all eligible
demand, would attract new riders and encourage current riders to take
more trips.  Some transit agency officials stated that as the ADA is
implemented throughout society, disabled persons will gain access to
more jobs and travel destinations, thus increasing their need to
travel.  In its regulatory analysis, DOT also recognized that this
latent demand could be a major cause of higher paratransit costs,
especially in larger cities.  While this latent demand may be quite
large, transit agency officials pointed out that estimating it is
very difficult.  However, one of the urban transit agencies we
visited was operating a paratransit service that it believed was
nearly equal to the ADA's service criteria and was providing over 2
million paratransit trips per year.  Its experience may be useful to
other transit agencies that are attempting to project the demand for
paratransit service. 


      SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES MAY
      REDUCE THEIR PARATRANSIT
      SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Many of the transit officials we talked to are concerned that social
service agencies may reduce their own transportation services now
that the ADA requires transit agencies to satisfy all eligible
requests for paratransit service.  Social service agencies have
collectively provided more paratransit service trips than the public
transit agencies, either directly or by reimbursing transit agencies
for some portion of the agencies' cost of providing the trips.  The
Community Transportation Association of America\6 estimated that the
federal government provided about $1.1 billion to social service
agencies for transportation in fiscal year 1989, and DOT estimated
that about 15 percent of this amount was for trips that would now be
eligible under the ADA.  Social service agencies may reduce their
reimbursement and reimburse only the fare charged, typically a small
fraction of the real cost of providing paratransit service.  For
example, one urban transit agency has been transporting social
service agencies' clients under contract for $10 to $12 per ride. 
The state department of public welfare is directing local social
service agencies to consider using paratransit service under the ADA
and reimburse the transit agency only the fare charged, which would
be about $1.75 per ride. 

Client transfers from social service agencies to paratransit systems
under the ADA may have been limited to date, but some transit
agencies are concerned that such transfers may soon increase and
generate abrupt and large cost increases.  Among the communities we
visited, such increases have occurred on a large scale in one large
midwestern city and on a small scale in a medium-sized northwestern
city. 


--------------------
\6 A national professional organization that focuses on improving
transportation in rural areas, small cities, and wherever older
Americans, people with disabilities, or poor people do not have
access to conventional public transit. 


      SHIFTING PARATRANSIT RIDERS
      TO ACCESSIBLE FIXED-ROUTE
      SERVICE MAY BE DIFFICULT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

One source of uncertainty in projecting the demand for paratransit is
how many persons currently using paratransit service will change to
fixed-route service as it becomes accessible.  DOT interprets the ADA
to place more emphasis than previous law on fixed-route
accessibility; paratransit serves only as a "safety net" for those
who are functionally incapable of using accessible fixed-route
service.  According to FTA's paratransit handbook for transit
agencies, as the ADA's provisions go into effect and new equipment
and facilities are in place, it is expected that transit services for
persons with disabilities will largely be provided by fixed-route
services.  However, transit agencies may have difficulty in getting
resistant paratransit riders to change to fixed-route service.  Thus,
accessible fixed-route service may not moderate the demand for
paratransit service to the extent anticipated. 

Officials at some of the transit agencies visited told us that, given
a choice, many persons with disabilities will elect to use
paratransit rather than fixed-route service.  Among the reasons they
cited were (1) the greater convenience and security of door-to-door
service, (2) the quality of paratransit service required under the
ADA, and (3) the reluctance of some disabled persons to attract
attention to themselves and possibly cause delays on fixed-route
buses. 

The Transportation Research Board noted that a major concern of
transit providers is the poor utilization of fixed-route service by
persons with disabilities.\7 The Board is sponsoring a research
project that is intended to develop a model program for attracting
persons with disabilities to fixed-route service.  Transit agencies
are also helping to train and encourage disabled persons to use
accessible fixed-route transit.  A recent community program in a
southwestern city enlisted the aid of experienced fixed-route users
to encourage others, but it achieved only modest success.  The
project director cited such deterrents as passengers' fatigue, fear
of getting lost, embarrassment, or concern about delaying bus
schedules.  Transit agencies in several cities, such as Atlanta,
Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix, have ordered low-floor buses that use
boarding ramps.  In addition to expediting the boarding of wheelchair
users, these buses can also benefit elderly persons and parents with
small children. 

Even if persons with disabilities are willing to use fixed-route
transit, many will have to wait some time for accessible vehicles. 
As mentioned earlier, the ADA did not set a deadline for fixed-route
accessibility, requiring only that most transit vehicles purchased or
leased after August 1990 be accessible.  Many transit agencies
currently have limited fixed-route accessibility, and consequently
many wheelchair users will continue to need paratransit service.  As
mentioned, APTA reported that about 50 percent of the nation's buses
were accessible to wheelchairs at the end of 1992.  The fixed-route
systems of the 12 transit agencies we visited ranged from have no
accessibility to having over 80-percent accessibility.  Thus,
paratransit costs will continue to be incurred for persons who do not
have accessible fixed-route service. 


--------------------
\7 Announcement of Transit Research Projects, Transportation Research
Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program, Apr.  1993. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Paratransit service is expensive.  Because of the expense, many
transit agencies limited the availability of the service before the
passage of the ADA by restricting service hours and the types of
trips that could be taken or simply by having first-come,
first-served reservation systems.  The ADA requires transit agencies
to offer paratransit service that is comparable to fixed-route
service and, in particular, to have enough capacity to satisfy all
trip requests by eligible persons.  These requirements will increase
the cost of paratransit service for transit agencies, although the
impact will vary according to the extent of paratransit service
offered before the ADA was enacted.  Although DOT's capital grants
may be used to purchase paratransit vehicles, most of the additional
costs to transit agencies will be operating costs, for which federal
assistance is very limited. 

At the same time, the ADA defined eligibility for paratransit service
in a way that seemed to exclude some of the disabled and elderly
persons that transit agencies had been serving.  Excluding these
persons by strictly applying the ADA's rules would reduce costs but
would be politically difficult for some transit agencies.  A premise
of the ADA is that many disabled persons, especially wheelchair
users, will use fixed-route transit as the systems become accessible. 
Many transit officials, however, are skeptical that the demand for
paratransit may increase because of better service.  Thus, the cost
impact of the ADA's requirements on transit systems may be greater
than would be expected from a strict interpretation of them. 

Transit agencies believe several of the ADA's paratransit
requirements are difficult to implement for reasons of both
administrative complexity and political sensitivity.  These include
determining eligibility on the basis of a functional evaluation of a
person's ability to use fixed-route transit, determining eligibility
on a trip-by-trip basis, and defining the paratransit service area as
a series of corridors along fixed transit routes.  DOT believes its
regulations on these issues reflect the intent of the act. 
Experience in implementing these principles is still limited, but
they may generate considerable controversy if fiscal pressures force
transit agencies to economize in their paratransit service.  By
continuing to provide information to transit agencies as more
experience is gained on best practices or on processes that were not
successful, FTA can assist transit agencies as they move forward to
comply with paratransit requirements. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We discussed the contents of this report with officials from the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation and FTA's Office of Grants
Management and Office of Administration.  The officials generally
agreed with our findings.  At their request, we have included
information on recent efforts by FTA and Project ACTION to assist
transit operators with their eligibility processes.  We have also
included information on FTA's most recent estimate of the ADA's
paratransit costs.  We have incorporated other comments and
clarifications, as appropriate.  As agreed with your offices, we did
not obtain written comments on a draft of this report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
Transportation; the Administrator, Federal Transit Administration;
the Director, Office of Management and Budget; participating
organizations; and interested congressional committees.  We will also
send copies to other interested parties upon request. 


Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.  Please
contact me on (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any questions. 

Kenneth M.  Mead
Director, Transportation Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

This report provides information to the Congress on the early
experiences of 12 transit agencies in implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act's (ADA) paratransit requirements and national
information on the projected costs and time periods for compliance
with the ADA.  Our objectives were to

  review the early experiences of transit agencies in phasing in the
     ADA's requirements and identify challenges to successful
     implementation,

  obtain information on transit agencies' projections of costs and
     time periods to implement the ADA's paratransit requirements,
     and

  identify variables that affect the reliability of projections and
     the magnitude of potential costs. 

We discussed the early experiences of transit agencies in
implementing the ADA's paratransit requirements with officials from
the following transit agencies: 

  Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago, Ill.),

  Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (Indianapolis,
     Ind.),

  Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (Kansas City, Mo.),

  Lowell Regional Transit Authority (Lowell, Mass.),

  Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston, Mass.),

  Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle's METRO (Seattle, Wash.),

  PACE (Arlington Heights, Ill.),

  Pierce Transit (Tacoma, Wash.),

  Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, Pa.),

  Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (Cincinnati, Ohio),

  Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon
     (Portland, Oreg.), and

  Worcester Regional Transit Authority (Worcester, Mass.). 

While these agencies may not be representative of all transit
agencies, they did provide a mix in terms of (1) transit fleet size,
(2) extent of paratransit service and accessibility of fixed-route
service before the ADA's passage, and (3) geographic dispersion.  The
agencies also included some that operate bus systems only and some
that also operate rail systems. 

To obtain information on implementation experience as well as a
better understanding of cost and time period projections, we
interviewed

  federal officials responsible for implementing the ADA's
     paratransit requirements at the Federal Transit Administration
     (FTA) headquarters in Washington, D.C., and FTA regional offices
     located in Boston, Mass., Kansas City, Mo., Chicago, Ill., and
     Seattle, Wash.;

  FTA consultants with responsibilities for reviewing paratransit
     plan reports submitted by transit agencies; and

  transit industry representatives from the American Public Transit
     Association and the Community Transportation Association of
     America located in Washington, D.C. 

To obtain information on projected costs and time periods and
variables affecting the reliability of projections, we did the
following: 

  We reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) regulatory
     impact analysis assessing the cost of compliance with the ADA's
     paratransit requirements, DOT's regulations governing the ADA's
     paratransit requirements, the guidance FTA provided to transit
     agencies, and other related documents.  We also reviewed FTA's
     recent projections of annual paratransit costs under ADA. 

  We collected data from 474 paratransit plan updates prepared by
     transit agencies.  FTA received 68 more plans than we collected
     for a total of 542.  The additional plans were not available at
     the time of our analysis.  The 474 plan updates we did receive
     had not been approved by FTA, and a number were incomplete.  For
     example, only 389 updates contained information on projected
     paratransit costs in 1996.  Also, baseline data on 1991
     paratransit costs were provided by only 352 updated plans, and
     only 291 plans provided complete data on total transit costs. 
     FTA had required that the cost figures in the paratransit plans
     be in 1992 dollars, but we did not verify that each plan
     complied with that requirement. 

We also attended conferences dealing with paratransit service
sponsored by the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, the
Community Transportation Association of America, and the American
Public Transit Association.  We performed our review between June
1992 and December 1993 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 


EXCERPTS FROM FTA'S GUIDANCE ON
DETERMINING TRIP ELIGIBILITY
========================================================== Appendix II

FTA's guidance to transit agencies suggested using a set of tests for
determining paratransit trip eligibility: 

  Does the individual's disability prevent getting to or from a
     station/stop at the point of origin or destination (of
     fixed-route service)? 

  Can the individual board and utilize the vehicle at the
     station/stop? 

  Can the individual independently recognize the destination and
     disembark? 

  If a trip involves transfers or connections, are the paths of
     travel between lines or modes accessible and navigable by the
     individual? 

A further understanding of the complexity of the process can be
obtained from examining table II.1, which lists common disabilities
and their functional impacts. 



                                    Table II.1
                     
                         Excerpts From FTA's Guidance on
                            Eligibility Determination

                                   Type of
                                   eligibilit
Functional impairment/disability   y           Determining factors
---------------------------------  ----------  ---------------------------------
Ambulatory disability, uses        Conditiona  Availability of accessible fixed-
wheelchair                         l           route service; distance to/from
                                   (2,3)\a     bus stop or rail station for trip
                                               requested; environmental
                                               conditions (terrain)

Ambulatory disability, uses        Conditiona  Distance to/from bus stop or rail
walker                             l           station for trip requested;
                                   (2,3)       availability of accessible fixed-
                                               route service; environmental
                                               conditions (terrain)

Ambulatory disability, uses        Conditiona  Distance to/from bus stop or rail
braces                             l           station for trip requested;
                                   (2,3)       availability of accessible fixed-
                                               route service; environmental
                                               conditions (terrain)

Ambulatory disability, uses other  Conditiona  Distance to/from bus stop or rail
mobility aid                       l           station for trip requested;
                                   (2,3)       availability of accessible fixed-
                                               route service; environmental
                                               conditions (terrain)

Temperature sensitivities          Conditiona  Distance to/from stop/station;
                                   l           waiting time at stop/station;
                                   (3)         temperature

Cardiac condition                  Conditiona  Distance to/from stop/station;
                                   l           environmental conditions
                                   (3)         (temperature, terrain)

Pulmonary condition                Conditiona  Distance to/from stop/station;
                                   l           environmental conditions
                                   (3)         (temperature, terrain)

Arthritis                          Conditiona  Distance to/from stop/station;
                                   l           environmental conditions
                                   (3)         (temperature, terrain)

Conditions resulting in severe     Conditiona
fatigue (HIV,\b radiation/         l
chemotherapy, dialysis)            (1,3)

Severe lack of coordination/       In all
motor function (e.g., cerebral     cases
palsy, brain/spinal/peripheral     (1,3)
nerve trauma, neurological
conditions)

Moderate lack of coordination/     Conditiona  Distance to/from stop/station;
motor function (e.g., cerebral     l           availability of accessible fixed-
palsy, brain/spinal/peripheral     (2,3)       route service
nerve trauma, neurological
conditions)

Profound or severe mental          In all
retardation                        cases
                                   (1,3)

Mild or moderate mental            Conditiona
retardation                        l
                                   (1,3)

Visual impairments (blindness,     Conditiona  Whether person has received
restricted vision)                 l           travel training for trip
                                   (1,3)       requested; effective fixed-route
                                               communications practices in place
                                               (announcements, card systems,
                                               etc.); physical barriers in the
                                               environment

Hearing impairments                Conditiona  Effective fixed-route
                                   l           communications practices in place
                                   (1)         (signage, card system, etc.)

Communication Disabilities         Conditiona  Effective fixed-route
(disability-related speech or      l           communications practices in place
reading impairments)               (1)         (signage, card systems, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Indicates category of eligibility.  (1) = unable to board, ride,
or disembark from an accessible vehicle; (2) = able to use accessible
vehicle, but accessible vehicle is not available; (3) = unable, due
to impairment-related conditions, to get to stop/station. 

\b Human immunodeficiency virus. 

Source:  Federal Transit Administration (formerly the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration), ADA Paratransit Handbook: 
Implementing the Complementary Paratransit Service Requirements of
the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Sept.  1991. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Gary L.  Jones, Assistant Director
Laurie S.  Zeitlin, Assignment Manager

CINCINNATI REGIONAL OFFICE

Kenneth R.  Libbey, Issue Area Manager
Frank T.  Lawson, Evaluator-in-Charge
Thomas M.  McDonald, Staff Evaluator
Julie A.  Schneiberg, Technical Advisor

