Impacts of More Rigorous ADA Paratransit Eligibility Assessments on Riders with Disabilities

Abstract

Due to the ever-increasing demand for complementary ADA paratransit trips, transit agencies have instituted a number of actions related to reducing the costs of this type of service, including steps to limit the demand through stricter and more complex ADA paratransit eligibility processes. The objective of this research was to document the changes the transit systems made to their ADA paratransit eligibility procedures and to determine the impacts these changes have had on riders with disabilities. The research report provides a brief history and overview of the ADA complementary paratransit regulations and services; summarizes increased demand and related agency ADA paratransit expenditures; documents recent trends and changes in the ADA complementary paratransit eligibility processes; and provides a summary of the best practices related to ADA paratransit eligibility procedures.

How Transit Agencies Implement Best Practice Strategies in Complementary ADA Paratransit Eligibility

“…A more recent study conducted by Thatcher et al (2013) describes the areas of operation where public transportation agencies have implemented changes and improvements to encourage greater fixed route transit use by people with disabilities, including (1) bus stops; (2) marketing, public information, and travel training; (3) fare incentives; (4) transit service; and (5) ADA paratransit eligibility criteria. These findings reinforce previous research (Hoesch and Roszner 1995;Weiner 1998Weiner , 2007Mathias and Thatcher 2002;Welch and Dubost 2005;Rogers and Wiemiller 2006;Cross 2007;National Academies 2007;Sapper, Goodwill, and Carapella 2009;NCD 2005) that illustrates the importance of agency eligibility determination practices in addressing operational challenges. A 2009 study funded by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Florida Department of Transportation further supports this and classifies more rigorous eligibility practices as the best means to address heightened cost and demand (Sapper 2009).…”

“…These findings reinforce previous research (Hoesch and Roszner 1995;Weiner 1998Weiner , 2007Mathias and Thatcher 2002;Welch and Dubost 2005;Rogers and Wiemiller 2006;Cross 2007;National Academies 2007;Sapper, Goodwill, and Carapella 2009;NCD 2005) that illustrates the importance of agency eligibility determination practices in addressing operational challenges. A 2009 study funded by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Florida Department of Transportation further supports this and classifies more rigorous eligibility practices as the best means to address heightened cost and demand (Sapper 2009).…”

“…Research within the last 10 years also suggests the value of more rigorous eligibility determinations on ADA paratransit demand. Through a survey of national transit agencies and follow-up interviews with representatives, Sapper et al (2009) reported that 33% of agencies use in-person interviews with all applicants and 19% implement functional assessments, with a greater number of agencies using these strategies on an as-needed basis. TCRP Report 119 (National Academies 2007) found that agencies that use trip-by-trip eligibility screening experience 48% lower complementary ADA paratransit demand than agencies that do not.…”

Interactions of Public Paratransit and Vocational Rehabilitation

“…2 6 Ko¤man et al (2007) assert that it is important to include only the population that lives within 3=4 mile from …xed route systems because people living farther away are not covered according to ADA rules. This is probably a poor research choice because a) it is very di¢ cult to measure the appropriate population and b) 48% of paratransit systems do not restrict service based on the rule (Sapper, Goodwill, and Carapella, 2009 Second, we have geographic information of each agency only at the county level. It is possible that public transportation does not exist in some areas of a county even though the county is recorded as having public transportation in our data set.…”