[1] The authors of the Topic Guide Series on ADA Transportation are Marilyn Golden, Policy Analyst, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) and Russell Thatcher, Senior Transportation Planner, TranSystems Corporation.

We wish to acknowledge our Advisory Committee and the additional people who reviewed the Topic Guide series. The Advisory Committee includes Linda Deavens, Director, Paratransit, Inc., Sacramento, California; Susan Gallagher, Manager of Accessible Services, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Oakland, California; Bonnie Hitch, Customer Service Manager, DART First State/Delaware Transit Corporation, Dover, Delaware; Kevin Irvine, formerly Senior Advocate, Equip for Equality, Chicago, Illinois; Toby Olson, Executive Secretary, Washington State Governor's Committee on Disability Issues and Employment, Olympia, Washington; and Nancy Pineles, Managing Attorney, Maryland Disability Law Center, Baltimore, Maryland.

The Topic Guide series was also reviewed, in whole or in part, by Doug Douglas, Vice President, Paratransit Services and Tammy Haenftling, Assistant Vice President, Paratransit Management Services, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Dallas, Texas; Karen Hoesch, Executive Director, Access Transportation System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Richard Weiner, Principal, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, San Francisco, California; and Stacy Zwagers, Program Manager, Access to Independence, San Diego, California.

The authors also extend appreciation to DREDF staff Ann McDonald-Cacho, Dave Nold, Julia Epstein, Linda D. Kilb, and Katie Keil.

[2]This report was funded through a cooperative agreement between the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and policies expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration. The United States government assumes no liability for the contents or use of this report.

[3] This Topic Guide discusses the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation at 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.161 and 37.163, and 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, §§ 37.161 and 37.163, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3906.html.

[4] In several ADA compliance reviews and Letters of Finding, including these three, FTA has found that transit agencies have, overall, failed to maintain accessibility features in operative condition.

"While GCRTS's number of lift failures improved towards the end of the year, the average number of lift failures for most months is excessive. According to the National Transit Database, GCRTS operated 548 buses during peak times with a maximum service of 701 fixed-route vehicles in 2003 and experienced an average of 123 lift failures per month. This equates to roughly one out of every four or five buses failing each month. This does not meet the obligation under [the DOT ADA regulation] 37.161 and 37.163. FTA will continue to monitor GCRTS for lift failures, until such time as we are assured that GCRTS has corrected its deficiencies."

Letter of Finding by Cheryl L. Hershey, then ADA Team Leader, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, October 20, 2005, regarding FTA Complaint No. 030245 against Greater Cleveland Regional Transit System and Maple Heights Transit System, Cleveland, Ohio, p. 3.

Finding: "AMA fails to maintain lift systems on its fixed route buses in good repair. Based on information collected during the period from October 2006 through February 2007 from four reporting sources, the total number of buses identified as having inoperable lifts during one of the inspections was 163, representing 63 percent of the active fleet of 259 buses."

Recommendation: "Periodic preventative maintenance procedures should include inspection and repair of all accessibility features, including lifts, ramps, wheelchair securements, stop request controls, public address systems, variable message signs, and door and seating signs."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Autoridad Metropolitana de Autobuses (AMA), San Juan, Puerto Rico, Review of Lift Reliability and Maintenance for Operation of Accessible Fixed Route Bus Service, conducted March 5 – 8, 2007, Final Report dated October 15, 2007, pp. 36 and 39, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

"A summary of buses with inoperable lifts showed that six of the 29 buses in the fleet have permanently inoperable lifts. GPT stated that the bus manufacturer is out of business, and it was not possible to repair the lifts. Six replacement buses with lifts are on schedule to be purchased in the future. Based upon the above stated facts FTA finds GPT to be in violation of DOT ADA regulations at Sections 37.161 and 37.163(b). FTA will place GPT in corrective action until all deficiencies related to inoperable lifts are corrected."

Letter of Finding by Cheryl L. Hershey, then ADA Group Leader, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, October 13, 2004, regarding FTA Complaint No. 01-0249 against Gary Public Transportation Corporation (GPT), Gary, Indiana, p. 2.

[5] This FTA ADA compliance review found that a train system was not consistent in announcing elevator outages on board the train, so that passengers may not find out an elevator is broken before arriving at their station.

Finding: "According to passengers, rapid transit personnel do not consistently announce elevator outages on board the trains, so passengers may not be aware that an elevator is out until they disembark at their station."

Recommendation: "The MBTA should be more diligent about announcing elevator outages to passengers on board the rapid transit vehicles so that contingency plans and rerouting may occur prior to disembarking at a station with a broken elevator."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, Summary of Observations, Assessment of Stop Announcement and Route Identification Efforts & Assessment of Lift Reliability and Maintenance, conducted July 2000, Final Report dated April 20, 2001, p. II-28, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

[6]Because some travelers with vision impairments who use service animals rely on elevators, it is important to pay attention to the placement of elevators in new construction and alterations, and to make it possible for riders who are blind or have vision impairments to locate elevators as easily as possible. Detectable pathways connecting elevators to main entrances and/or other wayfinding features should be considered.

[7] This FTA ADA compliance review found the transit agency elevator maintenance contract properly addressed the issue of timely elevator repair.

Finding: "The elevator maintenance contract appears to address the issue of timely repairs related to elevator reliability by requiring that elevators be repaired within 24 hours and that escalators be repaired within 72 hours."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, op. cit., p. II-28.

[8] Several FTA ADA compliance reviews, including these three, found that pre-trip inspections did not include lift cycling.

Finding: "It appears that operators do not always cycle lifts as part of the pre-trip inspection. In their visits to six garages, reviewers observed the starter actively intercepting operators and instructing them to cycle their lifts prior to pull-out. It appeared that many operators would not have cycled their lifts prior to pull-out without the proactive intervention of the starter. Nevertheless, 12 of 138 operators (8.7 percent) were observed by the review team to not cycle the lift or ramp during pre-trip inspections."

Recommendation: "WMATA should consider assigning a yard dispatcher at each division to supervise pull-out and pre-trip inspections with the objective of ensuring that operators perform pre-trip inspections on all buses."

Recommendation: "WMATA should review the time allowed operators to complete the pre-trip inspection, particularly at facilities where there is little room to deploy lifts and ramps."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Washington, DC, Review of Lift Reliability and Maintenance for Operation of Accessible Fixed Route Bus Service, conducted August 20 – 23, 2007, Final Report dated August 29, 2008, pp. 36 and 39, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

Finding: "AMA employees do not perform regular daily maintenance checks of lifts to determine their operability. AMA operators do not cycle their vehicles' lifts prior to pull out. Operators do not have regular pre-trip inspections, and they do not have any checklist or inspection form to document vehicle defects for maintenance and repair."

Recommendation: "AMA should develop a pre-trip vehicle inspection process for operators to inspect, record, and report the condition of the vehicle, before the operator uses the vehicle in passenger service. The inspection should include lifts, ramps, wheelchair securements, stop request controls, public address system, variable message signs, passenger information signs, and other accessibility features."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Autoridad Metropolitana de Autobuses (AMA), San Juan, Puerto Rico, op. cit., pp. 36 and 39.

Finding: "Pre-trip inspections do not include lift cycling. Drivers are expected to cycle the lift while in service. Some drivers cycle lifts at the end of their morning peak service trips. There is no supervisory control of lift cycling. As a result, buses may be placed in service with minor, easily correctable problems with lifts."

Recommendation: "It is recommended that lifts be cycled on a daily basis, preferably as part of the supervised pullout to ensure that lifts are functioning when they leave the garage."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Summary of Observations, Assessment of Stop Announcement and Route Identification Efforts & Assessment of Lift Reliability and Maintenance, conducted August 20 – 24, 2001, Final Report dated April 18, 2002, pp. 52 – 53, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

[9] In several ADA compliance reviews, including these three, FTA found that drivers did not check securements during the pre-trip inspection.

Finding: "Overall, 90% of the lifts observed during pullout were functioning. Most drivers appeared to be comfortable operating the lift; however, none appeared to check securements during the pre-trip inspection."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA), Baltimore, Maryland, Assessment of Lift Reliability and Maintenance, conducted April 30 – May 3, 2001, Final Report dated April 17, 2002, p. 24, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

Finding: "Pullout observations and bus inspections on May 10 and 11 indicated, however, that many operators do not appear to typically conduct a through inspection of the working condition of the securement and passenger restraint systems. Without prompting, few drivers checked the automatic retractors or other system features. Issues were also discovered with securement systems on 10 of the 94 buses inspected."

Recommendation: "SMART should instruct drivers to thoroughly inspect the working condition of securement and passenger restraint systems as part of the pullout process. This inspection should include a check of the working condition of retractors. Any non-working securement systems noted in these inspections should then be repaired before buses are placed into service."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), Detroit, Michigan, Review of Reliability, Maintenance, and Operation of Accessible Fixed Route Bus Service, conducted May 9 – 12, 2005, Final Report dated February 1, 2007, pp. 31 and 32, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

Finding: "The operator did not check the wheelchair securements on six of the 18 buses."

Finding: "The operator did not check the wheelchair restraints on eight of the 18 buses."

Finding: "At least six (of 18) operators did not appear familiar in the use of the securements or restraints."

Recommendation: "ART should direct Veolia to verify that operators check the operation of wheelchair restraints and securements during their pre-trip vehicle inspections."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Arlington County Transit (ART), Arlington, Virginia, Review of Lift Reliability and Maintenance for Operation of Fixed Route Bus Service, conducted March 10 – 13, 2008, Final Report dated May 11, 2009, pp. 31 and 34, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

[10] In this ADA compliance review, FTA found that public address systems were not included on pre-trip inspection checklists.

Finding: "The PA systems were not functioning on three of the 12 PA equipped buses examined by the review team. While most accessibility equipment, including lifts, ramps and securement systems, is checked daily by bus operators as part of the pre-trip inspection process, PA systems are not on the ‘Pre-Trip Inspection' form and do not appear to be checked regularly by bus operators. Also, PA systems are not included on the ‘B' and ‘BC' vehicle maintenance checklists."

Recommendation: "Pueblo Transit should revise the operator pre-trip inspection to include the PA system. Pueblo Transit should also include inspection of the PA system in its regular vehicle maintenance services."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Pueblo Transit, Pueblo, Colorado, Review of Lift Reliability and Maintenance for Operation of Accessible Fixed Route Bus Service, conducted June 18 – 21, 2007, Final Report dated January 25, 2008, pp. 34 and 36, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.

[11] Many FTA ADA compliance reviews and Letters of Finding, including these six, addressed the removal of vehicles from service due to inoperable lifts. In the first compliance review, FTA lauded a transit agency for implementation of this requirement. In the others, FTA found vehicles inappropriatelyin service with inoperable lifts.

Finding: "If a wheelchair lift or ramp fails while in service, Pueblo Transit appears to respond and, when necessary, remove the bus from service promptly and make the necessary repairs. In most cases, repairs are made before the next service day. Buses are not placed back into service if the repairs take longer."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Pueblo Transit, Pueblo, Colorado, op. cit., p. 33.

"SCT reports that 100 percent of its fleet has lifts. The documents provided to FTA and DOJ also show, however, that during the sample period, SCT inspectors reported 62 instances of buses with inoperable lifts, 40 percent of which SCT used in operation before repairing the malfunction. Considering the number of spare buses in SCT's fleet, FTA questions SCT's need to place such vehicles in service. We note that DOT's ADA regulations require the use of accessible buses when an accessible spare is available, and the use of an inaccessible bus for no more than three days if there is no spare vehicle available to take the place of the one with an inoperable lift. Moreover, SCT used 14 of its buses with inoperable lifts (more than 20 percent) for more than three consecutive days, in express violation of this DOT ADA regulation.

Finding: SCT placed some buses in service with inoperable lifts, despite the availability of spare buses with working lifts. Furthermore, some of those buses remained in service for more than three consecutive days."

Michael A. Winter, then Director, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, letter to Ms. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Suffolk County Department of Law, Hauppauge, New York, February 15, 2007, regarding Suffolk County Transit, Suffolk County, New York, p. 2. This letter was sent pursuant to a joint investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and FTA, following a request by plaintiffs in Collins v. Suffolk County, Civ. No. 04-3384 (E.D.N.Y.) that the United States intervene in that litigation. The December 8, 2006, settlement agreement reached by the parties in Collins ended DOJ's role. The joint investigation supplemented FTA's efforts to resolve two prior complaints, FTA File Nos. 98-0244 and 04-0004, the latter submitted by the plaintiffs in Collins.

Finding: "Three of 39 (7.7 percent) buses with inoperable lifts were used in passenger service for four, five, and six days from the time the lift was reported as inoperable until the time it was repaired. The DOT regulations (49 CFR §37.163(e)) state that when there is no spare vehicle to replace a vehicle that has an inoperative lift, ‘the public entity may keep the vehicle in service with an inoperable lift for no more than … three days (if the entity serves an area of over 50,000 population) from the day on which the lift is discovered to be inoperative.'"

Finding: "WMATA does not appear to have a consistent procedure to identify and hold buses with inoperable lifts or ramps to ensure that they are only used when no other bus is available and are used for no more than three days. Each of WMATA's bus divisions has its own procedure for identifying vehicles available for use in passenger service each day. At some divisions, the maintenance managers identify vehicles unavailable for use in passenger service for the transportation managers. The lists provided do not appear to identify vehicles with inoperable lifts as unavailable or as having only limited availability as ‘trippers' in relation to the date the inoperable lift was reported and the subsequent days it had been used in service."

Finding: "The review team was able to identify records of vehicle use in passenger service for 39 of the 45 buses with repair records. Of these 39 buses, at least 13 (33.3 percent) were used in service for one day or more. DOT regulations (49 CFR §37.163(d)) require transit agencies to take vehicles with inoperative lifts (and implicitly inoperable ramps as well) out of service when discovered to be inoperative and to repair lifts/ramps before returning vehicles to service. The 39 buses were identified from a review of WMATA records from the period June 7 to August 21, 2007, but focused on records for the week of June 24 through June 30."

Finding: "Seven of 20 WMATA bus operators interviewed said that they have had to pull out with a bus with an operable lift. All of the operators knew they were to inform the yard mechanic if the lift did not work during the pre-trip inspection, and all indicated that they would request another bus if the lift was inoperable."

Recommendation: "WMATA should develop systemwide procedures to identify and track vehicles with inoperable lifts, as unavailable or as having limited availability (‘trippers'), related to the date the inoperable lift was reported and the subsequent days it was used in service."

Recommendation: "WMATA should review its procedures for reporting and recording buses whose lifts are identified as inoperable during pre-trip inspections to ensure that buses with inoperable lifts are only used in service when no other bus is available to cover service needs."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Washington, DC, op. cit., pp. 35, 36, and 39.

Finding: "AMA appears to place buses with inoperable lifts in service when there are buses with operable lifts available. AMA assigned buses with inoperable lifts to passenger service on Saturday and Sunday, February 3 and 4, 2007—36 percent of the buses in revenue service on each day had inoperable lifts. It appeared that AMA had a sufficient number of vehicles with operable lifts so that it could have deployed fully accessible fleets on those two days."

Finding: "AMA operates buses with inoperable lifts in service for more than three days. Thirty-eight vehicles (representing 23 percent of typical weekday pull-out) with inoperable lifts on February 1, 2007, were assigned to service on more than three days during the period February 1 to 5, 2007, according to AMA daily pull-out records. Twenty-four 1995 Flxible buses are regularly used in service even though their lifts are inoperable. Fourteen of the Flxible buses were assigned to service on February 1, 2007. Fifty-six buses awaiting parts for inoperable lifts are available for daily service. Twenty-seven of theses buses were assigned to service on February 1, 2007."

Recommendation: "AMA should not schedule buses with inoperable lifts for service when buses with operable lifts are available. AMA should immediately change its practices in this regard for weekend service."

Recommendation: "AMA should immediately discontinue use of buses with inoperable lifts, including all of the 1995 Flxble buses. In no case should buses be used in revenue service for more than three days without operable lifts, as required by 49 CFR § 37.163 (e)."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Autoridad Metropolitana de Autobuses (AMA), San Juan, Puerto Rico, op. cit., pp. 35 and 39.

Finding: "Team members' review of SMART's vehicle maintenance and operations records identified two instances during 2005 in which SMART kept vehicles in service with inoperable ramps for more than three days even though it had available accessible vehicles."

Recommendation: "SMART should establish and enforce a policy of removing from service any vehicle with an inoperable ramp until the ramp has been repaired."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), Detroit, Michigan, op. cit., pp. 31 and 32.

Finding: "Comparison of maintenance records with bus pull-out records suggests that in at least one instance (Bus 5231 in October 2007) a bus continued in service for more than three days while awaiting repair of its lift."

Recommendation: "ART and Veolia should promulgate a clear policy implementing 49 CFR §37.163(d) and (e)—the requirement to remove a bus with an inoperable lift/ramp from service before its next service day unless there is no spare bus and in no event more than three days."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Arlington County Transit (ART), Arlington, Virginia, op. cit., pp. 30 and 34.

[12] These two FTA ADA compliance reviews discussed transit agency and driver policies or practices regarding buses with broken lifts or ramps, and whether they are put into service on routes not designated as accessible. The first compliance review observed that both drivers and pullout supervisors cited a transit agency policy that is inconsistent with the ADA: that a bus with an inoperable lift may be put into service on routes not designated as accessible, if necessary. The second compliance review found that vehicle operators "were under the impression that they do not have to use the lift on a route that is not designated as being accessible." FTA makes such a finding if reviewers observed drivers refraining from using a lift or ramp while in service and, when interviewed, expressing the view that the lift or ramp need not be deployed on a route not designated as accessible. This suggests the drivers would view the usage of a bus with an inoperable lift or ramp on such routes as acceptable.

Field Observation: "When queried, both drivers and pullout supervisors stated that it was MBTA policy that routes designated as being accessible be given first priority for a bus with a functioning lift, but that a bus with a non-functioning lift would be sent out on routes that were not designated as accessible, if necessary."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, op. cit., p. II-13.

Finding: "It appears that some drivers are under the impression that they do not have to use the lift on a route that is not designated as being accessible."

Recommendation: "It is recommended that drivers be reminded that they are expected to provide service to persons with disabilities when they are driving a bus that is accessible whether or not the route is accessible."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, op. cit., pp. 52 and 53.

[13]These two FTA ADA compliance reviews found effective a transit agency practice of assigning a mechanic to the pullout area during major pullouts in order to address equipment problems that can be quickly repaired.

Finding: "The pilot program at Charlestown/Bennett Garage in which the Yard Supervisor troubleshoots and repairs minor lift (and other) problems during pullout appears to increase the number of buses with operating lifts that are available for service."

Recommendation: "If successful, the Charlestown/Bennett pilot project should be expanded to all garages so that minor repairs may be made to equipment during pre-trip inspections, particularly ensuring that buses leave the garage with functioning lifts, kneelers, and PA systems. This MBTA initiative appears to have the potential to increase the number of in-service buses with functioning lifts at relatively low cost."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, op. cit., pp. II-20 and II-21.

Finding: "The use of maintenance and operations personnel to observe pullout appears to be very beneficial for troubleshooting lift problems before drivers leave the garage."

Recommendation: "The practice of monitoring pullout with lift-mechanics and division personnel should be done regularly."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA), Baltimore, Maryland, op. cit., pp. 24 and 25.

[14] ADA Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles,49 C.F.R. § 38.35(a).

[15] In ADA compliance reviews, including this one, FTA has found that unamplified voice announcements often were not audible throughout the vehicle.

Finding: "Voice announcements made without amplification often were not audible or clear."

Recommendation: "PA systems should be repaired or replaced and kept in good working condition so that drivers may use them and be heard when announcing stops on fixed route buses. Further, PA systems on rapid transit/subway and commuter rail should be upgraded so that drivers are more easily understood and there is less static."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, op. cit., p. I-1-20 and I-1-21.

[16] Several FTA ADA compliance reviews, including these two, found gaps in the consistent immediate reporting of lift failures in service.

Finding: "Drivers do not appear to consistently report lift failures while in service as required by 49 CFR 37.163 (c)."

Recommendation: "Driver training should make clear the drivers responsibility to carry a key for the lifts, and reinforce the drivers responsibility to promptly report lift failures to appropriate supervisory personnel."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, op. cit., pp. II-20 and II-22.

Finding: "Customers noted that some drivers do not call in lift failures, nor do they attempt to use the lift in the presence of the passenger."

Recommendation: "It is recommended that procedures be reviewed and revised to assure that drivers are properly reporting lift failures, and that Control Center dispatchers are accurately recording them."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, op. cit., pp. 52 and 53.

[17] Fixed route transit systems are those that operate along prescribed routes according to fixed schedules, in contrast to demand response transit service, in which a vehicle is dispatched or routed in response to a potential rider's request. For example, the subway train is a fixed route system; taxis are a demand response service.

[18] Many FTA ADA compliance reviews, including these five, address the provision of alternative service when lifts and ramps fail to operate. In the first compliance review, FTA lauded a transit agency for thorough implementation of this requirement. In the other four, FTA found problems in the provision of alternative service.

Finding: "SMART has established detailed and effective procedures to ensure that alternative service is provided to riders with disabilities should the access features of a bus fail in service. These procedures have been effectively communicated to operators and dispatchers. In addition, SMART's use of accessible minivans as Road Supervisor vehicles allows these employees to quickly respond to any lift or ramp failures. Fortunately, with the ability to manually operate bus ramps, these alternative service procedures appear to be needed only on rare occasions."

Recommendation: "To further strengthen its already good policy concerning the provision of alternative, backup service, SMART should include more specific language requiring bus operators to inform riders of the exact arrangements being made to assist them when there is an in-service lift or ramp failure.

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), Detroit, Michigan, op. cit., pp. 30 and 32.

Finding: "The formal procedures established by Pueblo Transit for arranging for alternative transportation when lifts fail in service (‘Procedures for Handling Wheelchair Clients When W/C Lifts are Inoperable') do not appear to be followed in practice. Bus operators tend to contact the garage maintenance staff, rather than dispatchers. Operators said that the Citi-Lift paratransit service is rarely used as a backup. In most cases where lifts fail in service, it appears that the garage maintenance staff coordinate the response and either send a replacement vehicle or mechanics to make the repair on the street."

Finding: "The review team observed one in-service lift failure. In this case, the bus operator did not keep the rider informed of the alternative transportation arrangements that Pueblo Transit was making."

Recommendation: "Pueblo Transit should review its procedures and actual practices for arranging for alternative transportation when lifts fail in service and make them consistent. To allow the Citi-Lift service to be considered more regularly. The policy and practice should be revised, so that bus operators notify dispatchers of lift failures, and the dispatchers then contact both the garage maintenance staff and the Citi-Lift program to determine the best options for responding to the in service failure. Doing so would facilitate a quicker response, using Citi-Lift if there is not a spare fixed route bus that can be used to respond in a timely way. It may also minimize the impact of lift failures on service as a whole."

Recommendation: "Pueblo Transit should reinforce with bus operators that they should keep riders informed of the arrangements being made for alternative transportation when there are in-service lift failures."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Pueblo Transit, Pueblo, Colorado, op. cit., pp. 33 and 34.

Finding: "In addressing the needs of customers, interviewed operators employed different practices when operating buses with an inoperable lift. Some would tell the waiting customer that the next bus would arrive in 10 or 20 minutes, while others would call BOCC for the estimated time of arrival of the next bus with an operating lift. WMATA ADA training instructs operators to contact BOCC and inform the customer that BOCC will send a street supervisor to the scene if the wait for another bus is longer than 20 minutes."

Recommendation: "WMATA should retrain operators so that they understand the proper procedures for accommodating passengers when they are operating a bus with an inoperable lift. This would promote consistent treatment of customers in accordance with the DOT ADA regulations."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Washington, DC, op. cit., pp. 37 and 40.

Finding: "It appears that when buses are operating with an inoperative lift, the MBTA does not always promptly provide alternative transportation to people who are unable to use fixed route buses without operable lifts."

Recommendation: "It is recommended that the MBTA review its procedures for providing alternative transportation to lift users when buses are operating with inoperative lifts in accordance with 49 CFR 37.163 (f)."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, op. cit., pp. II-21 and II-22.

Finding: "Although ART and Veolia appear to make a good faith effort to expeditiously pick up wheelchair passengers when a lift does not operate, the current policies, procedures, and directives do not explicitly address 49 CFR §37.163(f), which requires alternative transportation for customers with disabilities in the event of an inoperable wheelchair lift when the headway to the next accessible bus on the route exceeds 30 minutes. In addition, a third of the operators who were interviewed did not mention calling the dispatcher as part of their response to a lift failure; this may indicate a lack of awareness that a prompt call for assistance is needed to meet this requirement."

Recommendation: "An explicit policy directive should be promulgated with respect to 49 CFR §37.163(f), requiring alternative transportation when the headway to the next accessible bus on the route exceeds 30 minutes."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Arlington County Transit (ART), Arlington, Virginia, op. cit., pp. 32 and 34.

[19] 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, § 37.163, originally published at 56 Fed. Reg. 45747 (Sept. 6, 1991).

[20] Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America and City of Detroit at 2:04- cv-73152, ¶¶ H.1 through 3 (agreement effective Dec 2008). Copies of the complete settlement agreements are available at www.ada.gov/detroittransit05.htm.

H. Alternative Transportation

1. As of the Effective Date of this Settlement Order, whenever an individual using a Wheelchair cannot board a City bus because the Wheelchair Lift does not operate, DDOT shall utilize the following procedures: While stopped at the bus stop and in the presence of the passenger using a Wheelchair, the Bus Driver shall contact Dispatch and provide Dispatch the location of the passenger and the direction he or she is traveling. Dispatch shall determine whether a bus with a known working Lift on that route will arrive at that stop within 30 minutes and communicate such to the Driver. If a bus with a working Lift will arrive within 30 minutes, the Driver shall ask the passenger to wait for another bus.  If no bus with a known working Lift will arrive at that stop within 30 minutes, Alternative Transportation will be sent, and Dispatch shall tell the Driver approximately how long it will take the Alternative Transportation to arrive. The Driver shall inform the passenger that Alternative Transportation is on the way and approximately how long it will take to arrive. When the Alternative Transportation arrives, the driver of that vehicle shall inform Dispatch what time he or she arrived at the passenger's location. Dispatch shall record the date and time of the request, the location of the passenger, the Bus Driver's i.d. number, the time that Alternative Transportation was dispatched, the time the Alternative Transportation arrived at the bus stop, and the time that the passenger arrived at his/her destination. 


2. DDOT shall ensure that Bus Drivers can communicate with Dispatch, without exiting the bus. As of the Effective Date of this Settlement Order, each bus and Alternative Transportation vehicle will be equipped with a functional radio in order to contact Dispatch. DDOT shall maintain the vehicle radios in working condition and shall inspect the radios on a daily basis and repair them promptly when damaged or out of order. 


3. Alternative Transportation will arrive within 30 minutes of the Bus Driver's call to Dispatch requesting Alternative Transportation.

[21] In the FTA Capital Program Grant Application Instructions, § (8)(a)(1) provides the FTA Service Life Policy:

Service Life Policy. Service life of rolling stock begins on the date the vehicle is placed in revenue service and continues until it is removed from service. Minimum normal service lives for buses and vans are given in the paragraphs below.

Large, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 35'-40', and articulated buses):
at least 12 years of service or an accumulation of at least 500,000 miles.

Medium-size, heavy-duty transit buses (approximately 30'):
10 years or 350,000 miles.

Medium-size, medium-duty transit buses (approximately 30'):
7 years or 200,000 miles.

Medium-size, light-duty transit buses (approximately 25- 35'):
5 years or 150,000 miles.

Other light-duty vehicles such as small buses and regular and specialized vans:
4 years or 100,000 miles.

Federal Transit Administration, Capital Program: Grant Application Instructions, C 9300.1A, 10-01-98, available at www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_4128.html#chapter3.

[22] National Council on Disability, The Current State of Transportation For People With Disabilities in the United States, June 13, 2005, pp. 97 – 99.

[23] This requirement is not in the DOT ADA regulation, but rather in what is called Part 27. Part 27 contains other transit agency obligations including the DOT regulation for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, another disability rights law. Part 27, which is formally cited as 49 C.F.R. Part 27, is available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3907.html. The reporting requirement is at 49 C.F.R. § 27.13(b), 49 C.F.R. Subpart C, §§ 27.121 – 27.129.

[24] Federal Transit Administration Office of Civil Rights, Rider Complaint Form, available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3889.html.

[25] ADA Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles, 49 C.F.R. § 38.23(c)(5).

[26] 49 C.F.R. § 37.165(f) and 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D, § 37.165.

[27] U.S. Access Board, Draft Revisions to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buses and Vans, § T303.8.1, available at www.access-board.gov/vguidedraft2.htm (Notice of Availability at 73 Fed. Reg. 69592 (Nov. 19, 2008)). The U.S. Access Board is currently in an extended process of drafting and receiving public comment on proposed revisions to ADA accessibility guidelines for vehicles used to provide designated and specified public transportation. The Access Board first draft of such updated vehicle guidelines was released on April 11, 2007. Following public comment on that first draft, the second draft (cited here) was released on November 19, 2008. A formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will then be issued, leading to promulgation of a final rule after comments to the NPRM are analyzed.

[28] 49 C.F.R. Part 38.

[29] U.S. Access Board, Draft Revisions to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buses and Vans, §§ T203.3 and T4, available at www.access-board.gov/vguidedraft2.htm (Notice of Availability at 73 Fed. Reg. 69592 (Nov. 19, 2008)), op.cit.

[30] This FTA ADA compliance review found that standardization of accessibility features throughout the bus fleet would simplify stocking parts as well as conducting maintenance and repairs.

Finding: "Pueblo Transit's bus fleet includes seven different vehicle makes and models. More standardization of the fleet would make it easier and less expensive to stock parts and would make maintenance and repairs less complex."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Pueblo Transit, Pueblo, Colorado, op. cit., p. 33.

[31] Easter Seals Project ACTION, Resource Guide to Effective Approaches for Increasing Stop Announcements and Route Identification by Transit Operators, op. cit., p. 24.

[32] This FTA ADA compliance reviews found a lack of written policies that address ADA equipment maintenance requirements.

Finding: "There is no ART or Veolia written policy specifically limiting the operation of buses with inoperable lifts to no more than three days and only if no spare bus is available."

Finding: "Although Veolia procedures require that lift problems detected during pre-trip inspections must be reported, there is no policy stating that a bus with an inoperable lift should not continue in service on the day the problem is identified."

Finding: "There is no ART or Veolia written policy specifically prohibiting a bus with an inoperable lift/ramp from pulling out for service unless no spare bus is available. The current policies, procedures, and directives fail to address 49 CFR §37.163(d), which states that except when no spare vehicle is available, the transit entity shall take the vehicle out of service before the beginning of the vehicle's next service day after a lift is discovered to be inoperable."

Recommendation: "ART and Veolia should promulgate a clear policy implementing 49 CFR §37.163(d) and (e)—the requirement to remove a bus with an inoperable lift/ramp from service before its next service day unless there is no spare bus and in no event more than three days."

Recommendation: "Directives to operators regarding all aspects of ADA compliance should be issued in consolidated form by Veolia and reviewed with all bus operators and supervisors. The directives should address all parts of the applicable regulations (49 CFR Part 37 subparts 161, 163, 165, and 167). The consolidated directive should be reviewed with all operators and used in training."

Recommendation: "An explicit policy directive should be promulgated with respect to 49 CFR §37.163(f), requiring alternative transportation when the headway to the next accessible bus on the route exceeds 30 minutes."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Arlington County Transit (ART), Arlington, Virginia, op. cit., pp. 30 – 34.

[33] Several FTA ADA compliance reviews, including these two, addressed vehicle operator training and its relationship to equipment maintenance. The first compliance review lauded the transit agency training program. The other compliance review found deficiencies in training vehicle operators.

Finding: "SMART has developed and implemented a very thorough employee training program that provides comprehensive instruction on the use of accessibility equipment as well as on the provision of quality service to all riders, including riders with disabilities. Interaction with individuals with disabilities is part of the training. Employees also ride the fixed route service using mobility aids as part of the training to better understand the perspective of riders with disabilities."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), Detroit, Michigan, op. cit., p. 30.

Finding: "In many instances, the Driver Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) that is used to record defects found during pre-trip inspection as well as on the road indicates that the operator mistakenly believed the lift to be inoperable but pulled out the bus for service on that day. If the operator believes the lift to be inoperable it is for practical purposes non-functional. This situation is partly a deficiency in training operators in lift operation."

Finding: "All bus operators interviewed said they had received training in wheelchair boarding and securement. However, responses on what to do in the event that a wheelchair lift failed to operate were varied, indicating that the training is insufficient."

Recommendation: "Refresher training on lift operation should be targeted to individual operators who report an inoperable lift that turns out to be operable."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Arlington County Transit (ART), Arlington, Virginia, op. cit., pp. 30, 32, 34, and 35.

[34] In several ADA compliance reviews and Letters of Finding, including these three, FTA addressed preventive maintenance. In the first one, FTA lauded a transit agency ramp maintenance program. In the others, FTA found gaps in a transit agency equipment maintenance programs.

Finding: "SMART has implemented inspection procedures that test the working condition of bus ramps at least twice each day, as well as during regular maintenance. Bus ramps are cycled by operators as part of the pullout process and the inspection forms used by operators specifically require checks of the ramp as well as the securement systems. Ramps are tested a second time each day by Coach Service Attendants (CSAs) as buses are returned to the garage. Ramps are also tested as part of the regular preventative maintenance program."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), Detroit, Michigan, op. cit., pp. 29 – 30.

"SEPTA's response stated: ‘It should also be noted that on the Complainant's return trip the wheelchair lift on the bus number 3445 did deploy and raise and lower but would not raise and lower with the Complainant in her wheelchair on the lift. There have been at least two other occasions where a lift would not function with the weight of the wheelchair passenger.'

"A wheelchair lift that won't deploy with a passenger in a wheelchair on the lift is not ‘operative.' ‘Operative' means the lifts are operating for the purpose they were intended: to lift passengers in wheelchairs (or standees) into the bus.

"SEPTA stated in its response that there have been at least two other occasions when a lift would not function with the weight of the passenger and a wheelchair. This indicates that SEPTA's checks and maintenance are insufficient to determine if lifts are ‘operative,' absent mitigating circumstances that have not been offered by way of explanation … . Based upon the above facts this constitutes a violation of the DOT ADA regulations at Section 37.163(b)."

Letter of Finding by Cheryl L. Hershey, then ADA Group Leader, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, October 14, 2004, regarding FTA Complaint No. 04-0014 against Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, p. 2.

Finding: "AMA fails to repair inoperable lifts promptly. Of the 163 buses identified as having inoperable lifts from four reporting sources spanning the period October 2006 through February 2007, work orders for repairs were issued for 43 (26 percent). Additionally, there was no record of repair for 85 of the 163 buses identified with inoperable lifts (52 percent), which also were not identified as awaiting parts."

Finding: "At the time of the review there was no procedure in place to automatically notify the Operations (maintenance) Department when out-of-stock parts were received.  As a result, buses with inoperable lifts were not being repaired because the maintenance staff was still awaiting parts that, in fact, had been received and were in stock."

Recommendation: "The program to improve lift reliability … should address the schedule for lift repair to ensure that it is sufficiently prompt to avoid the use of buses with inoperable lifts in passenger service."

Recommendation: "AMA should immediately institute a procedure for the warehouse to inform the Maintenance Department when out-of-stock parts are received."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Autoridad Metropolitana de Autobuses (AMA), San Juan, Puerto Rico, op. cit., pp. 37 and 40.

[35]In this ADA compliance review, FTA found that public address systems were not included on maintenance checklists.

Finding: "The PA systems were not functioning on three of the 12 PA equipped buses examined by the review team. While most accessibility equipment, including lifts, ramps and securement systems, is checked daily by bus operators as part of the pre-trip inspection process, PA systems are not on the ‘Pre-Trip Inspection' form and do not appear to be checked regularly by bus operators. Also, PA systems are not included on the ‘B' and ‘BC' vehicle maintenance checklists."

Recommendation: "Pueblo Transit should revise the operator pre-trip inspection to include the PA system. Pueblo Transit should also include inspection of the PA system in its regular vehicle maintenance services."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Pueblo Transit, Pueblo, Colorado, op. cit., pp. 34 and 36.

[36] This FTA ADA compliance review commended a transit agency for proactive steps to encourage and enhance bus stop accessibility.

Finding: "SMART has developed a ‘Guide for Creating a Transit Friendly Environment' that it distributes to local communities and developers to encourage transit-friendly design. This document provides guidance on accessible bus stop design. SMART also employs a bus stop technician/coordinator who reviews bus stop locations and accessibility as part of the bus route design process. These efforts are commendable and help ensure bus stop accessibility and usability of the service by riders with disabilities."

Recommendation: "To strengthen its efforts to make bus stops accessible, SMART should consider adding to the bus stop portion of its website an item where riders with disabilities can indicate if there are bus stops that they would like to use that need accessibility improvements."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), Detroit, Michigan, op. cit., pp. 31 and 32.

[37] Mary Kay Bonica, Manager of Purchasing & Materials, Utah Transit Authority, personal communication, October 12, 2009.

[38] Many FTA ADA compliance reviews and Letters of Finding, including these six, have addressed transit agency monitoring of accessibility equipment maintenance. The first compliance review commended a transit agency monitoring practices. The other five found gaps in transit agency monitoring of accessibility equipment maintenance.

Finding: "SMART has implemented a thorough complaint and service monitoring process to ensure maximum compliance with service policies and procedures. Monitoring involves informal ‘secret riders,' observations by National Transit Database (NTD) data checkers, as well as the formal complaint process. Constant monitoring of complaints, and rapid action on complaints, allows SMART to effectively monitor service quality and compliance with policies and procedures."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), Detroit, Michigan, op. cit., p. 30.

"SCT does not collect information on the length of time a rider must wait for an accessible bus or alternative form of transportation following the arrival of a bus experiencing a lift failure when the headway to the next accessible bus exceeds 30 minutes. SCT, therefore, cannot demonstrate its compliance with the requirement to provide such alternative transportation in a timely manner."

Michael A. Winter, then Director, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, letter to Ms. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Suffolk County Department of Law, Hauppauge, New York, February 15, 2007, op. cit.

Finding: "The lack of complete maintenance records and the absence of a start date for repair records make it impossible for either the review team or ART to determine whether a bus remained in service with an inoperable lift or ramp and, if so, for how long."

Finding: "Although the Veolia management team that took over in the fall of 2007 has made progress in organizing maintenance records, they do not in general indicate when a problem was first identified, making it impossible for the review team, ART, or Veolia to analyze the length of time that a lift/ramp (or other equipment) was inoperable."

Recommendation: "ART and Veolia should institute more complete record keeping that enables monitoring of the number of days between the report of an inoperable lift and its repair."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Arlington County Transit (ART), Arlington, Virginia, op. cit., pp. 30, 33 and 34.

Finding: "MTA has instituted a regular process of pre-trip inspections, preventive maintenance checks, and lift inspections as required by 49 CFR §37.163. However, lift failures, either during pullout or in-service are not reported and recorded in a consistent fashion in radio dispatch and maintenance logs."

Recommendation: "The procedure for reporting defective lifts through Radio Dispatch should be examined. It is not clear whether all calls are logged there, or only ones that require follow-up. This lack of record keeping makes it difficult to keep statistics on maintenance efforts."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA), Baltimore, Maryland, op. cit., pp. 24 and 25.

Finding: "The MBTA has instituted a regular process of pre-trip inspections, preventive maintenance checks, and lift inspections as required by 49 CFR §37.163. However, lift failures, either during pullout inspections or in-service, are not reported and recorded in a consistent fashion in MBTA maintenance records."

Recommendation: "The requirement to cycle lifts during the pre-trip inspection should be reinforced and additional attention paid to the reporting procedure for defective lifts discovered during pull-out."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Boston, Massachusetts, op. cit., pp. II-19 and II-21.

Finding: "SEPTA does not appear to maintain consistent, reliable records of lift failures. It is unclear whether drivers comply with requirements for daily lift cycling and use of VCRs. The VCRs and Control Center reports appear to be inconsistent. This inconsistency makes it unclear whether the Wheelchair Lift Compliance Sampling Report … includes all reported lift failures or just those that have been entered into the computer system (not including most faxes). Additionally, mechanics do not appear to be consistently recording PM of lifts in the VMIS."

Recommendation: "It is recommended that record-keeping practices be reviewed and improved. VCRs and CDLs appear to be redundant and possibly could be combined."

Federal Transit Administration ADA Compliance Review of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, op. cit., conducted August 20 – 24, 2001, Final Report dated April 18, 2002, p. 53.

[39] This requirement is not in the DOT ADA regulation, but rather in what is called Part 27. Part 27 contains other transit agency obligations including the DOT regulation for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, another disability rights law. Part 27, which is formally cited as 49 C.F.R. Part 27, is available at www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3907.html. The reporting requirement is at 49 C.F.R. § 27.13(b), 49 C.F.R. Subpart C, §§ 27.121 – 27.129.