What Advocates Are Doing to Resolve Transportation Problems

 

This article is provided as a courtesy service of the Great Lakes ADA News Service under a subcontract with the Disability News Services and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, NIDRR #133D60011.  Please review the Conditions for Reproduction of this Article.

(828 words, posted March 3, 2000)

by Mike Ervin 
Copyright ©2000 The Disability News Service, Inc. 

The framers of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) made transportation a key provision of the law, realizing that without accessible and reliable transportation, people with disabilities could not become or remain employed, have access to health care and other services, or be fully integrated into society. After ten years, people with disabilities in many communities across the United States still encounter inaccessible and unreliable transportation systems. Their frustration has precipitated legal and other action against entities that fail to comply with the transportation provisions of the ADA. Here is a summary of recent attempts to resolve transportation issues in the courts and through other avenues.

Access Living v. Chicago Transit Authority, 00-C-0770  
On February 8, 2000, on behalf of Access Living, a Chicago independent living center (ILC), and nine people with physical, hearing and visual disabilities, Equip for Equality, an Illinois protection and advocacy agency, Access Living's attorneys and private lawyers, filed suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in federal district court. The lawsuit alleges numerous ADA violations occurred on bus and rapid transit systems operated by CTA, including:

• inoperable wheelchair-lifts on buses;
• drivers who fail to stop and pick up passengers in wheelchairs;
• drivers who fail to announce stops for people with visual impairments; and
• frequently broken or turned off elevators in CTA's rapid transit system.

Timothy Richardson and Jonathan Steele v. City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 99-Z-1247  
On February 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) took unprecedented action by asking the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado, for permission to intervene on behalf of plaintiffs who had filed a private lawsuit against the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, which operates the public transportation system.

In their July 1999 lawsuit, Timothy Richardson and Jonathan Steele allege they frequently waited for more than an hour for accessible buses equipped with working wheelchair-lifts. In a town where most destinations are only minutes away, Richardson alleges that on one occasion, he received severe frost bite in his fingers while waiting for an accessible bus in subzero temperatures.

Liz Savage, counsel to DOJ assistant attorney general for civil rights, says DOJ entered the case because, “The evidence is so compelling.” Savage says the judge has not yet decided whether to allow DOJ to intervene.

Liberty Resources, Inc. and Consumer Connection v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 99-CV-4837  
On September 29, 1999, Liberty Resources, a Philadelphia ILC and Consumer Connection, a disability advocacy organization, brought suit against Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), alleging that SEPTA paratransit system's failure to meet the demand of ADA eligible paratransit riders results in a high number of trip denials. Court documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs cite a total of 12,582 trip denials between May 1 and August 31, 1999. During this same time-frame, trip denials for next day rides ranged from ten to 24 percent of those requested.

This case is still in the discovery process.

Lisa Burg et al v. Milwaukee County, 98-C-0073  
Lead plaintiff in this lawsuit, Lisa Burg, who has cerebral palsy and uses a motorized wheelchair, claims she missed rides to college classes, shopping, personal business and social events because the County operated an unreliable paratransit system. She also alleges that she was denied paratransit rides to a geographic area serviced by a fixed-route system.

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Mike Bachhuber of Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, the state protection and advocacy agency, says a tentative settlement contains far-reaching provisions, including...

• involvement of consumers in all policy development;
• a policy that does not deny any requests for reservations;
• service that covers the entire fixed-route area; and
• a policy that provides free rides to users when trips are excessively late or long, and when no-shows occur.

Although an out-of-court settlement in this class action lawsuit appears imminent, any proposed settlement agreement must be approved by Milwaukee officials and the court before it is finalized.

Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), ADA Complaints #97254 and #97255  
In November 1997, Tennessee Protection and Advocacy filed a detailed complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) office of civil rights, asking the agency to investigate numerous problems with the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA). On February 14, 2000, FTA with the assistance of Multisystems Inc., a Cambridge, Massachusetts, transportation consulting firm, finally launched an ADA compliance review of the Memphis, Tennessee, transit agency.

Among other items, the 158-page complaint alleges MATA's paratransit service repeatedly...

• makes early and/or late pickups;
• denies trips;
• makes “unreasonably long trips due to circuitous routes taken by drivers oblivious of even Memphis' major streets;”
• requires three-day advance notice for reservations; and
• cancels pre-scheduled trips without notifying riders.

Arthur Lopez, who heads FTA's civil rights office, reports the review was completed, and the federal agency will probably decide on a course of action this spring.

This work was performed under a subcontract with the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, NIDRR #133D60011.

More Great Lakes ADA News Service Articles