[announce] FW: Response to Transportation NPRM
Mitch Pomerantz
mitch.pomerantz at earthlink.net
Tue Aug 24 20:23:41 GMT 2010
Colleagues:
I am re-sending ACB's response to Transportation's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, this time with the stop announcement guidelines included.
MP
_____
From: announce-bounces at acb.org [mailto:announce-bounces at acb.org] On Behalf
Of Mitch Pomerantz
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:42 PM
To: leadership at acb.org; announce at acb.org; acb-l at acb.org
Subject: [announce] Response to Transportation NPRM
Colleagues:
Below you will find ACB's response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) put out by the U.S. Department of Transportation. I want to publicly
thank our Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs, Eric Bridges, as
well as Chris Bell, Alice Ritchhart, Ron Brooks and the other members of
ACB's Transportation Committee for their hard work in getting this document
done in a relatively short time. I need to especially acknowledge Chris's
efforts on our behalf.
Mitch Pomerantz, President
American Council of the Blind
The American Council of the Blind (ACB) is writing to comment upon the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
[Docket Number 2006-OST-23985] to update its regulations under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Section 504) regarding services provided by designated transportation
agencies to people with disabilities, particularly those who are blind or
visually impaired.
ACB is the largest consumer-based organization of blind and visually
impaired Americans advocating for the rights of blind Americans. Comprised
of more than 70 affiliates across the United States, the organization is
dedicated to making it possible for blind and visually impaired Americans to
participate fully in all aspects of American society.
ACB fully supports DOT's NPRM which would update ADA and Section 504
requirements regarding rail station platforms, clarify that public transit
providers are required to make modifications to policies and practices to
ensure that their programs are accessible to individuals with disabilities,
and codify the Department's practice concerning the issuance of guidance on
disability matters.
The American Council of the Blind strongly supports DOT's proposal to add to
its ADA regulations the requirement that designated transportation agencies
must make "reasonable modifications to policies and procedures" particularly
as applied to those agencies which limit paratransit services to curbside to
curbside rides.
Some individuals with disabilities cannot use ADA paratransit service
without minimal assistance beyond the vehicle. These individuals, who also
cannot use the fixed route service, are exactly those whom ADA paratransit
is intended to serve.
A "reasonable modification" mandate (as limited by the ADA's direct
threat/fundamental alteration/undue burdens defenses) would cover situations
where a person with a disability needs assistance from the driver beyond the
vehicle in order to reach the door of their destination, and from the door
of the pick-up point to the paratransit vehicle. For example, where snow or
ice covers driveways and sidewalks, it can be both difficult and dangerous
for a blind person, particularly an elderly person, to travel to and from
the vehicle. In addition, many blind and visually impaired passengers of
paratransit report difficulty in locating the vehicle and in knowing when
and if a paratransit vehicle has arrived. When doors and windows are shut
tight because of weather conditions, a person who is blind likely will not
be able to hear the engine noise of a paratransit van parked at the curb
waiting for its passenger to appear for a scheduled ride. Unless the driver
telephones or comes to the door, the blind passenger likely would be
no-showed. Similarly, when bus stops or shelters are blocked by construction
or weather conditions, it would be a reasonable policy modification to pick
up riders at an accessible location along the same street, if there is one.
Opponents of the DOT proposed rule, including the American Public
Transportation Association, have claimed in their comments that imposing a
'"reasonable modification" requirement which might compel curbside to
curbside paratransit agencies to provide door-to-door service under certain
circumstances, would create serious safety problems. ACB contends, however,
that actual experience with door-to-door service demonstrates it is far
safer for disabled passengers than curbside to curbside service is. For
example, in St. Paul, Minnesota several winters ago, a quadriplegic woman
using a wheelchair died because her paratransit driver failed to accompany
her to the front door at her destination. Instead, the driver left her at
curbside and drove away. Before she reached the door to enter the building,
her wheelchair slid on the ice and tipped over. The woman froze to death
because there was no one available to assist her.
Many paratransit systems, possibly as much as 50%, have door-to-door
policies at the current time, with no record of safety or insurance
problems, as far as ACB is aware. Such agencies have worked out the
operational issues involved and come to the conclusion that door-to-door
service is not operationally or financially burdensome. Further, virtually
all transit agencies have general liability insurance in addition to their
vehicle liability policy, and that general policy covers the driver beyond
the curb. Thus, following DOT's guidance will not increase insurance costs.
Moreover, the vast majority of drivers in curb-to-curb paratransit systems
say they provide door-to-door assistance when it is needed, out of basic
decency and also for practical reasons. Transit agencies with curb-to-curb
policies are probably at more potential risk now by having practices that
differ from their policies and by not having policies on issues such as when
the driver can leave the vehicle, whether it is permissible for a driver to
lose sight of the vehicle, and what effective control of the vehicle means.
Arguably, agencies are more at risk for something to go wrong if they
maintain the pretense of a curb-to-curb policy when many drivers are
actually performing a modified door-to-door service. Furthermore, general
effectiveness is not increased if a rigid application of policy requires
that a driver must wait for a rider to notice that the vehicle has arrived
or a driver must remain in a vehicle watching a rider struggle to reach the
vehicle. Transit agencies as well as their passengers would be better served
by explicitly including the occasional additional needed service where
appropriate.
The American Council of the Blind strongly believes that rail systems should
provide full platform access. This access should include detectable warnings
on all station platforms not just key stations, route information, and
accessible information about vehicle arrival, departure and scheduling.
Blind and visually impaired riders need access to the same information
available to their sighted transit riders.
Finally, we stand in support of requirements that assist those with mobility
impairments. Appropriately accessible vehicles are important, and wheelchair
access to public transit is important in our communities. Moreover,
blindness occurs most commonly as a corollary to advancing age. Many people
as they age may develop additional functional limitations with the passage
of time including hearing loss and mobility impairments. ACB has members who
are blind and use wheelchairs or other mobility aids to travel from place to
place.
The American Council of the Blind believes that DOT should use a
Department-wide coordinated approach in disability policy development and
determinations arising within any and all of its modalities to ensure
consistency and correctness of interpretation. ACB advocates frequently
discover subtle and occasionally glaring differences in how specific
policies are interpreted and/or put into practice by transit agencies across
the country, and these differences of interpretation and practice are
leading to differing treatment by transit agencies of blind passengers and
are fostering confusion among blind passengers and blind community
advocates.
For example, there are varying policies across the country pertaining to
eligibility for ADA complementary paratransit service. A blind or visually
impaired person who is eligible in one municipality may not be deemed
eligible for this service in another. ACB recognizes that each community's
pedestrian environment, each transit system's level of accessibility and
each person's functional abilities to use transit are unique. However, the
experience of ACB members suggests that even allowing for the uniqueness of
each individual's ability to use transit independently, there is a great
deal of variability within how transit agencies interpret the ADA
paratransit eligibility guidelines and how each agency applies these
regulations to the evaluation of applicants and particularly to applicants
who are blind or visually impaired. For this reason, we believe that the DOT
needs to provide additional guidance in this area which would be aimed at
ensuring that transit agencies interpret the regulations and implement them
consistently.
Another example where we encourage additional DOT guidance is in the area of
bus stop announcements. Under the current policy, some transit systems
announce an ample number of stops consistently, but many more do not, and
these failures can have dramatic and negative consequences for blind people.
For example, we are aware of blind people who have lost time and money
because they failed to arrive at work on time as the result of a failed stop
announcement. We would also point out that a blind person's ability to
navigate safely and independently is severely compromised when s/he is not
provided with appropriate stop announcements, and in fact, one of the
reasons most often cited by our members for requesting paratransit is the
lack of accessible and predictable stop announcements on fixed route bus and
rail systems.
Because this issue is so critical to our membership, the ACB adopted a
resolution at our 2010 Annual Conference and Convention which sets forth
"best practices" for developing, implementing and maintaining an effective
stop announcement system. We are providing a copy of the resolution as an
appendix to these comments, and we urge DOT to use this information as it
considers future guidance on the topic of fixed-route stop announcements
and/or as supplemental guidance which can be shared with transit agencies
through APTA, Project ACTION and/or other appropriate information channels.
ACB strongly encourages DOT to incorporate (with any necessary language
modifications required by the transportation context) the U.S. Department of
Justice's (DOJ) final rule amending its ADA Title II regulations at 28 CFR
Part 35, in order to have an effective, stand-alone regulation capable of
protecting the rights of persons with disabilities as applied to
transportation entities, facilities and services. Prior to the publication
of DOT's NPRM, ACB believed, as did others in the disability community, that
DOT's regulations implementing ADA Titles II & III as well as Section 504
were a specialized, transportation-focused subset of the Department of
Justice's more general ADA and Section 504 regulations. However, if DOT must
now create stand alone disability nondiscrimination regulations as a result
of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
(DART), 391 F. 3d 691; 5th Cir., 2004; cert. denied 125 S. Ct. 2273 (2005),
then DOT should carefully incorporate additional parts of DOJ's relevant
regulations to ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities,
including persons who are blind or visually-impaired, are adequately
protected in the transportation arena. DOJ recently has published final
rules amending its regulations under Titles II & III and Section 504. These
regulations significantly clarify and enhance the protections afforded
people with disabilities against discrimination by public and private
entities and recipients of federal financial assistance. All sections of
these final rules should be reviewed by DOT and, as appropriate,
incorporated into DOT's final ADA and Section 504 regulations, making any
necessary modifications in language as needed because of the rules
application to covered transportation entities, facilities and services.
ACB wishes to highlight certain, specific sections of the Title II final
rule which particularly address issues faced by our members around the
country. It is critically important that DOT add to its ADA Title II
regulations the "general Prohibitions against discrimination" contained at
28 CFR 35.130 . They are a basic, fundamental tenet of disability rights law
and can be found in all of the other ADA and Section 504 regulations. The
general prohibitions provide the foundation and framework for all of the
more specific regulatory requirements found in 28 CFR Part 35. The general
prohibitions also serve as an important "catch-all" mechanism protecting
people with disabilities from actions by designated public transportation
entities which do not fall within the scope of more specific ADA barrier
removal obligations. Finally, as recently amended, the general prohibitions
contain a helpful subsection regarding the meaning and interpretation of the
"direct threat" safety defense. 28 CFR 130(h).
ACB also believes it is critical to include the requirement for the
provision of auxiliary aids and services at 28 CFR 160, as amended, and its
definition at 35.104, as amended. Many designated transportation agencies
make available to on-board passengers written notices regarding fare
increases and changes in routes and time schedules. Passengers with
disabilities should be able to receive such information in the alternative
format they need at the same time that non-disabled passengers receive such
information. The DOJ ADA Title II final rule also provides significant new
guidance regarding the equal access obligations and limitations for persons
using "service animals" at 28 CFR Section 136, which is of particular
significance for blind persons using guide dogs.
As stated earlier, ACB believes DOT should incorporate as much as possible
of the DOJ final ADA Title II rule to create an effective stand alone
prohibition of disability discrimination in the transportation context. ACB
is only commenting upon a few of the provisions contained in the amended ADA
Title II rule of particular significance to people who are blind or who have
low vision. Failure to discuss other provisions of that rule should not be
interpreted to mean that the provisions discussed above are the only
sections of 28 CFR Part 35, as amended, which DOT should adopt.
ACB strongly favors this rule-making initiative. We thank the U. S.
Department of Transportation for the positive steps represented by its NPRM
and we appreciate the opportunity to comment upon it.
Respectfully submitted,
Mitch Pomerantz
President
Appendix I
R1004 Establishing Effective Transit Route Destination and Stop
Announcement Policies and Procedures
WHEREAS, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sets forth minimum
standards for transit agencies to use when making route destination and stop
announcements; and
WHEREAS, the American Public Transit Association
(APTA) has developed an industry standard for making route destination and
stop announcements, which is consistent with the requirements of the ADA;
and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of individual transit providers to
establish policies and practices which meet or exceed the minimum
requirements of the ADA; and
WHEREAS, each transit agency has implemented route destination and stop
announcements based on its own interpretation of what the ADA requires and
its own operating environment; and
WHEREAS this approach has resulted in a wide variance among transit agencies
as to the policies and procedures for the implementation of route
destination and stop announcements, e.g.: the methods for making route
destination and stop announcements, the circumstances under which route
destinations and stops are announced, the appropriate interval between the
announcement of a stop and the stop itself, etc.; and
WHEREAS this lack of consistency results in a lack of predictability for
passengers who depend on route destination and stop announcements to become
oriented to their locations and to successfully and independently navigate
these systems; and
WHEREAS, the transit industry is beginning to recognize the value of
including persons with disabilities in the development of policies and
practices that can bring about uniform route destination and stop
announcements on a national level and within some local communities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the American Council of the Blind in
convention assembled at the Downtown Sheraton Hotel in Phoenix, AZ., on this
the 14th day of July, 2010, that this organization urges all public and
private entities that operate fixed route bus and/or passenger rail systems
for public use to:
Establish clear, written policies for implementing the ADA requirements for
making route destination and stop announcements.
When establishing such policies, include input from local stakeholders to
include passengers who are blind or visually impaired and other passengers
with disabilities who will be affected by such policies.
Incorporate all of the recommendations that have been developed by the
transportation committee of the American Council of the Blind with respect
to the policies that should govern the calling of bus stop, announcements;
and
Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the
following interested parties:
President, American Public Transit Association
Executive Director, Community Transportation Association of America
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration
Director, FTA Office of Civil Rights
Presidents of each ACB state, local, and special interest
affiliate
Be it further resolved that this organization direct the ACB Transportation
Committee to develop a short brochure to assist its affiliates, to advocate
for implementation of effective route destination and stop announcement
policies and procedures and that this brochure be made available to the
membership via the ACB website and by such other means as deemed appropriate
by the officers, directors, and staff not later than December 31, 2010.
recommend- due pass
Adopted 7-14-10
Stop Announcement Guidelines
Establish clear, written policies for implementing the ADA requirements for
making route destination and stop announcements.
1. When establishing such policies, include input from local
stakeholders to include passengers who are blind or visually impaired and
other passengers with disabilities who will be effected by such policies.
2. Incorporate all of the following recommendations within policies
governing the calling of stops, which are appropriate for the agency's
particular service:
a. The fixed route route destination and stop announcement programs
must be an integral part of transit operations in accordance with the ADA's
effective communication requirement that information provided to customers
must be made equally available to customers with disabilities, and to
provide safe, reliable and accessible services to all passengers;
b. Route destination and stop announcements must be made consistently,
regardless of whether they are made manually by the vehicle operator or
through an automated voice annunciation system (AVAS), and must be announced
consistent with written policy, regardless of the time of day or day of the
week; (It should be noted that the greatest level of access occurs when
route destination and stop announcements are made consistently.)
c. When not technically feasible to announce all stops, use the
minimum requirements of the ADA as a baseline and incorporate any of the
following recommendations to achieve the greatest level of access possible:
i.
Evaluate all routes with input from riders who are blind or visually
impaired to determine when loss of orientation occurs and insert stop
announcements accordingly. (Take into consideration such factors as the
area being served, the distance between stops, and the needs of both
frequent and occasional riders.)
ii.
Provide operators with a written list of all stops covering both directions
of the route to insure that they will be able to announce any stop requested
by a customer.
iii.
Announce Stops which serve as transfer points with other transit routes.
iv.
Announce stops which serve signalized intersections.
v.
Announce the first stop after turning from one street to another.
vi.
Announce stops which serve major attractions, including, but not limited to:
shopping centers, medical and social service centers, educational
facilities, government offices and major recreational facilities and parks.
vii. Announce
any stop requested by an individual with a disagbility. (Remember that some
disabilities are hidden and not apparent to the transit operator.)
viii. Announce
a second street name when intersecting roadways have different names on each
side of the intersection.
ix. Use a
landmark (e.g., convention center, museum, etc.) as the stop when there is
no cross street at that location.
x. Add
informational nomenclature to street names when appropriate. Example: "16th
Streets Memorial Auditorium".
xi.
Combine major destination points in announcements when appropriate.
Example: "Old Town's Central Plaza"
xii. When
stops are close together, announce the next stop just after departing the
prior stop.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/announce/attachments/20100824/909cab59/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00854.txt
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/announce/attachments/20100824/909cab59/attachment-0001.txt>
More information about the announce
mailing list