Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act on transportation

Transportation and the Effects of the Americans With Disabilities Act

In a society concerned, above all, with inclusiveness, the Americans with Disabilities Act is designed to improve the lives of those with physical or mental impairments. Passed in 1990, the act was intended as yet another step in the fulfillment of the promise of civil rights for all that was enshrined in various civil rights acts, notably in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

While the earlier pieces of legislation addressed primarily discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and gender, the Americans with Disabilities Act took into consideration the special challenges faced by those with physical and mental handicaps that precluded their full participation in everyday life.

Disabled individuals face numerous difficulties in public life, at work, at school, at home - even in simply getting around. They often require custom arrangements in houses and apartments, or need the assistance of specialized devices at work. Many cannot travel on their own. A significant problem faced by many impaired persons is their inability to use public transportation. The blind and the deaf are not be able to drive, while those lacking the use of limbs may not be able to operate a vehicle. Still, public bus and train systems, and similar facilities, are often inaccessible to these same individuals. The visually-impaired have troubled navigating through complex subway systems. They cannot read maps or signs. Those unable to walk might not be able to maneuver up stairs or through narrow passageways and turnstiles, or even gain entry to a bus, train, or airplane. The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to address these and similar problems.

As regards public transportation, the Americans with Disabilities Act is specifically concerned with making these facilities accessible to all Americans. Freedom of movement means freedom of opportunity. By enabling the physically and mentally impaired to use public transportation, the act gives them some measure of control over their own lives. No longer dependent on the constant assistance of others, even when going from place to place, they can make their own choices about work, school, shopping, and other day-to-day activities. Independence is important tin building self-esteem and self-respect. By taking control over their own choices, disabled men, women, and children, become happier and more productive individuals. The Act helps them by making the resources that are available to other Americans available to them as well. They are no longer excluded from the transportation alternatives that form a part of the lives of millions of others. Together with a sense of personal achievement; therefore, there is a sense of belonging, a sense of being a full and equal part of the "American family." The legal notion that the Americans with Disabilities Act affords equal access to transportation is based on a fundamental interpretation of the principles of civil rights law:

Consider the term "public" in public transit. By Federal law this has always meant that every single Federally funded transit vehicle in service must be available to anyone. Like police protection, public schools, and fire protection, the doors of public transit are equally open to all. If anyone is denied access to any transit vehicle, the Federal government is required by law to demand a refund of its share of the vehicle's fair market value -- because the vehicle is no longer in public use as stated in the Federal grant agreement.

As such transportation is a public resource, it cannot be denied to any member of the public based on any of the criteria that are protected under applicable civil rights legislation. Their right safeguarded by the law, disabled men, women, and children, must enjoy access to the identical transportation facilities that are provided to those members of society who do not suffer from any physical or mental impairment. The Act's stipulation of equal treatment is self-evident.

Nonetheless, numerous arguments have been raised against compliance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Making public transit accessible to all is an extremely expensive proposition. Many of the nations mass transit systems were designed long before the legislation was created, decades before "civil rights for all" became a public mantra. The New York City subway system, for example, was opened in 1904, at a time when few buildings conformed to anything like modern fire and safety regulations. Sight, hearing, and mobility, were not even considerations when it came to designing underground train platforms. In New York, Chicago, Boston, and other American cities, subway stations and elevated trains were reached by means of staircases. Narrow turnstiles that were designed to deter fare jumpers also closed off access to wheelchairs. Labyrinthine tunnels and access ramps and complex routes and schedules on buses, trains, and aircraft were readable only by those able to see the signs, maps, and other postings. Exits might have been undetectable or unreachable by the disabled. These features cost money to transform, millions, or even billions of dollars, that hard-pressed municipal and state governments do not have. Non-disabled citizens may not wish to pay higher taxes or increased fees to makes the necessary changes. At the time of the law's passage, the paratransit mandate did grant an exemption to smaller mass transit systems if it created an undue financial burden, even so the costs of making transit systems handicapped-accessible were estimated at between $500 million and $1 billion to modify subways stations and similar facilities.

The following study will examine the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the nation's public transportation systems. Considered will be the legislation's benefits to Americans with physical and mental disabilities, as well as the effects on those who were not the intended targets of the remedies provided by the law. A review of the literature will look at the possible arguments as they have been seen by experts in the field - politicians, transit planners, advocates for the disabled, etc. Previous studies on the subject will be evaluated for what light they may shed on the issue. The researcher will also study the effects of the act more directly by gauging the responses of those who actual make use of such public transit facilities. The researcher will present recommendations for future action, as well as comments on the overall utility of the Americans with Disabilities Act as it applies to the country's public transportation system. Lastly, there will be suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

The Americans with Disabilities Act is a major part of a larger campaign to bring civil rights to all Americans regardless of background. By recognizing prejudice it is combated. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed categories of individuals traditional recognized as victims of discrimination, taking into account distinctions of race, gender, and ethnic origin. The disabilities affecting these groups would be removed and they would, with the aid of government regulation, achieve equal status in American society. While the earlier act had look at discrimination primarily in legal terms, at what the government itself could do to alleviate conflicts in the law, the Americans with Disabilities Act was, " 'Unprecedented [in] scope.' These provisions ban discrimination against disabled people not only in hotels and restaurants, but in every "mom and pop" store, which civil rights legislation failed to reach."

Not merely concerned with such things a voting rights, and equal access to public facilities such as schools, hospitals, and government offices, the Americans with Disabilities Act would tackle discrimination wherever it might be found. The Act's promulgation represented a new stage in the civil rights movement, a deep re-examination of the realities of American society, its promises and contradictions. Moving beyond the provision of mere benefits, the new thinking,

Unlike SSI or Medicaid policies that confer concrete benefits in the form of cash or payments for medical care, civil rights policies confer "status" because their goal is to place all members of society on an equal footing by eliminating discrimination based on personal characteristics such as race or gender.

As members of a group with "status," physically and mentally disabled individuals receive the special attention that is due their plight. This plight is not seen in terms of medical conditions but rather in terms of the social struggles that such conditions have typically entailed. The individuals that were the targets of this law would in future be seen as persons struggling to make their way in a world that had been stacked against them. The barriers - much like the physical and mental blocks they face - would be removed to the extent that these blockages consisted of things erected in their way by a society that had not attempted to understand them or include them.

The Independent Living Movement early seized on the Americans with Disabilities Act as a means of further its agenda. With the Movement's help, disabled men and women are enabled to live productive lives as fully independent adult members of the American community. Access to transportation plays a considerable role in achieving this independence. Though the disabled might still require assistance in making use of these facilities, even this assistance is beneficial, as long as the additional help remains under the direction and control of the disabled individuals themselves.

In cases involving continued discrimination, disability lawyers have made the point that freedom of movement is essential in making sure that such individuals are gainfully employed. Access to public transportation can abrogate the need for continued public assistance in financial terms.

Legislators, too, have recognized access to transportation as a necessary prerequisite to obtaining work. A Harris poll cited by Senator Durenberger noted that, "three of ten disabled persons stated that lack of transportation was a reason why they had no employment. Transportation, he concluded, was 'essential if a person is to seek and maintain a job.'"

The Public Works and Transportation Committee of the United States House of Representatives further concluded with the observation that work contributed to individuals' sense of self-esteem and belonging through, "most of all, taking pride in a job well done."

Unfortunately, as studies have shown compliance with the Act's high ideals has not always been easy or universal. In her twenty city study, "Local Government Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Factors Affecting Statutory Compliance," Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer concluded that, "vague legislative language, a lack of enforcement, and varying levels of citizen participation have often led to the duplication of effort and noncompliance with the statute."

The act is; therefore, plagued with many of the same difficulties as other federally-mandated attempts to ameliorate the conditions of different classes of individuals. Given such observations, it is easy to see how the intent of the Act can be sabotaged or undermined; its provisions dismissed as too cumbersome or expensive - another case of government is the problem and not the solution. Another study by Moss, Johnson, and Ullman looked into the more specific problems of compliance, particularly as they affected different classes of the disabled. Though concerns had been raised that those suffering from psychiatric disabilities had been more frequently discriminated against than those with physical impairment, Moss, Johnson, and Ullman concluded that there was little difference in rates of non-compliance.

The findings show at least that those charged with implementing the law's provisions understand that the definition of disability extends to a wide range of conditions.

Equal access to services readily available to the general public continues to be a cause of complaint from the disabled. Cathy a. Hinton conducted a study in regard to local government compliance and, among other findings, reported that these same authorities continued to cite financial cost as a major obstacle. Full access is delayed, often years at a time, because local authorities are,

Spreading out the costs and putting the expenses of architectural and transportation accessibility modifications into annual capital budgets over a number of years. This situation of "extended implementation" may help explain why the effectiveness of Title II (public sector) is perceived less favorably than that of Title IV (telecommunications) and why a majority of respondents perceived that accessibility had not improved in regard to Title II issues.

The last reason underscores the differing perspectives of those who manage public funds and programs and, who are not themselves disabled. That these officials and organizations choose to prioritize telecommunications over transportation is interesting, and reflects possible continued prejudices in regard to the real needs and capabilities of the mentally and physically disabled. Those charged with the implementation of Americans with Disabilities appear frequently to take the attitude that their judgment is best in regards to disabled persons "right to know," as well as in regard to what such persons actually require. Frank and Bellini surveyed physically and impaired women - the blind, the deaf, and those in wheelchairs - to gauge their access to information about services available to the disabled. Their study yielded six themes that continue to afflict the disabled:

Betrayal and Broken Trust

Multiplicity of Barriers

Fear of Retaliation

Problems with Technology and the Concept of Print

Habit

Successful Means of Acquiring Accommodation

Each one these ideas, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the need to continue to study the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the very individuals whom it is supposed to help. The themes point up the continued lack of understanding - and even outright - prejudice that comes with attempts at compliance. On a fundamental level, many in officialdom, and among the public, do not appear to comprehend the real needs of the disabled. They do not begin to see how ill-informed many of those in need are, not because they are unaware that there is some sort of help available, but because they cannot obtain anything like adequate or detailed information about the kinds of facilities that work for them. To a visually-impaired man, woman, or child, the availability of printed information on transit access is next to useless. At best it contributes to their continued dependence on other individuals who must translate for them, while at worst it keeps them largely or wholly ignorant of the real opportunities that await them.

It is the intention of the researcher to explore more deeply into the real difficulties of those who must use America's public transportation networks, and who are in some way physically or mentally disabled. The researcher would like to understand what these individuals expect from the Americans with Disabilities Act, what they believe they are receiving now, and how they would like these offerings improved. Furthermore, it is necessary to discover to what extent disabled persons are able to find out more about what can be done to help them live lives that are equal n term so of opportunity to those of other Americans, especially in regard to the ways in which access to transportation contributes to or limits those opportunities.

Method of Research

The following study consisted of a combination of qualitative and quantitative research that was conducted among physically and mentally disabled individuals in a major American city. The individuals concerned were surveyed in a regard to their usage of various forms of public transportation including a city bus system and a subway system. Some research was also conducted into the use of taxicabs which, for the purposes of this research, can be considered yet another form of "public" transportation, as it the vehicles used are neither owned nor operated by those riding in them, and are available for hire at will by the general public. All of these forms of public transportation share, in addition, the common fact their usage is to a considerable extent regulated by public law and government policy. A considerable amount of research was also gathered from outside sources, including primarily public libraries, with special reference to previously conducted surveys on similar topics. This information was used to supplement and to back up the actual survey and aided in the understanding of it, and the formulating of conclusions.

Survey Instrument

The Survey instrument consisted of a questionnaire containing of twenty questions regarding public transportation use. The questions were broken down into sections on bus, subway, and taxi accessibility and ease of use. There were five questions in each of these sections, each of which was essentially repeated in regard to the particular form of transportation involved. A fourth section attempted to gauge respondents' attitudes in regard to the availability of information on any or all of these public transportation services. Questions were multiple choice with respondents giving their opinion in a range from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."

Survey Participants

The survey questionnaire was distributed to a total of 201 men and women, all of whom possessed some form of physical or mental disability. 63 of these individuals responded. These respondents were broken down into the following four categories:

Blind or Severely Visually Impaired

Deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired

Must Use Wheelchairs

Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive

Respondents were selected beforehand through organizations that deal with persons afflicted with these disabilities, the organizations being asked to distribute the questionnaires to those of their members who use public transportation. The category of individuals defined as Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive consisted of individuals whose mental impairment made it in some way unsafe for them to operate a vehicle on their own and who were thus compelled to use public transportation as a common way of getting around.

Additional Respondent Information

Respondents were fairly even distributed among men and women. All were adults and represented various levels of education and came from a range of ethnic and racial backgrounds. Most were employed, and their careers reflected a variety of different economic and educational levels. All in all, the sample was reasonably representative of the population of this particular American city as determined form the most recently available demographic information.

Special Considerations

As the survey instrument consisted of printed questionnaires, those individuals classed as Blind or Severely Visually Impaired were assisted by persons at their respective organizations who read the questionnaires to them. Those persons classed as Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive were specifically selected form among those with such disabilities as would not preclude their properly understanding, evaluating, and completing the questionnaires.

Interviews

29 of the respondents also agreed to be interviewed by the researcher or to submit their own opinions in writing in regard to the researcher's questions. These additional interview questions consisted essentially of the questions asked on the questionnaire. In the case of the interviews, respondents were given the opportunity to answer these same questions in greater depth, and to provide their own thoughts, observations, suggestions, anecdotes, etc.

Results

General Findings majority of respondents appear to view their local transit systems fairly favorably in regard to access for the disabled. A compilation of the results of the three categories of bus, subway, and taxi revealed that 28% agreed or strongly agreed that these services were easily accessible for a person with their disability, with 39% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, and the remainder either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. In order of preference, taxis were viewed most favorably over all, with subways second, and buses last. Taxis were clearly preferred by a significant percentage of all respondents, this being determined base don responses in regard to ease of use, safety, general accessibility, and so forth. Ease of use and accessibility were distinguished form one another with ease of use being defined essentially as "how easy is it to get from point to point with this form of transportation?" Importantly, the idea behind this question was not to distinguish ease of use base don a comparison of each of these forms of transportation one to the other, but in terms of "making one's destination known" and of "making one's needs known." Obviously, a taxi will bring any passenger, disabled or not, more directly to her or his destination than either a bus or subway, and so the principle of ease of use was interpreted with this in mind. Accessibility, on the other hand, consisted of "how easy is it to get in or out of" this form of transportation, and how easy is to use any of the ancillary facilities associated with this particular form of transportation. Much of the more detailed information in regard to these questions was gleaned from interview responses, the questionnaires supplying only a bare framework for many of these findings.

The question of ancillary facilities turned out to be an important one in terms of the findings. It was of considerable importance to respondents in terms of how favorably they viewed one or the other of the forms of public transportation. Clearly, the use of taxis required the employment of few or no ancillary facilities except if one considered having another individual, as say a doorman, hail a cab. Though the idea of taxi lines - as are found at airports, bus stations and the like - was considered, and briefly touched upon, it did not appear as a major consideration in this study. Rather, facilities figured almost entirely in the form of subway stations, even buses being generally accessed directly from the street. Nevertheless, a bus stop was easily recognized to be an ancillary facility, especially as its use pertains to those with disabilities. Particularly for the Blind or Severely Visually Impaired and for some of those Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive, the bus stop turned out to be a real or perceived obstacle. On the whole; however, it was the subway that afforded the greatest use of ancillary facilities. These facilities consisted both of not only the platforms required to directly access the trains, but also of the areas where one purchased fare cards and traversed turnstiles, and also the access routes to each of these other areas - tunnels, stairways, elevators, above-ground corridors, elevated platforms, and subway entrances. In these cases, the Deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired reported by far the fewest unfavorable judgments. It was only in the area of the platform that the responses of the Deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired registered significant dissatisfaction, and this was in the area of safety i.e. these individuals cannot hear the train coming and fear, to some extent, for their safety if they lean out over the platform, approach too close to the edge of the platform, etc.

Furthermore, the study measured the actual accessibility of these different forms of public transportation. This consisted of how easy it was for disabled individuals to get in and out of these different forms of transportation, as well as how easy it gain access to any pertinent ancillary facilities and also to travel through these same ancillary facilities. As stated above, ancillary facilities were of concern almost exclusively to subway users. In virtually all other cases, the concern was with getting in and out - and in the case of buses and trains, moving around - the actual vehicles. Subway trains were, in reality, the easiest to get in and out of, when measured simply in terms of moving from a position outside of the vehicle to a position inside the vehicle. This was easily attributed to the floor of the platform being on the same level as the floor of the train. In both the cases of the bus and the taxi, the passenger must somehow negotiate the height differential between the curb and the inside of the vehicle. None of the classes of respondent reported any significant problems with simply getting on or off the subway while, in the case of the taxis and buses it was more of a nuisance than anything else i.e. one could not, in the case especially of the Must Use Wheelchair class, and also of some of the Blind or Severely Visually Impaired, simply get off and on with the same ease as non-disabled persons. Wheelchair users are required to access buses in a special way that takes up a considerable amount of additional time and also demands special attention from the bus driver. Blind or Severely Visually Impaired men and women occasionally require special assistance in finding the entrance to any of these forms of transportation, as do the Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive. For many, in all categories (though fewer among the Deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired), navigating the subway system presented a considerable challenge. The subway is a maze of passageways and access points that are difficult to follow despite attempts at Braille signs or other indicators, audible warning sounds, verbal announcements, etc. Many of these areas also require considerable skill and dexterity on the part of the Must Use Wheelchair category of transit user. In contrast, it is the crush of other system users that often present a major problem for the Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive and the deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired. In either case these crowds of people can be disorienting, as can the sheer size and complexity of the system to those in the Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive category.

Additionally, safety was a concern among almost all groups, though again, the Deaf and Severely Hearing Impaired reported significantly fewer worries except for certain cases that tended not to concern the other categories as much. The Deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired showed the most concern over the physical danger presented by the vehicles themselves. Unable to hear the approach of any of these vehicles they are often at risk if they are not at the same time somehow made aware of the vehicle's approach. At the same time, those who reported fearing assault, robbery, or some similar criminal action on the part of others using the same method of transportation as themselves, the Deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired were again at some disadvantage in terms of being unable to hear the approach of other human beings. A like result was reported by the members of the Blind or Severely Visually Impaired class of respondent, though in their case it was the inability to see approaching individuals that produced a similar problem. All groups reported some level of concern at possibly being unable to fend off any intentional or accidental "assault" by another person. Must Use Wheelchair individuals were most afraid of being unable to fend off attackers or even of being swept away by rushing or unruly crowds. While in the case of the Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive, bewilderment was a major consideration i.e. A feeling of being "lost" in the system that might attract or encourage the attention of dangerous or potentially dangerous persons, or lead to potentially dangerous situations. The Blind or Severely Visually Impaired men and women also reported being at a disadvantage because of their inability to survey a location from a distance, and to either plan their route, or avoid unsavory-looking individuals, or potentially hazardous physical locations.

Lastly, the obtaining of information proved to be major difficulty for just about all respondents. This can be broken down into two primary categories, the first concerning information about the particular system itself such as would be of concern to any user of that form of transportation, and the second that concerning information on facilities specifically available to person with their own or any other physical or mental impairment. In the first case, those in the Must Use Wheelchair category reported almost no problems that might not be reported by any other transit user. Being able to see and hear, they did not possess any problem reading signs, viewing maps, talking to transportation personnel, drivers, etc. Their complaints were typically those of any transit system user - "no one around," "confusing signs," public address announcements "unintelligible," and so on. For the others; however, there were numerous difficulties. The Blind or Severely Visually Impaired reported very significant difficulties, even more in connection with planning a trip than with finding their way through systems.

Deaf or Severely Hearing Impaired individuals faced most of their difficulties when required to talk to personnel. Again, the Mentally Impaired Unable to Drive were sometimes confused. All groups complained of a lack of available information and resources regarding facilities for the disabled. This information was either simply not available, had "run out" as in the case of pamphlets or brochures, "used to be there" in one case of a Braille sign, and the very common "they're working on that." Apparently disabled transportation users have frequently been told that their concerns were being addressed, or under consideration. Often something that was supposed to be there was not, and in any event, a considerable number - even the majority - of transportation personnel were poorly informed about accommodations for the disabled.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study it seems obvious that a considerable amount of work remains to be done on public transportation facilities for the disabled. The Americans with Disabilities Act mandates equal access for all Americans. While many municipalities, the one studied included, appearing to be trying to provide the necessary services, the reality often falls far short of the mark. Policymakers must consider the real needs of disabled riders when formulating what to do about meeting the Act's requirements. Too often, planners and the public appear to dismiss changes as unnecessary or, at the very least, too expensive. Changes are not only postponed, they are poorly executed or allowed to deteriorate. Take the case of Braille signs that seem to have disappeared, or public address systems that are unintelligible, or warning lights that fail to flash, these are all examples of government neglect. Information is frequently not provided because of a lack of sufficient planning in regard to necessary quantities, lack of funds, and even perceived lack of need.

A real part of the struggle to provide facilities for the disabled continues to focus on arguments surrounding the actual definition of disabled. It is not that policy makers and the public cannot agree on what constitutes a disability per se. As considered in this study, severe visual or hearing impairment, inability to travel without a wheelchair, and mental disabilities that also preclude operation of a vehicle are easily seen as genuine disabilities. Yet, many continue to insist that in order for the disabled to qualify for "special treatment" there must be some greater social need that is served by so great an expenditure of time and money. The argument commonly relates to work, to gainful employment, disabilities that do not affect, or are not perceived to affect, the subject's ability to find gainful employment are not viewed in the same light as "real" disabilities. More discouraging still, is the caveat that these employments must be seen in relation to the overall American economy. In a manner of thinking first clearly enunciated as far back as 1968, the government defined disability in relation to work, any work. A person is unemployable if he or she, is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.