DC ParaTransit Info The Wheels are broken, but it's not our chairs …

Metro to Host Discussion on MetroAccess Eligibility Certification

[Reposted from Metro ADA eNews]

Public invited to attend meeting on Monday, April 19

Metro officials will discuss plans to implement conditional eligibility in July. “Conditional eligibility means that, to the extent that they are functionally able, people with disabilities will be eligible to use MetroAccess for some trips while using Metro’s fully accessible Metrobus and Metrorail service for others,” said Frank Roth, Director of Eligibility Certification.

For instance, a person with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma might be able to take Metrobus or Metrorail for some trips, but would need to take MetroAccess when outside temperatures become too hot or cold.

Customers who are deemed conditionally eligible to use MetroAccess service will continue to ride for free on Metrobus and Metrorail. Metro has a free travel training program that teaches people with disabilities how to travel safely and independently on Metro’s fully accessible bus and rail system.

Metro has been providing free, one-day, individual or group Metro system orientations for more than five years as part of its Metro is Accessible program. In February, Metro expanded its efforts to teach people with disabilities how to use public transportation by launching a Regional Travel Training Program in partnership with Centers for Independent Living (CILs) in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia.

Applicants for MetroAccess service undergo an application, interview and evaluation process in which eligibility is determined based on professional medical verification of their disability and a functional assessment of their ability to use accessible Metrobus and Metrorail service. Applicants receive full eligibility if it is determined that they are unable, as a result of their disability, to use accessible bus or train service independently or if they are unable to travel to or from a bus stop or rail station due to a disability.

Applicants who do not qualify for MetroAccess may qualify for Metro’s Reduced Fare Program, which allows people with disabilities who have a valid Metro Disability ID card to ride for discounted fare on Metrorail, Metrobus and on other participating bus service providers.

For more information about MetroAccess eligibility requirements and the application process, please see http://www.wmata.com/accessibility/metroaccess_eligibility.cfm

Here's a couple of problems with the entire issue:

From WMATA's release, the whole thing seems to already be a done deal.  This doesn't appear to be a consultation, this doesn't look to be a request for feedback or suggestions - this looks like nothing less than WMATA telling the "Advisory Committee" effectively "This is what we're doing, deal with it."

The question is, will that "Advisory Committee" be able to bring up the multitude of problems this whole thing is going to face?

Let's be honest here, the entire purpose behind this renewed attack on eligibility appears simply a frantic effort by WMATA to try and look like they're reducing costs - and like every other knee-jerk frantic effort anyone ever makes, it's going to be ill-considered, totally oblivious to its effects, and will in the end cost more than it purports to save.

We've already seen this very effect with the frantic efforts of WMATA to shoehorn in eligibility decisions en-masse over the past few years in order to get around the legally-mandated decision period the ADA demanded of them¹:

Sec. 37.125 ADA paratransit eligibility: Process.

Each public entity required to provide complementary paratransit service by Sec. 37.121 of this part shall establish a process for determining ADA paratransit eligibility.

...

(c) If, by a date 21 days following the submission of a complete application, the entity has not made a determination of eligibility, the applicant shall be treated as eligible and provided service until and unless the entity denies the application.

This part of the regulations led to several thousand people being granted eligibility simply because WMATA couldn't process them in time - and it wasn't just new applications.  One eligible rider's recertification took over 9 months, with temporary card after temporary card being issued in the meantime.

So what exactly makes anyone believe that all of a sudden WMATA's gotten everything in order and can zoom through not only future applications, but go back through every eligibility decision and revisit them in line with the conditional eligibility they're now putting in place?

To us, it seems much more likely that the mandate from on high to save money any way possible is going to lead to these re-evaluations of eligibility being driven not by medical circumstances, but to try and remove as many as possible, on the basis that those that successfully appeal that decision will still result in a net savings for WMATA.

Likewise, who is going to be making these conditional eligibility decisions?  The rider's doctor - or someone contracted by WMATA with this same mandate from on high forefront in their minds who won't have a complete medical history of the rider?

Then comes a big problem - who decides if the circumstances are right for someone's "conditional" eligibility to apply?

In the example WMATA likes to throw around², who decides when it is too hot or too cold?

WMATA?  MV Transit?  The rider's doctor?

How is that conditional criteria going to be recorded at MetroAccess, so reservationists will know if a rider's eligibility is effective for the trip they want to make?  Is their medical condition going to become part of their MetroAccess record staff at the call center can view?

Conditional eligibility is going to have additional trouble determining those conditions.  From the Federal Transit Administration's Preamble to the ADA:

The second eligibility category consists of people who can use an accessible vehicle but cannot use a route on the fixed route system for lack of accessible vehicles. There was relatively little comment on the basic requirement of this transitional eligibility category. There were a number of comments on one aspect of the proposed rule, however, which would make eligible for paratransit persons who could travel on an accessible vehicle but for a stop on which the bus lift cannot be deployed.

A number of transit properties objected to providing paratransit service on the basis of circumstances they viewed as being beyond their control (e.g., terrain features or architectural barriers). In many places, conditions at bus stops are under the jurisdiction of a state or local government, not the transit provider.

Disability community commenters, on the other hand, said that if a stop were difficult to use by people with disabilities, the stop should be relocated. In no case, these commenters said, should the transit authority be permitted to declare stops off limits to wheelchair users, unless the lift would physically not deploy or would be damaged if it deployed.

The Department agrees that if a lift physically cannot be deployed at a stop, or would be damaged if it did, the transit authority should not have to deploy it. But it is not appropriate, in this event, to impose the resulting inconvenience on a passenger with a disability by denying that passenger the ability to get to a particular destination. If the transit provider does not provide fixed route service to a passenger with a disability at a particular location at which service is provided to other persons, it does not provide accessible service there, triggering paratransit eligibility. Moving a stop to a location where the lift will work, as some commenters suggested, is one solution to this problem. The issue of refusing to deploy a lift where it can be deployed is a provision of service issue that is discussed under _§37.167. We would also point out that _§37.9 requires transit providers to cooperate with other public entities (who have responsibilities for bus stops under the DOJ Title II rule) with respect to bus stop accessibility.

So, if the nearest bus stop to your departure point (or destination) is unsafe for a wheelchair ramp to be deployed from a bus (which applies where I live), are you then conditionally eligible?  Are the people who make the decisions about eligibility (the soon-to-be-mythical "they" we don't know from above) also experts on bus stop geography?  Or is WMATA going to try and wriggle out of this particular point?

Then comes the question of fixed-route transit for those disenfranchised by this method.  Does this mean that WMATA will now start making sure that all the bus ramps and elevators throughout the system are working 24/7?

If a rider's regular destination has an elevator that's out, does that mean they can book a MetroAccess trip instead?

MetroBus already appears to regularly violate the ADA with regards to buses with broken ramp/lifts ¹:

Sec. 37.163 Keeping vehicle lifts in operative condition: Public entities.

...(c) The entity shall ensure that vehicle operators report to the entity, by the most immediate means available, any failure of a lift to operate in service.

...(f) In any case in which a vehicle is operating on a fixed route with an inoperative lift, and the headway to the next accessible vehicle on the route exceeds 30 minutes, the entity shall promptly provide alternative transportation to individuals with disabilities who are unable to use the vehicle because its lift does not work.

Paragraphs (c) and (f) regularly do not happen when it comes to MetroBus.  In the case of (c), drivers rarely report a malfunctioning lift or ramp on the radio to Bus Operations, and when the rider (again, because the operator rarely contacts Bus Ops to report the issue) contacts WMATA, they are told that they can wait for the next bus even if its lead time is an hour away.

On paper, WMATA has an accessible bus fleet - In practice, ramps break down.  This is understandable, however the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (f) are regularly ignored wholesale by the system (and that's just when they're genuine mechanical failures, as opposed to the even more prevalent bus operators who claim it isn't working simply because they can't be bothered to go through the process of deploying and stowing the ramp).

If WMATA is going to make the claim that it can employ conditional eligibility, it must, as a matter of urgency, declare that it will finally comply with 37.163 in its entirety first - and then prove it.

If WMATA's going to throw our independence under the train in the name of "savings", they can at least make sure we can get to the platform first.

Let's be clear here.  The ADA does say that conditional eligibility is the legal requirement on transit providers - and widespread unconditional eligibility falls under WMATA's claims of "doing more" than is legally required with MetroAccess.

But the ADA also says the following (also taken from the preamble, emphasis mine):

It appears that many of the commenters who expressed concern about the perceived restrictiveness of the NPRM eligibility criteria did so in the belief that the rule should mandate a comprehensive transportation system for individuals with disabilities that would meet all or almost all their transportation needs. This desire for the best service possible is very understandable. While we do not share these commenters' view of the statute, we emphasize that the ADA and this rule set no ceilings on the service that local entities may provide. Local entities can provide paratransit service to anyone they wish. Such additional service, provided as a matter of local discretion, is very desirable. The rule points out, however, that since it is not mandated by the ADA, its costs cannot be regarded as financial burdens of ADA compliance that can be taken into account for undue financial burden waiver purposes.

I'm sure escalators are a "desirable additional service" to those who use regular MetroRail and have working legs - but I don't see anyone suggesting those all be ripped out so WMATA can save on its escalator maintainable costs (how much would that come to, I wonder?).  All those people who complain how MetroAccess has "entitlements" or "perks" seem strangely silent on making sacrifices of their own on the fixed-transit route.

Odd that.

People still seem to miss the point that WMATA's attempts to reduce the costs of providing MetroAccess all revolve around reducing service, reducing eligible rider numbers - but they still refuse to address the waste that comes from within the service.  The riders are being asked to make sacrifices while the system continues to hemorrhage money like there's no tomorrow, and if they truly intended to cut costs, then they'd address the costs of such waste and bad practices as well.

And that means in 2 years time, we'll be right back here again.

Those of us who can still actually get anywhere, that is.

1. http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3906.html[back][back]
2. For instance, a person with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma might be able to take Metrobus or Metrorail for some trips, but would need to take MetroAccess when outside temperatures become too hot or cold.[back]