National Academies Press: OpenBook

Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule (2019)

Chapter: Appendix F - Survey Responses

« Previous: Appendix E - Summary of Examples of Reasonable Modification Requests
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25430.
×
Page 162

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

F-1 Establishment of Policy/Process A P P E N D I X F Survey Responses Name of Transit Agency City State Kodiak Area Transit System Kodiak AK Ozark Regional Transit Springdale AR Valley Metro Phoenix AZ Access Services (Los Angeles County) El Monte CA San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Oakland CA San Mateo County Transit District San Carlos CA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Francisco CA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority San Jose CA Regional Transportation District (RTD) Denver CO Delaware Transit Corporation Dover DE Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation and Public Works Miami FL Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority / LYNX Orlando FL Oahu Transit Services, Inc. Honolulu HI Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) Des Moines IA Valley Regional Transit Meridian ID Chicago Transit Authority—CTA Chicago IL Shore Transit Division of the Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of MD Salisbury MD Metro Transit—Metropolitan Council Minneapolis MN OATS Transit Columbia MO Asheville Redefines Transit (ART) Asheville NC Mountain Mobility Asheville NC Rio Metro Regional Transit District Albuquerque NM Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Las Vegas NV MTA New York City Transit Authority New York NY Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA) Canton OH Laketran Painesville Township OH Lane Transit District Eugene OR ACCESS Transportation Systems Pittsburgh PA Port Authority of Allegheny County Pittsburgh PA Rabbittransit York PA River Cities Public Transit Pierre SD Nashville MTA Nashville TN Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) Austin TX Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Austin TX VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority San Antonio TX Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT JAUNT Charlottesville VA Green Mountain Transit Burlington VT Intercity Transit Olympia WA King County Metro Transit Seattle WA Spokane Transit Authority Spokane WA Link Transit Wenatchee WA Metro Transit—City of Madison Madison WI Question 1. Please provide your contact information.

F-2 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 2. Which best describes your agency’s current policy/process for considering requests from people with disabilities to make reasonable modifications/accommodations? Number Percent Formally adopted reasonable modification policy 30 69.8% Part of another formally adopted policy (e.g., overarching customer service policy) 4 9.3% Process in place without adoption of formal policy 9 20.9% No policy or process in place 0 0.0% Total 43 100.0% Question 3. Prior to publication of the final rule on reasonable modifications, did your agency have a policy for reasonable modifications/ accommodations for people with disabilities? Number Percent Yes, we had a formal policy 7 16.3% Yes, we had an informal policy 21 48.8% No 9 20.9% Not sure 6 14.0% Total 43 100.0% Question 4. Prior to publication of the final rule on reasonable modifications, did your agency have a procedure in place for handling requests for reasonable modifications (such as through the paratransit eligibility process, customer service inquiries, or a complaint process)? Number Percent Yes, and this procedure is still in use 11 26.2% Yes, but we have since changed or updated the procedure 20 47.6% No 7 16.7% Not sure 4 9.5% Total 42 100.0% Question 5. Following publication of the final rule, did your agency establish or update its policy/process for reasonable modifications/ accommodations for people with disabilities by July 13, 2015? Number Percent Yes 33 78.6% No 7 16.7% Not sure 2 4.8% Total 42 *100.0% *Due to rounding, some totals will equal slightly more or less than 100%.

Survey Responses F-3 Question 6. How are transit agency operations employees informed about your agency’s current reasonable modification policy/process? Number Percent Distribution of written policy 29 70.7% Inclusion in personnel policy handbook 16 39.0% New hire training 31 75.6% Refresher training 26 63.4% Other staff meetings 20 48.8% Not sure 0 0.0% Other: 11 26.8% • All employees trained in excellent customer service and told to relay all customer requests to supervisors and our internal Customer Service and Safety team. • Company Intranet • I am currently in the process of developing a RM policy and plan to have it shared via all of the above. • On public website • Operating employees are not informed • Phone contact/clarification in response to a specific question/situation. • Policy has been distributed to contractors for distribution/training of staff. We have also included information in other staff training where requests are likely to be made. • Senior mgmt workshop/feedback re: outcome of requests • Shared network drive, accessible to all operations employees • Via email, upon receipt of a request • Visual postings Total agencies responding to question 41 Question 7. If you contract for any transit operations, how are contract operations staff members informed about your agency’s current reasonable modification policy/process? Number Percent of Total (N=41) Percent of Those that Contract Not applicable—all services are operated in-house 11 26.8% Distribution of written policy 18 43.9% 60.0% Inclusion in personnel policy handbook 7 17.1% 23.3% New hire training 19 46.3% 63.3% Refresher training 14 34.1% 46.7% Other staff meetings 13 31.7% 43.3% Not sure 1 2.4% 3.3% Other: 9 22.0% 30.0% • Available on public website • Direct contact (one Operator, one Vehicle) • Feedback re: results of requests • N/A - Paratransit survey answered separately • Pace Bus services in Chicago handles the day-to-day Paratransit service operations. • Paratransit is contracted out. The vendor is provided VTA’s policy. Vendor employees are provided the policy during training sessions. • Policy has been distributed to contractors for distribution/training of staff. We have also included information in other staff training where requests are likely to be made. • This applies to Paratransit only • We review all feedback and complaints for reasonable modifications and intercede as the situation warrants. Total responses to question 41 100.0% Policy/Process Notification

F-4 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 8. How is transit agency management informed about your agency’s current reasonable modification policy/process? Number Percent Distribution of written policy/procedure 28 70.0% Inclusion in personnel policy/procedure handbook 14 35.0% New hire training 17 42.5% Staff meetings 25 62.5% Not sure 1 2.5% Other: 6 15.0% • Available on public website • Company Intranet/Training for Supervisors in Paratransit • Intranet Sharepoint and staff meetings • No change in management • Sr mgmt workshop/feedback re: results of requests • We review all feedback and complaints for reasonable modifications and intercede as the situation warrants. Total responses to question 40 100.0% Question 9. How are passengers/potential passengers informed about the reasonable modification policy/process? Number Percent Printed brochure(s) on specific service(s) 15 36.6% Printed brochure on general system accessibility 14 34.1% Web page(s) on specific service(s) 27 65.9% Web page on general system accessibility 26 63.4% As part of travel training/bus familiarization training 9 22.0% As part of ADA paratransit eligibility certification process 16 39.0% Not sure 0 0.0% Other: 10 24.4% • All three transit service boards in Chicago (CTA, Pace and RTA) have information posted on their websites. • Currently in the process of improving accessibility on website and other areas that the public are able to view. • Interior bus and van cards • Our phone message system while waiting for dispatcher • Posting of ADA notice. • Quarterly newspaper mailed to riders • Part of user guide • Riders Guide (2 responses) • Rider's Guide has been drafted includes this information. Total responses to question 41 100.0%

Survey Responses F-5 Question 10. If you have a formal policy/process, what method(s) are passengers instructed to use to request a reasonable modification in advance? Number Percent Form submitted through the transit agency’s website 18 45.0% Written/email request to a specific individual at the transit agency 21 52.5% Written/email request to the customer service department 20 50.0% Telephone request to a specific individual at the transit agency 22 55.0% Telephone request to the customer service department 21 52.5% As part of ADA paratransit eligibility certification process 12 30.0% As part of the ADA paratransit or other demand response trip scheduling process 14 35.0% As part of the ADA complaint process 11 27.5% Other: 6 15.0% • Ask the driver while on board the bus • Being new to the agency I planned to ensure that customers are able to have a direct link to my email and phone just like my previous employer at TriMet in Portland, OR • Emailed request through customer service menu entitled "Make a Reasonable Modification Request" • Reasonable Modification Request Form • Referrals from community agencies and sponsors • While CTA's posted policy instructs individuals to contact customer service, telephone or email requests to the ADA Manager or others are also addressed. Additionally, Paratransit operations is handled by Pace Bus service and the RTA handles all Paratransit Eligibility Certification and each have their own procedures regarding requests. Total responses to question 40 100.0% Question 11. How far in advance, when possible, are passengers asked to submit requests for reasonable modifications? (open ended) Number Percent 1-2 days: 9 23.1% • 1 day in advance • 2 days for accessible printed materials 1 day for service provision • 24 hours (2 responses) • 24-48 hours • At least 48 hours is preferred, but not required. • At least the day before. • By 9:00 pm the night before the ride. • Paratransit: one day prior to effective date/fixed route: 10 business days if possible. 3 days 2 5.1% 5 days 1 2.6% 14 days: Typically 14 days for response 1 2.6% 21 days: up to 21 business days to give the reasonable modification coordinator time to review. 1 2.6% 30 days 1 2.6% As soon as possible/as far in advance as possible 3 7.7% No specific timeframe 13 33.3% Other: 8 20.5% • All requests are handled in a timely manner and upon receipt. • As needed. • Depends on the request • During the eligibility process, when making a reservation for a trip, or by calling at least 2 hours prior to a scheduled pick-up time. • In the area of paratransit services we like to know during the eligibility process. Otherwise, there is no requirement. • Requests such as stopping at a nondesignated stop because the designated stop is inaccessible are handled informally and on the spot. Formal written requests are answered as soon as possible but within 10 days. This time frame is insufficient in some instances. • The CTA accommodates any reasonable accommodation request received at any time if feasible. Obviously, request made as far in advance of the need are preferred. CTA's posted online policy does not stipulate a time frame for a reasonable modification request. Again, Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Eligibility Certifications and they each have their own established policies and procedures. • We address requests as they are received and make whatever effort is possible to meet the request. There is no specific time frame for requests. Total responses to question 39 100.0% Reasonable Modification Request Procedures

F-6 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 12. Who makes the decisions on requests made in advance for reasonable modifications? Number Percent ADA/accessibility coordinator 25 64.1% ADA paratransit eligibility determination staff 9 23.1% Civil rights officer 5 12.8% Legal counsel 3 7.7% Operations manager 20 51.3% Operations supervisor 17 43.6% Trip scheduler 11 28.2% Other: 14 35.9% • Accessibility Coordinator works with Operations, Legal and others as necessary. • Decisions are based on complexity of the request. Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations requests and the RTA handles requests related to Paratransit Eligibility Certification. • Decisions are communicated by the Manager, Accessible Transit Services, but decisions are made involving appropriate line staff. • Director of Mobility Services. • Director of Planning • Dispatch or Driver - depends on nature of request • Dispatchers • Each sub-agency (e.g., subways, buses or paratransit) has a coordinator assigned to handle RMR's directed to that sub-agency • General Manager, Transit Program Manager • Most are handled on driver level. If can't be handled on driver level, the issue is presented to our internal Customer Service, Safety and Security team. • Paratransit customer care • Paratransit Eligibility Manager • Reasonable Modification Coordinator • RM staff team Total responses to question 39 100.0% Question 13. When a passenger’s request made in advance for a modification has been approved, how is this conveyed to the appropriate operating staff? Number Percent Through customer database record in scheduling and dispatching software 13 33.3% Included on vehicle operator’s daily schedule when the individual is scheduled to ride 27 69.2% Conveyed to vehicle operator by mobile communication 17 43.6% Memos/notices distributed to rail station staff 9 23.1% Passengers show the appropriate transit staff written approval letter 8 20.5% Telephone call to staff 16 41.0% Email message to staff 24 61.5% Other: 7 17.9% • As appropriate per modification needed • Operations notice. (Depends on the modification) • Text message to driver MDTs. • The ADA Unit also keeps a log of requests related to CTA fixed route services only. • This response is for Paratransit only • We have yet to approve; most requests have been allowed under existing policy/procedure • Written alert to driver Total responses to question 39 100.0%

Survey Responses F-7 Question 14. When a passenger’s request made in advance for a modification has been denied, how is this conveyed to the appropriate operating staff? Number Percent Through customer database record in scheduling and dispatching software 19 48.7% Included on vehicle operator’s daily schedule when the individual is scheduled to ride 11 28.2% Conveyed to vehicle operator by mobile communication 6 15.4% Memos/notices distributed to rail station staff 6 15.4% Telephone call to staff 13 33.3% Email message to staff 24 61.5% Other: 14 35.9% • As needed, or potentially no all-staff notification needed if a denial results in adhering to existing policies and procedures. • As of this writing, I am not aware of any formal request that has been denied by the CTA. Denials related to Paratransit service requests are handled by Pace Bus or the RTA as applicable. • Depends on nature of request • Doesn't appear on driver's screen • Existing policies and procedures still apply. • If denied, the assumption is the passenger must abide by existing policies/procedure • I'm not aware of any that we've denied. • It's not conveyed to staff, just the passenger • No action is disseminated • No need to do so. • No notice given • On a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of request, this information may be communicated in ADEPT, via Client Log. This answer is for paratransit only. • The fixed route staff is not made aware of denials. • We don't deny Total responses to question 39 100.0% Question 15. Who is authorized to make decisions on ad hoc requests for reasonable modifications (i.e., requests made to the vehicle operator at the time of service)? Number Percent Vehicle operator 28 71.8% Dispatcher/individual who maintains regular communications with operators while they are in passenger service 34 87.2% Supervisor 35 89.7% Manager 27 69.2% Other: 6 15.4% • ACCESS (broker) managers • CTA's Control Center personnel would be notified by a bus or rail operator while in transit. The ADA Manager or other supervisory personnel may also be contacted dependent on the situation. • Every employee is encouraged to grant simple ad hoc requests • If the request occurs at the time of service, the RTC (or its designated contractor) may make a determination, on a non-precedent setting basis, from the front line via the operator and/or dispatch. • Special Services Customer Care • This answer is for Paratransit only. Total responses to question 39 100.0% Question 16. How often are requests made in advance for reasonable modifications documented? Number Percent Usually 19 48.7% Sometimes 5 12.8% Rarely 10 25.6% Unknown 5 12.8% Total responses to question 39 *100.0%

F-8 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 17. How often are ad hoc requests for reasonable modifications documented? Number Percent Usually 8 20.5% Sometimes 7 17.9% Rarely 16 41.0% Unknown 8 20.5% Total responses to question 39 *100.0% *Due to rounding, some totals will equal slightly more or less than 100%. Question 18. Approximately how many requests made in advance for reasonable modifications did your organization receive during the 2017 calendar year (January through December 2017)? Number Percent Fewer than 20 22 56.4% 20 to 49 5 12.8% 50 to 99 7 17.9% 100 to 199 1 2.6% 200 to 499 1 2.6% More than 500 0 0.0% Unknown 3 7.7% Total responses to question 39 100.0% If an actual number is available, please indicate: • 0 • 1 • 2 • 18 • 75 • est'd. 85 • Not aware of any requests made in advance to fixed route. • This number is for Paratransit only. All of the requests did not qualify as a true reasonable modification request. Question 19. Approximately how many requests made in advance for reasonable modifications received by your organization during the 2017 calendar year (January through December 2017) were approved? Number Percent less than 10 percent 8 21.1% 10 to 19 percent 0 0.0% 20 to 29 percent 1 2.6% 30 to 39 percent 0 0.0% 40 to 49 percent 1 2.6% 50 to 59 percent 2 5.3% 60 to 69 percent 1 2.6% 70 to 79 percent 0 0.0% 80 to 89 percent 5 13.2% 90 percent or more 13 34.2% Unknown 7 18.4% Total responses to question 38 *100.0% If an actual percent is available, please indicate: • 0% (2 responses) • There was only one request and it was denied for safety reasons • 5% • 67% • 100% Implementation Experience Requests Made in Advance

Survey Responses F-9 Question 20. Approximately how many requests made in advance for reasonable modifications received by your organization during the 2017 calendar year (January through December 2017) were denied? Number Percent less than 10 percent 14 36.8% 10 to 19 percent 2 5.3% 20 to 29 percent 1 2.6% 30 to 39 percent 1 2.6% 40 to 49 percent 2 5.3% 50 to 59 percent 1 2.6% 60 to 69 percent 1 2.6% 70 to 79 percent 1 2.6% 80 to 89 percent 1 2.6% 90 percent or more 5 13.2% Unknown 9 23.7% Total responses to question 38 *100.0% If an actual percent is available, please indicate: • 0% (2 responses) • 33% • 61% (Note that the remaining requests were "not applicable") • 100% • There was only one request and it was denied for safety reasons *Due to rounding, some totals will equal slightly more or less than 100%. Question 21. Approximately how many “ad hoc” requests for reasonable modifications did your organization receive during the 2017 calendar year (January through December 2017)? Number Percent Fewer than 20 6 15.4% 20 to 49 4 10.3% 50 to 99 3 7.7% 100 to 199 0 0.0% 200 to 499 2 5.1% 500 to 1,000 0 0.0% More than 1,000 1 2.6% Unknown 23 59.0% Total responses to question 39 *100.0% If an actual number is available, please indicate: • None were documented on fixed route. • 20 to 49 is a guestimate • Ad Hoc RM requests are not tracked. • Daily during winter • Our procedures require our operators to make accommodation at request. For route deviations, this would require documentation and clearance from dispatch, but for alternate stop location, no record is kept. We do not require a justification for these types of requests. Ad Hoc Requests

F-10 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 22. Approximately how many “ad hoc” requests for reasonable modifications received by your organization during the 2017 calendar year (January through December 2017) were approved? Number Percent less than 10 percent 2 5.1% 10 to 19 percent 0 0.0% 20 to 29 percent 0 0.0% 30 to 39 percent 0 0.0% 40 to 49 percent 0 0.0% 50 to 59 percent 1 2.6% 60 to 69 percent 1 2.6% 70 to 79 percent 0 0.0% 80 to 89 percent 4 10.3% 90 percent or more 9 23.1% Unknown 22 56.4% Total responses to question 39 *100.0% If an actual percent is available, please indicate: • Guestimate • Policy allows driver to grant most of these on spot. • We did not receive any complaints regarding denied requests so I assume all requests were granted. Question 23. Approximately how many “ad hoc” requests for reasonable modifications received by your organization during the 2017 calendar year (January through December 2017) were denied? Number Percent less than 10 percent 10 25.6% 10 to 19 percent 4 10.3% 20 to 29 percent 0 0.0% 30 to 39 percent 0 0.0% 40 to 49 percent 1 2.6% 50 to 59 percent 1 2.6% 60 to 69 percent 0 0.0% 70 to 79 percent 0 0.0% 80 to 89 percent 0 0.0% 90 percent or more 0 0.0% Unknown 23 59.0% Total responses to question 39 *100.0% If an actual percent is available, please indicate: • None on fixed route • Guestimate

Survey Responses F-11 Question 24. Based on your organization’s experience during the 2017 calendar year, through what method(s) does your organization typically receive requests for reasonable modifications? To the extent you are able, please indicate common methods used (which may differ from those methods encouraged under your policy). Number Percent Online form 8 20.5% Written/email request to a specific individual at the transit agency 16 41.0% Written/email request to the customer service department 17 43.6% Telephone request to a specific individual at the transit agency 18 46.2% Telephone request to the customer service department 26 66.7% Through the ADA complaint process 13 33.3% As part of ADA paratransit eligibility certification process 12 30.8% As part of ADA paratransit trip scheduling process 15 38.5% As part of general public trip scheduling process 4 10.3% At the time of service with the driver (“ad hoc”) 20 51.3% Unknown 1 2.6% Other: 4 10.3% • Answer is for CTA fixed route service only. Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. • Following an incident • Reasonable Modification Request Form • We did not receive any formal requests at Fixed Route. Total agencies responding to question 39 Question 25. Of the methods through which your organization typically receives requests for reasonable modifications, which methods has your organization found to be most effective for gathering the information needed to determine whether or not the request can be approved? Number Percent Online form 7 17.9% Written/email request to a specific individual at the transit agency 12 30.8% Written/email request to the customer service department 10 25.6% Telephone request to a specific individual at the transit agency 13 33.3% Telephone request to the customer service department 19 48.7% Through the ADA complaint process 5 12.8% As part of ADA paratransit eligibility certification process 8 20.5% As part of ADA paratransit trip scheduling process 7 17.9% As part of general public trip scheduling process 4 10.3% At the time of service with the driver (“ad hoc”) 10 25.6% Follow-up conversation with the requesting person 15 38.5% Unknown 3 7.7% Other: 6 15.4% • Answer is for CTA fixed route service only. Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. • Follow up with agency/case worker, etc. • Reasonable Modification Request Form • Site visits/observations of pickups/drop offs • Telephone requests are interactive, and generate more info for decision making • Unknown on fixed route Total agencies responding to question 39 *Due to rounding, some totals will equal slightly more or less than 100%. Communication Methods

F-12 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 26. Since July 2015, have you noticed any patterns in, or typical types of, reasonable modification requests received? Number Percent Yes 16 42.1% No 22 57.9% Total responses to question 38 100.0% If yes, please describe. If possible, please estimate the magnitude of the each pattern (e.g., number or percent of these types of requests): • For Paratransit, requests are for a specific vehicle type. • Most common requests received are for specific vehicle types (50%) • Most requests involve paratransit vehicle types • Of 64 requests coded as RM concerns, all but two met the Final Rule's specification of a valid RM request. 28 of the 64 comments identified as "RM" requests were for specific vehicle types. • Sedan-only, or front seat of sedan-only • Specific types of vehicle requests • We have received requests for "reasonable modification" for things we already do. (e.g., allowing eating on the vehicle.) We are also receiving customer service requests (e.g., How do I apply for paratransit?) Rail requests often involve bicycles. The most popular paratransit request is for a specific type of vehicle. • In July of 2017, we moved from a taxi-based paratransit system to a shared-ride system using minivans and cutaways. Since then, we have received more than 100 requests which are almost exclusively for a specific type of vehicle or for a non-shared ride. We do not consider these to be valid requests for Reasonable Modifications because they are not required to be considered Reasonable Modifications by the USDOT guidance. We have denied almost all of these requests although we do make some exceptions for individuals who provide compelling medical documentation that a particular type of vehicle is potentially damaging to the health/safety of the individual making the request. • Requests for riding alone, not riding with certain passengers, or riding with certain vehicle operators. • As a request, though not approved since it does not fall under the scope of reasonable modification, requests for the paratransit system to travel outside of the 3/4 mile service area. • Requests to provide transportation outside the service area. Less than 10. • Different pick-up/dropoff locations due to weather or construction. • Weather related is number one and passengers need to be let off /on due to terrain and/or passengers limited mobility • More door-to-door requests as population of passengers become more disabled they are unable to get to curbside • In special services (which includes paratransit), requests to be alerted upon arrival of paratransit vehicles have increased. Similarly, special services operators are now identifying opportunities for reasonable modifications more often. • Requests to have service animal sit on seat next to customer. Other Implementation Observations

Survey Responses F-13 Question 27. What challenges has your agency experienced in implementing its reasonable modification policy/process? Number Percent Difficulty in determining whether a requested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the transit system’s services, programs or activities 10 26.3% Difficulty in determining whether a requested modification would create a direct threat to the health or safety of others 6 15.8% Difficulty in determining whether, without the requested modification, the individual with a disability is able to use the transit system’s services, programs, or activities for their intended purpose 7 18.4% Time involved in processing requests 8 21.1% Communicating approved modifications to appropriate front-line personnel 6 15.8% Inconsistencies in how front-line personnel provide modifications 6 15.8% Inconsistencies in how back office personnel respond to reasonable modification requests 2 5.3% No known challenges to date 18 47.4% Other: 12 31.6% • Answer is for CTA fixed route service only. Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. • Being able to comply with the request without causing disruptions or significant delays for other passengers. • Challenges in customers understanding what makes a modification reasonable • Consistency of documentation - especially for ad hoc requests • Customers are making requests that do not constitute Reasonable Modifications. We have developed a FAQ document that we send with our RM request form, which we also publish online. People request anyway. • In fact is the individual disabled • It is difficult for passengers to understand that requests for specific vehicle type do not qualify as Reasonable Modification requests. • No known challenges to date on fixed route • Passengers often have unrealistic expectations • The policy seems more geared to a reservation based system. Fixed route passengers do not typically contact the agency prior to making a trip. It is assumed that most of their requests are made ad hoc; right as they board the vehicle. This makes it very hard to know what modifications they are requesting and if they are reasonable/being accommodated. • Tracking ad hoc requests (2 responses) Total agencies responding to question 38

F-14 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 28. What benefits has your agency experienced in implementing the policy/process? Number Percent Our transit agency is able to meet more transportation needs 9 23.7% As a result of fixed-route modifications, existing ADA paratransit riders have shifted some of their travel from paratransit to fixed route 6 15.8% No known benefits to date 22 57.9% Other: 10 26.3% • Answer is for CTA fixed route service only. Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. • Being able to provide a higher level of assistance through a policy that provides the agency with consistency. • Compliance with FTA requirements. • Formalizes reasonable modification process • It is a great training tool for empowering employees to make ad hoc decisions to help riders with disabilities. • It provides another avenue for people to gain access to the system. • No known benefits to date on fixed route • Positive feedback from community • The requirements force us to take a more structured approach to how we evaluate these requests. This is a small benefit relative to the pain of the process. • We already provided many of the 37.169 example modifications as standard services Total agencies responding to question 38 Questions 29–30. Since July 2015, based on your organization’s experience in implementing your reasonable modification policy/process, is your organization considering, or has your organization made, any changes/updates to policies or procedures? Number Percent Changes to our reasonable modification policy or procedures 4 11.4% Changes to our fixed route operating policies or procedures 5 14.3% Changed the primary ADA paratransit policy or base mode from curb-to-curb to door-to-door 2 5.7% Other changes to our ADA paratransit operating policies or procedures 5 14.3% Changes to our general public demand response operating policies or procedures 4 11.4% Changes to other service operating policies or procedures 4 11.4% Unknown 21 60.0% Total responses to question 35 100.0% If such changes have been made, or are being considered, please describe. • Agency now offers beyond the curb service • Better explain the process to all • Established a formal policy. • Inclement weather policy less restrictive; More emphasis on documentation; RM team for considering requests • No changes required since initial implementation. • No changes to the procedure have been made. • On fixed route, allowed first line personnel more authority to grant requests. First appeal process is internal through Civil Rights Compliance then if appeal is supported process final appeal through County Paratransit Division • Providing deviated fixed route service is being considered at this time • The method in which we track ad hoc requests during a trip when on fixed route or on a paratransit trip • The most prominent change would be in the use of staff bathrooms for someone with a disability and the monitoring of that request. Answer is for CTA fixed route service only. Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. • Transitioning to a Mobility Management Model of service provision • We are obtaining additional WAVs • We have changed our procedures to require our operators to provide inter-stop service if requested.

Survey Responses F-15 Question 31. Since July 2015, has your transit agency been involved in any litigation concerning reasonable modification issues? Number Percent No 29 76.3% Unknown 6 15.8% Yes 3 7.9% Total responses to question 38 100.0% If yes, please indicate circumstances and outcome of the litigation: • Customer requested to always use a ramp (no stairs) and have access to a forward facing seat with ample leg room and no wheelchair placed in front of her. Demanded that we reserve her seat (not in the disabled priority seating area). She filed Civil Rights Commission charges and two tort cases. CRC case was found to not have probable cause of violating her rights, and both torts were dismissed with prejudice. • Pending • Pending - Deaf-Blind customer alleged driver didn't stop at bus stop Service Characteristics Question 32. Do you provide ADA complementary paratransit services? Number Percent Yes 36 92.3% No 3 7.7% Total responses to question 39 100.0% Question 33. What is your base mode for providing ADA paratransit? Number Percent Curb to curb 2 5.4% Curb to curb with door to door upon request 14 37.8% Door to door 15 40.5% Door through door 2 5.4% Other 4 10.8% • 100% door to door plus hand to hand as needed for supervised travel • A customer's service level is determined through the eligibility process, typically relying on a functional assessment. A passenger may request a different service level while booking a trip or may request a different service level at the start of a trip. • Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. • See PAAC ACCESS survey Total responses to question 37 *100.0% Question 34. Does your ADA paratransit eligibility determination process and operating practice apply conditional eligibility? Number Percent Yes 25 67.6% No 6 16.2% Other: 6 16.2% • Applied but not enforced • We apply conditional eligibility to our determinations, but conditional eligibility is not currently enforced. • We use the eligibility determination (conditional) but it is not currently enforced. • Transitioning to a Mobility Management Model of service provision. Have been collecting conditional eligibility data for many years. We will begin forcing conditional eligibility within the next six months. • Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. • See PAAC ACCESS survey Total responses to question 37 100.0%

F-16 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Question 35. What other types of services does your transit system provide? Number Percent Light rail/streetcar 9 23.7% Heavy rail/subway 4 10.5% Heavy rail/commuter rail 8 21.1% Fixed route bus 31 81.6% Bus rapid transit 13 34.2% Commuter bus 16 42.1% Intercity bus 8 21.1% Flag stops on fixed routes – buses will stop for passengers waiting at locations that are not marked by a bus stop sign 8 21.1% Fixed routes with deviations upon request 10 26.3% General public demand response/no fixed routes 13 34.2% Other service types indicated: 10 26.3% • Inclines • Vanpool (3 responses) • Water Taxi • ADA demand service • Paratransit • Flexible demand response • Senior transportation (shopping loop routes) • Veterans transportation to medical appts • Mobility Training • VTA is part of several JPA and Coop agreements providing Heavy Rail/Commuter Rail, and Commuter Bus. • Answer is for CTA fixed route service only. Pace Bus service handles Paratransit operations and the RTA handles Paratransit eligibility certification. Total agencies responding to question 38 Question 36 - Number. Approximately how many peak vehicles does your transit system operate (including any contract operators) across all services for each of the following mode categories? None 1 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 499 500 to 1,000 More than 1,000 Total Responses By Mode Responses Reporting at Least 1 Vehicle for Mode Rail (including light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, streetcar rail. etc.) 18 3 3 2 2 1 2 31 13 Fixed-Route Bus (including commuter bus, bus rapid transit, intercity bus, etc.) 2 11 3 4 5 6 4 35 33 Demand Response (including ADA paratransit, general public demand response, etc.) 1 11 7 8 6 5 0 38 37 Total agencies responding to question 39

Survey Responses F-17 Organizational and Operating Environment Question 36—Percent. Percentage of Total Respondents to Question (N=39) Reporting Peak Vehicle Fleet Sizes within Each Range by Mode 1 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 499 500 to 1,000 More than 1,000 Total Responses Reporting at Least 1 Vehicle for Mode Rail (including light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, streetcar rail. etc.) 7.7% 7.7% 5.1% 5.1% 2.6% 5.1% 33.3% Fixed-Route Bus (including commuter bus, bus rapid transit, intercity bus, etc.) 28.2% 7.7% 10.3% 12.8% 15.4% 10.3% 84.6% Demand Response (including ADA paratransit, general public demand response, etc.) 28.2% 17.9% 20.5% 15.4% 12.8% 0.0% 94.9% *Due to rounding, some totals will equal slightly more or less than 100%. Question 37. Does your agency contract out for any transit operations or management functions? Number Percent Yes 26 66.7% No 13 33.3% Total responses to question 39 100.0% Question 38. If yes, which of the following services or functions are provided under contract (either in full or in part)? Number Percent Rail operations 3 12.0% Fixed-route bus operations 10 40.0% ADA paratransit operations 22 88.0% ADA paratransit eligibility certification 16 64.0% ADA/accessibility management 4 16.0% General public demand response operations 10 40.0% Other service operations 6 24.0% Customer service call center 2 8.0% Total agencies responding to question 25 Question 39. How would you characterize your transit agency’s primary service area? Number Percent Rural/small town – Less than 50,000 population 4 10.3% Small urban – 50,000 to 199,000 population 9 23.1% Large urban – 200,000 to 1 million population 10 25.6% Metro region – More than 1 million population 16 41.0% Total responses to question 39 100.0%

F-18 Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Additional Information Question 40. Which of the following environmental characteristics frequently impact the accessibility of your transit services? This question is asked because these characteristics may impact the need for reasonable modifications regarding bus stop locations and assistance between the curb and the door to a passenger’s trip origin or destination. Number Percent Extreme temperatures 20 54.1% Snow/ice 21 56.8% Mountainous terrain 6 16.2% Steep sidewalk slopes 15 40.5% Lack of sidewalks 32 86.5% Curb ramp accessibility issues 22 59.5% Other sidewalk/bus stop accessibility issues 19 51.4% Other: 9 24.3% • Very rainy weather during winter and spring months October through June. • Dirt roads • Lack of pedestrian signals and pathways at many street intersections; pedestrian crossings over/under limited-access roadways • Old city - most homes have flights of steps at entrance. Another “barrier” that is creating new requests: lack of access to the curb for drop offs and assistance to or from the door, especially as created by protected bike lanes. • Inaccessibility of buildings (e.g., Can the paratransit bus go to the back door of the building because that is where the ramp is located?) • Stations that require escalator/elevator access • Unmaintained ramps, steep driveway grades, persons of excessive weight utilizing a manual wheelchair (a 400 pound combined weight in a manual chair in a inclined drive or ramp presents a safety concern) • Some passengers do not always have a PCA, and this can sometimes require the driver to consider reasonable modifications, etc. Total agencies responding to question 37 Question 41. Are there aspects of the U.S. DOT reasonable modification rule about which you would like additional guidance or technical assistance? Number Percent No 32 82.1% Yes – please describe 7 17.9% Total responses to question 39 100.0% Comments added to “yes” responses: • Front-line operations staff training. • Documentation and tracking requests particularly for ad hoc requests while in transit. • Would it be inappropriate for an operator with a dog allergy to request (not require) that a rider with a service dog sit further away from the driver? • What is the best way to develop policies or practices for non-canine service animals so that operators can be provided clear and simple guidance? For example, some species by definition could pose a potential safety hazard or are unable to be housebroken. • What are your thoughts on what constitutes needing a specialized service or facility for purposes of meeting a reduced fare requirement? Particularly, if someone identifies with a disability, but rarely or only occasionally has a need such as infrequent use of priority seating or having the bus kneel, and does not receive social security benefits or Medicare?

Survey Responses F-19 Additional Comments Sent Via Email A respondent emailed the following additional comment that they felt did not fit within the questions asked in the survey: • “There are aspects of reasonable mod that are already policies or procedures that we have built into operations over time. These procedures account for any of the kinds of things that would be reasonable modifications but we may not view them as such since we have a long standing procedure to address the situation. Examples include: serving multiple doors/entrances at a location, permitting persons in wheelchairs to ride without shoes on fixed route, adjusting service levels during trip booking or during the ride, and yet others. You may notice that I answered 0 to the question on reasonable modification requests in 2017 because, to my knowledge we had none but that may perhaps be that we accommodate a wide range of circumstances within our existing operations that people do not make requests. I’m speculat- ing here a bit though.” • Additional guidance on issues where a requested modification may not be required but may be medically/functionally necessary, where the modification can be made, but where there may be operational/administrative challenges associated with the requested modification. Examples include vehicle type, non-shared trips on paratransit, use of a taxi or sedan, etc. NTI or someone similar should develop a comprehensive training on RMs. • What is the basis for Example 26 at 37.169, given that "arrival calls" are NOT available to bus passengers? • Sometimes, guidance is vague and examples are intentionally vague or unrealistic • Specified and robust, state DOT/FTA driven training to ensure consistent understanding of ADA/Reasonable Modifications • Maybe another webinar or refresher training Question 42. Would you be willing to talk with one of the research team members about your survey responses or possibly serve as a case example? Number Percent Yes 12 30.8% Maybe 13 33.3% No 14 35.9% Total responses to question 39 100.0%

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Im plem enting the U .S. D O T Reasonable M odification Rule TCRP Synthesis 142 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-48023-9 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 0 2 3 9 9 0 0 0 0

Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 142: Implementing the U.S. DOT Reasonable Modification Rule provides an overview of the current state of practice regarding transit systems implementation of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) regulation 49 C.F.R Part 37.

The report describes the experiences of agencies as they make reasonable modifications to their practices and policies in order to both respond to the regulation and ensure service to people with disabilities. The report also includes case examples of six transit systems, which present an in-depth analysis of the issues, opportunities, challenges, lessons learned, and keys to success in implementation of reasonable modifications . The need for future research is also discussed.

Under the U.S. DOT regulations for implementing the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (49 C.F.R. Parts 37 and 27), transportation service providers and recipients of federal funding are required to ensure their services do not discriminate against people with disabilities.

In 2015, the U.S. DOT amended 49 C.F.R. Parts 27 and 37 to require transportation entities to make “reasonable modifications/accommodations to policies, practices, and procedures to avoid discrimination and ensure that their programs are accessible to individuals with disabilities.” Effective July 13, 2015, 49 C.F.R. §37.169 of this final rule requires that public entity transit providers develop their own processes for making decisions and for providing reasonable modifications to their policies and practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!