July 7, 2008 Monica Haines Baltimore Regional Transportation Board 2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 310 Baltimore MD 21224 Re: Comments on Regional Transportation for Consideration during Public Comment Period Commenced on June 24, 2008 Dear Chair: This is to furnish the remarks of the National Council for the Support of Disability Issues during this important public comment period. That public comment period closed on June 9 th and we extend our apologies for not being in attendance at the recent public meeting. The board of NCSD hopes that these comments will be received, considered, and of valuable import to the deliberations on these issues. If a core ingredient of success, as one thespian stated, is “showing-up,” then the means by which people with disabilities timely attend appointments and participate in the commercial, public and social life of the community is critical. A correlation between poverty status and disability exists in the United States; in 2005, for instance, a 15.3% difference in the poverty rate separated working-age people with and without disabilities. Issues of the substantial ratios of the unemployed or underemployed among the disabled continue to plague our social fabric. Many people with disabilities may not enjoy a means of private transportation, (e.g., being able to drive an automobile); instead, access to public transportation services and resources figures as the necessary mode by which to participate in the life of the community. For many of the disabled, this consequently means an efficient and timely paratransit service. Yet, among the other issues that the disabled must confront on a daily basis, chief of their number is not only utilizing the fixed route system but the complimentary paratransit system as well. This will consequently provide our comments relative to such issues as improvements to the paratransit service. Paratransit The panoply of Title II covers transportation services. The statutory provision at 42 U.S.C. §12143(a), states that, “in the case of response time [paratransit service must be] comparable, to the extent practicable, to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities…” The Department of Transportation (DOT) ultimately adopted the requirement of a next-day response time. Through the regulatory promulgation process, however, DOT considered requiring transit providers to respond to calls for paratransit service on the same day they were received, or to schedule service within the same intervals at which fixed route service is available. See, 56 Fed. Reg. 13,869 (1991) As recent litigation and ultimate settlements of advocacy organizations, such as, the Maryland Disability Law Center, with state governments indicate that a same-day response system is the more prudent and cost-effective means of ensuring access to paratransit, especially the employed sight disabled. In the circumstance of former Maryland Governor, Robert Erlich, a same-day response system called Taxi Access was established to ensure greater and more efficient service delivery to people with disabilities. Conceived in 2004, the intent of the Taxi Access program is, and has historically been, to provide same-day, responsive and flexible transportation options for people with disabilities. Instead of needing to await a bus or other mode of conveyance of paratransit that may or may not appear and that may or may not deliver an individual rider to an appointment and/or work on time, the benefits of the program are, and have historically been that people with disabilities, especially those who are tax payers and possess gainful employment, would be enabled to function as any other employed citizen. That is, they could decide for themselves who would and how they would be transported to appointments and/or work in a cost-effective, safe and timely manner. The additional benefits that people with disabilities experience, and have historically experienced under Taxi Access, is the ability to directly communicate with and schedule their trips with providers. The neighbors to the South in the District of Columbia also endure issues with the efficiency and efficaciousness of paratransit services. As one article illuminates, a report provided recommendations on ways by which to address the chronic issues of D.C. Para transit, which, include, penalizing disabled passengers for missing appointed retrievals where the paratransit system caused them to be late in the first place. That report indicated that one solution is establishing a same-day response system. In addition, recommendation ten of a report of an ad hoc advisory group of 2006 indicates that the D.C. paratransit system should consider establishing a “premium” same-day service. The board of NCSD thusly applauds jurisdictions that are exploring or have explored improving faulty paratransit systems by same-day responsive systems. Recent actions of misguided staff and management at the MTA to curtail the benefits that people with sight disabilities have experienced with Taxi Access loom as a concern for the advocacy community. The program initiated by Governor Erlich to improve paratransit in Maryland proved to constitute a positive and win-win for all concerned. The board of NCSD therefore urges that the viability of Taxi Access be maintained. Actions of the MTA instituted to curtail this program have included the improper promulgation of policies and procedure without public notice and comment as well as the denial of due process rights to eligible participants. The board of NCSD consequently recommends that any actions undertaken by this instant body reaffirm the use of same-day responsive systems for people with disabilities, especially, those who are employed. People with disabilities, who are employed, or even underemployed, cannot afford to arrive late. A late arrival to their place of work could further engender the stereotypical notions of disability that plague American culture. The question to propound in contemplating this critical issue – is why not provide same-day responsive systems, whether they are or are not required by the ADA, if employed tax payers with disabilities are contributing to their funding in the first place. Accessible Pedestrian Signals
An overall important component of any urban design plan, including transportation related planning, is ensuring that the broadest number of individuals with and without disabilities can securely perambulate the streets and cross signalized intersections. For those with sight disabilities, this means enjoying the same access that an able-bodied person receives from traffic lights. An Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) comprises a pedestrian pushbutton-integrated device that communicates information about pedestrian timing in a non-visual manner, such as, audible tones, speech messages and via vibrating surfaces. The board of NCSD agrees with the American Council of the Blind, a leader on this particular issue, that APSs constitute the efficacious and legally required means by which to ensure equal access to the information provided by traffic lights. Note that an APS is also one critical solution to the issue of the so- called quiet car for which a public comment period is currently in play in another forum. The ACB of Maryland has successfully negotiated the installation of APSs on state highways. The board of NCSD encourages and tenders a request that any actions undertaken by this body be in accord with continued and quick installation of APSs throughout the state, including, in local jurisdictions. Conclusion
NCSD constitutes a Section 501c3 non-profit whose purpose is to educate about and advocate for sustainable and sound cross-disability policy. For more information about NCSD, please consult, www.ncsd.org. Please do not hesitate to telephone me at (410) 241-6745. Sincerely, Gary C. Norman, Esq., Vice President, Legal Counsel and Spokesperson CC: Jason Perry, President & Trish Fink, Executive Director NCSD Pat Sheehan, President American Council of the Blind of Maryland Vanessa Lowery, President & Albert Pietrolungo, Vice President Central Maryland Council of the Blind Lyndsey Layton and Lena H. Sun, Metro Access Still Broken, Disabled Say, Wash. Post (Jan. 25, 2006), http://www.adawatch.org/DCMetro.htm (Visited July 2, 2008) Metro Access Ad Hoc Committee Final Report, http://www.wmata.com/metroaccess/adhoccommitteefinalreport061506.pdf (Visited July 2, 2008) Accessible Design for the Blind, About Accessible Pedestrian Signals, http://www.accessforblind.org/aps_abt.html (Visited July 3, 2008) L. Office of Lainey Feingold, Accessible Pedestrian Signal Settlements - Law Office of Lainey Feingold, http://lflegal.com/category/settlements/accessible-pedestrian-signal-settlements/ (Visited July 3, 2008) (Ms. Feingold and her legal partner as relates to accessibility questions constitute leaders on this issue and have arrived at an agreement with the City of San Francisco to install APSs at all major intersections. All major jurisdictions in Maryland should consider the same action despite any of the parochial arguments of the National Federation of the Blind to the contrary.) Letter from U.S. Dep’t. Of Trans., Fed. Highway Admin. To Albert Pietrolungo, Pres., Am. Council of the Blind (July 8, 2005), http://www.acb.org/pedestrian/fhwa-letter-concerning-aps11.html (Visited July 3, 2008) (ACB of Maryland received interpretative guidance that concluded a state highway governmental unit was not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by failing to install APSs.) |