DOT Proposes Changes to ADA Transportation Regulation:  Hear About the Changes Proposed and Ask ADA Transportation Questions.  Presenter:  Marilyn Golden.  (We're experiencing phone difficulties, please stand by).

TAJAUNA:  Good afternoon, everyone.  And welcome to the Web cast, DOT proposes changes to ADA transportation regulation:  Hear about the changes proposed and ask ADA transportation questions.My name is Tajauna Dunning and I'm with the Disability Law Resource Project at ILRU, your sponsor for today's event.  I will be moderating today's Web cast and voicing your questions to the presenter.You can submit questions any time throughout this Web cast, however, I want to encourage you to submit questions you may already have at the beginning of this Web cast.  You can submit questions by clicking the submit question button at the bottom of your RealOne Player screen, or simply address it to Web cast@ilru.org. Questions will be posed to the presenter upon the presenter's request.  I would like to note if you choose to wait until the presenter's closing before sending the question, your question will be sent via E-mail to the presenter.  However, it is up to the presenter's discretion and available time as to whether or not an answer will be provided.  Additionally, if anyone has technical difficulties during this Web cast, please call us at (713)520-0232 and dial 0 for the operator.  This number is both voice and TTY capable.  As previously mentioned, today's Web cast is DOT proposes changes to ADA transportation regulation:  Hear about the changes proposed and ask ADA transportation questions.  It is being presented by Marilyn Golden, policy analyst at the disability rights education and develops fund, DREDF, our nation's foremost national law and policy center, on disability civil rights with offices in Berkeley, California and Washington D. C.  Marilyn has been closely involved with the Americans with Disabilities Act throughout all stages of its proposal and passage and now during its implementation.  A highly lauded ADA trainer, she has directed and led numerous in-depth programs on the ADA which has given thousands of people comprehensive knowledge on how to make this law a reality. She is the principal author of the DREDF publication, the ADA and implementation guide, DREDF's highly respected ADA curriculum.  Since the ADA's passage, Ms. Golden has continued to play a key role in policy development on a federal level in the areas of transportation and architectural barriers.  She was appointed by the president to the U.S. Access Board in 1996 and has served on the board since that time as a very strong and effective advocate for the interests of people with disabilities.  She has also played a key role as a national transportation advocate and has led the struggle for many of the policy victories during and since the ADA to provide better public transportation for people with disabilities.  And with that, Marilyn, I turn the Web cast over to you.   

MARILYN:  Thank you very much, Tajauna.  Hey, everyone, it's Marilyn Golden from DREDF and I'm delighted to have the chance to talk with everyone again about ADA transportation.  I wanted to first thank Tajauna for the very kind introduction and mention that I think I want to update one little fact with what ILRU has on file which is actually that my term on the Access Board came to a close about a year ago.  It was a very enjoyable and I hope useful eight years doing that and I encourage people to work with the Access Board as much as possible.  It's a great organization.  Let me go through the materials that are online for you today.  In addition to the abstract and something about -- I guess about myself, first -- the first content material for the session is proposed rule changes, and that is a text version of the notice of proposed rule-making that the Department of Transportation has proposed through the ADA DOT regulation.  And then there is DREDF comments.  They are actually draft comments that we have.  They're not quite done yet and perhaps your -- your suggestions will have an impact on some of what we submit as perhaps ours will on you; but you can check those and I'll be pointing out some things from them during the Web cast today.  We also put the DOT complaint form available for you, and that's there just because a lot of times people with disabilities may not know exactly how to file a complaint about transportation with the Federal Transit Administration, so that's available if you need it.  There is also a National Council on Disability transportation report which I'll talk a little bit more about later and also a handout that DREDF developed with -- for quality which is the protection and advocacy organization in Illinois about ADA paratransit eligibility that people may find useful.  One thing I want to announce that is also an activity of the Disability Law Resource Project and also of DREDF is that there will be this July for three days on July 11th through 13th a three day ADA transportation program put on by DLRP with DREDF providing the training in Las Vegas, Nevada in wild Las Vegas.  So we'll have a three day training on ADA transportation.  Perhaps the training itself may not be wild, but hopefully will not be fascinating.  If you are into this kind of this, which I certainly am.  So I'll say a little bit about that training.  Well, if you are -- I don't want to nickname anybody else, but a few of us who are really into ADA transportation call ourselves ADA transportation nerds.  So if you're such a person or want to become one or if you don't want to go that far or just have questions or want to learn more about ADA transportation, this is the event for you.  The nice thing about these trainings, and I really thank DLRP, which is the blessed instigator of these and we've done several of them and the nice thing is that we really have time.  We don't need to rush hardly and we can really answer questions and go into depth to understand just about everything people want to ask and find out about the increasingly interesting and increasingly complex field of ADA transportation.  There is now a real body of knowledge on ADA transportation that has formed since the regulation came out.  When I say body of knowledge, I don't necessarily mean requirements, but things about the operational aspects of ADA transportation and there is a lot of information now, court decisions and DOT guidance, things that really have come out since the regulation, and these training are an occasional time that we can share a whole lot of it with advocates. Things like how to get your transit agency to call out the stops on the bus better, you know, what they should be doing to improve ontime performance in paratransit.  So it's not only what's required, but again operationally how to make it happen.  And my co-trainer, Russell Thatcher, who is a transportation researcher and consultant from Tran Systems Corporation is just a real national treasure on these issues.  So you can read more about that training and sign up for it on the DLRP website that's July 11th through 13th, training in Las Vegas.  Moving on, as people know, there is a current notice of proposed rule-making, N. T. R. M. for short, on the Department of Transportation or DOT ADA regulation, that is proposals to change the regulation.  The due dates -- now, it was due April 28th, soon, for the specific proposed changes and May 30th for comment on some general questions that DOT asks.  We expect actually that this comment period will be extended into June.  And even if that does not occur, DOT does accept and consider late filed comments to the extent practicable.  So it would be great to get your comments in in the next week, but if you can't, you probably do have some more time to do that.  I would like to go over what is proposed and I will mention how DREDF is reacting to some of the major questions proposed.  We certainly are interested in your thoughts about the issues in the (Inaudible).  The ones we're commenting on especially if they are diverse from our thoughts or if they are different or additional to the things we have said.  We certainly don't, you know, have the sense that we know everything there is to say about these and we're eager to hear the rest of people's viewpoints.  So you can give us that feedback in terms of a question period that we'll have on this Web cast.  You're also welcome to E-mail me.  My E-mail is under the about the presenter section on the DLRP Web cast screen.  So we're certainly interested in anything that we're commenting on or that there are things in the rule that we're not commenting on if you have thoughts on those.  The perhaps biggest issue in this proposed rule is that DOT is proposing to add to its regulation a provision requiring ADA transportation providers to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.  Unless the transit agency can show that the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or activity, or would result in undue financial or administrative burdens, or a direct threat to the health and safety of others.  And the first thing I should say about it is that I'm in a somewhat loose way going chronologically through the DREDF draft comments.  So if you want to bring them up on your screen, they are there to just give another visual aid.  Now, what I said DOT is proposing to add is something like you've heard about because it is in fact not new.  It is a fundamental tenet of disability rights law and it has been included in various regulations by DOT and by DOJ, the Department of Justice, under other parts of the ADA, under Section 504 of the Rehab Act, the Air Carrier Access Act and so forth.  And it means, again, that the covered entity needs to make a modification in a policy, practice or procedure when needed to avoid discrimination unless it would cause an undue burden or in the case of the DOT proposal, undue financial or administrative burden or a direct threat.  It requires things, for example -- I'll just put it in the context of transportation.  In that context, for example, if there is a no eating policy on the subway train, the transit agency must allow a modification of the policy.  In the case of, say, someone with diabetes who needs to eat on a particular schedule, it doesn't mean they have to change the policy for everyone.  They don't have to drop the policy of no eating on the subway, but they have to modify it to the extent that this individual who needs it for disability-related reasons would be allowed to go ahead and sort of eat her sandwich or whatever it is without, say, being denied transportation or having, you know, a porter on the train -- subways don't usually have that -- but if they did to take away or tell her not to do it.  So it's a modification for the individual.  The provision which, again, sounds familiar to disability rights advocates did not appear in the original DOT regulation that we know today because DOT expected transit agencies funded by the Federal Transit Administration to recognize that they were covered by a similar provision already in the Department of Justice regulation for Title II of the ADA.  Because the structure of the ADA makes transit agencies subject to that regulation also, and also DOT's 504 regulation under Section 504 of the Rehab Act explicitly requires the transit providers at the funds to comply with all the other ADA regulations that there are, including this one.  Until recently, only one appellate court had addressed this issue of whether DOT funded entities or I should say FTA, Federal Transit Agency, funded entities were also covered by that other regulation.  And that court shared DOT's view that it was -- that they are covered.  However, in the wake of another more re sent court decision last year that disagreed, DOT is proposing to adopt the provision into its own regulation now.  Now, we already have one example of what it might mean because last fall DOT put out guidance on so-called origin to destination service.  Actually, you may also have the URL for that that I may not have mentioned.  Let's see if you do.  Okay, I'm not sure that you do, but I can give you that later.  Yes, they put out a guidance called "origin to destination service" referring to paratransit.  And it stated that an agency providing ADA paratransit under a, quote, curb to curb policy, that is under a basic policy that paratransit drivers will wait at the curb for passengers rather than going to the door to assist them, that policy -- that transit agency still may occasionally need to provide service beyond the curb if necessary to ensure that the individual can reach his or her destination.  So for example, this would mean that if a physical barrier, like sidewalk construction or snow prevents a passenger from getting to the curb, the service provider must offer assistance beyond the curb, again, not necessarily to all passengers, but to this particular passenger for whom maintaining the curb to curb policy strictly would deny the ability for them to get to their destination.  DOT has made it clear that adding this provision to their regulation would not mean, for example, providing any kind of personal assistance to riders, it would not mean going beyond the door to assist a passenger or take any actions that would present a direct threat to safety, like leaving vehicles unattended for lengthy periods of time.  Of course other riders could be in those vehicles, or losing the ability to keep the vehicles under the driver's visual observation.  So there are definitely limits on what -- how far this would go.  DREDF strongly supports adding this provision.  We very much hope that many of you will write comments to that effect.  It's very important that the disability community in DREDF's view support DOT in adding this provision and it's not a foregone conclusion that they will.  We have reasons to think that a lot of transit agencies will oppose it.  If you want to know how to submit your comments, if you look on the proposed rule changes, you'll see below the summary which is right at the beginning there is a paragraph giving a website for submitting comments.  There is actually two ways to do it electronically.  There is a fax option, a mail option, a hand delivery option and it's important, by the way, to include the agency name, that's DOT, Department of Transportation and the docket number. And they give the docket number in the instructions.  Or the regulatory identification number, RIN.  I'm not sure what that is, but the docket number is here a couple of times.  Under addresses, before you look at the instructions for submitting comments, unfortunately a page number interveins in the middle of the docket number, but that docket number is OFT, meaning office of the Secretary of Transportation, OFT-2006-23985. and that has to be included in any of your -- any of your comments.  So DREDF's comments, by the way, also say why we don't think it would be especially burdensome to transit agencies if DOT adds this provision.  We encourage people to feel free to review our comments on that point and share them if you wish; but even better, giving your own reasons for wanting this provision and the kinds of modification of policies and practices you and your clients and constituents might need under this provision and if you have examples of what you might want or need, feel free to also E-mail them as questions and suggestions during, you know, to this Web cast.  Because I'd be happy to hear them.  If you only have time to make a very brief comment, you know, just supporting the addition of the provision is a great thing, the provision requiring modifications of policy.  Moving on, another thing -- oh, I should add that DOT is asking whether other provisions from the Department of Justice regulation should be added to its own regulations given the addition of this one that they are proposing and because of the same court decision, DREDF is recommending adding a couple of other provisions as well, one about auxiliary aids and services which requires communication access for people with disabilities who may have hearing or visual or speech impairments, and also the requirements for general nondiscrimination under the ADA.  Moving on, another big topic in this proposed regulation is on commuter and inner city rail platform access.  And on this proposal, DREDF also agrees with DOT's proposal.  Actually, let me say a word about agreement, which is not a content word, but perhaps a process word or in a way a political word.  What often happens with proposals like this is that if people with disabilities are not concerned that they are bad, if they are good proposals and we support them, it is tempting not to write.  You know, it's sort of easier to get motivated if there is some proposal that, you know, concerns us or makes us hopping mad or something like that, and we just want to encourage people to remember that, you know, if you have no objection or if you support a proposal, it's still just as important to write in your comment because you can be sure that everyone who opposes it will write in or, you know, many of them will and if everyone who supported it simply did not write in -- send in their comments, you know, DOT would get a very one sided picture of what the public's view is.  So support is really an important thing to do in these comments.  On the commuter innercity rail platform accessibility issue, DOT is requiring -- proposals to shift their requirements but still to require level entry boarding to the train from a fully accessible high platform.  And then if necessary with a ramp or bridge plate over any gaps which will make it possible for everyone to board any or I should say every accessible train car.  The proposal is trying to avoid the use of many high platforms to provide disability access, allowing them only as an absolute last resort.  DREDF does agree with this approach.  Many high platforms have been used in some cities, but there are a very poor form of access in a commuter rail context.  They are acceptable and, you know, quite workable in the context of light rail which usually means street cars, but in the commuter rail context where there might be multiple cars that are accessible, and also where the structure is different, the structure of train stations, many put the person with the disability who would need to use the mini high platform out of the general public way, sometimes in the rain or snow, but what's worse, they necessitate that the train has to move in small increments to allign its cars one by one with the mini high platform if people who need to board or disembark are on multiple cars, which they often are.  This process is also called double stopping.  It's very difficult.  It's time-consuming and yet it has to be done permanently if mini high platforms are allowed.  Some transit agencies have objected to the dollars required in some context to put in a high platform, but at the same time, the transit agency will probably not really want to perform the kind of double stopping that is required in perpetuity if they use mini high platforms.  So that mini highs are to be opposed and DOT solution we think should be supported.  There is another issue that DOT is proposing and we have commented on it if you page further down.  Having to do with the disability law coordinating council which we also support.  DOT proposes to add a provision to its regulation that their disability law coordinating council or their DLCC would coordinate DOT guidance and interpretation on disability-related matters.  And DREDF is supporting this.  Historically, some of DOT's offices have functioned more like funders or some people have even said banks, rather than regulators, and you know, ensuring that the public good is maintained in terms of disability rights and other regulations.  Using a department wide mechanism like the DLCC to decide disability guidance issues, whether they are on the Air Carrier Access Act, whether they are on how the ADA applies to ships, you know, enforced by the Coast Guard -- I mean, regardless of the disability topic, the DLCC would look at guidance and interpretation issues and that's good thing.  DOT also proposes -- excuse me -- DOT also asks a number of questions on several general topics rather than proposing particular language.  And DREDF has plans to comment on several of them and I'll go over a little bit of the ones we're not just in case others of you want to think about commenting on them.  The first one we so far are commenting on is No. 5, about publicly funded demand response systems and used vehicles.  DOT asks whether operators of publicly funded demand response systems -- and here they mean -- they don't mean ADA paratransit, they mean sort of other systems such as commuter systems in bedroom communities, for example.  If they should like fixed route operators, that is the bus operators or train operators, be required to make good faith efforts to find accessible vehicles when they are acquiring used vehicles -- excuse me -- when they are acquiring used vehicles.  So it's asking whether there should be some control on the acquisition of used vehicles in the demand response context just the way there is for fixed route new vehicles in the bus context.  DREDF is saying yes. There have been real problems that people with disabilities have had because providers, both public and private, buy used vehicles and use used vehicles rather than buying new vehicles.  Again, it's not bus sometimes we're talking about, but providers which use the vans, for example, air port shuttles, social service programs and so forth.  And if you read our comment, DREDF is also addressing there at the end of the paragraph private companies which do not acquire vehicles at all, but which rather work with a group of drivers who each own their own vehicle and function as independent contractors. For example, I live in California, but I was in New York City last week and when I returned to the airport, I used a service that has rather than their own vehicles, all of their drivers are independent contractors who use their own vehicles, and it's a harder thing for the ADA to regulate.  So we're encouraging that that be clearly addressed, although we think that the equivalency provision of the DOT regulations requiring equivalent service would apply to some of these providers depending on the circumstances, but we'd like to see it addressed more overall because the tendency in the transportation field is for drivers more and more to be independent contractors.  So that is that question.  In terms of DOT's question No. 6, they ask a very important topic.  They ask about changes in the mobility devices that people are using that deviate from what the DOT regulation calls common wheelchairs.  They ask about the use of wheelchairs and other mobility devices that do not fit DOT's existing definition of common wheelchair, which is a three or four wheeled mobility device that when occupied does not exceed 600 pounds or 30-inches in width by 48-inches in length measured two-inches above the ground.  One point we're making is that this definition was actually never intended to be a screen for measuring an individual's mobility device.  Rather, it was intended as a performance standard for lift manufacturers, yet, it's been widely misused to, in a sense, grade individuals to see if they conform to the definition and the situation is really spiraling into a significant problem.  Because every year more and more mobility devices do not meet this definition.  Not only because they are larger, but also because they are simply diverging and varying more from the common and more traditional designs.  And mobility devices are just becoming more and more diverse.  So it is no longer an unusual exception for someone's wheelchair or other device to run a foul of these limits.  And there is all kinds of facets to this problem.  One is devices which really don't meet those rules and which cannot be carried on a 30 by 48-inch lift or ramp, and their users may be denied transportation.  Even if the vehicle could accommodate them in the larger device.  But there is another aspect to the rule which we call questionable exclusions.  Transit agencies in an effort to cut cost, particularly on paratransit -- certainly not all of them, but some of them are increasingly refusing to serve individuals because they interpret the person's device as not fitting, the common wheel chair's definition, even where we think DOTwould probably view the device perfectly acceptable as a common wheelchair, but the transit agency in a sense, in our view, misusing that common wheelchair definition to screen the individual out.  Some of you have sent us examples of this problem, and you may see them in our comments, the examples that you've sent.  For example, one that particularly concerned us, and this one is the first one this our list, someone uses a wheelchair that can recline.  The person never reclines the chair when using the lift or ramp to enter and exit the vehicle.  So the whole issue of the ramp or lift is fine because they are within the common wheelchair definition when they get on the vehicle and when they get off.  But during the ride, the person reclines due to severe chronic back pain or some other painful condition.  And they've done this, by the way, for years, riding the transit agency's vehicle and there has always been adequate space.  Yet one day the person is told that because they recline during the ride, they will no longer be accepted for ADA paratransit because in the reclining position their chair exceeds the common wheelchair length limit.  This is an example of the kinds of things that are happening out there that concern us.  Another example is just more general.  I think it's next to last in our list that people who have been riding a vehicle for years are told that because of the combined weight of themselves and their mobility devices or because of the length of their foot rest is too long, they may no longer ride the system.  We're hearing about more and more of this.  So these are the comments we're sending in on the common wheelchair definition.  I'll just mention briefly that, again, DOT is asking some other questions.  DREDF has not directed comments on the other ones so far.  We will continue to think about them and, you know, we're very interested in your thoughts if you have thoughts on any issues in the NPRM that we haven't addressed.  There is a question -- and I'm not going to say the whole entirety of the question.  You should read them, but there is a question on bus rapid transit, which is an increasing kind of system that is being developed in many cities.  There is a question about adding to the list of key stations that would be on rapid or light or commuter rail.  There is a question about so-called heritage street cars.  There is a question about passenger rail service by trains other than Amtrak.  There is a question about the designation of priority seating on Amtrak and on over the road buses, and also a question on how to count paratransit denials in terms of transit agency's recordkeeping.  At this point, I'd like to stop and take questions on the NPRM if anybody has anything, questions about what I've said or additions or concerns we haven't mentioned.  Anything like that. Tajauna, are there any questions?  

TAJAUNA:  There are only a few questions actually.  The first question is would paratransit have to help people down their ramps at the house?   

MARILYN:  Okay, well, this is a general question on the ADA, which is fine.  Or actually the person may mean under the new rule.  Not necessarily.  They would have -- if the rule is adopted and DREDF would argue that transit agencies are already covered by the same requirement already because it's in the Department of Justice rule, and everywhere but the Fifth Circuit where this ruling was, the DOJ section would apply.  So under the modification of policy requirement, the driver would have to help the individual if they -- if they needed it in order to get there.  The concept is that paratransit is an origin to destination service and if you can't get to your destination from your origin without assistance beyond curb to curb, they would have to provide it, but that doesn't necessarily have to provide it to everyone.  And DOT's guidance is clear that it doesn't mean they have to totally change the door to door policy.  So it will depend on the individual.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  And actually I guess maybe building on that just a little bit, another question is, is it up to the Transit Authority to determine how they are going to define origin to destination service, who is responsible for deciding what criteria is used?  In other words, how much latitude will individual Transit Authorities have in saying what their operators will and won't do? And when are these proposed changes scheduled to take place?   

MARILYN:  Well, take the last question first.  The proposed changes again are only proposals.  This is a proposed rule-making, and what it means is that DOT says what it's intending to do.  People -- the public can comment on it.  The disability community, transit agencies, anyone who wishes can comment on it and then at future point -- now, DOT has been relatively prompt in doing this.  You know, it may take a year, two years, two and a half years. It takes a long time to do rule-making; but at some point they come back with a final rule.  The final rule may say what's in the proposed rule, may not.  It depends on basically how DOT deliberates on the public comments.  In terms of the whole issue of the transit agency's interpretation of their requirements, well, just the way the modification of policy is on any other ADA covered entity, whether it's a restaurant or a hotel or a state and local government, the covered entity will interpret it as they see fit and if people with disabilities think that their rights are being violated, they can do advocacy or they can resort to some sort of enforcement mechanism under the ADA to file a complaint with the Federal Transit Administration or a lawsuit can also be filed and other people have all kinds of other creative advocacy techniques.  But basically, origin to destination I think is clear.  The origin to destination in the paratransit context, the origin is where you're going from, where you are, whether it's your home if that's in the service area or wherever you're leaving from and the destination is where you want to get to. They can't really redefine that. They may have latitude to say what is an undue burden on them, you know, and DOT has said it would be an undue burden to, for example, if somebody had a doctor's appointment inside the building through a complicated series of hallways.  The driver wouldn't have to get the person there.  They could take the person to the lobby of the building, but if they needed it, in order to get there, they would have to help the person from the vehicle in the door of the facility.  So it's true that you can interpret that and I don't deny that transit agencies and their customers with disabilities may, you know, have arguments over it.  It is certainly better to have the requirement than not to and it is a general one like anybody -- like any covered entity under the ADA.  So that's how the ADA is. Generally speaking, it's a series of general rules that has to be applied in each specific situation.  It would be impossible to write a law that would cover every possible detail. It would be the encyclopedia Brittanica and nobody would remember what's in there  So good questions all.  Any other questions?   

TAJAUNA:  There is one last question.  It's more of a general ADA question and she asks what is meant by reasonable accommodation?  Can you give me some examples?

MARILYN:  Well, reasonable -- in this case reasonable modification of policy, and examples would be -- for example, we have a few of them at the beginning of our comments.  I mentioned the no eating policy on the subway train.  If an individual with diabetes needs to eat at a certain time and they are on a long subway ride, the transit agency would have to modify the policy in the case of the individual to let them eat on the schedule that their disability requires.  There is also the example of helping the person beyond the curb in a paratransit context.  A couple of other transit examples that our comments include -- actually one DOT itself gave in the NPRM, if there is a policy that bus drivers may only stop at designated bus stops.  There may occasionally be a barrier at a bus stop like construction or snow that blocks use by passengers with disabilities.  And in such a case, DOT says that where it would not be unduly burdensome or dangerous, the bus should move a short distance from the stop to pick up a passenger using a wheelchair, say, at a place where they can readily board and many transit agencies already do this.  Also if there is a policy on the bus that the bus driver may not touch money, may not touch bus fare which is very typical policy to have that transit agency have because in former days, before they had such a strict policy there was concern with bus drivers sort of touching money because will they divert the money to themselves so transit agencies and probably universal or virtually so that the drivers may not touch the money.  But if there is an individual that needs assistance getting their money out and depositing it, they cannot deposit their bus fare due to their disability.  Now, a lot of buses will just waive the person into the bus and if they give you a free ride I don't think it's going to make too many people unhappy, but if the individual could not deposit their bus fare and because of it the transit agency denied the person transportation, this would be in our view an example where that policy needs to be modified and the person would need to be given assistance in depositing their bus fare.  So those are some examples in the transportation context that DREDF has thought of.   

TAJAUNA:  Marilyn, we actually did get some more questions in.  So if you want to take some more.   

MARILYN:  Sure.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay, great.  These are two separate questions, but they are on the same topic of service animals.  The first one says can the transit require crating of a service animal, and then the second one is more specific to service animals -- it sound like on air planes and it says could you please comment on the issue of the proposed NPRM Part 382, appendix A. concerning the transport of service animals by air.  And she has in quotes, what if the service animal is too large to fit under the seat in front of the customer? Declared if no single seat in the cabin will accommodate the animal and passenger without causing an obstruction, you may offer the option of purchasing a second seat traveling on a later flight or having the service animal travel in a cargo hold.  Those are your two service animal questions.   

MARILYN:  In terms of the transit agency requiring the crating of the service animal, and I'm presuming the first one was about a surface transportation, not air.  It sounded like that.  Do you think that's right?

TAJAUNA:  That's what I get as well.   

MARILYN:  Transit agencies are required to allow just like every other covered entity under the ADA are required to allow service animals to accompany the individual unless there is a fundamental alteration of the service or a direct threat.  There is very few circumstances that the ADA allows a covered entity not to let service animals join the person.  So I can't imagine it being legal to require the crating of a service animal.  I mean, there may be specifics that it could, but I doubt it.  I can't imagine the situation.  Usually if there is a legitimate exclusion, they -- you know, you just can't bring your service animal.  It's true that DOT gives an example of say an animal barking during a movie.  Sometimes the train has movies and perhaps that's an example where a service animal would need to be kept out of that train.  A well trained service animal wouldn't do that any way.  In terms of the Air Carrier Access Act, I'm not an expert on the NPRM under the Air Carrier Act, but I know that there was a lot of problems with that NPRM and including making someone in some cases buy another seat.  DREDF would certainly oppose that.  Service animals should be accommodated on the flight in our view should be accommodated on the flight that the individual is on.  

 TAJAUNA:  Okay.  One more on the service animal or assistance dog and it says could you please comment on what the regulations cover concerning paratransit travel accompanied by an assistance dog?   

MARILYN:  There is no special rule for paratransit under the ADA with service animals.  It's the same as a movie.  It's the same as a restaurant, and I could certainly talk a little bit about the service animals rules, but basically they need to go where the person goes.  And it's a little bit what I said earlier that is if it's a posed to a fundamental alt ration to what the service could be there could be a restriction, but that happens quite seldom.  And so generally speaking on paratransit rides, service animals should be allowed to come.  You know, operators can ask, you know, to make sure it's a service animal and not a pet.  Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has said it's illegal for providers to ask what functions the animal performs in attempting to determine for themselves if they think it's a pet or a service animal, but if it's a service animal, it should be able to accompany the individual on paratransit. Certainly if the animal is disruptive or dangerous, that is a fundamental alteration of what they are doing and an animal like that can be denied on the ride, but again, that's a rare exception.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay, going off the service animal topic.  How does the quote in the door closed quote assistance affect demand response service?   

MARILYN:  Well, again, in the door -- I mean, this is just if the individual needs it, but I'm not sure on demand response service -- well, that's more of a paratransit issue.  The whole issue of going beyond curb to curb service is about ADA paratransit.  Now, that is a demand response service.  That's not the only demand response service.  There are social service agencies that provide demand response service to their programs.  There are all kinds of demand response services provided in the transportation world. Demand response service simply means that other than like the bus or train, which is going to come to your bus stop or your train station regardless of what you do, whether you do or not, that thing is going to run on its schedule.  That's a fixed route kind of service.  What demand response means is that in contrast to that, you summon it and that's what makes the vehicle comes.  For example, like a taxi, you flag it down or call it.  That makes it a demand response service. Most airport shuls also are demand response.  Those are privately funded.  So there is all kinds of demand response service and the whole door rule is really an issue for ADA paratransit because the policy that's being modified is the curb to curb policy.  But I don't think that other kinds of transportation -- I guess you could argue that the policy that you're modifying is that the driver doesn't assist people beyond the vehicle.  I would say that in other kinds of transit service, reaching fundamental alteration or undue burden would be reached a little bit more easily.  So for example I used to ride an airport shuttle that would come to my house.  The driver would probably assist me -- I don't remember a time where the driver didn't assist me with my luggage, even though that may be beyond what they'd normally do, but certainly any other kind of extensive assistance would probably be a fundamental alteration for that service.  I think the context of the origin to destination guidance is about ADA paratransit and it may apply to others, but we'd have to think about each other one and what they provide and how far that would mean they have to go I think.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  Another question that we have is if this policy is passed, will transit drivers also be responsible for carrying items on board for the disabled passenger?  For example, several bags of groceries, where will the assistance stop?   

MARILYN:  Well, for issues about what should be required on paratransit, we generally look to what is required on the bus because paratransit is supposed to be a complement to fixed route service.  So we look to the comparable train situation and fixed route -- your bus system probably has a rule about how much groceries an individual can bring on the bus.  You know, maybe as much as the bus passenger can carry.  Whatever it is, we think it should be the same on paratransit.  Sometimes transit agencies have made it more strict and that would, in DREDF's view, be a violation of the ADA. But on the other hand, you know, the limit should probably be equivalent because the service is supposed to be equivalent.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The next question, are ADA paratransit provider requires a functional assessment for ADA certification. They have contracted out the functional assessment to a rehab facility.  This rehab facility requires a physician's prescription for the assessment, otherwise they will not do the functional assessment.  What are your thoughts on this?   

MARILYN:  It requires a physician's prescription?   

TAJAUNA:  That's what it says.  This rehab facility requires a physician's prescription for the assessment, otherwise, they will not do the functional assessment.   

MARILYN:  I would say that this is an overly broad policy.  There are many kinds of disabilities that, you know, individuals may not be in close touch with say, doctors.  And some functional assessments have made paratransit eligibility determination a very medicalized process.  Now, in some cases, this makes sense and we think that there are some kinds of disabling conditions wherein assessing paratransit eligibility, the transit agency will probably need to make inquiries of a medical professional, but to require it across the board for every individual, we think -- at least I would need to think about it more, but as I sit here and think about it, it seems overly broad to us.  I know that we had another question not too long ago that we were figuring out about whether -- and this is not exactly the same, but perhaps it's close -- where a transit agency's eligibility process required the disclosure of all the prescriptions that an individual has, any medication that they are taking under a prescription.  And in the discussions we had and also the paratransit experts outside of the disability community who we trusted, and who we consulted, the thought was that this -- it wasn't necessarily going to be very helpful in many cases and why do it?  What was suggested is that a more useful question is whether you take any medications that affect your ability to ride the fixed route?  The paratransit assessment is supposed to be about -- excuse me, the paratransit eligibility assessment is supposed to be about whether or not you can use the fixed route service or whether you need paratransit as an alternative.  And so more relevant would be questions that go to whether you take medications that would somehow affect your ability to use the fixed route service.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The next question, one thing we've seen a lot is people who are deaf and blind not being able to wait at the curb in inclement weather or in high crime areas after dark for paratransit.  Because of their in a disability to see and hear they cannot wait at the door or the window and would be able on come out when the van arrives without special notification.  Would this be a good example to give of a need for modifications to curb to curb policy?   

MARILYN:  I think that it would be a very good example. Yes, I think that's the kind of thing that DOT's guidance intends. Tajauna, I was thinking that a lot of these questions -- well, some are diverging into a general area, but maybe I'll just take the opportunity to help people find these four guidance documents and can also ask questions on that. okay, so if people want to see -- DOT, when they came out with the origin to destination guidance, they also came out with three other guidance documents.  This was back in September of '05, so a few months ago, and all four of them are on their website.  Probably the easiest is to click on FTA complaint form.  And when you get there, you'll see that you can -- for some reason I'm not getting there very fast.  Here we are.  You'll see that up in the url section (Inaudible) and you can just delete all of that and put ada so the url you want to go to is www.fta.dot.gov/ada and if you go there you get FTA ADA's website and there is a lot of helpful things on there, but the very first heading is ADA technical assistance and the first heading under it is DOT disability law guidance.  So if you click on that, you get a screen that, again, is DOT disability law guidance and it gives you the four guidance documents that came out last September.  One is about full length level boarding platforms and new commuter and any inner city rail stations and it basically says that it's a little bit like what I said about the NPRM.  It's talking about a strong preference for full length high level boarding platforms in commuter and inner city rail.  Not mini high, again mini high is fine for the street car which is light rail. But for inner city and commuter rail it should be full length level boarding and the guidance has a lot of specifics about that.  Next is the origin to destination service, and that's the one applicable to paratransit that we've talked about a lot today. Third is paratransit requirements for section 5311 funded, fixed route service operated by private entities.  That's a long title. Section 5311 is a section of the current transportation appropriations bill which has recently been renewed to safety and that's the section about rural transportation.  The gist of this guidance is that when these funds are used to provide fixed route service, even by private entities, because it comes from this public source, it's generally speaking going to be required to provide supplementary paratransit.  Some of these fixed route services have not provided paratransit and paratransit is required in fixed route service with basically public funding.  The last one, the use of Segways, on transportation vehicles.  Many people are probably familiar with the Segway which is not a wheelchair but which is a mobility device used not only by people with disabilities, but by nondisabled people, too, for whatever reason that has all sorts of fancy gyroscopic controls to make it stop when it should and go when it should and not be dangerous and usually use it in a standing position.  One of the many sort of space agency style inventions that we've recently seen on the scene.  There have been many questions about when people with disabilities use Segways to help them with their mobility.  They use them for disability-related reasons, would they be allowed on, you know, does the ADA protect the right of the Segway user who is using it for a disability-related reason to ride their Segway, say, into a public accommodation like a hotel or in this case on to a transit vehicle?  And DOT is saying that the ADA does protect this.  That Segway riding due to a disability (Inaudible) may bring the Segway on to a bus or a train or other transportation vehicle.  The DOT is not saying it's because the Segway is a type of wheelchair.  DOT (Inaudible), but it is a mobility device.  There are all kinds of other mobility devices that people use, Walkers, people use crutches and this type of use of the Segway by people with disabilities in the eyes of DOT in this guidance is merely another new mobility device and the ADA does protect the individuals' right to use it.  So that was an important guidance as well.  And now that we've talked about those, if people want to comment on those, I also just want to mention that the -- again, I said I would talk about it later.  The other document that is mentioned in your -- on your Web cast page is this mcd transportation report and if you click on that link, it will take you to the report that came out last June, the current state of transportation for people with disabilities in the United States, published by the National Council on Disability.  DREDF and also a transportation firm worked on this report.  And one reason we like to bring it the people's attention, and you can get by way free copies from NCD or it's here on the web.  It's that this report includes a great deal of the sort of post regulation content that we know at this point about transportation.  For example, some of what has been done on calling out stops that is useful.  Some of the operational tips on providing better ontime performance in paratransit and all kinds of things like this.  So it's something we want people to have at their disposal. There is a table very contents that you can -- and each section you can link from the table of contents right to the section.  So having mentioned that -- I'm happy to go back to people's questions.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  We just have a couple here.  One is, Hi, my question is more of when a regular bus system is closing at 8. The paratransit is also closing at 8.  Now, in this case, low income people in the disability community and in the normal community is not having access to the city after 8.  What can we as people do?   

MARILYN:  Again, you know, the ADA of course is a civil rights law and that's something we all know, but it's really in transportation that the nature of the ADA as a civil rights law, you know, in the way that that is good and in ways that may be limiting. The character that really comes into full force because paratransit under the ADA is really intended to be a complement to the fixed route service.  It unfortunately does not provide people with disabilities everything that we need.  So if there is a limitation in your fixed route service, it's legal under the ADA for paratransit to have the same limitation.  It's not okay for paratransit to do less and so if your buses or trains all stop at 8:00 p.m, but except for one or two routes that go to 10:00 p.m, then it's not okay for paratransit to stop cold at 8:00 p.m.  Paratransit would have to go the same places the fixed route goes until 10:00 p.m.  I said ten when I meant eight. The point is, it should be the same.  And if it's different on different routes, then paratransit should vary by the area of that route.  But if you do have your fixed route service stopping at 8, there is no requirement under the ADA for paratransit to go any longer because it is really just a complement to the fixed route service.  Disabled people do need more transportation than the ADA provides and our community needs to find a way to address it in some kind of other way.  It's always a bit perhaps difficult or disappointing to be the bearer of bad news and when we do ADA training, sometimes we have to say that the ADA does not cover that. I would love it if it did, but I'm not here really to -- to say what we want the ADA to do or even to dissent, but to explain what it does and it does have that provision which in some people's eyes might be a limitation.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  We actually only have a couple of questions left and I want to remind everyone listening that we are in the last portion of the Web cast.  So if you -- this is your opportunity to ask Marilyn any questions you may have regarding transportation and/or to provide any comment.  So you may want to go ahead and get those in.   

MARILYN:  Tajauna --   

TAJAUNA:  This person wants to know about liability and then they go on to say it happened to Jefferson transit and we were sued when such an individual removed their seat belt and wandered off.  So I guess they are wanting to know about liability.   

MARILYN:  Well, this is presumably a paratransit question.  Or, actually I can't tell, but the ADA doesn't change transit agency liabilities particularly.  The ADA does make it illegal to refuse service based on concerns about insurance or liability.  Sometimes transit agencies -- I'm not sure exactly what is meant here but I'll just speculate.  One area of paratransit that is by the way addressed in the NCD report that has been challenging is for example individuals with perhaps Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia where it would be ideal if a transit agency carrying such an individual on ADA paratransit and the ideal situation would be that when they are dropped off there would be a person there to meet them or to hand them off to, another individual, because the paratransit rider may not be someone who can really negotiate where they need to be going without outside assistance. And transit agencies have said what do I do if I get to the residence, for example, and no one is there?  And this is a legitimate problem that transit agencies have.  Some have worked it out by working with social service agencies to really ensure another party is there.  And I don't have an easy answer.  If a transit agency delivers sort of an individual to their destination, and the individual is not able to sort of confine themself to a safe location, and get into a dangerous location, any comment I would make about their liability -- I would be speculating.  I'm not an attorney, and I'm certainly not an expert on public agency liability and so I hate to comment on it.  We would hope it's not an ADA issue; but if there are difficulties, transit agencies would ideally be working with the disability community and with social service agencies in their service area to ensure that these questions are worked out.  I know that some transit agencies have gone the extra mile to, in fact -- I don't know how to put it.  To work out these kind of arrangements in a way that works for everybody.  And that is a good option.  It's not required.  I'm actually turning to the section in the NCD report called serving individuals with dementia and I'll just summarize the point that it makes.  Some transit agencies work for social service agencies to develop protocol for situations involving customers with dementia, for example, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the Transit Authority works closely with the family and with caregivers of customers of dementia to file those -- to flag those individuals' files with special requests and notations to staff and to drivers.  Family members can request that only one person be authorized to schedule trips for someone.  Notations can be made that trips are not to be altered.  If needed, drivers escort the person to the door and the nature of these requests depends on the progression of the dementia condition.  Each one is individualized.  It's a recommendation that transit agencies work with local organizations to work this out.  I'm not sure if there is other aspects of that question that I have not addressed.  I will mention, Tajauna, that if we do have another extra minute, there is some other interesting things that have come up lately that I'd be happy to share with people.   

TAJAUNA:  That would be great and then once you are finished we do have some more questions that have come in.   

MARILYN:  Let's take the questions first.  I want to take -- make those be the priority.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The next question that we have is for demand response in rural areas, clarification for beyond curb to curb service and how does this affect rural service?  It's a little unclear.  

 MARILYN:  Read it to me one more time.   

TAJAUNA:  for demand response in rural areas, clarification for beyond curb to curb service, how does this affect rural service?  

 MARILYN:  Well, that's a good question.  If it's ADA paratransit, it doesn't affect it at all because ADA paratransit is ADA paratransit.  That's usually -- ADA paratransit is always pursuant to a fixed route system so probably that's not what this is because that would be much less likelihood of being provided in a rural area, although I think there will be ADA paratransit in some rural areas and so I don't want to say never by any means, but largely not.  And there are all kinds of other demand response systems in rural areas.  So clarification beyond what's curb to curb. Again, I think we have to think about it in a case-by-case basis.  If from is a service that never provides anything other than the driver pulls up at a destination and the passenger gets out and goes where they are going.  Let's say an individual with a disability needs additional assistance.  We would have to look at the situation as a whole and say is it a fundamental alteration -- again, assuming that the -- I was going to say assuming the DOT proposal is made a permanent part of the DOT regulation, but actually, again, other than the Fifth Circuit, this applies to all transit agencies today that are publicly funded and without exception, including the Fifth Circuit.  It applies to all transit providers that are privately funded because they are clearly covered by the Department of Justice regulation, which includes modification of policy.  So you have to ask yourself and the transit provider would have to ask themselves what is a reasonable modification of our policy that does not pose, in the case of the DOJ regulation, a fundamental alteration of what they do.  It may mean that, you know, sort of the driver is able and has time and maybe a little bit beyond that point, but not extremely beyond that point.  They would need to provide the assistance.  I think many times they would, but I can't say that they would need to provide it in every case.  And I think that -- I do think that it would be a lower level of obligation perhaps than an ADA paratransit because in ADA paratransit the driver is just about always getting out of the seat and going, say, to operate the lift or the ramp if, say, a wheelchair user is disembarking from the vehicle.  So this very often paratransit driver leaving their seat.  So going a little bit further may not be as much of an undue burden.  These are somewhat new questions that people are asking primarily because of this NPRM, even though again DREDF things it's been required.  We have to see the specific situation.  I wish I could be more specific and I'm sorry I can't, but it really will depend on the situation.  I encourage people with disabilities in a good safe manner to approach their transit agencies, talk about modification of policy requirement and say they need additional is assistance.  Show them the section in the regulation which your DBTAC can help you find and engage in a dialogue with them that may work better .  Instead of being at the point of where the ADA says you need to take me to the door.  I think many times it will not be a problem for the provider to do this, but again the standard is not just if it's a problem.  The standard is, is it a fundamental alteration to what they do and one can make an argument that that does actually require some kind of assistance.  So I think people with disabilities should attempt to request that assistance, and if you don't think your rights are getting served, if you think your rights are being violated, we encourage people with disabilities to file complaints.  FTA looks at these complaints closely.  DOJ under Title III may not open all of them, but DOJ has said on many occasion that is they are particularly interested in transportation.  So I think there is a good chance that DOJ would take a closer look at a complaint of this nature than they might for another kind of public accommodation.  So, again, for publicly funded services, your complaint would got to the FTA, which has the complaint form on the Web cast -- the Web cast screen for this Web cast.  For privately funded entities, it would go to the Department of Justice.  If you send it to FTA they'll probably send it over there because federal agencies are supposed to send complaints to the right location if they go to the wrong place.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The next question is, I have a question around the quarter mile distance requirement within existing bus routes.  There are people in Connecticut who live within, say, one fifth of a mile of a bus route.  If someone lives just outside the quarter mile radius, could someone ask for a modification of program policy under this proposed rule?  

MARILYN:  That's a good idea -- that's a good example of a question about modification of policy.  It's a good question of is it required.  Of course, the question is referring to the fact that paratransit is required to have a three-quarter -- a service area that consists of -- excuse me -- three-quarters of a mile on either side of the fixed route.  And in the case of train service, there are circles around the station.  So I guess the question that I'm assuming is intended here, if there is somebody who lives outside the service area but just a little bit, does the paratransit vehicle have to pick them up at that further location as a modification of policy? This is something that people should work out with their transit agency.  If it was up to me to say, I would say probably not because in the ADA -- you know, in laws like this, the specifics take precedence over the general and if there is another requirement that is very specific of something that is not required, the transit agency certainly has a very good argument that it's not required.  I think that there are transit agencies who have an expanded service area, so in those cases, they may be willing to modify that policy.  This is an area that's not -- we don't have the black and white rule of regulation to guide us.  So those speculations that I've made is about the best I can do on it.  When it comes to the ADA, everyone is in the position or, you know, many times of interpretation.  The ADA again is a succession of general rules and we always have to apply them to the specific interpretation.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  I have two last questions.  One is what happens to the persons who are left on a vehicle -- and it sounds like paratransit -- and it goes on to say in a post 9/11 world many agencies do not allow the driver to leave the vehicle running if the driver leaves the vehicle.  That means that persons who just completed dialysis would be in a vehicle that is not heated and air conditioned.  Any comments?   

MARILYN:  Yes.  That's  a good question and I'm happy to comment on it.  It's true that some drivers are not allowed to leave the vehicle, but that is a transit agency rule.  That is certainly not in the eyes of the ADA.  What is important in paratransit is the driver not lose effective control of the vehicle.  But that does not necessarily mean stay with the vehicle.  A great number of transit agencies provide door to door service, not curb to curb service.  We mostly have heard from people today who are struggling with curb to curb policies, but as the DREDF comments say, we think that as many as 50 percent of transit agencies today are providing door to door service and they have thus worked out all the policy problems that are -- that a company, including the insurance problems, including the issue that was just mentioned.  Drivers in good door to door systems never leave the vehicle for very long.  It is -- it would be inappropriate to leave the vehicle for very long.  You know, the driver goes to the door with the individual.  They may help them up a step.  In rare cases two, but sometimes up with one step or two or up a gentle hill.  There may be other kind of assistance they provide with perhaps a key or what of you, but it wouldn't take very long and it's not advised actually by transit experts by DREDF even that drivers are outside the vehicle long enough to lose effective control over it.  So if individuals are on the vehicle, the heating or the cooling that was already there should last the amount of time that it is stopped.  If transit agencies have a policy that they cannot leave the vehicle running and if leaving the vehicle running, leaving it on, parked and on would be necessitated to keep the temperature controlled, then -- that would be a good example of modification of policy.  Transit agencies may have to modify that policy in order to allow the drivers to keep people in the vehicle comfortable and still provide the additional assistance that's needed.  The big issue to us is that so many transit agencies are doing door to door service.  The one that is do it swear that this is the only proper way to do ADA paratransit.  And many of them are just very, very accomplished transit agencies which know very well, you know, what they should be doing and other transit agencies can inquire with their counterparts in other cities to find out what the policy benefits are.  There are a variety of reports on ADA transportation that have been put out. There are courses given by NTI, the National Transit Institute where operators can learn what their counterparts are doing in other cities to solve some of these operational issues they confronted.  We don't think that's any kind very real obstacle to compliance with the origin to destination service.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  Marilyn, we actually got quite a number of questions that have just come in, but we are getting close to being out of time.  So if you're agreeable, maybe two or three more and then any final comments that you want to make.   

MARILYN:  That would be great.  I would be happy to do a few more and then do my best to look at them also once we're done.   

TAJAUNA:  Perfect.  Sounds great.  The next question that we have is, are ADA paratransit provider continually denies trips for people using wheelchair devices that are over the 35 by 48 and 600-pound size.  They measure the device and weigh and then deny. They do have oversize lifts that would accommodate persons and devices up to 800 pounds.  Should they file complaints?  

MARILYN:  Well, filing complaints is certainly one way we will get FTA to deal with this issue.  DREDF has the same concerns that the individual here mentioned, that people are getting excluded when they could be carried.  I should make the point that many transit agencies do carry people whose wheelchairs exceed the common wheelchair definition, but some are not and more and more are getting excluded.  It's hard to know what will happen on those complaints.  I think that if the -- if individuals have been riding transit already, say it's a paratransit reassessment where this is done, or they've been riding the fixed route, say, which has -- I don't know -- similar lifts, but particularly if individuals have been riding the same vehicles or individuals with comparable wheelchairs are riding the same vehicles so you know it's doable, I think the complaint will be more persuasive.  But it's fine for them to file.  It's hard to know what will happen.  The oversize wheelchair issue is a real problematic one and I think the best chances we have are on complaints where you can argue that the transit agency is making an unfair call such as the examples in DREDF's comments.I don't know what will happen.  I think it's fine if people make the complaints because we really need to look at this issue closely.  We need there to be more policy made in this area.  We really go with the interpretation from the U.S. Access Board which is that the common wheelchair definition was not intended as a screen for individuals.   
TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The next one asks, can you comment on transit providers who are now starting to use computer generated scheduling.  Paratransit riders are scheduled by the computer and unless they ask times, do not know the exact time of pick up or return trips.  The paratransit agency uses this time often in trip denials and in other cases may mark the rider as a no show.  Can you comment on this?   

MARILYN:  Well, that's a great question and I really do hope that individuals who are having this happen will make complaints to the Federal Transit Administration.  Because so much of the paratransit regulation really hooks on to pick up time.  And yet how can you have paratransit which doesn't inform you of your pick up time?  That really seems to be a violation of the ADA to me.  The situation where, you know, you ask for certain times and the dispatcher or I guess the person there on responds to calls is setting up your ride gives you a time or they say, yes, we'll be there at 3:15, what have you, and the person said it right.  This shaping loot of cities, the computers change the time.  Now, what should be happening -- and I say this very emphatically -- because it is really a very bad practice not to do it, and I encourage any transit agency listening to do this and we encourage any rider to tell their transit agency to do this.  That transit agencies, if their computer systems are shifting people's pick-up times, the transit agency absolutely should be getting back to the passenger and telling them what the new pick-up time is.  If you don't know what your pick-up time is, how can you know what your pick-up window is, how can you be outside at the right time, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?  So I think this is important to complain about and i think if it's done once in a blue moon, that's one thing and if anything, there can be a mistake.  But if done systematically or even as the ADA would say a significant number of times, I think this is an ADA violation.  Transit agencies really do need to follow the best practice in the industry, that that pick-up time is sacrosanct and if it gets changed the rider needs to be informed.   

TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The next one says I have a question based on one very your last questions.  Our paratransit does not service a bedroom community five miles away, but runs an extra two hours on their fixed route service to do so.  Are you saying it should service this area and open up for another four hours for paratransit?   

MARILYN:  No, I'm not.  Paratransit service area, under the ADA, can be what it is and it doesn't have to be expanded.  The ADA has an exception for paratransit which is sometimes interpreted too broadly, but it says that commuter service does not have to have complementary paratransit and that usually means routes that go out of the city or I should say into the city in the morning and out of the city in the afternoon, use multiride tickets and don't stop repeatedly but go a long distance.  You know, something that runs all day isn't a commuter service and should have complementary paratransit.  But things that really are commuter services or things that are already demand response do not have to have complementary paratransit.   TAJAUNA:  Okay, we have five questions left.  And if you're okay if we can go ahead and get them finished, nobody will have to get anything via E-mail.   

MARILYN:  I would be happy to do that.   

TAJAUNA:  the next one says what are the proposals for publicly and privately funded vehicles giving equal service for people with disabilities?  I mean for example, is a cab company required to run their wheelchair van services the same hours that the regular cab service runs?   

MARILYN:  It's an interesting question because of course cab companies do not have to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, but if they do provide them, do they have to run the same hours as everything else?  I think some people would interpret this question in different ways.  I think some would say no, and some would say yes.  You can make an argument either way.  I think I would say that they do, yes.  If they are providing that service, it should be provided in the same hours and we have, you know, the ADA's equivalency provisions under privately funded transportation.  The thing about ADA transportation is that it very much depends on the rules for a particular category and the rules for fixed route and paratransit and demand response do vary a little bit from each other. The rules for private and public vary a little bit.  And so sometimes you have to really nail down what is the category before you know the rules.  In this case, I would tentatively say that I think it would require.   
TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The next one is actually three questions on one.  It says since hurricane Katrina, FEMA has provided funding for the Baton Rouge transit system to run buses back and forth between Baton Rouge and New Orleans daily.  Should they be providing paratransit as well?  How do we find out which providers are 5311 funded and can we require paratransit providers to provide seat belts?  Are you there?   
MARILYN:  Yes.  Well, I don't know how far this is, Baton Rouge to New Orleans.   
TAJAUNA:  It's probably about 45 minutes I think.   
MARILYN:  if those buses run all day long, I would think it's a fixed route service that's provided by a publicly funded transit agency, it's hard to understand why it would not be required to provide complementary paratransit.  Of course that would have a limited -- it would have a limited service area, just as all paratransit does.  It would have all the restrictions that paratransit generally has.  If there are no stops along the way, should the paratransit vehicle require stops along the way?  That's a question that would be debated.  But if it's being provided by a publicly funded entity as a fixed route service, I think it would be required I can't see any reason why it would not.  In terms of how to find out what's 5311 funded -- that's a good question.  And I would say to contact your regional Federal Transit Administration office. And if you don't know how to get in touch with your regional transit administration office, you can certainly always contact the Office of Civil Rights of the Federal Transit Administration in D. C. and they can give you the number of the regional office.  Also if the regional office can't tell you or in some way does not help you, you can always call FTA.  The FTA O. C. R. number is (202)366-4018.  And FTA has all kinds of other numbers, too, which can be called probably to find out the regional office.  In terms of seat belts -- would you reread that question.   
TAJAUNA:  Can we require paratransit providers to provide seat belts?  
 MARILYN:  I think that if they -- providing seat belts on a vehicle that are not otherwise provided may be not an ADA issue; but it's something that you may hopefully be able to do under the general rules in your state.  At this point, many states require seat belts for any kind of transportation.  Under the ADA -- what the ADA requires is that first of all if it's not require the transit agencies to require the seat belts -- excuse me -- I'll just say if it's not allowed -- the ADA does not allow transit agency to require the use of seat belts unless the transit agency requires everyone not only people with disabilities to use their seat belts.  Buses rarely, if ever, have seat belts, but vans usually have them.  And if transit agencies make nondisabled people use them, for example, or say people who aren't using a mobility device, sigh a blind individual who rides in a paratransit van, if the agency makes them use a seat belt then they are allowed to make a wheelchair user who is in a securement area also use it.  But in terms of providing seat belts where they are not available, I don't know of a sufficient -- of a part of the ADA that assists the person other than the fact that you can certainly argue that without seat belts there is a direct threat to the health and safety of the individual or others.  And you can make an argument under that with the transit agency to provide seat belts.  It's not an ADA issue we see a lot, but perhaps you could use the direct threat provision which would be even more helpful if you could argue -- certainly if there is a disabled individual for whom a seat belt because of their disability is needed more so than a nondisabled person ordinarily needs a seat belt, I think in that situation, you can make a persuasive case that it should be provided.  If it's no provided and for the same reason that everybody uses seat belts which I always do and I think they are important as an individual, I would try to argue it under the direct threat provision of the ADA.  And under Title III of the ADA there is the idea of not posing a safety risk under the eligibility criteria.   
TAJAUNA:  Okay, and we have three last questions, and the first one is -- just asks is it permissible that an assistance dog may be allowed to go off lead and enter the bus ahead if the lift is not big enough for both the wheelchair and the dog?   
MARILYN:  That seems to me to be the kind of modification of policy the transit agencies really should be doing.  Because requiring service animals to be accompanying people with disabilities is a modification of policy to begin with.  It's a modification of the no pets policy to allow service animals to ride.  And where they can't ride lifts for whatever reason, I think the service animal, particularly one that's behaving in the way that is the high standards set by most trained service animals, it should be fine if the animal moves on ahead briefly and waits for the individual. Again, any animal that will be disruptive probably shouldn't be taken on the vehicle anyway, but the ADA wouldn't proceed tech them this that case.  It seems to me that the answer to that would be yes.   
TAJAUNA:  Okay.  The ADA requires current ramps on to buses or trains to have a vertical two-inch upright to prevent wheelchairs from rolling off sideways.  Some transit organizations have worked with people with disabilities to evaluate their ramp design and came to the conclusion that the wheelchair community does not prefer these vertical uprights.  So they altered their ramps to have no two-inch uprights.  Does the transit provider still comply with the ADA?   
MARILYN:  I would have to look this up in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines vehicle provisions.  My understanding is that any ramp like that into a vehicle needs to have the kinds of curbing or this questioner calls them uprights at the sides.  There is danger of rolling off those ramps.  I mean, I think you can pick a group of individuals with disabilities just like you can pick any group of individuals out in the general public that will say just about anything.  But my first sense is that taking away the protections at the side of a ramp is to do away with something that is important for safety and I think that if an individual is concerned about their own safety on a ramp of that kind -- but I just -- I would need to look it up really quick and I would be -- I don't know if I can do it while people wait but I would be happy to respond by E-mail, but also questions like this -- questions that are about the structure of a vehicle, the best authority we have, and they are just so easy the reach, is the U.S. Access Board and they really are the technical assistance of last resort and they should be a first resort as well, such a helpful resource and we encourage people to use the Access Board and I believe that 800-number is 800-USA --ABLE. So it's 872-2253.   
TAJAUNA:  Okay, and this is our last question.  And it asks:  What does the ADA say about coordinating transportation services for human services programs for the disabled, elderly, low income and youth?  If not addressed, what is the disability community doing to coordinate transportation with programs for other subpopulations?  Is it working/feasible?  Also does the ADA limit the ability for programs to coordinate?   
MARILYN:  Well the ADA certainly does not limit coordination.  The ADA also does not require coordination of different kinds of programs.  And so it's a non-ADA question, but a very good question.  There is actually a lot of attention right now on coordination.  FTA, along with some other federal agencies, has a national effort called united we ride.  Which there is grants now for I think coordination sometimes that can be applied for.  You know, it's working better in some areas than others.  I think I'm saying this from memory, but I think it's in the Merimac Valley of New York and I'm really quick trying to open my notes on this to find it.  You know, to address the question of is it working or not -- yes, Merimac Valley regional Transit Authority -- I said New York and I was wrong, it's Massachusetts -- which is a small system.  It has a fixed route fleet of 40 or 50 vehicles.  They have a nonfixed route totally integrated service.  They have great coordination and it's ADA paratransit and it's also senior service and a fixed route deviation service which are completely coordinated.  All systems use the same vehicles.  Riders call the same place to arrange rides.  All systems have the same dispatchers, the same phone number.  They all use the same drivers.  The service is really seamless, and they've had a cost savings because they don't have to have separate operating structures.  So this is an example of kind of the best model of coordination.  So it's working there and other transit agencies could do it.  I know that there is currently a project under the transit cooperative rehab -- TCRT the Transit Cooperative Research Program which is being conducted now.  I think it's just getting going which is looking at best practices in the industry in coordination.  And when they come to that research, they'll have a document that helps a transit agency know how to do this kind of coordination.  It's clearly a great thing to do, not required by the ADA, certainly not prohibited by the ADA.  One thing about it though is that when coordinated services is provided, it's important that transit agency still provide people who are due their ADA rights on the ADA service. You can't use coordination to change ADA service away from being what the ADA requires, but with that stipulation, coordination is a good thing.  And there should be increasing amounts of assistance in the area of coordination.  I think if people look at FTA and search for united we ride, there will be somebody resources they find on coordination and they may also want to check out the TCRT research project on that.   
TAJAUNA:  Okay, Marilyn, that is all the questions and comments that I have from the listeners.  So if you would like to make any final comments before we close.   
MARILYN:  Only thank you for the opportunity to do this and we look forward to working with everybody on ADA transportation, perhaps at the training that the DLRP is doing in July or maybe another context.  Thank you for coming.   
TAJAUNA:  Great.  Thank you, Marilyn.  I hope all of you listening have learned from today's Web cast.  Also note this     Web cast will be archived on ILRU's website which you can find by visiting www.ilru.org.  I would, again, like to thank our presenter, Marilyn Golden, and acknowledge the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, NIDRR, who funds your host for today's program, the Disability Law Resource Project.  I would like to thank the in-house staff at ILRU who without their efforts this Web cast would not be possible.  They include Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, Dawn Heinsohn, Vinh Nguyen and Maria del Bosque.  I would also like to thank Rob Dickehuth for his technical expertise and our realtime captioner, Marie Bryant, and I would especially like to thank the two of them for staying on a little longer than we were scheduled.  I encourage anyone with questions on the Americans with Disabilities Act to call the toll free number at 1-800-949-4232.  Finally, I would like to note that the national network of ADA and I. T. centers is requesting information related to how the ADA has affected you.  You did provide this important information by completing a short and confidential survey at www.adata.org.  If you would like more information on the transportation training sponsored by the Great Lakes, Pacific, and Southwest ADA and I. T. centers that Marilyn mentioned being held in Las Vegas, please visit our website at www.dlrp.org.  Again, thank you all for joining us and we hope you will join us again Wednesday, April 26th, at 2:00 p.m. central standard time, to listen to the Web cast presented by Jennifer Mathis on Title II and sovereign immunity.  For more about this Web cast or the see the schedule for all Web casts, visit www.ilru.org.  Again, thank you very much and we'll see you next time.  Bye-bye.