Posts about MetroAccess

MetroAccess is saddled with a poor customer service record. At a town hall meeting this past October, MetroAccess customers complained about poor treatment by drivers and call dispatchers, poor routing, long waits for pick up and drop off, and vehicle breakdowns. On a couple of occasions, clients of Iona Senior Services' Alzheimer's Day Program were dropped off at the wrong location, and it took hours to locate them. WMATA can do better than this, and taxis could help.

MetroAccess head Christian Kent has crafted a plan to fix the quality of MetroAccess service. Instead of having one vendor bid on the whole package of services, as in the previous contract, the RFP lets vendors bid separately to run the call center, the fleet services, and quality assurance.

Most jurisdictions of similar size do the same. Experts I spoke to feel that this is the best approach, especially having a different vendor handle quality assurance from the one(s) actually running the service.

But one piece of the plan does not make sense: decreasing taxi use from 20%, as specified in the old contract, to only 5%.

Research (cited at bottom) is clear that taxi paratransit services can be less costly than standard ADA paratransit:

• In 2005, Arlington County's taxi paratransit cost $20.50 per trip, versus $35 for WMATA.
  
• San Francisco's taxi paratransit costs $15-$18, versus $40 for Muni paratransit.
  
• Houston's ADA taxi service per hour is $32.10, versus $42.65 for paratransit van service.
  
• 50% of jurisdictions surveyed reported taxis saved money for transit agencies.

Beyond cost savings, there are other advantages. The taxi system has more flexibility. Taxis are there when you need them, can handle a trip without needing to know the day ahead of time, often come quickly, and force riders to wait less. They provide a safety net for peak service times, and fill in gaps in coverage. And customers like the direct, exclusive ride.

There are also challenges with using taxis. Some try to defraud the transit service. It's hard to monitor it, and drivers don't have as much training as the van services. Christian Kent cites these as reasons to decrease the amount of taxi use in the system.

Nevertheless, Arlington paratransit manager Steve Yaffe makes a strong case for taxi use. His system uses taxis to provide 50% of its paratransit service. He has demonstrated that the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.

Yaffe said,

I recognize the difficulty in finding taxi vendors with sufficient internal controls and oversight over training, maintenance and accounting. Another difficulty with using taxis for this type of service is the dearth of jurisdictional reciprocity privileges for taxis being used to transport people with disabilities. However, new business models are being developed and have been implemented elsewhere to get around these obstacles and provide the necessary level of accountability and service oversight. The Metro Access RFP should not preclude the flexibility to increase future levels of taxi participation.

DC disability advocates testified at a January hearing on taxi service, chaired by Councilmember Mary Cheh (Ward 3), about the importance of providing more wheelchair-accessible taxis and drivers with training to serve those with disabilities. When I talked to Cheh about the possibility of the MetroAccess RFP reducing the use of taxis, she acknowledged that this appears to move in the wrong direction.

Instead of defining a percentage of taxi use for the system, WMATA should include specific quality standards for taxis. This will give all the jurisdictions the flexibility to improve quality, so that taxis can provide services for Metro Access users. This could lead to lower costs and better quality. 22 senior service providers in the District signed off on this recommendation. We hope Christian Kent listens.

Research citations:
Arndt, J. & Cherrington, L. (2007). The Role of Private-For-Hire Vehicles In Transit In Texas. Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
Burkhardt, J. (2010). Potential Cost Savings from taxi paratransit programs. Institute of Transport Studies (Monash). Social Research in Transport Clearinghouse.
Burkhardt, J., Doherty, J., Rubino, J., Westat, & Yum, J. (2008). A Survey On The Use of Taxis in Paratransit Programs. Easter Seals Project Action. Retrieved from www.projectaction.org
Chapman, Koffman, Pfeiffer, & Weiner (2010). Funding the Public Transportation Needs of an Aging Population. American Public Transportation Association.

Though the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed two decades ago, taxi cabs were largely exempt from the legislation that required everything from subways to movie theaters to provide a minimum level of accessibility accommodation. While all taxi companies must accommodate those passengers with disabilities who are able to use a regular taxi, including allowing services animals, and requiring drivers to stow mobility devices like walkers and foldable wheelchairs for a customer, the ADA does not require any special accessibility features for all "sedan-type" vehicles.

In 1990, this may have made a significant impact, as the number of people with disabilities using standard, manual wheelchairs was relatively large. Over the past 20 years though, advances in various technologies have increased the availability and usability of powered wheelchairs, which, while improving mobility and independence of the people that use them, have ironically made taxi service less accessible.

As the ADA was written, taxi companies are not required to modify their vehicles to accommodate passengers in wheelchairs until the companies purchased or leased a van or an SUV for its fleet. Once a taxi operator's fleet included at least one non-sedan vehicle, though, ADA requirements for full wheelchair accessibility kick in.

Unfortunately, this has provided a strong disincentive in many places for taxi companies to have any cabs that aren't sedans, which has been the case in DC. This is where the New Freedom program helps. Under this FTA program, states and metro regions receive a designated amount of money each year to provide transportation service or accommodations "above and beyond" what the ADA requires.

Because the economics of the DC taxi market had not made having large minivan or SUV cabs financially attractive enough to also comply with ADA requirements for fully accessible services, MWCOG designated a portion of the Washington region's New Freedom money to start the rollDC program.

Under rollDC, MWCOG purchased the modified Sienna vans and solicited two private cab companies, Yellow Cab of DC and Royal Cab, to own and maintain the vehicles. Because loading and unloading a passenger in a wheelchair takes longer than other passenger pick-ups, rollDC will also pay drivers an additional $2 per trip provided to customers in wheelchairs.

This new program has the potential to provide significant, two-fold impact on DC's transportation system. First, it will greatly increase the flexibility and mobility option of the city's residents and visitors who use wheelchairs. This is by far the most important outcome.

Less crucial to the human impact, but intriguing given Metro and DC's current budget crises, rollDC increases the ability of MetroAccess to provide ADA complementary paratransit through contracts with private taxi providers instead of through its costly, standard scheduled service.

Many paratransit providers, inlucluding MetroAccess, already use taxis to provide some service, but frequently this is limited to ambulatory customers who have other types of disabilities. With the introduction of accessible taxi cabs, MetroAccess now has the option to provide rides for nearly any eligible customer through taxi service, either through a voucher program, or through direct contract.

A typical MetroAccess trip with raised-roof or cut-away van costs Metro around $40. Many trips within DC and its immediate surroundings could be easily provided by taxi for a cost savings per trip. Additionally, by instituting a voucher program, MetroAccess could potentially give customers more flexibility than the current 24-hour advance scheduling rules allow.

With only 20 vans on the street, the ability for MetroAccess to realize significant savings through taxi-provided paratransit is still relatively low, but ridership numbers from the test phase run over the last year, indicate that there will likely be demand for more vehicles. In March of this year the vans on the street provided 349 trips.

These new cabs don't benefit people with disabilities alone. The presence of more large cabs increases the viability of group rides, as well as the ability to live in the city without a car, by making it easier to make shopping trips with bulky items. rollDC will improve mobility options for thousands of DC residents and visitors, disabilities or not. And that is an unequivocally good thing.

Stuart's high school transition coordinator referred him for travel training before he graduated. Stuart lives near the Pentagon City Metro with his parents, who also rely on public transportation. Before he learned how to ride transit on his own, Stuart had few independent transportation options.

Stuart was nervous when he first started learning how to ride the bus and train. "I was mainly worried about how I could find my way," he explained. But practicing taking transit with his travel trainer, Robyn Bernardy, made all the difference. "The more I do, the more I feel independence," he said. Stuart said he is now ready to be the guide for his mother when they take the train together.

Robyn provided regular one-on-one instruction to Stuart over a two-month timeframe. She was more hands-on at first, but gradually faded into the background allowing Stuart to take the lead and to become more confident.

Stuart learned one route at a time. He now knows how to get to and from multiple locations on his own including the Kennedy Center, where he plans to apply for an internship.

The ECNV travel training program helps people with disabilities and older adults learn to travel safely and independently using public transportation in the Washington area. It teaches travel skills including:

• Identifying transportation options
  
• Reading maps and schedules
  
• Planning the trip
  
• Buying and using fare cards
  
• Identifying the appropriate bus and/or train to ride
  
• Boarding, riding, and deboarding trains and buses
  
• Crossing the street
  
• Maintaining appropriate behavior
  
• Handling unexpected situations or problems

The ECNV travel training program is free to participants, and those who complete travel training receive a free reduced-fare SmarTrip card with $50 in fare. Free travel training for those living in Maryland and DC is also being provided by Independence Now, Inc. in Silver Spring, MD and by the District of Columbia Center for Independent Living.

Of course, travel training has its limits. Travel training will not take away the environmental barriers at some transit stops and stations or along the path of travel to those stops and stations. And not everyone who starts the travel training program will be able to develop the skills necessary to travel on their own. Some people with disabilities and some older adults will continue to need to use the paratransit service for some or all of their trips.

But for those individuals, like Stuart, who can learn how to use the fixed-route bus or rail for some or all of their trips, travel training increases independence and opportunities while reducing paratransit costs. And according to Stuart, "It's a blast!"

3. Continue to charge twice the bus fare for MetroAccess trips within the ¾ mile corridor of the fixed route. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), WMATA can charge no more than twice the fixed route fare for MetroAccess trips made within the ¾ mile service area surrounding the fixed route. WMATA calls this the "base fare." Sarles proposes keeping the MetroAccess base fare policy the same as it is now. How much the MetroAccess base fare increases will depend on how much the bus fare increases.

4. For trips outside the ¾ mile area, increase each of the zone fees by $1. According to the MetroAccess Customer Guide: "Any trip that begins or ends more than ¾ of a mile from the nearest bus stop or is more than 1 ½ miles from a Metrorail station is subject to a supplemental fare, in addition to the base fare." The supplemental fare is based on 4 zones. Zone 1 is up to 3 miles from the fixed route. Zone 2 is between 3 and 6 miles. Zone 3 is between 6 and 9 miles. Zone 4 is more than 9 miles. The current zone fee is $1 per zone. Sarles proposes increasing each zone fee by $1. So, Zone 1 would increase from base fare plus $1 to base fare plus $2. Zone 2 would increase from base fare plus $2 to base fare plus $3. Etc.

Several significant changes to MetroAccess that are still being considered by WMATA were not included in Sarles' April 22 FY2011 operating budget presentation. These changes are as follows:

5. Reduce the MetroAccess service area to match the hours and times the fixed route service is available for specific trips. For example no bus service on weekends or holidays or after 7 p.m., etc. would mean no MetroAccess service.

Again, due to scheduling software limitations, MetroAccess currently only has the capability to base the ¾ mile corridors on peak period fixed route service. They don't yet have the "polygons" for midday, evening, Saturday or Sunday. In addition, this reduction in service could prove difficult to explain to the many MetroAccess customers who would be affected by it.

6. Implement conditional eligibility on July 1. Under the current eligibility process, individuals found eligible for MetroAccess are unconditionally eligible (i.e., eligible for all trips). Conditional eligibility (i.e., trip-by-trip eligibility) refers to eligibility for some trips, but not all, as the customer's ability to use fixed-route service is likely to change with differing circumstances.

While moving forward with conditional eligibility would result in significant cost savings while preserving service for those individuals who really need it, there are significant implementation issues to be addressed. WMATA staff has stated that they do not currently have the capability to implement conditional eligibility on a trip-by-trip basis, which they must have in order to meet the ADA requirements. The level of accessibility (pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, landing pads) must be known at each origin and destination to determine what trips are eligible for MetroAccess versus what trips can be taken on the fixed route. Disabilities that vary from day to day, like M.S., must also be able be taken into account.

7. Once conditional eligibility is implemented, change the free fixed route ride program so that it is only available to MetroAccess customers who are found conditionally eligible (and not available to customers who are found unconditionally eligible).

As background, the free fixed route ride program was originally implemented to encourage MetroAccess customers to use the less costly fixed route service when they are able to do so. This type of program is quite common in transit systems in the U.S. because it encourages rider behavior that will result in operational cost savings (a win-win for the rider and the transit provider).

The assumption behind this proposed change is that MetroAccess customers found unconditionally eligible (i.e., eligible for all trips) cannot ever use the fixed route. While it is reasonable to assume that someone found unconditionally eligible for MetroAccess would be unable to use the fixed route on his or her own, it is equally reasonable to assume that same person might occasionally—with the appropriate assistance of a personal care attendant, friend, or family member—be able to use the fixed route.

Because eligibility is based on the individual applicant's ability to use the fixed route alone, it is plausible that even individuals found unconditionally eligible for MetroAccess would sometimes use the less costly fixed route. It could be counter-productive for WMATA to take away the incentive (i.e., free fixed route fare) for using the less costly fixed route.

WMATA Finance & Administration Committee Chair Catherine Hudgins, who also chairs the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board's Access for All (AFA) Advisory Committee, has facilitated the Finance & Administration committee's discussion of the FY2011 operating budget. To date, that has primarily focused on fare policy as opposed to service cuts.

It is uncertain whether the WMATA Board will discuss the AFA's recommendations regarding MetroAccess, which were presented in response to Catoe's proposed FY2011 operating budget and which differ significantly from what is outlined in both Catoe's and Sarles' proposed FY2011 operating budgets.

The AFA's recommendations include no MetroAccess service cuts; instead they focus on operational strategies, the eligibility process, and fare policy to achieve cost savings. Interestingly, the AFA projects that its recommendations would result in greater MetroAccess cost savings (estimated $10+ million in cost savings) than the MetroAccess service cuts and adjustments outlined in Sarles' proposed FY2011 operating budget (estimated between $6 and $7.2 million in cost savings).

Here is my question for WMATA and the WMATA Board:

If WMATA can achieve greater cost savings on MetroAccess through improved operations, tightening the eligibility process so that the service is only available to the people who need it when they need it, and modest fare increases than it could through Catoe's and Sarles' proposed MetroAccess service cuts, why are the service cuts still on the table?

Sarles proposes rail and bus service reductions including holiday & holiday related reductions, mezzanine closings, wider bus stop spacing and targeted bus trip cuts, largely in line with the ones I found reasonable for rail and bus. The one cut in his budget I didn't recommend is closing the rail and bus system at 2 am instead of 3 on Friday and Saturday nights.

Rail cuts total $3.7 million versus $1.93 million that I recommended; the 2 am closing largely accounts for the difference. His budget contains $4.3 million in proposed bus service changes vs. $4.2 million that I recommended.

Sarles' budget includes the fare increases that Catoe recommended and does not address any of the equity issues over fares between bus and rail. He adds a 50¢ across-the-board increase in parking fees, increases in reserved parking fees, and increases in the boarding charge for express buses and special events.

He also proposes a 5¢ (one document says 10¢) charge at certain stations to fund specific capital improvements, a 25¢ surcharge for rail non-SmarTrip transactions, and a $4.00 flat fee after midnight Friday and Saturday night. These additional projected revenues come to about $13.5 million.

Many fare proposals advocates recommended to minimize ridership loss, including peak-of-the-peak fares larger than 10¢ minimizing off-peak reductions, increasing the rail-to-bus transfer discount along with bus fare increases, increasing the cash/SmarTrip differential on bus, or tailoring parking charges by lot instead of across-the-board didn't get into Sarles' proposal.

To help close the gap, he proposes to "internally borrow" $30 million in capital money to pay for preventive maintenance now paid for out of the operating budget. Instead of taking from the capital budget permanently, Sarles proposed "paying it back" over time by restoring some money to the capital budget on a quarterly basis anytime ridership growth exceeds projections and WMATA ends up with a surplus.

Previously, the Virginia and Maryland Board members strongly opposed using capital to close the operating budget gap. We'll find out today if that resolve still holds, especially given Maryland's recent decisions to defer some of its capital contributions.

Additional jurisdictional subsidies would total about $26 million. DC would have to pay $11.9 million, Maryland $13.9, Alexandria $200,000, Fairfax County $300,000, Falls Church $100,000, Fairfax City nothing, and Arlington would actually see its subsidy reduced by $500,000.

Sarles also proposes to utilize bus line restructuring proposals that include the E6/M4, N2/4/6/8, H2/3/6, Hyattsville area, Greenbelt area and the 7A/B/C/F/X/W and 16F/H/W & 13A/B restructuring to pay improved running times on various lines, additional bus priority corridor measures and other bus transit enhancements. He pays for safety improvements through some across-the-board departmental reductions.

Sarles modifies Catoe's MetroAccess proposals by grandfathering in current participants who live beyond the ¾-mile service area and charging them a higher fare. The base MetroAccess fare would remain at twice the bus fare rather than twice the rail or rail and bus fare for longer trips that include rail for fixed-route riders.

In total, the proposal looks much better than the original budget gap closing measures proposed by former General Manager John Catoe. However, there are still some items that shouldn't be included and perhaps a few that should but aren't. Today, Board members will likely discuss the equity issues between modes and the way the fares and cuts fall unevenly on various jurisdictions.

Increase taxi usage for MetroAccess trips by 10 to 20 percent. Transit authorities in cities across the U.S. (including DC, New York, San Francisco, and Houston) are contracting out portions of their paratransit service to taxi service providers. This is an increasingly common practice due to the cost savings that can be achieved, specifically for those single rider trips that cannot be scheduled with additional riders. AFA contends that increasing the taxi usage for MetroAccess trips by 10 to 20 percent could save the authority between $3.8 and $7.7 million annually.

Self-insure the MetroAccess fleet. While it would force WMATA to get a firm grasp on hiring, training, supervision, retraining, and preventative maintenance, self-insuring the MetroAccess fleet would also result in significant savings (approximately $2 million annually).

Reduce presumptive eligibility and add conditional eligibility. Once a person's application for MetroAccess is complete, the ADA regulations allow WMATA 21 days to make a determination regarding that person's eligibility. Once the 21-day period passes, the person is given "presumptive eligibility" until the determination is made.

The AFA letter alludes to the number of paratransit applications that are not being reviewed and decided upon within 21 days and, consequently, the number of applicants who are being given presumptive eligibility as a result. Reducing the number of people being given presumptive eligibility (especially for those individuals who are later found ineligible) would also result in meaningful cost savings.

If a person is currently found eligible for MetroAccess, they are found unconditionally eligible, which allows MetroAccess use for all trips. The ADA allows for conditional eligibility, which applies only to certain trips which the individual's disability prevents making using the fixed-route system. Changing to conditional eligibility could result in savings of between $3 and $5 million annually.

Increase MetroAccess fares. According to ADA regulations, the MetroAccess fare for the MetroAccess service area within ¾-mile of the fixed route cannot exceed twice the amount of the fixed route fare. The service area beyond ¾-mile does not fall under this specific regulation, and WMATA has proposed increasing them up to 300-400%.

However, fares outside the ¾-mile beyond the fixed route should not be increased to the point where they become cost-prohibitive for most riders, as would be the case if they were increased by 300 to 400 percent. A more modest increase would be appropriate.

In addition to AFA's recommendations, there are a couple of operational decisions that WMATA could make that would also increase the cost-effectiveness of MetroAccess.

Group riders together. Just as is the case with the fixed route, the more people you have on a vehicle, the more cost-effective the service. Thus, from an operational perspective, one of the best ways to get paratransit costs down is to combine more trips on a single vehicle. Riders going in the same direction at the same time would ride together.

Most MetroAccess rides are call-ins and the ride times may vary somewhat. An alternative is to encourage regular riders to request and accept subscription service. Subscription service is intended for regularly scheduled trips, such as daily trips to work, regularly scheduled trips to adult day programs or senior centers, etc.

MetroAccess could choose to offer subscription trips at times that enable rides to be grouped on the same vehicle. These subscription trips would be predictable, using the same route, same driver, and same pickup locations each day, with pickup and drop-off times based on well thought-out scheduling.

Of course, MetroAccess already groups multiple riders together on the same vehicle. However, WMATA can do even more to increase MetroAccess efficiency through increased subscription service and grouped trips. At the same time, MetroAccess should focus taxi usage on trips that cannot be grouped or "sandwiched" between groups on MetroAccess vehicles.

Create zones and require transfers. Can you imagine a one-seat transit ride from Fairfax City to Rockville? On the fixed route, you would need to take the CUE bus to the Vienna Metro station, transfer to the Orange Line, then transfer to the red line at Metro Center to Rockville. On MetroAccess, no transfer is required. Yet ADA complementary paratransit service is intended to complement (i.e., be comparable to) the fixed route service.

Much like carpooling, paratransit trips are easier to group together when they are relatively short trips. If you wanted to carpool from Arlington to DC, it probably wouldn't be difficult to find a carpooling opportunity (though, of course, transit would probably still be a better option!). However, if you wanted to carpool from Arlington to College Park or Arlington to Frederick, it might be more difficult to find a carpooling opportunity.

A strategy for creating shorter paratransit trips that are easier to group together is to create zones and only promise one-seat rides within zones. The original DC diamond (DC and Arlington) could be one zone. The rest of the service area in Virginia could be another zone. And due to the large service area in Maryland, it might be necessary to somehow divide Prince George's County and Montgomery County into two additional zones. MetroAccess riders traveling to and from zones outside the diamond might have to transfer from one MetroAccess vehicle to another at safe, lighted locations.

The fare structure would be kept as simple as possible, perhaps with just two fare levels. With a zone system, reservations could remain a centralized function; however, scheduling would occur by zone and would require communication between scheduling offices.

In addition to allowing for more grouped trips, this type of zone system would have additional operational benefits. It would be much easier for drivers to learn one zone than it currently is for them to learn the entire service area of DC, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Alexandria, City of Falls Church, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County. This would make it easier for paratransit drivers to do their jobs and to feel truly successful, increasing on-time performance and morale while decreasing staff turnover.

Of these ideas, the zone system would likely be the most controversial among the disability community and is not presently endorsed by AFA. However, it certainly appears to be less harmful than cutting back the service area to ¾-mile around the fixed route. And it could significantly improve operations and the cost-effectiveness of the service.

The closing paragraph of the AFA's April 7th letter to the WMATA Board states:

MetroAccess costs should be put in context of the benefits of helping the region's most vulnerable populations. Growth in the number of MetroAccess trips means more people with disabilities are working, getting medical care, and experiencing freedom and mobility they would otherwise not have.

WMATA can save the same amount of money (or perhaps more) on MetroAccess through operational improvements than they could by cutting back the service area to the minimum requirement of ¾-mile around the fixed route. Cutting back the service area to the minimum requirement of ¾ mile around the fixed route would leave people with disabilities with no transportation options.

Therefore, the WMATA Board should give serious consideration to the recommendations of AFA and to the other suggestions offered by transit planners and the disability community that will best preserve mobility for people with disabilities while reducing paratransit costs. Doing so will result in a win-win for WMATA, the disability community, and the Washington metropolitan region.

What is ADA complementary paratransit?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires public transit agencies that provide fixed-route service to provide "complementary paratransit" services to people with disabilities who cannot use the fixed-route bus or rail service because of a disability. The ADA regulations specifically define a population of customers who are entitled to this service as a civil right. The regulations also define minimum service characteristics that must be met for this service to be considered equivalent to the fixed-route service it is intended to complement.

Service characteristics: In general, ADA complementary paratransit service must be provided within ¾ of a mile of a bus route or rail station, at the same hours and days, for no more than twice the regular fixed route fare.

What are the three categories of eligibility for ADA complementary paratransit?

Category 1: People who can't navigate travel on the bus or train, even if it's accessible, because of a disability

This category includes people who are unable, due to a mental or physical impairment (including a vision impairment), to board, ride, or disembark from an accessible bus or train without assistance. For example:

• People with cognitive disabilities, if they do not know where to get off the bus or how to go to their destination from the bus stop

• People who are blind or who have low vision, if they don't have the travel skills needed to navigate the route to their destination.

• A person with a visual impairment that allows him/her to see well enough to travel independently during the daytime but not at night.

Category 2: People who need an accessible bus or train.

This category includes people who use wheelchairs and other people with disabilities who can use an accessible vehicle but who want to travel on a route that is still inaccessible (not served by accessible buses or accessible trains and key rail stations).

Category 3: People who have a specific disability-related condition

This category includes people who have a specific disability-related condition that prevents them from traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location. Environmental barriers (distance, terrain, weather) or architectural barriers not under control of the transit agency (such as lack of curb ramps) that prevent an individual from traveling to or from the boarding or disembarking locations may form the basis for eligibility. For example:

• A person who uses a wheelchair may be able to negotiate a trip to the bus stop up a moderately sloped hill on a summer day, but not in the winter after a heavy snowfall.

• A person may be eligible if architectural barriers present safety hazards on the only route to the train station or bus stop.

• A person who walks with a cane and would need to travel 3/4 mile to the bus route, but she cannot walk that great a distance.

• People with disabilities that affect them very differently over time, such as multiple sclerosis. During some periods, they are able to go to the bus stop or train station. During other periods, they are not able to do so.

All three categories include people who may be able to ride fixed-route transit for some, but not all of their trips.

What is conditional eligibility?

In terms of ADA complementary paratransit, conditional eligibility (also known as trip-by-trip eligibility) refers to paratransit eligibility for some trips, but not all, as the customer's ability to use fixed-route service is likely to change with differing circumstances. Conditional eligibility may be appropriate for individuals who can reasonably be expected to use fixed route service for some trips (when barriers that prevent travel are not present), but who cannot be expected to use fixed route service under other conditions. A few examples of barriers and conditions that may prevent an individual's use of fixed route service include:

• Weather conditions may prevent use of fixed route service by someone with a temperature sensitivity.
  
• A person who is able to navigate the fixed route system for some trips. (See note below on travel training.)
  
• A person with a variable condition (for example, multiple sclerosis, HIV disease, or the need for kidney dialysis) may be unable to ride fixed route service depending upon their condition at the time of the trip.
  
• Barriers in the environment (such as lack of a sidewalk or curb cuts) that prevent a person from getting to or from a bus stop, or from using the bus stop (if a lift cannot be deployed at the bus stop because it lacks a 5' by 8' landing area, for example) would prevent use of fixed-route service for that trip.

Travel Training: Many people who cannot negotiate the entire fixed route system can be travel trained for certain trips. Typically, training is provided for trips that the person makes frequently, such as to work or school. These individuals would only be ADA paratransit eligible for trips they have not been trained to make on fixed route. As part of the application and determination process, it should be determined if such training has been provided. Individuals cannot, however, be required to participate in travel training. The public entity may choose to offer training and may encourage individuals to take advantage of this service. Until the individual takes advantage of this service and is adequately trained, paratransit service must be provided.

Can a person with a disability who lives outside of the designated ADA complementary paratransit service area apply for ADA paratransit eligibility?

Yes. Individuals who live outside of the ADA complementary paratransit service area, or even outside of the transit agency's jurisdiction, can still apply for ADA paratransit eligibility. Their applications should be accepted and considered. This includes persons visiting from other transit districts as well as persons who live just beyond the borders of the transit agency or in other areas where no public transit service is provided. These persons may be able to get to the ADA paratransit service area on their own and would then be able to ask for paratransit service.