Prepared by

Access to the Arts (A2A)
304 Kenwood Drive
Louisville, KY 40214

For

Project ACTION
700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005

347-3066 or 1-800-659-6428
E-mail: Project_Action@nessdc.org
www.projectaction.org

Assistance derived from the Federal Transit Act, as amended, through a Cooperation Agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Project ACTION of the National Easter Seal Society.

Page

Abstract ii

CHAPTER I.    1

INTRODUCTION    1
Statement of the Problem    1
Rationale for Study    1

CHAPTER II. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 3
Subjects 3
Response Rate 4
Preliminary Data Analysis 6

CHAPTER III PRELIMINARY RESEARCH FINDINGS 7   
Description of Subjects 7
Research Findings    12
Comments Section 23
Summary 25

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 27
Status of Transit Accessibility 27
Final Report 33

References

Appendix A Questionnaire

Appendix B Publication Consumer Responses by State

Appendix C Transit Personnel and Consumer Comments

ATTITUDES OF TRANSIT PERSONNEL
AND PUBLIC TRANSIT CONSUMERS
TOWARDS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
ACCESSIBILITY

 
PRELIMINARY STUDY RESULTS
 
Prepared for
Project ACTION
WASHINGTON, DC
 
BY
ACCESS TO THE ARTS (A2A)
 
APRIL 1994

Accessible public transportation was mandated by federal legislation in the 1970's. Yet, transit accessibility remains an issue of concern in the 1990's. The transit provider's attitude toward people with disabilities and laws that mandate accessibility may significantly affect the implementation and availability of services which provide equal access to people with disabilities. Further, people with disabilities who have negative attitudes toward public transportation; e.g., "the lift on the bus never works," will not utilize services and this increases the demand for costly paratransit services. This research investigated the attitudes held by transit personnel and public transit consumers toward accessible public transportation.

The legislative history of Public Law 101-336, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, reveals that people with disabilities continuously confront attitudinal barriers and discriminatory behavior when using public transportation. Although there is a tremendous amount of research on attitudes toward people with disabilities, research that examines the attitudes held by transit personnel and by public transit consumers, and the resulting effect(s) on the accessibility of public transit services is limited.

Despite the demands placed on transit providers by the nation's growth and the need to meet environmental, energy, and mobility objectives, research that could assist the transit industry in developing innovative near-term solutions to meet these needs is limited (TR News, 1992). In January 1993, the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to identify a methodology for transit managers and planners to utilize in the design and evaluation of integrated transit services that (1) provide accessible ADA fixed-route service; (2) encourage appropriate use of comparable paratransit service; and (3) provide methods for encouraging people with disabilities to use fixed-route rather than paratransit services (TRCP Project B-1, FY'92). However, that research proposal does not include an assessment of the impact of attitudes on the development and implementation of integrated, accessible public transit services.

Examining the attitudes of transit personnel toward people with disabilities and accessible service delivery, and the attitudes of public transit consumers toward public transit services will provide new information about the nature of attitudes held toward accessible transportation services. Recommendations are discussed which may encourage transit providers to take an objective and holistic look at past practices, policies and procedures to ensure that actions which exclude people with disabilities are not being imposed. Failure to do so will result in serious legal implications for the transit provider; and people with disabilities will continue to be isolated and segregated (ADA, Public Law 101-336).

The ADA requires full accessibility to public transportation services for people with disabilities. Therefore, transit services must be restructured to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities. Entities responsible for the equipment and technology necessary to accommodate the travel needs of people with disabilities, are marketing ADA-accessible equipment, while transit authorities continue to protest 1979-issues: the costs, distribution of benefits, workability of technology and use of paratransit services. Examining the attitudes of transit personnel and people with disabilities may encourage the attitude adjustment that is mandated by the ADA.

(1) the attitudes of transit personnel toward people with disabilities; (2) the attitudes of transit personnel toward accessible service delivery; (3) the attitudes of public transit consumers toward accessible service delivery, and (4) how some of the service delivery concerns of the transit personnel compare to those of public transit consumers. The following analysis is based upon all surveys received by January 31, 1994 and the responses of coach operators, customer service representatives and consumers who use public transportation. Subsequent reports will include data from all completed and returned surveys.

For purposes of confidentiality and anonymity, the actual names of the participants are not used. The sample consisted of 1,245 randomly selected transit personnel and 250 randomly selected consumers. Sources for selection of the transit sample population were identified based on convenience, availability, national recognition as role models for "accessibility," and the researcher's knowledge and experience in the transit industry as well as involvement in disability and accessibility transit issues. The participants provided a representative sample of the target populations and the job responsibilities of the transit sample can be considered typical of the transit industry.

The transit sample was obtained by a simple random sample of the personnel of six (6) transit providers located in the eastern and western portions of the United States. The participating transit systems are identified in this study as System K-1, System K-2, System K-3 (Eastern Transit Personnel) and, System O, System C and System W (Western Transit Personnel). The transit personnel of a private provider (Eastern) is also included in the sample and is identified as System I.

The questionnaire was mailed directly to the randomly selected participants of System K-1 (438), System K-2 (100), System K-3 (48), System O (172) and System I (35). System C (100) and System W (352) distributed the questionnaire to randomly selected personnel in their respective systems and conducted the nonrespondent follow-up.

The consumer sample was obtained by a selected sample of the selected providers' consumer advisory committees, paratransit users and consumer mailing lists (50 participants from each of the transit providers). System K-2, System K-3 and System I reported that they did not have a consumer advisory committee, available data on the paratransit users nor a consumer mailing list. As a result, sample participants from the consumer populations of System K-2, System K-3, and System I were not available. Therefore, an additional fifty (50) consumers were randomly selected from System K-1 (100). The survey was published in a national magazine on disability and accessibility issues and a selected sample of 132 additional consumers was obtained.

The surveys were administered during December 1993 and January 1994 to the transit systems and consumer groups. The selected sample was obtained during the same period. Table 1 provides the total number of surveys mailed, the reasons some surveys were eliminated and the remaining success rate for completed and returned surveys.

Response Rate Table

Surveys mailed to the selected transit personnel and consumers (107) were returned unanswered indicating a refusal to participate. An additional 123 surveys were returned to the researcher for insufficient or incorrect addresses. Eliminating the unusable surveys results in a response rate of fifty-one percent for completed and returned surveys.

Table 2 demonstrates the response rate by transit provider. Surveys were mailed to seven transit systems, comprised of three mid-size urbanized areas, one rural area and three large urbanized areas. The mid-sized and rural systems completed and returned 181 surveys, a

Return Rate for Transit Personnel (N = 510)

response rate of twenty-nine percent. System K-1 had the largest number of returned surveys (125) of the mid-sized systems, a response rate of twenty-nine percent. The three large urbanized areas completed and returned 329 surveys, a response rate of fifty-three percent. System W had the largest number of completed and returned surveys (208) of the large urbanized areas, a response rate of fifty-nine percent. The low response rates for some of the sites reflected in Table 2, calls into question the representativeness of those samples. However, one can argue that the large sample size from different areas provides one with a fairly sound profile of the views of the transit personnel.

The literature did not reveal any research that focused specifically on the attitudes of transit personnel toward people with disabilities nor on the attitudes of public transit consumers toward public transportation. Consequently, an examination of the attitudes of transit personnel towards people with disabilities and the attitudes of consumers towards public transit may reveal important components of accessibility.

In this initial analysis of the data, only coach operators (N = 373) and customer service representatives (N = 47) are included in the transit personnel sample, therefore, of the 510 completed and returned transit personnel surveys, only 420 were used in this study. Only consumers who use public transportation are included in the consumer sample, therefore, of the 262 completed and returned consumer surveys, only 107 are used in this preliminary report.

The transit personnel held the positions of coach operator and customer service representative. A coach operator is an employee of a transit system, such as bus driver, whose workday is spent in the operation of a transit vehicle or train. A customer service representative is an employee of a transit system whose workday is spent providing bus route and schedule information, community service referrals and documenting consumer complaints. These positions usually represent first line contact between the consumer and the transit provider.

The survey was published in a national magazine on disability and accessibility issues and a selected sample of 132 additional consumers was obtained. Only the consumers who responded that they used public transportation are included in the consumer sample and are identified as public transit consumers. This sample of consumers is not representative of all public transit users.

The initial data analysis includes a population consisting of two groups: transit personnel and public transit consumers. The transit systems were selected based on convenience, accessibility and availability to the researcher, national recognition as role models for "accessibility," and the researcher's knowledge and experience in the transit industry as well as involvement in disability and accessibility issues (transit). Of the 1,495 possible participants, 510 transit personnel and 130 consumers completed and returned the questionnaire. This was a return rate of forty-three percent. A selected consumer sample (132) was obtained by publishing the survey instrument in a national magazine on disability and accessibility issues. Only coach operators (N = 373) and customer service representatives (N = 47) were included in the transit personnel sample, therefore, of the 510 completed and returned transit personnel surveys, only 420 were used in this study. Only consumers who use public transportation were included in the consumer sample, therefore, of the 262 completed and returned consumer surveys, only 107 were used in this study.

Table 3 provides a demographic profile of the transit customer service representatives that are included in the transit personnel sample. More than seventy percent of the coach operators were males, and thirty percent were between the ages of 50-64 years. Forty-seven percent of the coach operators had some college or vocational training. Sixty-two percent of the customer service representatives were females, and twenty-eight percent were between the ages of 35-39. Fifty-three percent of the customer service representatives had some college or vocational training.

In regard to personal contact with disability, Table 4 reveals that ten percent of the coach operators and twenty-three percent of the customer service representatives reported that they have a disability: four percent of the coach operators have a disability that requires a mobility aid and nine percent of the customer service representatives have a disability that requires a mobility aid. More than fifty percent of both the coach operators and the customer service representatives indicated that they have a friend with a disability. In this regard, more than fifty percent of the participants

(n = 620) in a study conducted by Harris and Associates (1991) also reported having a friend with a disability.

Demographics of Coach Operators (N = 373) and

Customer Service Representatives (N = 47)

Transit Personnel's Personal Contact with Disability

Duties and responsibilities of the respondents are considered representative of transit personnel across the nation. Demographic information on the groups also demonstrated the expected range of age, education and years of transit experience. In view of the random selection, the respondents are considered representative of the people in the targeted job positions (Krathwohl, 1993).

The consumer sample was obtained from a selected sample of the transit system's consumer advisory committee, paratransit users and consumer mailing lists, and consumers responding to the publication of the survey in a magazine on disability and accessibility issues. Of the 250 surveys mailed to selected consumers, 130 were completed and returned for a response rate of fifty-two percent. The publication sample of consumers (3,000 magazine subscribers) completed and returned 132 surveys, which represents four percent of the magazine's subscribers.

Table 5 provides the consumer response rate from each target area and the publication. The publication consumer surveys are from 30 states in the United States (Appendix B). Consumers from the large urbanized areas (n = 150) provided the largest number of completed and returned surveys (71), demonstrating a response rate of forty-seven percent. System W's consumers (50) provided the largest number of completed and returned surveys (33), representing a sixty-six percent response rate. For purposes of this study, only the consumers who used public transportation are included in the consumer sample. A total of 107 consumer participants responded that they use public transportation daily, frequently or occasionally. This group is a nonrandom sample, therefore, they are not representative of public transit consumers. However, they do provide a snapshot of views held by public transit consumers from the sites selected in this study as well as from other regions.

Return Rate for Consumer Respondents

Demographics of Public Transit Consumers (N = 107)

Table 6 provides a demographic profile of the public transit consumers. Sixty-three percent of the consumer respondents were females and thirty-two percent were between the ages of 45-49. Almost forty percent of the consumer respondents held a graduate degree. Seventy-nine percent of the consumers had a disability. In addition, ninety-one percent of the consumers also had friend with a disability. Less than twenty-five percent of the consumers have ever served on a transit advisory committee.

The attitudes of the transit personnel are examined according to attitudes toward people with disabilities, understanding of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and attitudes toward the capabilities of people with disabilities in the workforce.

A study conducted by Harris and Associates (1991) revealed that people stated that the disabilities of others frighten them and people look differently at people with disabilities. The study also found that seventeen percent of the general public stated that they would be uncomfortable sitting next to a seriously disabled person on the bus. In order to answer Research Question 1, the coach operators and the customer service representatives were asked to respond to statements about personal perceptions of people with disabilities.

Table 7 shows that fifty percent of the coach operators (n = 188) strongly disagreed with the statement that they are frightened by people with disabilities. However, more than five percent of the coach operators responded that they are uncomfortable around people with disabilities. Twenty-three percent also slightly agreed with the statement that people with disabilities are angry because they are disabled. Thirty-one percent of the coach operators (n = 116) disagreed with the statement that needs of people with disabilities are above and beyond the needs of the nondisabled individual. Forty eight percent of the coach operators (n = 179) strongly agreed with the statement that public places should be accessible to people with disabilities.

Attitudes of Coach Operators (N = 373) Toward People with Disabilities by Percent

Table 8 shows that more than sixty-three percent of the customer service representatives also strongly disagreed with the statement "people with disabilities scare me." Six percent of the customer service representatives (n = 3) responded that they are uncomfortable around people with disabilities. Forty-three percent of the customer service representatives disagreed with the statement that people with disabilities are angry because they are disabled. More than ten percent of the customer service representatives (n = 5) strongly disagreed with the statement that public places should be accessible to people with disabilities. Seventeen percent of the customer service representatives (n = 8) strongly agreed with the statement that needs of people with disabilities are above and beyond the needs of the nondisabled individual.

Attitudes of Customer Service Representatives (N = 47)

Toward People with Disabilities by Percent

Harris and Associates (1991) found that forty-nine percent of the general public (n = 620) believed that people with disabilities face discrimination in equal access to public transportation. The ADA prohibits public and private entities that provide transportation to the general public from discriminating against people with disabilities. In addition to its anti-discrimination mandates, the ADA also dictates the essential functions of the coach operator and customer service representative job positions. In order to examine the understanding of the ADA, the transit personnel were asked to respond statements about the ADA.

Table 9 displays the coach operators' responses to statements about the ADA. Although the ADA identifies people with disabilities as one of the largest minority populations (43 million people), twenty percent of the coach operators (n = 104)) responded that people with disabilities represent less than ten percent of the population. Forty-two percent of the coach operators (n = 155) disagreed with the statement that "there is no significant discrimination against people with disabilities." Fifty-one percent of the coach operators (n = 189) agreed that the ADA is civil rights legislation that protects the rights of people with disabilities. Forty-five percent of the coach operators (n = 167) responded that the ADA was needed because people with disabilities do not have excellent programs available to them.

In regard to costs, forty-one percent of the coach operators (n =151) disagreed with the statement that too much public money is spent to accommodate people with disabilities. More than thirty-five percent of the coach operators agreed that society will benefit from making housing, jobs and transportation more accessible to people with disabilities.

Coach Operators' Understanding of the ADA by Percent

Table 10 displays the customer service representatives' understanding of the ADA. Thirteen percent of the customer service representatives (n = 6) also responded that people with disabilities represent less than ten percent of the population. Thirty-six percent of the customer service representatives (n = 17) disagreed with the statement that "there is no significant discrimination against people with disabilities;" twenty-eight percent strongly disagreed. Fifty-one percent of the customer service representatives agreed that the ADA is civil rights legislation that protects the rights of people with disabilities. Forty-three percent of the customer service representatives (n = 20) strongly disagreed with the statement that the ADA was not needed because people with disabilities have excellent programs available to them.

Customer Service Representatives' Understanding of the ADA by Percent

In regard to costs, thirty-two percent of the customer service representatives (n = 15) strongly disagreed with the statement that "too much public money is spent to accommodate people with disabilities;" however, twenty-one percent did agree with the statement. Forty-nine percent of the customer service representatives (n = 23) agreed that society will benefit from making housing, jobs and transportation more accessible to people with disabilities.

The data indicate that the transit personnel are knowledgeable about the ADA and are familiar with its role as civil rights legislation for people with disabilities.

Studies reveal an unemployment rate of fifty to seventy-five percent for disabled people. This reinforces the perception that people with disabilities are dependent, non-contributing members of society (Harris, 1986). In order to assess the transit personnel's perceptions of the capabilities of people with disabilities in the workforce, the participants were asked to respond to statements about the employment of people with disabilities (not shown in table form).

Forty-four percent of the coach operators (n = 163) responded that people with disabilities are an economic resource and forty-two percent agreed that people with disabilities are an untapped labor force (n = 156). However, seven percent of the coach operators disagreed. Forty-three percent of the coach operators (n = 162) agreed that employers often associate disability with inability to do the job. Forty-one percent of the coach operators (n = 152) disagreed with the statement that people with disabilities are the only segment of the workforce that requires accommodations. On the other hand, more than twenty-one percent of the coach operators (n = 80) slightly agreed with the statement that it costs too much money to adapt the work environment for people with disabilities.

Thirty-six percent of the customer service representatives (n = 17) agreed with the statement that people with disabilities represent an economic resource. Six percent of the customer service representatives responded that people with disabilities do not represent an untapped labor force. Forty-three percent of the customer service representatives (n = 162) agreed with the statement that "employers often associate people with physical disabilities with an inability to do the job," and thirty percent strongly disagreed that "people with disabilities are the only segment of the workforce that requires accommodation." Sixty-eight percent of the customer service representatives disagreed with the statement that it costs too much to adapt the work environment to meet the needs of people with disabilities.

The customer service representative is familiar with transit operations based on the system's written operational policies and procedures. The coach operator is the expert in the actual operating aspects of accessible transit equipment and services. In order to answer Research Question 2, the coach operators and the customer service representatives were asked to respond to statements about public transportation for people with disabilities (not shown in table form). Thirty-eight percent of the coach operators (n = 141) responded that the transportation needed by people with disabilities is not provided by social service agencies. Thirty-nine percent of the coach operators (n = 145) strongly agreed that access to public transit is a civil right, and thirty-five percent disagreed with the statement that it costs too much to make public transit services accessible.

The ADA requires that the coach operator provide assistance to people with visual disabilities by announcing stops along the route; however, Table 11 reveals that nine percent of the coach operators (n = 34) responded that announcing stops along the route is not necessary. The ADA also requires that the operator assist the passenger in boarding and deboarding the vehicle and in securing the wheelchair while on the coach; eighty-four percent of the coach operators (n = 312) reported that boarding and securing a wheelchair delay the bus. Forty-five percent of the coach operators (n = 169) disagreed with the statement that a wheelchair user's inability to board the bus is usually caused by the disability.

Fifty-one percent of the customer service representatives (n = 24) strongly disagreed with the statement that "there is no need for bus drivers to announce stops along the route." Customer service representatives do not operate accessible transit equipment; therefore, only seventy percent agreed with the statement that boarding and securing the wheelchair delay the bus; thirty percent only slightly agreed. Forty percent of the customer service representatives disagreed with the statement that a wheelchair user's inability to board the bus is usually caused by the disability.

The ADA requires that transit agencies provide equipment that is accessible and usable by people with disabilities; therefore, wheelchairs lifts must be operational and properly maintained at all at all times. Table 12 displays the coach operators' and the customer service representatives' responses to statements about accessible transit equipment. Forty-three percent of the coach operators (n = 159) agreed with the statement that accessible transit equipment is unreliable, while forty-nine percent disagreed. However, in response to the statement that accessible transit equipment is poorly maintained by transit providers, seventy percent of the coach operators (n = 262) disagreed. In regard to accessible fixed route services v. paratransit services, sixty-seven percent of the coach operators (n = 248) agreed that transit services for people with disabilities should be provided using small buses and lift-equipped vans.

Attitudes of Transit Personnel Toward Passenger Assistance

Coach Operators (N = 373) by Percent

Customer Service Representatives (N = 47) by Percent

Forty-nine percent of the customer service representatives (n = 23) agreed with the statement that "accessible transit equipment is not reliable in most cities." Twenty-one percent of the customer service representatives believed that accessible transit equipment is properly maintained. In regard to accessible fixed route service v. paratransit services, sixty-eight percent of the customer service representatives (n = 32) agreed that transit services for people with disabilities should be provided using small buses and lift-equipped vans.

In view of the ADA requirements that transit agencies provide boarding and securing assistance, announce stops along the route to assist passengers with visual disabilities, provide equipment that is accessible and usable by people with disabilities, and ensure that wheelchairs lifts are operational and properly maintained at all times, the consumers were asked to respond to statements about public transportation and accessible service delivery (Research Question 3). Seventy-nine percent of the public transit consumers (n = 85) strongly disagreed with the statement that social service agencies provide the transportation that is needed by people with disabilities. More than ninety-five percent of all consumers (n = 102) agreed that access to public transportation is a civil right, and fifty-one percent strongly disagreed (n = 55) with the statement that transit accessibility is costly (not shown in table form).

Attitudes of Transit Personnel Toward Accessible Service Delivery

Coach Operators (N = 373) by Percent

Customer Service Representatives (N = 47) by Percent

Table 13 displays the consumers' responses to statements regarding passenger assistance. Sixty-three percent of the public transit consumers (n = 67) strongly disagreed with the statement that announcing major stops along the bus route is not necessary. While fifty percent of the consumers (n = 53) agreed with the statement that boarding and securing the wheelchair delays the bus, thirty-one percent only slightly agreed (n = 33). Fifty-seven percent of the consumers (n = 61) strongly disagreed with the statement that a wheelchair user's inability to board the bus is usually caused by the disability.

Attitudes of Consumers' (N = 107) Toward Passenger Assistance

Accessible transit equipment has a history of a high incidence of lift breakdowns caused by malfunctioning of poorly designed first generation lifts. The breakdowns were usually the result of systems that had a less than adequate commitment to carrying out systematic and comprehensive lift maintenance programs (Project ACTION, 1989).

Attitudes of Consumers (N = 107) Toward Accessible Service Delivery

As shown in Table 14, more than seventy-five percent of the consumers (n = 80) responded that accessible transit equipment is unreliable in most cities. In regard to fixed route v. paratransit services, the disability rights movement began with demonstrations by wheelchair users who were advocating for equal access to fixed route coaches. The advocates contended that services were discriminatory, e.g., separate but equal services. However, fifty percent of the consumers agreed (n = 53) with the statement that transit services for people with disabilities should be provided using small buses and lift-equipped vans; i.e., paratransit services. However, sixteen percent of the consumers (n = 17) only slightly agreed with the preference for paratransit services rather than fixed-route services.

The literature reveals that accessibility has revolved around issues of cost, technology, distribution of benefits and the use of paratransit services. In order to answer Research Question 4, the transit personnel's (coach operators and customer service representatives) and the consumers' responses to statements about public transit services were compared (not shown in table form). The statements to which the participants responded most favorably (high percentages) focused on the ADA, civil rights and public accommodations. Sixty-seven percent of the consumers (n = 72) strongly agreed that access to public transportation is a civil right compared to fifty-one percent of the customer representatives (n = 24) and thirty-nine percent of the coach operators (n = 145), who also strongly agreed. In regard to the costs of accessibility, fifty-one percent of the consumers (n = 55) strongly disagreed with the statement that accessible public transportation is costly, compared to forty-one percent of the coach operators (n = 153) and thirty-four percent of the customer service representatives (n = 16), who also disagreed.

In response to statements regarding passenger assistance and accessible service delivery, sixty-three percent of the consumers (n = 67) strongly disagreed with the statement that there is no need for bus drivers to announce stops along the route. Fifty-one percent of the customer service representatives (n = 24) also strongly disagreed, compared to twenty-one percent of the coach operators (n = 79), who strongly disagreed with the statement. Eighty-four percent of the coach operators (n = 312) agreed that boarding and securing the wheelchair delay the bus, while fifty percent of the consumers (n = 53) disagreed. Seventy percent of the customer service representatives (n = 33) also agreed that boarding and securing the wheelchair delay the bus. Sixty-seven percent of the coach operators (n = 248) agreed that transit services for people with disabilities should be provided using small buses and vans; twenty-one percent strongly agreed. Sixty-eight percent of the custom service representatives agreed with the coach operators. Although paratransit transit services are considered "separate but equal services," fifty percent of the consumers (n = 53) also agreed that paratransit services should be provided, eighteen percent strongly agreed.

In regard to accessible transit equipment, thirty-four percent of the consumers (n = 36) agreed that accessible transit equipment is unreliable. Seventy percent of the consumers (n = 81) also agreed that accessible transit equipment is poorly maintained. Forty-nine percent of the coach operators (n = 182) disagreed with the statement that accessible transit equipment is not reliable in most cities, and forty-three percent of the customer service representatives (n = 20) also disagreed. Seventy percent of the coach operators (n = 262) disagreed with the statement that accessible equipment is poorly maintained by transit providers, compared to sixty-two percent of the customer service representatives (n = 29) who also disagreed. Fifty-seven percent of the consumers strongly disagreed with the statement that a wheelchair user's inability to board the bus is caused by the disability, compared to more than forty percent of the coach operators (n = 169) and customer service representatives (n = 19) who also disagreed.

A comments section was provided on the survey to allow the respondents an opportunity to express opinions about public transit accessibility and the survey. There were 61 attitude comments from transit personnel which were favorable and accepting of people with disabilities, and/or that are considered positive. The transit personnel comments included statements such as: "handicapped people are cooperative," "like working with handicapped people" and "like having facilities for the handicapped." More than ten percent of the personnel took this opportunity to reiterate previous responses to the issues of service delivery (29 respondents): "Equipment needs to be kept better;" "Maintenance staff need more training;" "Replace old buses with accessible ones." Comments were also offered regarding providing assistance to people with disabilities in using public transportation.

Seven less favorable and unaccepting comments about people with disabilities are almost evenly divided into three categories: Attitudes: "Handicapped people have negative attitudes." "Resent acting as a nurse or assistant." Service: "Calling out stops is annoying." "Serving the handicapped delays others." "Drivers pass by the unescorted blind." Cost: "Handicapped service/equipment is a waste of money." "Transit should not depend on federal funds."

Although the consumers offered favorable and accepting comments about public transportation (23 additional comments were offered by consumers), many of the comments were unfavorable and unaccepting of public transportation and focused on service delivery. The transit personnel's and the consumers' comments are contained in Appendix C.

This study surveyed six urban transit systems and one rural provider to determine the transit personnel's attitudes toward people with disabilities and accessible service delivery. Public transit consumers were also surveyed to determine their attitudes toward accessible service delivery. The accessible service delivery concerns of the transit personnel were compared to the those of the public transit consumers. Respondents were asked to provide demographic data, information on their personal contact with disability and to respond to attitude statements about people with disabilities and service delivery statements about public transportation. Data analysis was completed using the transit personnel and public transit consumer surveys. Frequency distributions and percentages were also used to describe the participants' responses to the questionnaire.

Responses were received from transit personnel (coach operators and customer service representatives) and public transit consumers are used in the preliminary data analysis. Seventy-nine percent of the public transit consumers (n = 84) reported that they have a disability. Persons completing the surveys were identified as coach operators, customer service representatives and consumers. The majority of the transit personnel were male coach operators. The majority of the consumers were females employed in professional occupations.

The data indicate that the attitudes of transit personnel differ from the consumers in the area of cost. The consumers are less likely than transit personnel to agree that cost is a barrier to accessibility. Overall, the customer service representatives appear to hold more "positive" attitudes toward people with disabilities than the coach operators. The consumers hold slightly less favorable attitudes toward public transportation than the transit personnel. In regard to the service delivery issues, coach operators are more concerned with the delay caused by boarding and securing the wheelchair than the consumers. Consumers disagreed with the statement that "There is no need for bus drivers to announce stops along the route" by a far larger percentage than did the transit personnel.

The data indicate that coach operators agreed more with the statement that "Transit services for people with disabilities should be provided using small buses and lift-equipped vans" than did the consumers. Approximately fifty percent of the consumers also agreed that transit services for people with disabilities should be provided using small buses and lift-equipped vans, i.e., paratransit services, but thirty-one percent only slightly agreed. A larger percentage of consumers agreed that accessible transit equipment is unreliable in most cities than did the transit personnel. Consumers were also more likely to agree that accessible equipment is poorly maintained. Neither the majority of coach operators nor the customer service representatives expressed a positive response to the statement that accessible transit equipment is not reliable. However, a larger percentage of the transit personnel disagreed with the statement that accessible transit equipment is not properly maintained than did the consumers. Overall, only a small percentage of the respondents "blamed the disability" for a wheelchair user's inability to board the bus.

The following discussion describes the attitudes held by the respondents (transit personnel and consumers) toward the ADA service delivery requirements, as revealed by the initial data analysis.

Katzmann (1991) stated that with the passage of the ADA, Congress has moved to support the full accessibility approach to transit services for people with disabilities (fixed-route and paratransit services). Transit providers must provide accessible and usable vehicles, trained personnel and accessible information. An individual with a disability must be able to board and ride a bus, train, car or van. Wheelchair lifts must be operational and capable of handling all mobility devices in common use, including three wheel scooters and electric wheelchairs (ADA, 1990). To comply with this mandate, operators are required: to provide boarding and securement assistance upon the request of the passenger, (even if it is necessary to leave their seats to do so); to announce stops at all major intersections and transfer points or upon passenger request; and to assist people with visual disabilities to identify buses at stops serving multiple bus routes. To ensure safe and reliable vehicle operation, transit providers are accountable for mandatory maintenance, while coach operators are responsible for operating procedures when vehicles malfunction during service as set forth in the regulations (ADA, 1990).

Universal securement technology for "all wheelchairs and mobility devices in common usage," continues to raise safety concerns, especially the three wheel scooter. Recent technological solutions to the wheelchair securement issue; i.e., attaching a "hitch" to the wheelchair (Project ACTION, 1993), are confronted with resistance from people who use wheelchair. In this regard, a consumer in this study commented: "The tie down issue on buses is being blown all out of proportion. I will stop riding before I hang junk on my chair."

A related concern is the time required to safely board and secure a wheelchair; i.e., schedule adherence. The coach operators contend that boarding and securing the wheelchair delay the bus, and have consistently advised management personnel that additional time is needed on routes that provide accessible services. More than ten percent of the transit personnel commented that "Drivers need more time at handicapped stops." Less favorably, the transit personnel commented: "Serving the handicapped delays others." Yet, management continues to resist adjusting the schedules. They do not want to "slow down everybody else." (System K-1, personal communication, December 9, 1993). A consumer in this study also commented that: "The extra time at the bus stop required for riders using wheelchairs makes transit less competitive."

During System K-1's ADA training, the operators advised the researcher that nondisabled passengers harassed them for calling out stops, and due to the negative attitudes of people with disabilities, they did not think that their assistance was appreciated or needed. System K-1's coach operators admitted to dismantling the coach's public address system, while one operator claimed that calling stops would cause injury to his throat muscles. Consequently, their response to the requirement to announce stops is that: "Calling out stops is annoying."

The same perception has led to class action suits against transit providers whose personnel fail to announce stops along the route and who fail to announce the routes of vehicles at stations and stops serving multiple routes (Hardin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 1992 and Cordellos v. City and County of San Francisco; San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI), 1993).

Fixed-Route Service v Paratransit Service

The spirit and intent of the ADA are to integrate people with disabilities into mainstream society. Access to fixed-route service is, therefore, to be provided. Paratransit or other special transportation services are not viewed as an alternative for accessible transportation delivery, but as a "safety net" for ensuring transportation equity for people with disabilities who cannot access the fixed route service (ADA Paratransit Handbook, 1991). Although research reveals that the national status of bus fleet accessibility has increased, accessible fixed route service is not yet perceived as a viable transportation option by many people with disabilities as evidenced by an annual six percent decline of fixed-route usage, low lift usage and the escalating demand for paratransit services (Simon, 1993). A consumer commented that: "I used public lift equipped vans for years. It was terrible. Now it is even worse. I need the door-to-door service."

It appears that people with disabilities who (1) are not, because of disability, incapable of using fixed-route service, (2) function at levels sufficient to make independent travel possible, and (3) may need some accommodations or assistance to make independent travel on fixed-route service feasible on a regular basis (DOT, 1986) are diligently seeking to maintain their paratransit eligibility (Courier Journal, July 17, 1993). This preference places an undue financial burden on the transit systems (Simon, 1993).

Experience has shown that accessibility encompasses a greater number of issues than lift-equipping buses, operator assistance and physical ability to board a bus. Essential components of accessible fixed-route services are improved bus stops and the elimination of environmental barriers (no sidewalks, no curb ramps, unsafe traffic patterns, uneven terrain). A consumer in this study commented that "there is a substantial lack of commitment for rider safety. Many coach stops are dangerous," and "Vans are needed/Riders cannot get to stops."

More people may be willing to use public transportation to fulfill their travel needs, but are often dissuaded because getting to the coach stop: may involve using a pedestrian route that has no sidewalks or curb ramps; may require taking an indirect or unfamiliar route to avoid poor terrain conditions; or may require waiting for the coach at a location which has no shelter or safety barriers (e.g., inadequate clearance between the roadway and the coach stop boarding area (Bonham & Pyndus, 1988; KIPDA, 1981). These kinds of barriers tend to discourage a number of potential transit users from utilizing the public transit system.

Pedestrian access to coach stops is an important factor in determining eligibility to paratransit services, particularly by people with visual disabilities and people with mobility disabilities. While no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the respondent's preference for paratransit services, it is reasonable to assume that the environment significantly discourages their use of accessible fixed-route service (Commerce Clearing House, 1990).

The public transit provider is not responsible for the removal of environmental barriers. Further, the presence of the environmental barrier does not mean "automatic" paratransit eligibility. The pressure to eliminate environmental barriers must be maintained on the state and local government entities responsible for eliminating them (Commerce Clearing House, 1990). In a recent study (Simon, 1993), the respondents reported problems with state and local government compliance with ADA accessibility guidelines for pedestrian access and public rights-of-way as major barriers to ADA implementation. ADA compliance requires mutual and collaborative efforts from all responsible entities.

Seventy-five percent of the consumers in this study tended to believe that accessible transit equipment is unreliable compared to forty-three of the coach operators and forty-nine percent of the customer service representatives who also agreed. This consumer-perception may be attributable to several facts: (1) it is the consumer who suffers if the equipment malfunctions so the consumer tends to be more wary of accessible transit equipment than the transit personnel; (2) consumers in general tend to distrust transit providers (Wills, 1986) more than the coach operator; or (3) the transit personnel tend to believe that they can operate the equipment properly; or (4) were responding with the "socially desirable" answer. On the other hand, transit personnel simply may know more about accessible transit equipment than the consumer does and the equipment really is reliable. Nevertheless, the consumers are more convinced than the transit personnel that accessible equipment is poorly maintained. Additional comments in this regard include: "Equipment needs to be kept better." "Maintenance staff need more training." A consumer commented that: "The equipment is poorly maintained and frequently not functioning."

To ensure safe and reliable vehicle operation, transit providers are accountable for mandatory maintenance, while coach operators are responsible for regulatory operating procedures when vehicles malfunction during service (ADA, 1990). Lift technology has greatly improved, and research demonstrates that most problems associated with lift malfunction are usually due to operator error and infrequent use (Simon, 1993). Nonetheless, Disabled In Action (DIA) filed suit against Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) to require full compliance with the ADA by keeping the wheelchair lifts in its buses in fact operating properly and to ensure that its drivers allow people using wheelchairs to board those buses. SEPTA argues that a significant portion of its bus fleet is comprised of vehicles with the older generation of lifts and that replacement is not possible due to budget constraints (James v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 1993).

Some consumer respondents expressed a belief that accessible transit equipment is both unreliable and poorly maintained. They also expressed a preference for paratransit services to accessible fixed-route services. It is highly probable that the perception of accessible transit equipment as unreliable and poorly maintained contributes to the preference for and increased usage of paratransit service by the respondents.

Only a small minority of the respondents were willing to say that a wheelchair user's inability to board the bus is caused by the disability. The statement revealed an interesting characteristic about attitude(s) that can result in service behavior. If the transit personnel agrees with the statement, she or he may be less likely to concede that the equipment, personal operating performance or attitude might be at fault. This personnel may be willing to "blame the disability," and comment that "handicapped service/equipment is a waste of money," or that "resent acting as a nurse or assistant." On the other hand, if the transit respondent disagrees with the statement, it might indicate that he or she is more willing to examine personal performance or the equipment; i.e., "drivers need more training with the handicapped," and "replace old buses with accessible ones." A consumer who agrees that a wheelchair user's inability to board the bus is caused by the disability may indicate that the consumer is less likely to fault the transit provider for the problem and more likely to believe that the transit provider is doing the right thing. Responses to this statement also indicate that the disability rights message has gotten through to all respondents--only a small minority of the respondents were willing to say that it is the wheelchair user's problem for not being able to board the bus.

In summary, the respondents' perceptions of accessible transit equipment as unreliable and poorly maintained, and the pedestrian environment as inaccessible and dangerous may significantly impact the accessibility of public transportation. The transit personnel's perceptions of the ADA service requirements as "annoying" and their open resistance to the requirements resulting in litigation against the transit system significantly impact the accessibility of public transportation. Further, although operator attitudes impact accessible service delivery, it is the consumer's perceptions of accessible transportation as unreliable and poorly maintained that significantly impact consumer usage of fixed-route services and increase the demand for costly paratransit services.

The high cost of ADA implementation, compounded by the lack of designated funding, is the major barrier to ADA implementation. Transit systems are becoming aware of the potential financial impact of the ADA. Capital expenditures were expected, but paratransit operating costs are consuming a larger than expected portion of transit budgets (Simon, 1993). In view of a "discretionary spending cap," the Federal Transit Administration is (FTA) is considering a recent proposal to phase out transit system operating assistance over the next three years, resulting in a funding reduction for public transit authorities as early as July 1995 (Legislative Report, 1994). A reduction in federal funding will cause transit systems to reallocate existing resources and discontinue or reduce existing fixed-route services. A reduction in fixed-route services results in comparable reductions in paratransit services.

The ADA (Section 223) encourages transit providers to coordinate services with other agencies, which can result in reduced costs for the provider. Coordination also eliminates duplication of services. A significant contributor to the increased costs for paratransit services is the elimination of transportation services by human service agencies. The consumers are then referred to the public transit operator for service (referred to as "client dumping" or "client shedding"). Utilizing the coordination strategy as a means for controlling costs poses additional barriers of turfism and regulatory funding restrictions. Collaboration with human service agencies for coordinated efforts requires a strong commitment of resources and staff time by the transit providers. As a result, transit providers do not view coordination as a viable cost control measure (System K-1, personal communication, August 1991).

Although the study participants responded that the costs of making public transit accessible are not excessive; in reality, costs are emerging once again as a major barrier to accessible transportation.

The transit provider's ability to successfully comply with the ADA may depend on its ability to design and implement fixed-route and paratransit services as an integrated continuum of travel options for people with disabilities. Fixed-route and paratransit services that are operated as an integrated whole, rather than separate entities, demonstrate a higher level of accessibility (Project ACTION, 1989). Research is underway which reveals that the essential components of an accessible, integrated public transit system include accessible vehicle and facility design, equipment maintenance, employee training, accessible information and communications, in addition to support services such as travel training, fare incentive programs, trip planning, accessible bus stop programs, vehicle identifier programs and travel escorts (EG & G Dynatrend, 1993). Transit providers will need to evaluate these options for providing "nontraditional" transportation to its emerging market, people with disabilities.

The final report of the results of this study will include the surveys that were received subsequent to the January 31, 1994 submission date. In addition, the survey will be published in the July/August edition of the national magazine on disability and accessibility issues to obtain additional consumer respondents. The final report will be submitted in September 1994. The final report will also contain recommendations for changing and modifying the attitudes of transit personnel and consumers through education and training.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2) et. seq..

Bonham, G.S., & Pyndus, G. R. (1988). A needs assessment and planning study of the transportation-disabled population of Louisville and Jefferson County: Canvass of people with disabilities. Tasks I-IV Reports. Louisville, KY: Urban Studies Center, University Of Louisville.

Commerce Clearing House (1990). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Law and explanation. Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, Inc.

Cordellos v. City and County of San Francisco; San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI), No. 952520 (San Francisco Superior Court, June 25, 1993)

EG&G Dynatrend. (1991). ADA paratransit handbook: Implementing the complementary paratransit requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (Contract No. DTUM60-88-C-41032). Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration.

EG&G Dynatrend. (1993, December). Transit operations for individuals with disabilities: Phase I Report (Research, Project B-1). Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program.

FY 1995 Transit Budget. (1994). Legislative Report. Washington, DC: American Public Transit Association.

Hardin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority No 91-CV-7434 April 3, 1992

Harris, L. & Associates. (1986). The ICD survey of disabled Americans: Bringing disabled Americans into the mainstream. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, L. & Associates. (1991). Public attitudes towards people with disabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

James v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority No 93- CV-5538 October 20, 1993.

Katzmann, R.A. (1986). Institutional disability: The saga of transportation policy for the disabled. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Katzmann, R.A. (1991). Transportation Policy. The Milbank Quarterly, 69, Suppl. 1-2, 214-237.

Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA), (1981, April). Bus stop accessibility and safety study, Louisville, KY: Author.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York & London: Longman Publishing Group.

Project ACTION, National Easter Seal Society. (1989). Reconnaissance survey of selected transit agencies. Washington, DC: Author.

Project ACTION, National Easter Seal Society. (1993). Technology, service planning, and regulations. Technical Assistance Series. Washington, DC: Author.

Project ACTION, National Easter Seal Society. (1993). Factors influencing public transit operators policies for accessible transportation. Washington, DC: Author

Simon, R.M. (1993, September/October). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Mandate for accessibility. TR News, 168, pp. 17- 22.

Staff. (1993, July 17). Door-to-door service: TARC to cut back on rides for disabled. Courier Journal, p. 1,4.

Transit Cooperative Research Program. (1992). Transit operations for individuals with disabilities, Project B-1. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Transit Cooperative Research Program. (1992, September-October). Creation of new program is culmination of efforts to meet demand for transit research. TR News 162, p. 57-64.

Wills, G. (1986, June). For the handicapped, rights but no welcome. The Hastings Center Report, 16, 5-8.

________________________________________________________________________

Publication Consumer Respondents (N = 132) by State

_______________________________________________________________________

 State     No. of Surveys Received

 AL        1

 AZ        3

 CA       22

 C O        5

 CT        3

 DC        1

 FL        2

 GA        3

 IA        4

 IL        6

 IN       24

 KS        2

 KY        6

 MA        7

 MD        4

 MI        5

 MN        4

 MT        1

 NC        1

 NY        9

 OK        1

 OR        2

 PA        5

 RI        1

 TX        1

 UT        1

 VA        3

 WA        3

 WI        1

 WV        1

________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Appendix C-1: Transit Personnel Comments (Positive) _____________________________________________________________

Comment                         No. Responding       %

Like working with handicapped people      24   20%

Like having facilities for handicapped      30   25

Equipment needs to be kept better    8    7

Drivers need more time at handicapped stops      14   12

Vans needed/Riders can't get to stops  11    9

Replace old buses with accessible ones   4    3

ADA is good       4    3

Drivers need more training with handicapped       3    3

Maintenance staff need more training   2    2

Buses and vans together are best    1    1

Management needs to listen to drivers   2    2

Routes need to be handicapped accessible    3    3

________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Appendix C-2: Transit Personnel Comments (Negative)

_____________________________________________________________

Comment     No. Responding  %

Calling out stops is annoying    4    3%

Handicapped people have negative attitudes      7    6

Serving the handicapped delays others   21   17

Resent acting as nurse or assistant   2    2

Drivers pass by the unescorted blind   1    1

Handicapped service/equipment is a

waste of money      10    8

Transit should not depend on federal funds      4    3

________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Appendix C-3: Positive Consumer Comments _____________________________________________________________

This is a service that is needed by seniors and people with disabilities.

System K-1 is great! Hope it can be continued and improved.

As a former tax payer, I didn't want to spend alot on accessibility for disabled. After I became disabled, I needed public transportation and I am willing to pay but the public shouldn't pick up the whole tab.

I am most thankful for the service that System K-1 provides. The drivers and mechanics have been most helpful. Please don't ever take the handicapped service away from this city.

I would just say keep on searching for better ideas and we will soon meet our goal.

Public transportation means access for everyone and if the transit authority can make it more accessible for the elderly and handicapped that would be great.

The way that the ADA is written, some of the things are not feasible for some people who can't ride the fixed route system. Some rules need to be changed.

Accessible transit is critical.

Public transportation should be available in all cities and towns.

Small vans are better especially in the snow.

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Appendix C-4: Negative Consumer Comments _____________________________________________________________

On most occasions I find the System K-1 drivers rude and unwilling to help. The equipment is poorly maintained and frequently is not functioning.

People with disabilities are treated like they are stupid or hard of hearing. "Normal" people sometimes belittle people with disabilities or treat them like a pet.

The drivers act like I am an idiot because I have a speech defect.

There is a substantial lack of commitment on the part of System K-1 for rider safety. Many coach stops are dangerous -- more dangerous than any other city I am familiar with.

System K-1 is now increasing their costs for service while decreasing their availability.

Our transportation is a right, not a privilege given by System K-1.

Meet the requirements of the ADA.

I used public lift-equipped vans for years. It was terrible. Now it is even worse. I need the door-to-door service.

Transportation in Iowa is worse now than before the ADA.

The extra time at the bus stop required for riders using wheelchairs makes transit less competitive.

The tie issue on buses is being blown all out of proportion. I will stop riding before I hang junk on my chair.

_____________________________________________________________