Bus Riders Union of Austin, Texas | El Sindicato de Pasajeros

By Pat Bartel
April 14, 2008

Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lee Walker, Capital Metro board chairman and the rest of the Capital Metro board members for taking the time to listen to and consider the complex proposed changes to our paratransit system. Since Inez Evans and other Sts staff failed to informed you of these policy changes before they started to implement them in February, (terminating taxi vouchers for subscription riders: work, school, medical), I am sure that you were caught off guard by such a vocal reaction from disabled riders and did not expect the amount of evidence brought here for you to consider.

I also would like to thank Capital Metro board member Mike Martinez, for his willingness to mediate between the Access Advisory Committee and Capital Metro management in order to find a solution for compromise before the next federal court appearance May 19. I sincerely wish him good luck and I hope that he can succeed. But, with Capital Metros latest violation of the ADA, specifically pertaining to harassment and intimidation, (see appendix page 11 for the law), his work will be more difficult. The email below from Judy Watford, chairwoman of the Access Advisory Committee, clearly illustrates the fact that Sts senior management staff, responsible for policy and public relations:

• Have no respect for state & federal law;
  
• Have no respect for the authority of the Capital Metro board;
  
• Believe that they are immune from and therefore, can manipulate the law/regulations;
  
• Do not respect the rights of disabled passengers or the paratransit contractor, Yellow cab drivers.

"It has been brought to my attention that cab drivers who have been telling there clients about Metro's actions and the public meeting have been reported by Metro staff for talking to passengers. STS passengers who have called Metro to see what's going on have been asked the name of there driver. When the rider gives the name of the driver, Metro calls American cab and asks that they be reprimanded.

"One Metro staff member told cab management that the way drivers were putting explanatory notes on vouchers was 'hurting their feelings'

"If they spent more time thinking of the feelings of riders and less time thinking of there on feelings and power, we might keep a program that can work...

"I want this driver intimidation stopped immediately!"
Judy Watford

I realize that the Texas Citizen Fund, hereafter referred to as TCF, wrote their report under difficult circumstances and time constraints. First, Capital Metros proposed changes, in conjunction with unauthorized changes implemented by Inez Evans, to subscription taxi voucher service, 03/07/2008, have created much warranted volatility among ADA eligible riders who have now lost their jobs, have encountered extreme difficulty scheduling dialysis appointments, etc. Second, our paratransit system is more complex than most other cities in the U.S. To their credit, and thanks to the input from Sheila Holbrook-White, the TCF report is very accurate in many instances, in particular, the concerns of paratransit riders elaborated in Appendix B. However, due to either pro transportation management viewpoints or lack of research, there are several major areas that are inaccurate and are glaringly incorrect. Finally, the Capital Metro board never approved the $27,000 expenditure paid to TCF to write a report; Capital Metro could have obtained most of this information through the Access Advisory Committee and other disability groups.

• The result: Almost 2,000 lost taxi vouchers and/or 600 lost Sts rides.

In the following, it is evident that Glenn Gadbois is unprofessionally biased towards Cap Metro management and completely incorrect.

"Key Concerns: Discussions of Capital Metro and its staff by the ACCESS Committee have become publicly hostile. The ACCESS Committee appears to have an overly broad vision of its mission and authority."

Mr. Gadbois failed and neglected to mention the following:

• According to Access Committee bylaws, said committee, appointed by the Capital Metro board, discuss and/or vote upon proposed paratransit changes and give input to the Capital Metro board. Historical evidence further substantiates this.
  
• Both the ADA as well as updated FTA (Federal Transportation Administration) rulings define the need for and clearly require the existence of an advisory committee for paratransit. (See page 5 of my Taxi Voucher response as well as page 11 of this report).
  
• The requirement of this advisory committee is the "mechanism" to guarantee that input from disabled riders is properly considered before changes to paratransit occur.
  
• On February 27, 2008, Inez Evans, (director for STS at Cap Metro), gave an oral report only to the access advisory Subcommittee, (not the entire access committee as she is required to do), concerning proposed changes. However, Ms. Evans authorized the abolishment of subscription, taxi vouchers for work and medical trips well before this date. Therefore, Ms. Evans knowingly and purposely violated federal law as well as ignored and deceived the Access Committee.

Furthermore, the following list of "concerns" imply a total ignorance of the law. These "concerns" are in actuality "truth", a right granted under the law, which Capital Metro staff completely ignored as if these laws did not exist.

• That the ACCESS Committee was not consulted on the proposed changes. -True
  
• That the ACCESS Committee had not approved the proposed changes. -True, they never had a chance to discuss these proposed changes before MS. Evans started to implement them.
  
• That the ACCESS Committee wanted to convene public hearings. -True, a right under the ADA/FTA
  
• That the ADA mandates an ACCESS Committee. -True, the "mechanism"

As a final point, consider the following arrogant and misguided suggestion for building consensus:

• Re-visit and revise approach to public engagement.

Again, Glenn Gadbois demonstrates both an inability to comprehend the wisdom of federal regulations as well as his pro management bias towards the access committee. To my knowledge:

• he is not an attorney;
• he is not an expert, (or even a layman), concerning disability law;
• he refused to consider knowledgeable input from myself as well as others concerning the necessity for and the right to existence for an access committee;
• and he refused to do the simple research required before giving his opinion.

Mr. Gadbois lacks the necessary objectivity to write a report on this issue. In fact, his role is only to give factual evidence and summarize public opinion, state proposed solutions from disabled riders, (not his solutions), and not waste your valuable time with his invalid opinions.

The use of taxi vouchers to ensure the 100% mandate to guarantee next-day service,(Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp., see appendix on page 9), is approved by the ADA & FTA regulations. Taxi vouchers are especially cost effective for subscription trips (regular work/medical), and for passengers who have 3 or 4 same-day consecutive trips with a time schedule - doctors appointment, lab for tests, pharmacy and then to home. This schedule is almost impossible for Sts vehicles because the times are not known by the passenger when trips are scheduled.

Capital Metro asserts that they can replace the more than 400 daily taxi vouchers with AVL (automatic vehicle location) technology installed in Sts vehicles as well as 10 PTS Austin cab owned vehicles, yet the TCF report failed to mention this. To date, Capital Metro has not provided proof that this model will satisfy 100% next-day demand as well as provide timely paratransit service.

Furthermore, the TCF report failed to mention the following details concerning PTS vehicles:

• PTS vehicles are cabs that have been taken off-line because there period of service has ended;
  
• PTS vehicles do not meet the current inspection standards for Sts vehicles and do not meet current inspection requirements for taxi cabs;
  
• Capital Metro has admitted that problems exist with PTS driver behavior and attitude towards disabled riders as well as vehicle inspections/maintenance.
  
• Regulations state that services contracted out to meet the demand of providing paratransit services must meet the same standards as those provided by the paratransit provider, i.e. contracted out vehicles must meet the same inspection standards and drivers must meet the same standards & training requirements as Capital Metro Sts drivers.
  
• PTS vehicles are at present unequal to the task of supplementing paratransit service; it is impossible for only 10 PTS vehicles to replace over 400 taxi vouchers per day.

The PTS pilot program was implemented early in 2007 by acting director for Sts, Rafael Villarreal, and Dwight Ferrell in order to address problems concerning wait times for cabs by some Sts passengers. It is true, for passengers who did not know a cab driver, wait times did increase due to irresponsible excessive taxi voucher scrutiny by unnecessary Cap Metro auditors. (See my Taxi Voucher Response for details) As a result, fewer cab drivers accepted Sts trips. I believe that these 2 Cap Metro employees had good intentions when they started this pilot program; this was a necessary temporary solution, and one that needed to be implemented quickly, until problems with taxi voucher verification, i.e. (trusting Yellow Cabs 100% fraud prevention), could be resolved. Sadly, this has not happened.

Unfortunately, as evidenced by Capital Metros continued misrepresentation of past taxi voucher fraud, it is difficult for the public as well as members of the Capital Metro board to access the documented truth.

Some Capital Metro Sts staff, including Inez Evans, claim that they are only trying to help Capital Metro reduce operating costs when they manipulate the figures in order to justify the termination of the taxi voucher program. However, these staff members continue to exhibit paranoia and continue to overdramatize and misrepresent the actual facts concerning driver fraud. They appear to be obsessed with their own hidden agenda, i.e. kick riders off the system so as to use cost savings for other Cap Metro services. I strongly believe that the evidence pertaining to Inez Evans continued abuse of her authority, her belief that she does not need to discuss proposed changes with the Access Committee and her attitude that she can do whatever she wants without regard to either judges orders or the federal law fits in with this hidden agenda perfectly. Consider the following:

• Inez Evans has repeatedly and emphatically stated at Access meetings that she would love to be able to monitor the inside of Sts vehicles via remote control, and lamented the fact that the currently installed audio/video recording technology from Orbital Science Corp., was not capable of this.
  
• Inez Evans terminated taxi vouchers for subscription riders without consulting either the Access Committee or the Capital Metro board.
  
• On March 11, she tried to terminate taxi voucher authorization from pharmacies to home which violated the temporary restraining order in district court March 7. Her only answer, (stated at the board meeting 03/31/2008), "I gave an oral report of proposed changes to the Access Subcommittee 02/27/2008". She omitted the fact that she implemented drastic changes to paratransit policy before this date.

For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat the evidence concerning fraud misrepresentation and need for no taxi voucher verification on the part of Cap Metro, presented in my Taxi Voucher Response document submitted to the Cap Metro board 03/3112008, except to state that it is not necessary for Capital Metro to waste an exorbitant amount of money in order to:

• Force cab companies to install high-tech equipment such as GPS/AVL, yet unproven, in order to satisfy the paranoia of some Cap Metro STS staff so that they can monitor cab drivers;
  
• Force paratransit passengers to use only one cab company for taxi vouchers;
  
• Force paratransit passengers to use the cab company who submitted the lowest bid and who buckled under pressure and submitted to Cap Metros unreasonable demands.

It is truly disgraceful and deplorable to realize that yet again, Capital Metro management has tainted the attitude of TCF report writers which has affected their ability to present an unbiased viewpoint. For example, why did the TCF report fail to mention fraud prevention measures implemented by both cab companies which has eliminated taxi voucher abuse?

Furthermore, why does the TCF report fail to mention the suffering and hardship caused to Sts passengers as well as taxi drivers when Capital Metro over reacted to the taxi driver fraud in 2005 and implemented its own unnecessary voucher verification system, after the fact?

Consider the following preconceived and prejudicial points from the TCF report:

• Capital Metro should have one taxi operator that complies with the same operational standards to which all STS drivers and vehicles are held.
  
• The taxi operator should be monitored to reduce abuse or fraud.
  
• Consolidating taxi services with Capital Metro controls provides accountability otherwise lacking. Consolidation also ensures increased safety, drug and alcohol testing, criminal background checks, and disability sensitivity training.
  
• Invest money currently paid into taxi vouchers into high-quality services that are operated by STS.

In summation, the only reason that Capital Metro wants only one cab company to contract its paratransit overflow is to deflect from its lack of responsibility and failure to give input to cab companies which resulted in past taxi driver fraud. Some Cap metro management staff clearly are not interested in cost savings, safety of disabled riders or passenger convenience, they only want to change the paratransit system in order to support their view that fraud is still occurring. It is not necessary that overflow service is provided by only one cab company. The point concerning consolidation is clearly based on the views of Capital Metro management, yet it is presented to make it appear that it is a suggestion from the public. Furthermore, the "concern" pertaining to the need to control drug and alcohol abuse, save Sts passengers from drivers with criminal records, are merely scare tactics to manipulate disabled riders, who already feel vulnerable because life-interfering changes have been implemented without approval, to agree with this change. Otherwise, the TCF report would have stated measures that Capital Metro have already implemented to ensure passenger safety:

• All cab drivers who provide Sts service must take training and sensitivity classes;
  
• All cab drivers who take Sts trips are subjected to random drug tests;
  
• Cab companies do their own criminal records screening.

Finally, the suggestion stating that money spent on taxi vouchers should be spent on high quality services operated by Sts is completely invalid and demonstrates a total lack of understanding concerning paratransit operations. Based on its track record, Sts Cap Metro is incapable of making proper managerial decisions. For example, did you know that the millions spent on the IVR system, portrayed by Cap Metro staff as a way to replace reservation call takers, is, for all practical purposes, barely functional, despite several years of fruitless labor? It should be noted that Capital Metro failed to fully investigate technology options when they purchased this voice recognition system. They took the lowest bid, the company which sold them the IVR system is no longer in existence, and now some staff have admitted that IVR will never be used successfully to schedule trips, the IVR will only be effective for trip verification and cancellations. In short, if money is stripped from the taxi voucher program, it is a guarantee that services for the disabled will decline markedly, yet Sts will still maintain the illusion that they are looking out for our civil rights and following the law.

Therefore, these 4 points should be eliminated as viable alternatives or improvements for our paratransit service.

The ADA is very broad concerning methods that transportation agencies can use to determine eligibility for paratransit riders. Unfortunately, this report failed to mention the fact that the ADA/FTA does not require Functional Assessments & In-Person Interviews in order to determine eligibility. In fact, there are at least 4 models that are currently being used to determine paratransit eligibility. Furthermore, research has indicated that Functional Assessments are a necessary and acceptable practice only for those situations where the city and/or county is responsible for the majority of the cost to provide paratransit service, i.e. Dallas, Houston, Pittsburgh. The TCF report again fails to mention this. However, in our case, where Capital Metro has always had, and will continue to have, the funds to provide public transportation as well as paratransit service, this cost cutting method of eligibility determination is not sanctioned and it is not appropriate. Only, and only if, Capital Metro can conclusively prove that the current medically confirmed eligibility status criteria presently used imposes a substantial financial hardship on its ability to provide paratransit service can this method be changed. Clearly, the building of a light rail system and dubious expenditure to equip fixed route transfer centers with wireless access would indicate that providing paratransit service does not impose a financial hardship.

It is of significant importance, (another fact conveniently left out of the TCF report), that up until 4 or 5 years ago, the recertification application for continued Sts service was the same detailed initial application that both the Sts passenger as well as their medical provider submitted to receive first-time service. This was not "self-certification" (where passengers define their disabilities without a doctors certification), as Metro staff are inaccurately proclaiming. Suddenly, and without input from the Access Committee or other consultants, the recertification application changed from a complete diagnostic form to merely a post card with room for one or 2 sentences in which the applicant only needed to write why they needed Sts service. Capital Metro alone was responsible for changing the recertification process from a medically diagnosed criteria to self-certification. Therefore, if any fraud concerning misrepresentation of disability and ability to ride fixed route for the purposes of recertification has occurred, then the blame is squarely placed on Capital Metro management, not on the disabled rider. It is unacceptable to allow disabled riders to be punished for Capital Metros stupidity, oversight and mistakes.

The prejudice and bias of the TCF report is again evidenced in the following recommendation to improve the certification, not the recertification process:

• Revise current certification form to increase likelihood that a medical professional actually reviews and responds to the questions.
  

First, it is clear that the report writer has not seen the certification application. Otherwise, it would be evident that: I) visually impaired riders cannot write or otherwise forge their doctors signature; 2) it would be impossible for an applicant to forge the doctors credentials, (Medical ID number, etc) that are included on this application.

Second, in order to include this issue, TCF must either have knowledge that medical professionals do not always fill out their part of the certification application, or again, be influenced by or is biased towards management. In either case, it is unacceptable for TCF to include this suggestion unless he has proof that Sts passengers have forged or otherwise misrepresented their disability and/or the opinions of their medical provider. Capital Metro is unable to provide this proof.

Although several riders told TCF to include the following suggestion in their report, it is quite interesting that they failed to do so. Instead, TCF included the suggestion above that is invalid and is not factual.

• Make the recertification application the same as the initial application, instead of a postcard that the applicants medical provider is not required to fill out.
  
• I hereby assert that TCF has no concrete knowledge that this implied misrepresentation has occurred on certification applications;
  
• I further declare that TCF exhibits the inability to present events pertaining to eligibility as facts;
  
• Therefore, since the report writer is not qualified to give opinions concerning this suggestion, this suggestion should be deleted and the suggestion from Sts riders be utilized instead.

Of great significance is the fact that although I specifically asked Glenn Gadbois to reference a specific court case as part of a major concern, he failed to do so. In Storman v. Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the "reasonable person" test that it quoted from the ADA's guidance:

The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year that it need not be "literally impossible" to reach a bus stop for someone with a disability to qualify for ADA paratransit eligibility. The appeals court suggested instead that ADA eligibility is warranted if "a reasonable person with the impairment-related condition in question would be deterred from making the trip."

This court case is important because original ADA language indicates that only if a route from a bus stop to a destination/origin is deemed to be impossible to navigate, then the person is eligible for paratransit service. Otherwise, they are not. According to the original ADA, the lack of curb cuts or other obstacles such as dangerous intersections did not automatically warrant eligibility. However, this court ruling states that the route need only be difficult for a disabled person to travel in order to qualify for ADA eligibility.

Furthermore, the Storman case is extremely important because even today, transportation agencies have misapplied the ADA and consequently have mistakenly determined someone to be ineligible for paratransit service when in fact, they are eligible for this service. Because these agencies failed to consult knowledgeable attorneys, did not fully understand how "hidden" disabilities should be considered as a secondary disability when determining eligibility, they are paying high court costs for an appeals process that should not have been necessary.

To properly understand the complexities and pitfalls of implementing an in-person interview and functional assessment process to replace a medical doctors opinion concerning paratransit eligibility, consider the following exerts from a report by the National Council on Disability, located in Washington D.C.

Before you read this, remember that according to Capital Metro, only $189,000 will be saved if this flawed and complex assessment criteria is implemented. Since the costs to train and then regulate an outside contractor to perform functional assessments/In-person interviews are high, perhaps no cost savings will occur as promised. Furthermore, remember that court appeals due to improper disqualifications will assuredly cost more than this. Finally, consider the liability issues, and the consequences, monetarily as well as public opinion, if Capital Metro denies paratransit eligibility for a particular trip, and the disabled passenger is seriously injured or killed while attempting to navigate a route which is too dangerous and not appropriate given their particular disabilities.

• Possible Negative Impacts of Implementing Harsher Standards
  

Some individuals may consider in-person interviews and functional assessments too troublesome or intimidating and may not even apply for paratransit service. For example, after requiring in-person interviews for new applicants and for recertification of current riders, Houston's Metro found that 61 percent received eligibility, compared with the 89 percent previously approved. Of the remaining 39 percent who did not receive eligibility, 14 percent were denied and 25 percent did not appear for the interview. This raises the question of whether some who may not be able to use the fixed-route service also are not receiving ADA paratransit service. Further study is needed to ascertain any negative impacts of more rigorous ADA eligibility procedures on the mobility of people with disabilities.

• Consider the complexities for a trip by trip eligibility screening which Capital Metro claims they can implement satisfactorily for over 10,000 Sts riders by the end of the year.
  

The transit agency must find the applicant conditionally eligible, and then undertake trip-by-trip screening to ascertain whether the person is able to take each requested trip using the fixed-route service, or whether there is a barrier that would make the trip eligible for paratransit. Trip-by-trip screening can involve several steps, as Karen Hoesch, executive director of Access Transportation Systems in Pittsburgh, described at the National Transit Institute course on Comprehensive ADA Paratransit Eligibility in April 2004. Central to the process is identifying the applicant's specific travel abilities, including the conditions and barriers that prevent him or her from getting to and from fixed-route stops.

Also important is evaluating the specific trips that the person needs to make. This evaluation entails identifying the fixed-route line that would be used, determining that line's accessibility in relation to the applicant's ability to travel, and examining the path of travel to and from the fixed-route stops. If it is determined that the applicant can use the fixed-route service for that particular trip, he or she would not be eligible for ADA paratransit on that trip. Staff proficient in assessing barriers to travel conduct these route assessments and, where possible, consult with the applicant or a professional familiar with his or her functional abilities.

In Pittsburgh, trip requests are checked against potential bus routes serving that particular trip, and staff determines from a preexisting environmental assessment whether, given the rider's eligibility conditions, the trip should be found eligible. If the streets and barriers along the route of the trip request have not been assessed, the rider is given presumptive eligibility for that route until the completion of an environmental assessment.

• Imagine how costly this process would be for Austin, which has a much larger geographical area than Pittsburgh.
  
• Computerized maps showing detailed topography, including the usability of sidewalks by people with varying degrees of coordination and travel skills as well as by wheelchair users would need to be obtained for each major bus stop locations, including all routes radiating from these stops to a distance of 3/4 of a mile.
  
• These maps would need to be updated in real time in order to account for temporary dangerous changes such as construction that might occur on any of these routes. In this case, call takers or other humans, certainly not the IVR, would have to change a riders status to temporarily eligible for a particular trip.
  

In order to minimize court costs incurred by improper application of certification criteria, consider the Best Practice guidelines from the NCD report outlined below.

Equip for Equality, the Illinois Protection and Advocacy agency, has developed a guide for people with disabilities going through the eligibility process. It points out that eligibility determinations should consider conditions that could pose barriers to an individual's "potential travel throughout the entire bus and/or rail system during all seasons," not just conditions in the applicant's immediate neighborhood and at the locations to which the applicant usually travels.

Also emphasized in the Equip for Equality eligibility guide is the importance of considering any variable conditions experienced by the individual, and any secondary disabilities, such as disorientation, fatigue, or difficulty with balance. Another best practice issue addressed by the guide is that some disabilities cannot be evaluated by a functional assessment. Examples include seizure disorders, psychiatric disabilities, and variable conditions such as multiple sclerosis.

Some transit agencies have established a category of seasonal eligibility; however, if it is the only condition of eligibility identified in a simplified process, this is not consistent with industry best practice. It is a problem in these cases because it is typically not the case that someone cannot travel only because of weather issues. Often, transit systems think they are simplifying the process by identifying only broad categories of conditions, but then they miss the real reasons why people can't travel. For example, if "winter only" were identified for a rider who uses a wheelchair because of obvious difficulties negotiating snowy and icy paths of travel, and no other conditions were identified, this would suggest that the person faces no other barriers during good weather months, such as distance and otherwise inaccessible pathways. This is rarely the case.

In summation, Capital Metro's proposed change to paratransit service concerning In-person Interviews and Functional Assessments, which they claim will only save $189,000, (per year or one-time sum is not stated), has not been properly researched or presented, is merely an idea without substance, that would take several years to design and implement. When you consider just a few of the following points, it is obvious that the claim that a single contractor can completely implement this policy within the next 6 months is grandiose, if not a dangerous and irresponsible misuse of taxpayer money, to say the least.

• More complex and costly than Cap Metro Sts policy makers has initially indicated because they have no real-world experience designing and implementing this system, therefore, stated cost savings are worthless and of no value;
  
• Beyond the scope for their contractor to implement -at one of the informational meetings held by TCF, it was revealed that Capital Metro is only considering a contractor with business experience and not necessarily medical experience to implement this new policy;
  
• In order to minimize liability and future court costs as well as adhering to FTA approved best practice and standards, the contractor must utilize professionals with a variety of expertise including, but not limited to: attorneys, doctors, psychiatrists, mobility travel instructors, physical therapists, computer aided design specialists (to develop real-time digital environmental maps) and travel assessment specialists;
  
• Based on the resignation of Inez Evans from MV Transportation, (primarily responsible for Metro Access in Washington, D.C.), it is doubtful she could oversee the development and day-to-day operations, certainly not the necessary quality control for this complex new policy;
  
• Based on the evidence that Inez Evans repeatedly abuses her authority, her ability to shatter trust and foster hostility and her demeaning attitude towards some Sts drivers, I do not believe she is capable of ensuring fairness, objectivity and integrating updated legal interpretations and FTA rulings.
  

Based upon the accurate parts of the TCF report, based on the evidence that I have presented in 2 reports, and based upon the abysmal track record of Capital Metro Sts to properly implement technology, (the IVR voice recognition trip scheduling system) as a way of enhancing efficiency and reducing operating costs, I sincerely hope that the Capital Metro board will force Sts staff to respect and adhere to the following guidelines before attempting to implement any policy changes:

• Capital Metro staff, as well as StarTran employees must discontinue all harassment, intimidation and coercion of Sts passengers, any cab drivers and employees of both cab companies, and any other person who has an interest concerning proposed changes.
  
• In order to rebuild shattered trust and facilitate a working relationship with both the Access Advisory Committee as well as disabled riders, Sts policy makers should seriously consider the reinstatement of all subscription taxi vouchers, i.e. restore policy to the level of February 1,2008, until a decision is reached in federal court.
  
• Ensure that changes to paratransit, whether defined as policy or procedure, are discussed and if necessary voted upon by the Access Advisory Committee. This is the law and there is no excuse for Cap Metro Sts to subvert, ignore, encumber, work around or otherwise interfere with the Access Committees ability to submit input to the Capital Metro board.
  
• Since Capital Metro failed to disclose the installation of audio/video recording equipment in Sts vehicles, (allegedly, this system is not yet capable of sustained real-time surveillance), this is potentially a serious violation of privacy rights, which may require legal action. Therefore, Capital Metro must disclose the installation of any future technology in Sts vehicles with the Access Committee before it is installed, not after it has been installed.
  

It would be a crime against humanity, a crime against the disabled, against everything that Cap Metro board members and conscientious Cap metro employees have struggled to create, if the Capital Metro board allows Sts policy makers to continue to abuse their authority. Please remember that unapproved taxi voucher cuts have resulted in lost jobs for the disabled and put others in jeopardy. Does the Capital Metro board want to be remembered for allowing this? Disabled paratransit riders know in their hearts that this is not the case.

• Abolish and otherwise desecrate and reduce the taxi voucher program to the proportions of the 10 substandard Austin cab owned PTS vehicles; instead, employ a premium taxi voucher service where passengers pay a minimum of $1.50 per trip rather than 30¢.
  
• Give preferential treatment to and use only one cab company to contract the overflow of paratransit trips;
  
• In order to encourage more cab drivers to take Sts trips, thus increasing efficiency, the unnecessary taxi voucher verification system that Capital Metro is fixated on must be simplified. Cap Metro must acknowledge the fact that Yellow Cabs fraud prevention system is extremely effective; thus, Capital Metro should put its resources to more productive uses -enhance transportation for all.
  
• TAXI VOUCHERS SAVE MONEY:
  
  
  Cuts in taxi vouchers have already increased Cap Metros costs;
  Taxi voucher cuts will likely put disabled families out on the street;
  More taxi vouchers will save money and benefit everyone;
  The rail system and fixed route will benefit from additional taxi vouches;
  Quality of transportation in Travis County will diminish if the taxi program is reduced.
  
  
  
• Do not Change the advanced reservation window from 8 to only 3 days. There is no proven cost benefit, only chaos, extreme customer dissatisfaction and potential lawsuits concerning 1OO% next-day service and excessive trip lengths;
  
• Do not restrict telephone hours for scheduling reservations until both the IVR and a completely accessible web-based trip scheduling system are developed. Note that adaptive technology which allows the visually impaired to access a computer costs over $900, (difficult to purchase because the unemployment rate for this population is 70%), so even with advanced technology, over 60% of disabled riders need telephone access with a human being. Furthermore, the IVR and web-based system will most likely be completely inaccessible to those riders who have disabilities such as head injuries, MS, quadriplegics, and many others.
  

• At this time, it is a proven fact that Capital Metro does not have the ability or the technical expertise necessary to deploy a satisfactory eligibility determination policy based on problematic in-person interviews and complex functional assessments.
  
• No proof has been provided that Cap Metro Sts staff has extensively studied and evaluated all the models that are used to determine paratransit eligibility.
  
• Based on the fact that Cap Metro purchased the cheapest IVR system, it is not reasonable to assume that they are capable of developing a real-time computerized system which must accurately depict unpredictable and potentially dangerous environmental characteristics such as: unrepaired sidewalks, temporary construction and whether a disabled person can safely navigate a ditch or path in lieu of a sidewalk. Does the Capital Metro board want the responsibility of personal injury liability as well as unknown high costs to try?
  
• In order to ensure proper ADA compliance and verify eligibility with a medical provider, the Sts passenger recertification postcard form must be changed to a form, similar to the initial application used to obtain Sts service.
  
• Based on what Cap Metro Sts staff believes is most important for their Functional Assessment contractor to have: Business Experience over Medical Expertise, it is clear that they are incapable of grasping concepts pertaining to secondary disability which does have a major impact on whether a disabled person is certified as completely eligible or conditionally eligible for only some trips.
  
• Apparently, Cap Metro staff must feel that a business oriented contractor can evaluate ADA approved hidden disabilities, (which can effect a person quite differently day to day, or even throughout the same day), such as: chronic fatigue syndrome; irreversible affects of pituitary cancer which I have; or mental disabilities which can be extremely difficult to understand and diagnose without subjecting someone to many stressful interviews.
  

In summation, it is completely understandable and acceptable that the Capital Metro board cannot be involved with all these documented complexities of paratransit. No one expects them to understand all the nuances. Therefore, the reasonable solution would be, if necessary, strengthen applicable bylaws and/or policy to allow the Access Committee the ability to discuss, and if necessary, vote on all proposed paratransit changes. Input from the Access Committee to the Cap Metro board would be guaranteed to:

• Be more effective and streamlined than 20 page $27,000 reports;
  
• Avoid the need for Capital Metro to suffer negative publicity and waste taxpayer money while they are mired in federal court.
  

Thank You.

"A public hearing is required, however, for changes to the paratransit reservations system. Under §37.131(b)(4), any changes to the reservation system must comply with the public participation requirements in §37.137(b) and (c) of the Department's ADA implementing regulations.* These require that public participation include: outreach, consultation with individuals with disabilities, opportunity for public comment, a public hearing and the creation of a mechanism for continued participation of persons with disabilities in the development and assessment of services to persons with disabilities."

In August 2001, the federal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on three of their four claims. The court found Lift Line and Rochester-Genesee Regional violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with regard to their delivery of paratransit service for the disabled and ordered them to take immediate steps to comply with their obligations under the ADA, Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Auth., 206 FRD 56, 71 (WDNY 2001).

In July 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order with regard to the plaintiffs' first and third claims but reversed as to the fourth claim, Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Auth., 337 F3d 201,217 (Second Cir. 2003). On remand, the district court modified the injunction when it wrote: [t]he company must design, fund and implement a plan to meet 100 percent of the demand for next-day ride service, Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp. Auth., 332 FSupp2d 540,542 (WDNY 2004).

SEC. 503. Prohibition Against Retaliation and Coercion.

(a) Retaliation.--No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this Act or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act.

(b) Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation.--It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this Act.