Testimony of United Spinal Association in support of A07842, a bill to require all newly purchased New York City taxis to be accessible to people with disabilities.
July 14, 2010

Prepared by: James Weisman

Senior Vice President and General Counsel

United Spinal Association is a membership organization of over 12,000 people with spinal cord injuries and diseases. We welcome the opportunity to testify in support of Assembly Bill A07842 introduced by Assemblyman Kellner.

United Spinal used to be called Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association (EPVA) and as EPVA sued New York City Transit (NYCT), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the City of New York (NYC) to make mass transit accessible. That litigation was settled in 1984. The Settlement Agreement required all new buses to be accessible, key subway stations to be accessible and a paratransit system, called Access A Ride, to be created for those whose disabilities prevent them from using mass transit.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Department of Transportation’s ADA implementing regulations required that transit operators meet the actual demand for paratransit, which means service cannot be denied on the basis of unavailability. The Access A Ride budget in the City of New York is $450 million in 2010. New Yorkers with disabilities are living in the community, going to work and socializing. Largely because MTA has deliberately limited access to mass transit they are overwhelming Access A Ride with demand. MTA should have encouraged accessible transit use, made subway stations accessible as they were renovating in the ordinary course of business and used Access A Ride to “feed” people with disabilities to accessible mass transit buses and subway stations using mass transit as the long haul carrier. Instead, MTA has been stingy about making stations accessible and, except for key stations, refuses to add accessible subway stations to the list of key stations.

Benefits paying agencies that provide travel to beneficiaries such as Medicaid, Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs currently contract with private entities i.e., taxis, to transport many of their beneficiaries. Those who can use mass transit receive mass transit fare for benefits related travel; those who can use taxis receive taxi fare. Those who cannot, because they are dependent on wheeled mobility devices such as wheelchairs and scooters for ambulation, are provided private ambulette service to make rehabilitation and health related trips. Ambulette service cost four to five times more per trip then taxis.

If all new taxis were accessible:

1. Many people with mobility, cognitive and visual impairments would choose to use taxis rather than go through the cumbersome advance reservation process required by Access A Ride.
2. NYCT would substantially reduce its Access A Ride budget by contracting with and using accessible taxis to provide service rather then using Access A Ride vehicles which require drivers, fuel, maintenance and replacement, all at taxpayer expense. Access a Ride cost per ride is $66 to NYCT, the user only pays the transit fare. Most NYC taxi rides cost less than $66. An Access a Ride smart card would be given to eligible passengers who could use the card after paying the mass transit fare to the taxi driver.
3. The resale market for used accessible taxis will be enormous as rural, suburban and urbanized area taxi companies realize they can become Medicaid/paratransit carriers in their communities at the same time and with the same vehicles as they operate traditional taxi services.

NYC’s 13,000 vehicle taxi fleet will be replaced quickly and become an accessible taxi fleet. The word “taxi” would mean “accessible taxi”, the same way the word “bus” means “accessible bus” in NYC today. Last month there were 100,000 wheelchair user trips on lift equipped buses in NYC. Most of those trips were made at peak hours. They were work trips. Workers in NYC, even those who use transit, occasionally use taxis. Workers with disabilities will too.

The demand for accessible taxis will continue to increase as baby boomers age, desire to remain active, and live longer than any generation that preceded them.

Assemblyman Kellner’s bill will create a market for and force the development of affordable, reliable, road-worthy accessible taxis. United Spinal strongly supports A07842.

The NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission recently announced that the two-year $1 million program to provide dispatch service to New York City wheelchair users was a failure. According to TLC head David Yassky, “Generally the program was very expensive and unfortunately not well-utilized.”

James Weisman, United Spinal’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel responded to Mr. Yassky with the following:

I read your article about the accessible taxi program which inappropriately used the word “incredibly” to characterize its failure.

Accessible taxis would substantially reduce the MTA’s staggering $450 million Access a Ride per year cost as trips could be made using taxis at far less cost to MTA than their current $66 fare. Last month 100,000 trips were made on lift equipped buses in NYC by wheelchair/motorized scooter users. Most of these trips were peak hour, i.e., work trips. There is a rapidly growing community of aging, active people who need access.

Years ago MTA made a poor choice – provide only minimal access to NYC’s subway system for those with mobility impairments and use Access a Ride as the workhorse for interborough transportation. MTA has steadily eliminated interborough bus service because ridership on those lines is lower than normal. Most able-bodied NYers use the subway for longer trips. Those that need lift equipped buses because of lack of subway access are forced to call Access a Ride. Access a Ride, because of The Americans with Disabilities Act’s mandate, must meet demand. It cannot just cut its budget and deny service to those who cannot use mass transit, the service must be available.

The MTA and the TLC did not jointly consider people with disabilities until this year despite Access a Ride’s costs.

TLC Commissioner Yassky inherited a doomed accessible taxi “pilot program” for all the reasons that, if you were at the hearing, you disregarded when you wrote your piece.

1. No marketing to people with disabilities
2. The ridiculous Blackberry system which required drivers to pull over to reply in writing to a request for an accessible cab within 2 minutes (impossible many times and hard to explain when already carrying a fare)
3. Requiring drivers to travel for free to a pickup which, because only 230, or so, taxis out of 13,000 are accessible, was rarely proximate

Moreover, the TLC’s Taxi of Tomorrow program doesn’t mandate accessibility, may result in a ten year deal to perpetuate inaccessibility if the Commissioner doesn’t choose wisely which will further burden Access a Ride, and will stifle creative design for a decade.

United Spinal trained these drivers for the TLC. Apparently, they want us to continue even though there is no plan to allow people with disabilities to do anything to find an accessible cab except to get out there and hail one like everyone else, accept unlike everyone else they can only access 230 out of 13,000 cabs. They can and will continue to call Access a Ride.

Sadly, MTA was not at the hearing. They are about to spend $45 million to renovate Dyckman Street Station and are not including elevators because the agency did not designate Dyckman a “key” station when it did its ADA compliance plan. The same ADA requires an amount equal to 20% of renovation costs to be spent on accessibility in non key stations renovated in the ordinary course of business, including level change mechanisms (ramps, elevators). MTA has ignored this requirement for years and it only increases Access a Ride costs.

MTA, TLC and people with disabilities must work together to solve problems because transportation planning without employing principles of universal design will burden government with unnecessarily “special needs” and dependency budgets for generations.