During the buildup to the near-enactment of the Doomsday budget and the subsequent Albany bailout, supporters for Access-A-Ride were among the most vocal. The MTA had planned to save a significant chunk of change by jacking up fares and cutting some services, but the activists, citing ADA compliance, dominating many of the public fare hike hearings. In the end, Access-A-Ride was left unscathed. Although the service costs the MTA well over $60 per ride, users are charged just the regular subway fare for it, and determinations of eligibility are left up to Transit employees.
With that in mind, is it any wonder that Fox 5 has found some rather shady practices within this paratransit structure? According to an undercover investigation conducted by John Deutzman, abuse of this service is rampant. Deutzman tells the story of an auxiliary police officer who used Access-A-Ride to travel so he could march in a parade. The officer denied the accusation. At another point, they found an Access-A-Ride van idling but empty in Lower Manhattan as the driver took a nap. Supposedly, a scheduling snafu was to blame.
In the end, this story isn’t so shocking as it is an example of the problems with bureaucracy. There is no effective oversight over Access-A-Ride, and powerful lobbying forces work to keep the service as it is. It will cost around $451 million to run paratransit this year. For that much, we should demand more accountability.
25 comments
Ben, what does it mean when you say, “there is no control over Access-a-Ride”? I thought the MTA had contracts with the van companies. Isn’t that control? Can you clarify?
I’ve updated that language. There’s no real outside oversight of Access-A-Ride. If the state is serious about conducting a forensic audit on the MTA, I’ll be curious to see what they discover about Access-A-Ride.
How does that cost over $60 per ride?
Take a look through this IBO report. You’ll see the breakdown through 2005.
I don’t personallly use Access-a-Ride, but being disabled and in a wheelchair myself, I do understand its underlying purpose – it is, regrettably, far cheaper to provide $60/ride services rather than to accelerate the process of rendering the majority of MTA subway stations accessible. Having said that, in every jurisdiction with paratransit services, these kinds of abuses will simply happen, and the service will always be sub-par. It’s not the best solution; it’s the least bad solution.
A major opportunity was missed in the stimulus bill, when the Feds had the opportunity to give major cities like NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia (large cities with largely inaccessible transit systems) money out of the stimulus bill to drastically accelerate the ADA rennovation process and invigorate the construction sector at the same time, but even I know that while NYC’s system will get much better, it will not be 100% accessible during my lifetime.
Emphasis mine.
I think this is clearly true. While in the long run it’s going to be cheaper to make the majority of subway service accessible, it would be absolutely prohibitive to accelerate the project. Much more efficient to do it as the stations need to be rebuilt (due to decay, deferred maintenance, etc.) anyway.
However, since a *huge* portion of the NYC subway system *already* needs to be rebuilt, often long ago, any additional funding to do so would be really helpful, at least until every construction firm in the area is fully employed (at which point you will have reached a limiting speed of work).
At $60/ride, I think we should call on the MTA to scrap Access-A-Ride and provide vouchers for liveries to provide transportation. The service would be faster, more flexible, and the overhead would be lower.
Access-A-Ride is almost criminally bad at serving disabled New Yorkers. It’s no wonder so many of them choose to use MTA’s buses instead.
City of Los Angeles does that in many cases, Chris. When I was a resident of the City, they provided what, at the end of the day, amounted to free cab vouchers that I was able to use when transit was inadequate for me. They most often were used when I was not able to make the last train because the transfer is much more difficult for wheelchair users (a timed transfer that doesn’t take slow elevators into account).
Having said that, every major city has serious problems with enforcing the various local, state and federal laws requiring that taxi companies actually take wheelchairs without charging extra or harassing their passengers. Only a few days ago I learned of a taxi company in Tucson AZ that was charging $25/ride for wheelchairs (needless to say, there’s no comparable $25/ride charge for excess luggage). Enforcement of these laws in a business that is almost entirely independent contractor is… well, it’s a tall order. But, yes, your underlying assumption is accurate, and I would love for MTA to start doing that so that I could have access to areas like the UWS without having to take an 60-block local bus ride.
(side note: accessible busses are extremely good, and NYC has gotten vastly better at clearing the bus stops so that the ramps can actually be used, but taking a local busses long distance to replace a subway ride is impractical at best: see – taking an 60-block local bus ride to get to the UWS).
Thanks for the insight, Aaron. There is one big advantage to doing something like this in New York compared to those other cities: there is a visible and very well-regulated taxi and livery industry.
As for accessible buses, one of the major problems is that the MTA still maintains a very large fleet of high-floor vehicles. This increases loading and offloading times, slowing down the buses and causing delays… which is not good for anyone.
Transit systems are rapidly moving to low floor busses for several reasons. Not the least of them is it is easier to flip out a ramp for disabled riders as aposed to a lift that is costly to maintain & time consuming for opperators & passengers.
With tax breaks systems like the MTA are also buying alternitive fuel busses.
Wait, it costs half a billion every year for this program? How many billions would it take to make every subway station accessible? If all stations were accessible, would they scrap access-a-ride? Seems like a questions of how long are you willing to rent your TV or refrigerator before you scrape up enough money to just buy the thing outright.
AlexB: Astronomically more, unfortunately, and while people like myself would surely benefit from that (hell, for me it’d be like Christmas, Chanukah and the fall of the Berlin Wall all at once), Access-a-Ride’s purpose largely is to serve people whose disabilities are such that MTA is unable to serve them with regular fixed-route services. In fact, I would venture to say that the majority of people who are eligible for Access-a-Ride would probably not be able to realize benefits from making the subway fully wheelchair accessible.
Although I don’t doubt that there is waste and abuse going on and that there are people who are signed up for it who shouldn’t be (obviously, that police officer somehow managed to skip the “eligibility” step), the reality is that it is a very expensive federally mandated program that, at the end of the day and bluntly stated, is simply a cost of being civilized. Even cities like LA, where the transit system was built after disability architectural standards were commonplace and is fully accessible to the disabled, still has a substantial population using paratransit for the above reason (the transit agency not being able to serve them under the ADA with regular fixed-route services).
On top of that, a massive project to rebuild nearly 450 subway stations simultaneously would require a capital outlay that the MTA would never be able to come up with and would probably hobble the system for the next 2-3 years due to rampant station and line closures, and if they attempted to finance it with debt, the agency would quickly become insolvent. This is something that I strongly believe needs to be aided with Federal money.
I came to learn from my time in Boston that putting in elevators for old subway stations is FAR more difficult than it looks, given the fact that you have to engage in massive utility relocation projects (or worse yet, re-build an entire line’s signaling system) and find enough structural stability to safely support something of a size and weight that the folks never even contemplated 100 years ago (not to mention finding a place to put it where you’re not removing structural supports but the elevator doesn’t spit you out onto the median of Boylston Street). On top of it, believe it or not, the MTA would often have to face community opposition to elevators. I still harbor bitterness towards Boston’s Back Bay Neighborhood Association, who fought against the MBTA installing elevators at Copley Sq on the green line because the elevators would be “out of character” for the neighborhood.
I strongly believe that this is something that should be the on the MTA’s top 5 list of capital expenditures (and, in fact, believe that it is on that list), but… the realist in me accepts that it’s going to be a long, long time before I’ll be using an elevator at, say, Astor Place.
“it is a very expensive federally mandated program that, at the end of the day and bluntly stated, is simply a cost of being civilized”
I appreciate your perspective, but I profoundly disagree that there is anything civilized about the access-a-ride operation. Theirs are some of the more aggressive drivers on the streets, roaring around with their 0 or 1 passengers and without much regard for any particular traffic boundary. Rather than a hallmark of civilization to me they represent the failure of our society to face liberal issues it claims to care about, but rather strap a giant engine to them and sleep soundly while this solution is out there literally killing people. This is the most barbaric way I can think of to be accessible.
How are major cities around the world meeting the needs of their populations? I know I haven’t seen a monster like access-a-ride blowing down streets that aren’t also clogged with Escalades. We’re closer to transit collapse than we should ever be and we have to think differently—beyond our own shores—about how to run it. If we don’t have a functioning public transit system, we certainly won’t have the economy required to subsidize paratransit for anyone.
“Even cities like LA, where the transit system was built after disability architectural standards were commonplace and is fully accessible to the disabled, still has a substantial population using paratransit for the above reason (the transit agency not being able to serve them under the ADA with regular fixed-route services).”
This is convincing me that the ADA is irrevocably flawed, or our established interpretation of it. It seems to fail under the condition that, at the end of the day and bluntly, everyone would rather be driven around than ride the subway. This is not to make light of any disability, but to observe that people act in their own interests and that when their costs are equal they’ll choose options that represent the most value (and cost to the public). If we don’t have some kind of cynical, quota-driven government board judging people’s abilities—and to me this sounds horrific—the only way to manage the supply of higher levels of service in a “fully accessible” system is to charge commensurately for them.
Nathan: I cannot imagine a single person who uses Access-a-Ride wants to. The service in all cities is extremely slow, and you usually have to give wide windows for pick-ups. It is a service of last resort.
Some examples of paratransit internationally include:
London – Dial-a-Ride
Berlin – Telebus
Hong Kong: Rehabus
So, yeah, this is pretty much the international norm these days.
Presumably, the MTA could mitigate the problem by trying to create a usable accessible transit system. This means it should spend money to install elevators not at every station, or even at the busiest stations, but at the stations that connect to the local bus system best. For example, two of the 125th Street stations are accessible; the MTA could make the other two accessible as well, and route one of the buses crosstown on 125th, creating an accessible bus-to-subway transfer for residents of Upper Manhattan.
I lived in NYC in 2002 and have been back regularly since then, and each time I’m back they’re closer to having done that. Some important new stations include the re-built(ish) Atlantic-Pacific, W 4th St, etc. Times Square accessibility coming online was basically the best thing ever – all transfers are possible there, Grand Central or Herald Square, except for the L and the J,M,Z and of course the G. Bryant Park would make it even better.
When I was back in the city a couple weeks ago I gushed to my best friend how excited I was for the re-built Fulton St stations to come online – that will also help significantly.
What baffles me is why the Columbus Circle station isn’t slated for quicker renovation. That would seem to fill a need for more transfers available to 6 Av IND riders in particular.
Not quite sure what you mean about the Columbus Circle station. It’s undergoing some very extensive renovations right now, and I think the work is progressing as quickly as any MTA project.
Oh.
Well, that’s good to hear. I actually didn’t know that since, not being accessible, I’ve never been in it before ;p.
Thank you :).
I wonder how this compares to the Medicaid-funded cabs used to take the elderly to the doctors and hospitals.
I understand the concept of ADA and providing access to public transit for all, but if the subways and buses become accessible, I am not sure continuing to provide Access-A-Ride is “a cost of being civilized”. If someone in a wheelchair had to pay for their own cab or use a local bus, is that really so barbaric? Perhaps as some sort of welfare measure, we could give taxi vouchers or major discounts to poor people who are handicapped. Call me cruel, but I don’t think it is the responsibility of government or society to provide 95% of the cost of transportation to someone because they are disabled, nor do I think that is required by ADA. Maybe I’m wrong about what ADA requires.
I would like to add that some disabled people are unable to ride in cabs and therefore would not benefit from a livery-cab voucher program.
Nonemergency medical transportation is a big issue and access to medical care is a big issue; it doesn’t help to have health insurance if you can’t get to the hospital or clinic.
I agree with Aaron, that it’s a cost of civilization. I’m sorry Nathan has had such bad experiences with Access-A-Ride, but I don’t think that making ominous statements about “transit collapse” is adequate justification for getting rid of a program like AAR.
As of 01-01-2009 i resigned my position as the Project Manager of one of Access A Ride Paratransit companies for shady practices such as, shootings, beatings, tampering with unions, illegal wage practices, tampering with safty equiptment, just to name a few. i have been approached by a book writers to tell the story which im still considering. but their is alot going on within the Access A Ride system. please note i have proof of all claims, and also have the contracts between the access a ride and the carriers. if anyone is interested in hearing the story feel free to contact me 718-916-6190
If the subways and buses become accessable I still would have a problem. I can’t wait in the cold or strong a/c Due to severe Raynaud. I could loose me fingers toes and hand.
I drive for an access-a-ride company in the Bronx. Many of the late pick up for customers are due to dispatchers, traffic and the customers them self. If you know your pick up time is 8am why wait till 8am to try to come down if you live a building that takes you 10 min. or more to come out of. Many customers know when the driver arrives at the pick address they can only stay there for 6 min. from the pick time. Then the driver must leave and the customer will get a “customer no show” But also the driver has a 30 min. window to arrive to pick up the customer. The scheduling is a nightmare in it’s self some time a driver will have 5 pick ups in 5 different locations at the same time or 6 min. apart. Than to drop them off is just as bad…the driver will drop off 2 and pick up 1 or 2 more customers.
The hard part for a driver is when you have a drop off in co op city at 4:45pm and your dispatcher gives you an add on for 5:10pm at 2 broadway. The driver is still on route to co op city in heavy traffic and is only 4:30pm. Now depending on the dispatcher he will remove that call or say to you “What’s taking you so long to drop off?,Come on you can do it, Mta added that call so I can’t cover it” So now the driver is stressed out know that he going to run late for all of his calls. A DRIVER IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DISPATCHER WHO HELPS THE DRIVER. Some things that drivers hate one is a late customer or a customer who don’t show up at all.