ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION:
ROLE OF STATE LEGISLATURE IN SUPPORTING JOB ACCESS BY
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AND TECHNOLOGY POLICIES
Background. Transportation is a key factor in a person’s ability to obtain and keep a job. Transportation access holds particular importance for workers with disabilities, who may rely more frequently on public transportation and paratransit to get to and from work. Yet, as identified by a 2012 survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, lack of transportation is a barrier to employment for working-age people with disabilities.
Similarly, accessible information and communication technologies (ICT) are critical factors in ensuring fuller participation by people with disabilities in the workforce. When technology is not fully accessible, the opportunities for people with disabilities to get hired and experience career success are diminished. Public policies that foster accessible ICT solutions can positively impact states' budgets, economies, and workforce development efforts by increasing the employability of people with disabilities.
Challenges and Opportunities. Reasons that transportation is a barrier for people with disabilities include difficulty in coordinating transportation options to provide the complete trip to and from work; varying levels of accessibility of various transportation options depending on an individual’s specific disability; and unreliable, costly, and inconvenient paratransit systems.
When it comes to technology, the trend of federal policy is to clarify that the right to accessible ICT applies to not only applicants and employees with disabilities working for the federal government per Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations, but also to state government agencies and private sector businesses, as reflected in guidance by and settlement agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice. At the state level, there is a similar trend by state legislatures and governors to recognize the rights of people with disabilities to effective and meaningful access to ICT. For example, New York explains the benefits of accessible ICT: “The benefits of the policy [establishing minimum accessibility requirements] will be a more fully inclusive state workforce and increased availability of governmental services to all members of the public.”
The purpose of this Roundtable is to discuss the possible roles state legislatures may play in enhancing access to transportation and accessible technology for people with disabilities. In order to facilitate discussion at the Roundtable, we are sharing possible policy themes and related examples currently adopted by states. These themes and examples are neither comprehensive nor exhaustive, but are intended to give a sense of some of the state policy options available. They are based on a review of reports prepared and research conducted by the NCSL, NGA and, SEED regarding:
· Interagency Transportation Coordination
· Alternative Transportation Strategies, including Paratransit and Shared Mobility
· Providing State Funding for Nonprofit Paratransit and Community Vanpools
· On-Demand Transportation and Transportation Network Companies
· Complete Streets Policies
· Autonomous Vehicles
· Teleworking
· Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
INTERAGENCY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION
1. A key strategy has been the establishment of interagency “coordinating councils” at all levels of government.
Examples:
a) State and regional coordinating councils provide forums where government agencies and transportation providers—and, in some cases, other stakeholder groups—work together to make transportation services more effective, efficient, and accessible to the people who need them. In addition, they inventory existing transportation programs and resources, identify inefficiencies or gaps in service, participate in coordinated planning efforts, and work toward meaningful solutions that improve mobility for system users. Twenty states currently have active transportation coordination councils including: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington.
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES, INCLUDING PARATRANSIT AND SHARED MOBILITY
1. People with disabilities may rely on paratransit or shared mobility transportation solutions alongside fixed route public transportation.
Paratransit and shared mobility strategies often offer more flexibility in timing and destination, can be either publicly or privately operated, and may or may not connect to public transportation systems. Policy areas states may wish to consider when addressing alternative transportation systems like paratransit and shared mobility are listed below.
Despite the presence of public and private transportation that carries tens of millions of people to work every day, many parts of the country, especially rural and suburban areas, do not have sufficient transportation options to match the times, days, and geographic areas that job seekers, including people with disabilities, need. In these and other areas, affordability, particularly for low-wage earners, prohibits the use of existing transportation resources.
Examples:
a) Develop and fund nonprofit-operated transportation voucher programs, (Example: transportation voucher program), whereby nonprofit agencies provide transportation disadvantaged clients with tickets or vouchers that can be used with any number of defined public and private transportation providers, addressing both of issues of availability.
b) Create financial incentives that bring additional transportation providers (e.g., taxis, human services transportation providers, neighbors, and other volunteers) into the network of transportation services available in a community to meet time, day, and geographic needs.
c) Subsidize the cost of transportation using transit, taxi, carpool, vanpool, or other modes for those who have limited income (e.g., Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island).
PROVIDING STATE FUNDING FOR NONPROFIT PARATRANSIT AND COMMUNITY VANPOOLS
1. Some states operate publicly funded grant programs that encourage new shared mobility initiatives and support existing community-level transportation strategies.
Examples:
a) These funding programs can be used to assist nonprofits in the purchase and maintenance of paratransit and accessible vehicles for their clients who are aging or have a disability.
2. State funding initiatives have also been used to support the development of community-level vanpool fleets.
Examples:
a) These vanpool initiatives, operated by public agencies or private individuals, can provide job-related commuter services in rural, suburban, or urban settings and can benefit all workers, including workers with disabilities.
b) States that provide funding for transportation in these ways to serve people with mobility challenges include: Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some states assist the purchase of a vehicle including Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania.
ON-DEMAND TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES
1. With the advent of successful Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, offering on-demand transportation with the push of a button, some communities are considering these services as viable transportation options for people with disabilities.
Examples:
a) In some cases, metropolitan areas are considering on-demand transportation as a solution to alleviate cost and reliability concerns commonly found in regional paratransit services. Some metropolitan transportation agencies are considering developing public-private partnerships with TNCs, integrating on-demand transportation into existing transportation systems. However, since many TNCs operate as a network of private vehicle operators, these on-demand transportation solutions may not have fully accessible vehicles readily available for passengers with wheelchairs or service animals. TNCs compete with traditional taxi cab companies who are required to maintain a fleet with fully accessible vehicles, and as more travelers rely on TNCs, taxicab companies have reduced their fleets, which in turn results in a decrease of the number of accessible taxis.
b) A number of states have statutes or have introduced legislation with language requiring TNCs to accommodate wheelchairs and not charge more for transporting people with disabilities in order to receive a permit to operate. At least 28 states—Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin—as well as D.C., have established some sort of regulatory framework for TNCs. Delaware has a memorandum of understanding between its Department of Transportation and Uber. New Hampshire and Rhode Island have convened official legislative study committees. Laws in Louisiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington focus solely on insurance requirements for TNCs and their drivers.
c) On-demand transportation is an emerging issue and the impact of TNCs on transportation for people with disabilities, particularly as it relates to employment, commuting, and its effect on paratransit and taxi services is an issue states are beginning to consider in their accessible transportation policy efforts.
COMPLETE STREETS
1. Developing fully accessible transportation systems is aided by complete streets policies, which provide a place for all users of a street system.
Complete Streets policies imbed infrastructure planning and design requirements based on the principle of universal accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, and personal vehicle operators. Often, complete streets policies are utilized in new infrastructure projects or during planned maintenance and rehabilitation projects. For people with disabilities, complete streets policies can ensure safe and accessible routes to and from public transit, workplaces, public accommodations, and services necessary to support positive employment outcomes.
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
1. Vehicles that drive themselves offer great promise for helping people with disabilities get to work.
Examples:
a) Seven states—California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah—have enacted autonomous vehicle legislation, as well as Washington, DC.
b) Florida’s legislation, passed in 2012, declared the legislative intent to encourage the safe development, testing, and operation of motor vehicles with autonomous technology on public roads and found that the state neither prohibits nor specifically regulates the testing or operation of autonomous technology in motor vehicles on public roads. Florida's 2016 legislation expands the allowed operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads and eliminates requirements related to the testing of autonomous vehicles and the presence of a driver in the vehicle. Such autonomous vehicle policy developments in states may need to consider the particular needs of people with disabilities.
TELEWORKING
1. States are enacting policies that enable remote workplace participation to assist the employment of people with disabilities and other policy goals.
Examples:
a) Numerous states allow state employees to telework, and several encourage private employers to do the same (e.g., Most states support a telework program for select agencies and regions; some states support program for all agencies and regions, such as Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon, Virginia and Texas).
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
1. Overall State Policy Initiatives.
Examples:
a) A number of states, including, Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington, have adopted policy initiatives relating to accessible ICT.
2. States as a Model Employer. In order to improve the employment rate of individuals with disabilities, a number of states are pursuing policies that recognize the obligation of the state to serve as a “model employer.”
Examples:
a) Massachusetts, as part of its “Strategic Plan to Make Massachusetts a Model Employer for Employees with Disabilities,” includes action steps to ensure “the assessment and provision of reasonable accommodations, including access to assistive technology, for employees with disabilities.”
b) Other states with model employer initiatives include California, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
3. Scope of Coverage. The scope of coverage of state policies applicable to accessible ICT varies—the range includes states that cover: all state government entities; all executive, legislative, and judicial and administrative branches of state and local government; and educational institutions that operate, manage, or use information technology services or equipment to support critical state business functions.
4. Procurement Policies; Obligation of Contractors—Technology Accessibility Clause. States have developed policies regarding the obligations of ICT contractors providing services and equipment to governmental agencies to ensure ICT accessibility for individuals with disabilities, including the use of a technology accessibility clause.
Examples:
a) The State of Indiana includes a clause in all Requests for Proposals (RFPs) requiring compliance with accessibility standards. The Indiana Office of Technology requires that all Information Technology RFPs include a clause requiring compliance with federal accessibility standards; and that all IT-related contracts contain a section directing a Contractor to “comply with all IOT standards, policies and guidelines” in the provision of information technology related products or services to the state.
b) Other states that do this include: Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Nebraska.
5. Accessibility Standards. States have established minimum accessibility standards applicable to ICT.
Examples:
a) In general, the policies incorporate by reference the federal Section 508 standards, for example Alabama, Arizona, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, and Oklahoma. Or they incorporate by reference the standards contained in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), for example, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Washington.
6. Implementation Strategies—Methods of Administration. States have adopted a variety of strategies to maximize implementation of their accessible ICT policies, practices, and procedures.
Examples:
a) Establishment of Responsible Office and Assignment of Responsibilities (e.g., California and Minnesota—State Chief Information Officer, Maine—all executive agencies, Montana—Department of Administration).
b) Appointment of Advisory Committee/Working Group (e.g., Maine and Minnesota).
c) Development of Strategic Action Plan (e.g., California).
d) Provision of Technical Assistance and Training (e.g., Alaska, Arizona, and Oklahoma).
e) Establishment of Complaint Procedures (e.g., Arizona, California, and Oklahoma).
f) Adoption of Monitoring/Enforcement/Sanctions (e.g., Nebraska, Indiana, and New Hampshire).
RESOURCES
· Getting to Work: Effective State Solutions to Help People with Transportation Challenges Access Jobs; State Human Service Transportation Coordinating Councils: An Overview and State Profiles; and On The Move: State Strategies for 21st Century Transportation Solutions, National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports
· State Coordinated Transportation Plan Database, National Center for Mobility Management (NCMM)
· JobLinks Employment Transportation Center, Community Transportation Association (CTAA)
· The Best Complete Streets Policies of 2014 and Safer Streets, Stronger Economies: Complete Streets Project Outcomes from Across the Country, Smart Growth America’s National Complete Streets Coalition reports
· A Better Bottom Line: Employing People With Disabilities, Blueprint for Governors, NGA report
· Accessibility in IT Procurement Part 1: Issues, Challenges and a New Approach and Accessibility in IT Procurement Part 2: The PDAA Components, National Association of State Chief Information Officers briefs
Page | 2