Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA)

Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA)

Baltimore, Maryland

Assessment of Lift Reliability and Maintenance

April 30-May 3, 2001

Summary of Observations

Prepared for

Federal Transit Administration

Office of Civil Rights

Washington, DC

Prepared by

Planners Collaborative, Inc.

with

Multisystems, Inc.

Final Report

April 17, 2002

Maryland MTA - ADA Lift Reliability and Maintenance Assessment Final Report

CONTENTS

I.Purpose of the Assessment

II.Background

III.Overview of the Assessment

IV.Observations of Lift Reliability & Maintenance

A.Rider Experiences and Observations

B.Policies and Procedures Regarding Lift Reliability and Maintenance

C.Assessment Team Observations

D.Findings and Recommendations

1.Findings......

2.Recommendations

Attachment ABus and Line Assignment by Division – March 2001

Attachment BMTA Notification Letter & On-site Assessment Schedule

Attachment CMTA Response

Attachment DSample Maintenance Forms and Reports

Attachment EExcerpts from MTA’s Transit Operations Student Handbook and MTA Rule Book and Related Materials

Attachment FAssessment Review Forms

Maryland MTA - ADA Lift Reliability and Maintenance Assessment Final Report

I.Purpose of the Assessment

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) contain two primary provisions to ensure that vehicles with accessibility features are reliable and properly maintained. General equipment maintenance requirements, which pertain to all types of entities and services, are contained in 49 CFR §37.161:

(a) Public and private entities providing transportation services shall maintain in operative condition those features of facilities and vehicles that are required to make the vehicles and facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These features include, but are not limited to, lifts and other means of access to vehicles, securement devices, elevators, signage and systems to facilitate communications with persons with impaired vision or hearing.

(b) Accessibility features shall be repaired promptly if they are damaged or out of order. When an accessibility feature is out of order, the entity shall take reasonable steps to accommodate individuals with disabilities who would otherwise use the feature.

(c) This section does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance or repairs.

In addition to the general maintenance provisions described above that apply to all transportation providers, 49 CFR §37.163 requires public entities to keep vehicle lifts in operative condition as follows:

(a) This section applies only to public entities with respect to lifts in non-rail vehicles.

(b) The entity shall establish a system of regular and frequent maintenance checks of lifts sufficient to determine if they are operative.

(c) The entity shall ensure that vehicle operators report to the entity, by the most immediate means available, any failure of a lift to operate in service.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, when a lift is discovered to be inoperative, the entity shall take the vehicle out of service before the beginning of the vehicle's next service day and ensure that the lift is repaired before the vehicle returns to service.

(e) If there is no spare vehicle available to take the place of a vehicle with an inoperable lift, such that taking the vehicle out of service will reduce the transportation service the entity is able to provide, the public entity may keep the vehicle in service with an inoperable lift for no more than five days (if the entity serves an area of 50,000 or less population) or three days (if the entity serves an area of over 50,000 population) from the day on which the lift is discovered to be inoperative.

(f) In any case in which a vehicle is operating on a fixed route with an inoperative lift, and the headway to the next accessible vehicle on the route exceeds 30 minutes, the entity shall promptly provide alternative transportation to individuals with disabilities who are unable to use the vehicle because its lift does not work.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA and the USDOT regulations (49 CFR Parts 27, 37, and 38) that implement this civil rights law. As part of its compliance efforts, FTA, through its Office of Civil Rights, conducts periodic assessments of fixed route transit services operated by grantees.

This report includes the results of the Assessment of Lift Reliability and Maintenance at the Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA), based in Baltimore, Maryland, which was conducted from April 30-May 3, 2001. This report summarizes the observations and findings of the on-site assessment of MTA’s fixed route bus service. A description of key features of the fixed route bus service is first provided. A description of the approach and methodology used to carry out the assessment is then provided. Observations and findings related to the ADA requirements are summarized then described. The major findings of the assessment are summarized at the end of this report. Recommendations of the review team for addressing issues identified also are provided.

II.Background

The Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) is an agency of the Maryland Department of Transportation. MTA provides local bus, commuter bus, subway, light rail, rail freight, commuter trains, and ADA Complementary Paratransit services, either by direct operation or through service contractors. MTA provides bus service to Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and portions of three contiguous counties. MTA’s MARC commuter rail system operates on two routes to Baltimore, one to Washington, DC via Camden Yards and one between Washington DC and Perryville via Penn Station in Baltimore. MTA also operates a fleet of 53 articulated light rail vehicles on two light rail routes, one from Hunt Valley to Cromwell Station and the other from Penn Station to BWI Airport. The 30 miles of LRT route share a common line through much of the City of Baltimore. MTA also serves the city center with a 15.5-mile Metro rapid rail line, serving 14 stations with 119 rapid rail cars.

MTA operates 56 fixed bus routes and contracts with private providers to operate 17 commuter bus routes, serving Baltimore and Washington, DC (see Attachment A). MTA’s revenue bus fleet consists of 827 buses, of which 597, or 72%, are accessible. The fleet includes 60 new 2000 lift-equipped buses that had not been accepted for delivery at the time of the assessment, but were scheduled for delivery in the spring of 2001. Most of the bus fleet and all rail vehicles are equipped with public address (PA) systems to assist operators in making stop announcements. The 80 new buses ordered in FY 2000 are equipped with automated stop announcement systems. The new equipment, manufactured by Clever Devices, provides automatic interior stop and exterior route identification announcements along with text displays of stops inside the bus. A detailed description of how fixed route bus service is assigned to MTA’s four operating divisions – Bush, Eastern, Kirk, and Northwest – will be presented later in this report.

For this review, the assessment team evaluated fixed route bus lift maintenance and reliability for service directly operated by MTA. The review did not include an assessment of fixed route bus lift maintenance and reliability for the private contractors.

III.Overview of the Assessment

In a letter (Attachment B) dated March 21, 2001, the FTA Office of Civil Rights notified Maryland MTA that this compliance assessment would be conducted in late April/early May. This assessment focused on compliance with wheelchair lift reliability and maintenance requirements of the DOT ADA regulations, as outlined in the first section of this report. The assessment first involved the collection and review of key service information from MTA prior to the on-site visit. This information included:

• A current fixed route system map;
• A complete set of schedules for each fixed route;
• Fixed route bus fleet and division/garage information;
• The Transit Operations – Student Handbook and MTA Rulebook, which includes the “Wheelchair Lift Operator’s Handbook”;
• Notices, bulletins, and memoranda detailing lift use policies and procedures; and
• Recent service complaints regarding lift reliability and maintenance.

Prior to the site visit, the assessment team contacted several local human service agency representatives and persons with disabilities who regularly use MTA’s fixed route bus service to discuss their experiences with the transit system. The assessment team also reviewed two complaints concerning lift reliability and maintenance that had been filed with the FTA Office of Civil Rights.

Planners Collaborative, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts, and Multisystems, Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, conducted the assessment. Rosemary Mathias of Multisystems served as the assessment team leader. Brian Barber, Terry Regan, and Donald Kidston of Planners Collaborative assisted with the review. A schedule for the assessment can be found in Attachment B.

On Monday, April 30, four consumers who use wheelchairs agreed to ride the fixed route system with assessment team members. The Maryland Disabilities Law Center (MDLC) and the Maryland Center for Independent Living (CIL) recommended these individuals. MTA was not aware that the assessment team would be riding the system that day with consumers. The results of this activity are described in the next section.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, May 1 & 2, the assessment team observed morning bus pullout and conducted the lift reliability and maintenance reviews at each of the four MTA divisions: Bush, Eastern, Kirk, and Northwest. During the reviews, managers, mechanics, and drivers were asked about operating practices and procedures related to lift reliability and maintenance. Training materials also were reviewed and the assessment team met with staff from Central Radio Communications and reviewed dispatch logs pertaining to boarding of wheelchair passengers and lift-related failures.

An exit conference was conducted on Thursday, May 3. In addition to Ms. Mathias, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Regan, the following MTA representatives attended the meeting:

• James Fitzgerald, Chief - Eastern Division
• Mike Hannan, Chief - Northwest Division
• Shirley Nicholson, Chief - Bush Division
• Bill Sellers, Assistant Manager of Bus Operations
• Ruth Silverstone, Director of Interagency Programs/ADA Coordinator
• Aaron Smith Sr., Manager of Bus Operations

Cheryl Hershey, ADA Group Leader from the FTA Office of Civil Rights participated via conference call.

A draft copy of this report was provided to MTA on July 27, 2001 for review and comment. FTA also requested that MTA provide a list of corrective actions at that time. A copy of MTA’s response to the draft report appears in Attachment C.

IV.Observations of Lift Reliability & Maintenance

To determine Maryland MTA’s current performance with respect to lift reliability and maintenance, the assessment team performed the following activities:

• Conducted telephone interviews with agencies and individuals who are regular riders or who have clients who are regular riders of the MTA bus system;
• Reviewed MTA’s policies and procedures for assigning buses and cycling lifts;
• Reviewed the operator training materials and disciplinary practices;
• Rode the bus system with consumers who use wheelchairs;
• Observed drivers perform lift cycling during morning pullout;
• Interviewed bus drivers, mechanics, and managers to gauge their understanding of lift use policies and procedures; and
• Reviewed maintenance records and dispatch logs.

A.Rider Experiences and Observations

FTA Complaints

Prior to the site visit, the assessment team reviewed complaints filed with the FTA Office of Civil Rights. FTA provided the assessment team with copies of two open complaints that were still under investigation at the time of this assessment. Both complaints relate to lift reliability.

The first complaint was filed with the FTA Office of Civil Rights in 1998, and alleges that lifts are not working on two routes; are not working 50% to 75% of the time overall; and that drivers are being improperly trained or not trained at all with respect to lift operation. The customer reported these situations as ongoing problems.

The second complaint related to three incidents that occurred during April 2000 (and also filed with the MTA’s ADA Coordinator and is reported in Table IV.A.1):

• The first incident reportedly occurred when the customer attempted to board a bus and the driver said the lift did not work, but did not attempt to deploy the lift.
• A second incident reportedly occurred the next day when the customer attempted to board a different bus with the same driver and was told the bus was too crowded, although the customer said that the back of the bus was empty.
• A third incident reportedly occurred a week later when the customer said the driver was making negative comments about her and she had trouble boarding the bus. The incident escalated to the point where MTA police were called.

The Maryland Disabilities Law Center (MDLC) filed the complaints with the FTA on behalf of the individual reporting these problems. MTA responded to the FTA complaint in writing and stated that the driver described in the first two bullets above had been cautioned and re-instructed to follow proper procedures. The operator was given a “final warning” and was told that future complaints of this nature “would result in strong disciplinary action.” The driver identified in the third incident reported above has retired.

Customer/Agency Contacts

The assessment team interviewed seven human service agency representatives and individuals who regularly use the MTA fixed route service or whose clients use the service. Several of the consumers have filed complaints with MTA. The common complaint was that drivers do not appear to notify dispatchers of lift failures as required by MTA policies and procedures, nor do they always advise passengers about when the next accessible bus will be by to pick them up. According to one regular passenger, about 25% of the time there is a lift-related problem. Although service has improved slightly in the past six months, she said it is “not enough to start dancing in the streets.” Sometimes the passenger said the driver seems to have a problem aligning the lift (mounted at the front door of the buses) with the curb and can damage the lift if it is not deployed properly. This is a particularly problem when parked cars block the stop and make it hard for the drivers to stop next to the curb.

The MDLC conducted a review of MTA maintenance logs to try to determine whether drivers were calling in malfunctioning lifts, as required by MTA policies and procedures. The results of MDLC’s review are contained in a report provided by Allison Scharf, Staff Attorney. The report "Are Bus Operators Calling in Malfunctioning Lifts as Required by the ADA?" prepared by MDLC, 7/13/00, covered the period from February through May 2000. During that period MDLC had received 13 reports of lifts failures that included sufficient information for the incident to be tracked in MTA’s maintenance records (i.e., date and coach number were provided with the complaint). Of the 13, only two or three (13%-23% of the reported lift failures) were identified in the MTA maintenance logs and only one of those buses appeared to have been repaired within a week. Further, during the period from January through June 2000, MDLC counted 366 repairs that were made and appeared to be unrelated to road calls. In part, MDLC concluded:

(E)ither the lifts are failing due to operator error (meaning the lifts are not in need of repair), operators are claiming lifts are broken when they are not, and/or that not all of the buses are undergoing pre-trip inspections, preventing discovery of the defect until the driver has to deploy the lift on the road some time in the future.

MDLC also concluded:

When lifts fail and drivers do not call the malfunction in, no one at MTA knows that a passenger is waiting. Consequently, people may end up stranded or they may have to wait for long periods of time before another lift-equipped bus arrives.

MTA Complaints

Prior to the site visit, MTA provided summaries of lift-related complaints logged since March 2000. Most complaints are directed to the MTA ADA Coordinator or the MTA Complaint/Info Coordinator. Table IV.A.1 shows a list of 12 complaints that were received by the Complaint/Info Coordinator. Table IV.A.2 shows a list of 10 complaints relating to 30 incidents that were received by the ADA Coordinator. There was no overlap noted between the two sets of complaints, although some of the individuals have complained through both points of contact, but relating to different incidents.

Table IV.A.1 - Complaints Reported by Complaint/Info Coordinator

Date / Reported Complaint / Action Taken
3/14/00 / Lift not working / Coach was sent to shop for repairs
3/27/00 / Defective lift / Coach was sent to shop for repairs
4/11/00 / Defective lift / Coach sent to shop for repairs
4/15/00 / Broken lift / Operator reported lift; bus sent for repairs
8/12/00 / Broken lift / Coach was sent to shop for repairs
9/13/00 / Broken lift / Operator reported lift; bus sent to shop
1/4/01 / Defective lift / Radio Room informed; bus sent to shop
1/19/01 / Defective lift / Operator reported lift; bus sent to shop
2/1/01 / Defective lift / Bus sent to shop for lift repair
2/6/01 / Lift inoperable / Defective lift reported to shop
2/15/01 / Lift defective / Patron advised another lift bus was on the way; defective lift bus sent to shop
2/15/01 / Defective lift / Radio Room informed; bus sent to shop
Source: MTA Complaint/Info Coordinator

Generally, it appears the complaints logged by the MTA Complaint/Info Coordinator related to real-time incidents that generated telephone calls. The complaints directed to the ADA Coordinator were written complaints. In most cases, it appears the complaints resulted in instruction for drivers or maintenance work. However, some complaints do not appear to be fully addressed in the MTA response. For example, a complaint dated 3/4/00 in Table IV.A.2 indicates that the “bus driver passed customer.” The MTA action was stated as “Bus was filled to capacity.” The response does not appear to answer the question of why the driver passed by the customer who likely could not see the bus was full and may not have known when to expect the next accessible bus.