2007 Analysis of MBTA Fixed Route Accessible Services

2007 Analysis of MBTA Fixed Route Accessible Services Conducted fall 2007 Prepared by: --and-- Social Research Corporation Table of Contents Chapter 1: Study Overview Chapter 2: Development of the Observation Instruments Chapter 3: Tester/Observer Recruitment and Training Chapter 4: Findings Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Appendix 1: The Survey Instrument Chapter 1: Study Overview 1.1 Introduction In 2006, Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS) settled a class-action lawsuit between a group of passengers with disabilities and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Among other things, this lawsuit alleged services that were non compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) experienced by passengers using the fixed route bus system. As part of the settlement, the MBTA agreed to annual monitoring of the bus system using a program of undercover testers and observers. Implementation of this monitoring was contracted to Delta Services Group, Inc. Delta was asked to use the monitoring program which was developed during the presettlement period in support of the plaintiffs. Delta was asked to follow the same monitoring protocols and to conduct an undercover evaluation of the bus system in 2007. Such an evaluation was planned and designed during the summer of 2007 and implemented in October and November of 2007. This report presents the findings of the Fall 2007 study. 1.2 Observation Targets The study was designed to directly assess bus services provided by the MBTA and its bus operators using standards established under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the MBTA’s rules for drivers. The study did not examine the MBTA’s paratransit system (known as The Ride) or its rail services. The study also did not examine the MBTA’s commuter or longer distance bus service. Only local, intra-city, 100% accessible fixed bus routes (according to published MBTA timetables as of the time of the study) were targeted. Also, only passengers with mobility impairments were used to test the system. We did not test the system for usability by passengers with visual impairments, hearing impairments, developmental disabilities or any other cognitive disabilities. Of the passengers with mobility impairments, we did subdivide our testing group into two types; those who were ambulatory and those who used wheeled mobility devices. However, our emphasis was placed on passengers with disabilities using wheeled mobility devices. In our previous study, Delta developed a set of measures that would assess basic service level information (e.g. type of bus, crowding, etc.), equipment functionality (e.g. lift operability, bus kneeler operability, etc.), bus operator performance and the system’s response to problems and failures. The measures were designed around the US Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Regulations on ADA compliant public transit service (CFR Title 49, Section 37) as well as the MBTA’s own published policies as they were in mid 2007. When these measures were developed, we consulted with two transit industry experts who participated on, or supported, the original USDOT Federal Advisory Committee that drafted the current ADA regulations to ensure that our survey instrument would accurately reflected ADA standards. In September of 2007, the measures (sets of scales) were revised and were made ready for testing. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 1: Overview Page 1 - 1 1.2.1 MBTA Policy Changes and Training In September of 2007, the MBTA was in the midst of a significant effort to revise some rules governing services to passengers with disabilities, to be followed by a comprehensive training campaign that would re-train every MBTA driver on these new rules. Unfortunately, because of the study schedule, Delta was unable to wait for these rules changes to be completed so that they could be incorporated into our evaluation instrument. Our limiting factor governing the schedule of the survey was the onset of winter. Because the study requires passengers with disabilities to remain outdoors for 4 to 6 hours at a time to ride and test successive buses, it was neither practical nor safe to conduct this testing during the cold winter months. Our planning supposed that the end of November was the latest date after which weather would most likely begin turning consistently cold and by which the study needed to be complete. Also, assuming that we needed a 4 to 6 week study period, and allowing for the Thanksgiving holiday, we determined that we had to begin the study by mid October, which would likewise require us to finalize the survey instrument design by the end of September (to allow time for planning of the study, the development of operating procedures, training materials and the production of hundreds of survey instruments for use during the study). Since the MBTA’s rules changes and driver training plan were not going to be finalized until November, Delta had no choice but to design this study to very closely follow our 200405 study, which was based on the best information available at the time. Because the MBTA has made rules changes since this study was conducted, it is important to note that our results tested some performance elements that have since been changed. For this reason, items like positioning the bus at the curb and securing a mobility device differ from the current MBTA rules. This study must be read for what it was; an evaluation of rules and procedures as they were at the time of the study, not as they are currently. It is also important to note that, as a result of the settlement, the MBTA made significant management changes within its organization, the most significant of which was the creation of an Assistant General Manager (AGM) of accessibility and a realignment of authority and accountability between this position and the Office of Transit Access (OTA) and “The Ride” paratransit program. These significant organizational changes were implemented during early and mid 2007 and this realigned organization had undertaken a review and update of bus driver rules and training as one of its first major programs. Because of the time required to make the above changes, it is important to recognize that, apart from several Special Orders issued to drivers by MBTA management, there were no substantive changes made to the rules, procedures or day-to-day management of bus operations between this study and that of 2004-05. The only major change between the first and this study was the addition of newer low-floor buses and the resulting retirement of older lift equipped buses. For the reasons cited above, Delta would recommend that this study be considered an updated baseline of the MBTA’s performance, rather than an evaluation of their improvement since 2005. As we stated above, not much changed in the way the MBTA managed its accessible services between these two studies and there was not a reason to expect significant change in driver performance. However, during 2007 and 2008, the new bus operator rules will have taken effect and virtually every bus operator will have been retrained on these rules. Assessments from this point forward should begin to 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 1: Overview Page 1 - 2 measure the impact of these efforts and should begin to indicate the direction of any trend of changes in the effectiveness and compliance of bus operator performance. 1.3 Data Collection The actual data collection portion of the study was designed around two-person, observe-tester teams. All testers were passengers with disabilities and all observers were people without disabilities. These tester/observer teams were recruited, trained and paid for their services. The two-person tester/observer design was used to provide an objective observation of the service being provided to the tester. Testers and observers were paired together randomly and rotated so no two people would get too comfortable working together. The teams were deployed throughout the system based on a random selection of starting or “seed points” and were then instructed to follow a fixed set of instructions which routed them over a series of connecting route segments throughout the MBTA service area. The observers and testers traveled together but did not interact on the buses, making every effort to appear to be random passengers who just happened to get on and off of the bus at the same stops. Testers followed scripts that defined how they should get on and off the bus as well as how and when to ask for assistance. Observers were provided with paper forms to records results, as well as digital audio recorders and modified cell phone headsets, which would allow them to covertly dictate observations into the recorder while appearing to be talking on the phone. No audio recordings or photographs were taken of actual field events, only selfnotes by the observers. Tester-observer teams were deployed at varying times of the day and were managed by a study coordinator, who was available by cell phone any time a team was deployed. In the event of a problem of any kind the observer could contact the study coordinator for guidance. The actual observation period was late October through the end of November 2007. During the observation period, we were able to conduct 1040 observations using six to eight tester-observer teams. Observations were conducted seven days a week during both peak and off-peak service periods, but not before 6:00 AM and not after 8:00 PM. The survey was temporarily suspended during the Thanksgiving holiday (both Thursday and Friday, November 25 and 26, 2004), both to give staff time off and to suspend observations at a time when transit service would likely be operating atypically. Weather throughout the study period was generally mild and did not appear to be a significant factor. There were very few days of cold temperatures and rain but these were not severe. Overall, the study period appeared to be unremarkable, providing us with a fairly typical period in which to conduct observations. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 1: Overview Page 1 - 3 Chapter 2: Development of the Observation Instruments 2.1 Concept The central element of the study’s data collection efforts are the instruments used to record observations of people with disabilities on the buses. The Delta developed a chronologically sequenced, cascading set of measures (scales) examples of which are included as Appendix 1. These instruments enabled observers to record certain basic information about each bus route observed, followed by details about the Tester’s efforts to board, ride and alight the bus. The instruments enabled observers to literally work through a series of measures that reflected with the actual steps involved in boarding, riding and getting off the bus. The scales would further allow the observer to move from one sequence to the next, depending on observations as they worked through the measures/observational scales. The observational scales were designed to cover the dozens of permutations of possible “if-then” situations, allowing the observer to record an event and then proceed to the next battery (group of related questions), based on responses to the previous battery. The sequences covered by the scales included not only normal operations but also failure response batteries and batteries relating to alternative transportation, in the event that significant non-compliant service resulted in the passenger being completely unable to board and ride the bus. In short, the observational scales needed to be logically constructed, comprehensive, relatively easy to follow, yet dynamic enough to allow observers to shift between batteries relevant to the service being experienced by the tester. In addition to capturing the steps and events required in the boarding, riding and alighting process, the scales also constructed measures that would allow reflecting degrees of performance. That is, just recording binary responses would be insufficient: We needed to capture the degree to which the driver provided particular services. In some situations a passenger might be literally able to get a ride, but still receive suboptimal or perhaps dangerous performance. To illustrate this point, we will provide several examples: Example 1: Assistance If the passenger presents at the curb and the bus operator, though friendly and helpful, simply does not know how to use the lift, ramp, or kneeler, the passenger might talk the driver through the operation of this equipment and thereby receive a ride. Passengers are not expected to understand how to operate accessibility devices. Even so, because the passenger worked with the driver, he/she would be able to get a ride. Example 2: Securement If a bus operator fails to properly secure a passenger’s mobility device, this represents a probable public safety concern, yet the passenger might still be able to get a ride. [Note: an improperly secured mobility device is a danger to the person with a disability and to other passengers. In the event of a stop or a turn, an unsecured mobility device and person with a disability could come loose and roll through the bus, becoming a missile hazard. Some electric mobility devices weigh as much as 400 pounds; combined with the weight of the person with disabilities, the danger is substantial. Of course, the 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 2: Development of Observation Instruments Page 2 - 1 person with disabilities is in greater danger because he/she may not be able to control his/her response to the mobility device movement, nor the direction of the uncontrolled mobility device.] 2.2 References The primary reference for the measures was the USDOT ADA Regulations, contained in CFR Title 49, Section 37. These regulations address equipment accessibility requirements as well as training and service provision requirements. Because many of these requirements are general, we also referenced the MBTA’s published policies on accessible services, as well as agency rules and regulations. We then designed testing scripts that would represent generally typical passenger use of the system but also included passenger actions and requests that would trigger responses by MBTA drivers. As noted earlier in Chapter 1, the rules cited and integrated into our instruments were those in effect at the start of the study in October 2007. Since then, the MBTA has made changes to some of these rules, so the results discussed in Chapter 4 may not reflect current procedures. 2.3 Refinement When we developed this study protocol, we searched for similar research in the public transit sector which we could use to help us build the best survey possible. When we reviewed and refined the current version, we again conducted a search and again unable to find any other studies as comprehensive as this. Because of this, we were not able to draw on other measures that had been previously developed and tested. Nevertheless, we reviewed and refined the survey instrument and added a new section on bus stop announcements to the version used in this study. 2.3.1 Rail Station Assessment Unlike the system assessment in 2004-05, in the 2007 study, we permitted survey teams to “reposition” in the field using the subway system, when such a repositioning would increase the speed and productivity of the assessments. Because we would likely have teams using the subways, we wanted to see if it was possible to systematically capture observations about the operability of elevators and the performance of the subway system. Though we designed an assessment instrument for this purpose and did use this instrument during the survey, our use of the subway system was so infrequent and so sporadic that we are not presenting any of the findings from that effort in this report. The sample size for our observations was far too small to have any statistical significance and the results of these assessments have no value in terms of representing typical experiences or conditions of the subway system. It is our intention in future assessments to further refine this process to see if it is possible to collect better information about subways and stations. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 2: Development of Observation Instruments Page 2 - 2 2.4 Operation Though the design of the instrument and the study protocols was tested and proven in the 2004-05 study, we nevertheless continued to refine and improve the survey’s operational processes. As with the first study, our training for this study concluded with a day of field tests by survey teams to both train them and to help us further refine the survey process. Using this feedback, the survey processes and the scales were given one final revision during the first week of the study and were thereafter frozen and used as they were for the remainder of the main study. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 2: Development of Observation Instruments Page 2 - 3 Chapter 3: Tester/Observer Recruitment & Training 3.1 Introduction The testers and observers used in this study were recruited from the local population and trained by Delta on-site in Boston during the weekend of October 27-28, 2007. Once selected, all were fully trained before they were allowed to conduct any tests or observations. In this chapter, we will discuss this recruitment and training process. 3.2 Recruitment Both testers and observers were recruited from the Boston area during the summer and fall of 2007. DSG used a combination of advertised job postings, referrals and word of mouth to recruit personnel to staff these two categories of positions. To the best of our knowledge, none of the testers or observers had any direct or indirect relationship with the MBTA or any particular interest in the outcome of this study. However, to ensure that the testers would not bias our results due to previous less-than-satisfactory experiences with MBTA buses, we paired every tester with an observer/rater on every trip. (Note also that we did not maintain the same tester-rater pairing, but rotated them so as to avoid possible bias.) 3.2.1 Testers Testers were people with actual mobility impairments who either used a wheeled mobility device or ambulated. If testers used a wheeled mobility device, we measured their devices to ensure that none varied significantly from the “standard wheelchair” defined in the ADA regulations; 30 inches wide by 48 inches long. We also interviewed testers to ensure that they had an ability to navigate the transit system independently using their mobility devices. All of the testers were fully capable of using the fixed route bus system independently and virtually all of them did so on a regular basis. We also interviewed personnel to be sure that none had any type of personal grudge or animosity against the MBTA, which might have conflicted with their ability to remain objective. Generally, all of the testers were experienced at riding the bus and all traveled and managed their lives independently. They also appeared to be free of bias towards, or animosity against, the MBTA. Testers were paid $16.00 per hour for their services and were reimbursed for any out of pocket expenses. 3.2.2 Observers Observers were generally recruited from university populations, specifically graduate students in Physical and Occupational Therapy programs. All observers were graduate students or had graduate degrees in the fields of public health, medicine, nursing, psychology, physical therapy, business or law. Observers were also interviewed for any possible bias they might have against the MBTA. All were objective, professional and relatively inexperienced regarding passengers with disabilities riding the MBTA. These characteristics were sought because we did not want any to enter the project with any 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 3: Tester/Observer Recruitment and Training Page 3 - 1 strong opinion about the MBTA’s accessibility. Observers were paid $20.00 per hour for their services, were given a bus-only MBTA monthly bus pass and were reimbursed for any out of pocket expenses. 3.4 Training Training for the observers and testers was administered during the weekend of Saturday and Sunday, October 27 and 28, 2007. This training was a two-day classroom/practical curriculum which covered fundamentals of public transit and transit equipment, ADA regulations relating to transit, and instructions concerning the conduct of the study. 3.4.1 Day One On the first day, students were given handouts and were instructed using a series of Power Point presentations with photographs. The class was conducted as a directed roundtable discussion, encouraging students to interact with the materials and to ask questions. Because few of the observers had any experience with accessible public transit, DSG also wrote and produced an instructional video to help with this training. This video was used for the 2004-05 study and was used again in the 2007 study. The video contained a series of scenarios of fully compliant, moderately compliant and clearly inappropriate performances filmed using paid actors (both actual people with disabilities and students acting as extras) boarding and alighting actual transit buses in real street locations. The buses were leased from two transit systems in Pennsylvania and were selected because they used the two most common types of buses owned by the MBTA. This video enabled DSG to show observers exactly what to look for and enabled us to point out examples of levels of performance. The video also provided examples of good, moderate and poor customer service, wheelchair securement, pulling the bus to the curb and generally assisting passengers. It is very important to note that the video was generally designed and scripted to provide instruction regarding the variables contained in the observation scales. As such, the video gave many examples of problems, such as inoperable lifts, and then went on to demonstrate the proper driver response. Observers were trained to understand the 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 3: Tester/Observer Recruitment and Training Page 3 - 2 difference between a failure of the equipment and a failure of the driver to respond appropriately to such a failure, since the study was examining both phenomena. 3.4.2 Day Two On the second day of training, observers teamed with a select group of testers to put their training into practice. Following some additional classroom training in the morning, Observers were broken into teams and went out on route sequences for a test. The observers were all given maps and copies of the rating instrument and were instructed to construct observation sequences. When these sequences were completed, the teams were given blank sets of rating instruments tester scripts (what to ask for and not to ask for), observation equipment and were sent out to make practice observations. All teams successfully completed their observations and the entire group assembled in the afternoon for a group debrief and Q&A period. Following this, the testers and observers were asked to submit a schedule of the times they could work and the group was dismissed. 3.5 Operational Test & Certification Following the end of the observer/tester training, the DSG made a few revisions to the tester scripts, instruments, and procedures to further improve the process. When these changes were made, the study was actually started on Monday October 29, 2007. The study was started with a full deployment of teams, though working shorter schedules the first few days. Small refinements were made over the first week, testers and observers were systematically debriefed, and data were evaluated as they came in. We gradually increased the number of teams deployed and the length of observation periods. By the end of the first week, we were fielding teams at full capacity. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 3: Tester/Observer Recruitment and Training Page 3 - 3 Chapter 4: Findings Overview: In this section, we present findings from the 2007 bus study. In many cases, we also present findings from the 2004-05 bus study where it is possible to offer a similar and relevant comparison. When appropriate, we provide separate analyses of passengers in mobility devices (see “WC” [wheel chair] in document) and passengers with canes or walkers (see “S” [standee] in document). We then provide a comparison summary – a sentence or two indicating if there has been improvement, deterioration, or no discernable change in the intervening period. We also note when the data are not fully comparable – sometimes because the earlier data combine samples (rush hour sample and general sample, or wheel chair samples and standee samples, or some combination thereof). We have adopted this format to facilitate comparison (when possible) and to continue to provide the same contextual information that was helpful in earlier reports (e.g., an explanation of the flip seat, why difficulties getting to or from the bus’ securement area are important, etc.). Introduction: In the structured observations, we sought to systematically document the experiences of people with disabilities using buses. The findings reveal a complex picture. On the whole, many drivers do a lot of things correctly a good deal of the time. For example, they usually attempt to pick up people with disabilities. Most of the time drivers pull to the curb in a manner that places the bus’ ramp or lift close to the curb. In cases where the bus is not positioned close enough to the curb, most drivers willingly adjust the bus’ location to the proper curb area if so requested. We also found that buses with ramps usually provide some form of access (because ramps are less mechanically demanding and offer both powered and manual operation). Most drivers also display business-like attitudes toward people with disabilities most of the time. However, as these data demonstrate, the certainty and safety of what is a routine trip for a person without a disability is often uncertain and is seldom safe. That is, we found that drivers were very unlikely to secure wheel chairs with the required straps or to use those straps to the designated and safe parts of the wheelchair. In addition, the drivers did not generally ensure the brakes were applied.) In the following pages we review our findings, which follow the normal series of steps for a typical bus ride: • Bus arrival and boarding; • The passenger moving to a seat or securement area, and safe travel; • Exiting the vehicle; and 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 1 • Response to exceptional situations and service failures. Caveats: Our sample underestimates ridership during the rush hours. Urban bus systems like the MTBA tend to experience much higher ridership during the rush hours. The MBTA’s peak to base ratio is 2.4 – indicating that, during rush hours, the MBTA provides 2.4 times as much service than during the non-rush hour. While the above ratio is based on numbers of passengers, not numbers of buses, our sample, nevertheless, reflects lower relative proportions of buses during the rush hours Impact to benefit perception of MBTA: Because rush hour buses are frequently more crowded and the system more difficult to ride in general, our findings usually understate the difficulties experienced by people with disabilities during these times. That is, our findings tend to display the actions of the MBTA in a better light than they would with a sample that exactly represented the ridership patterns at different times of the day. Ratio of Low Floor to Lift buses is different from the 2005 study: Since 2005, the MBTA has purchased dozens of new low floor buses and has retired a proportionate number of older lift equipped buses. As a result, there are fewer lift buses in 2007 than there were in 2005. However, when we are looking at liftrelated issues, we analyze within the sub-category of lift buses, thus the comparisons are not distorted within categories. It is also important to note the timing of this study relative to recent improvement efforts on the part of the MBTA. When this study was designed and initiated in the fall of 2007, the MBTA was just settling on a series of rules changes relating to services for passengers with disabilities. Following this effort, the MBTA was also initiating a campaign to retrain 100% of its bus operators between November 2007 and July 2008. Because the study variables were fixed before the new MBTA rules were decided, several of the study elements and data analyses resulting from them may not be fully consistent with the T’s current accessibility rules. It is important to read the results of this study with this in mind. Prior to the next bus study, the researchers will revise and synchronize the study variables with the MBTA’s new rules and procedures. In the sections that follow, the abbreviation “WC” is used to indicate findings that relate to passengers who were using a wheelchair or a scooter as their mobility device. The letter “S” is used to indicate findings that relate to standees or passengers who, though disabled, were able to ambulate with the assistance of a cane, crutch or walker. All ambulatory testers in this study used some such assistive device and were clearly identifiable as a person with some type of mobility limitation. We also use the abbreviation “PWD” as shorthand for a “Passenger with a Disability.” 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 2 1. Bus Arrival and Boarding: The first area examined is a passenger’s probability to actually have a bus stop for them and for them to board. A person with a disability who wishes to ride the bus with any regularity will, on average, encounter frequent ride denials, an inability to board a bus or refusals by the driver to allow entrance. On average, a person with a disability who takes buses for the journey to and from work will be significantly delayed or entirely blocked on those trips—from one to four trips a week—assuming a conventional ride of two buses each way for a five-day workweek. We document the probabilities of failed routine bus travel below. First, we examine the reasons why some rides don’t begin; why a proportion of people with disabilities do not board the first or second appropriate bus that comes to the bus stop where they are waiting. These early boarding failures (the passenger is completely passed by a bus that does not appear to be full) for customers with disabilities are: In 2007: • WC passengers: 1.2% failures • S passengers: 1.3% failures In 2004-05: • WC Passengers: 1.2% failure Comparison: No change. (Note: no exact comparison for standees is available from 2004-05) 1.1 Other types of non-boarding reasons: In some cases, though the bus stopped and allowed other non-disabled passengers onto the bus, the bus then drove off without acknowledging the customer with a disability. • • • 2007: 2007: 2004-05: WC: 3.7% of this type of ride denial S: 1.3% Both WC and S: 4.2% The 2007 Weighted Mean (There were more mobility device observations than cane/walker observations) was 3.2%. Comparison: 24% reduction of pass-bys: 3.2% in 2007 vs. 4.2% in 2004-05. Often, a driver will stop and provide some explanation for not accepting PWDs: 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 3 In 2007 Drivers Stated: • Bus full 1.6% (WC). • The ramp or lift was inoperable in 5% (WC) to 2.5% (S) • Drivers also gave other, unspecific reasons for denial (e.g., “I can’t accept you in this bus”) in 3.1% of the WC cases and in 10.3% of the attempted boardings for standees. In 2004-05: Drivers stated: • The bus was full (6.3%); • They did not have room in the securement area (0.2%); • The lift or ramp was inoperable (10.5%). • Thus, the total “non-acceptance” inn 2004-05 was 17% Comparison: There is an overall reduction of “bus full” statements. However, comparisons of problems with ramp or lift are made inexact by the following facts: • The proportion of low floor buses is considerably higher in recent test; and, • Earlier data reflect combined rush hour and general samples. 2. Pulling to the Curb Assuming buses stopped for passengers and allowed them to attempt to board, the process of the bus coming alongside the curb and boarding was evaluated. The first step of this process is how well the bus pulled to the curb. Note: When this study was conducted, the MBTA had no specific rules governing what a driver was to do if a bus stop was obstructed. In this case, Delta assumed a “logical response” to such a situation, in that the driver would be able to see the passenger using a wheeled mobility device waiting to board at the curb and would make some type of attempt to get the bus as close to the boarding location as possible. If the driver did not, or was not able to do this, we then assumed that he/she would at least try to pull into some type of “safe” location where the passenger could board. Our evaluation proceeded along these lines of assumption. Since this survey was conducted, the MBTA has instituted specific new rules and procedures governing what a driver is to do if a bus stop is blocked. 2007, WC: • In 77.6% of the cases the drivers pulled within one foot of the curb, or to a safe area (8.9%) • For 5.3% the bus was too far from the curb, but in these situations drivers repositioned the bus to get it closer. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 4 2007, S: • In 67.6% of the cases the drivers pulled within one foot of the curb, or to a safe area (18.9%) • For 11.7% the bus was too far from the curb. o However, in 15.9% of these cases, the driver repositioned the bus. In 2007, drivers were more accommodating to people in mobility devices than to the ambulatory disabled 2004-05: • Drivers generally pulled to within one foot of the curb (61% of the time) or to a safe area (9%). • Drivers were usually willing to reposition the bus when requested by customers with disabilities. Moreover, it must be remembered that in 8% to 13% of the cases, the bus stop area was obstructed by a parked vehicle or some other circumstance it is noteworthy that the bus operators generally did what they could to get close to the curb. Comparison: Data from 2004-05 reflect weighted means of WC and S samples and are therefore not directly comparable to 2007 data. Also, Comparisons of problems of the bus getting to the curb in the 2007 and 2004-05 studies are made inexact by the following facts: • The proportion of low floor buses is considerably higher in recent test; and, • Earlier data reflect combined rush hour and general samples. 2.1 Not boarding because of distance from curb or safe area : 2004-05 : 4% of riders were denied access because the bus was too far from the curb and the driver either would or could not reposition the bus. Note: While many drivers reposition the bus without a request, about a fifth (21%) of such requests were refused. In 2007 and Comparison: An item-by item direct comparison is not available from the data configured here. However, there were fewer cases of passengers not boarding because of distance from the curb—especially for those with mobility devices. 3. Lift Boarding by Passengers Using Wheeled Mobility Devices In 2004-05, there were more lift buses on the streets than in 2007, thus the overall frequency of lift problems would be expected to decrease in the 2007 study. Specifically, in 2004-05,the percentage of lift buses for the general 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 5 sample of wheel chair users was 30%, the percentage of lift buses for rush hour sample was 47%. As a comparison, in 2007, 15.4% of the buses were lift buses in the wheelchair sample, and 16.7% were lift buses in the standee sample) As noted, however, we compare these items only within categories of bus types. 2007: • In 12.5% of the cases, the PWD (WC) could not get onto the bus. (This includes: a. refusals to try, b. statements that the lift did not work, and thus the effort was aborted and c. failed efforts) Specifics: • In 91% of the lift attempts (where the driver said the lift was working) the driver was able to activate the lift without a problem. • In 7.1% of the cases the drivers evidenced significant lack of knowledge about the controls – although they ultimately succeeded. • In 1.4% of the cases the driver failed after trying. 2004-05: • 10.5% “declared lift failures” at the curb; another 19% did so after trying to operate the lift. • More specifically, in 65% of the lift attempts the driver was able to activate the lift without a problem. • In 21% of the cases the drivers evidenced significant lack of knowledge about the controls – although they ultimately succeeded in operating the lift. Comparisons: In 2004, 19% failed, while in 2007, 12.5% failed. As postulated earlier in this section, the total number of lift failures have gone down, presumably due to more ramp buses and fewer lift buses. 3.1 Difficulties other than mechanical operation of the lifts for standees: Because of the change in bus types in 2007, the lift was rarely used for standees and we had no significant findings. 3.2 Assistance For and/or Rushing Customers with Disabilities: During the boarding process, we noted how patiently the driver waited and/or whether the driver was helpful as the passenger boarded. 2007: There were no recorded examples of drivers rushing people with mobility devices. 2004-05: Almost 9 out of 10 drivers (88%) waited while the person with a mobility device maneuvered onto the lift; 3% clearly rushed the person with disabilities on the lift; 3% ignored them as they struggled on the lift 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 6 (discussed below). No driver refused to provide assistance to a passenger on the lift when so requested Comparison: Full improvement. 4. Ramp Boarding: 2007: WC: 83.3% used the ramp without a problem; 13.3 fumbled but succeeded; 3.3% could not use the ramp. In 4% of the cases, WC users were helped on the ramp by other passengers. Total mean failure rate is 3.3% 2004-05: Ramp boarding was usually successful, although in about 6% of cases the power ramp failed and in 8% of cases the driver evidenced a lot of trial and error effort for several minutes -- succeeding in half the cases. When resorting to the manual ramp operation, drivers were often not knowledgeable, sometimes even having to be instructed by the passenger. Nevertheless, the use of the manual ramp as back-up proved an effective remedy in most cases Total mean failure rate is 6% Comparison: Improvement; from 6% failure (04-05) to 3.3% failure (07). However, these comparisons are inexact because the data from the 2004-05 studies included both the separate study of buses only during the rush hour period and general samples. Thus, because rush hour buses are more crowded and the situation is more hectic, the earlier sample may contain higher-thanusual failure rates. 4.1 Ramp Slope, Position, and Boarding Problems Boarding the bus via the ramp often requires the person with a disability to maneuver the wheelchair or scooter up an incline. This can sometimes be challenging, especially when the ramp is steep or access to the ramp is obstructed. 2007: Assistance Needed 10.4%. When assistance needed: • 53% needed but not provided by driver without requests; • 29% provided upon request • 18% provided reluctantly 2004-05: Assistance Needed 30%. When assistance needed: • 18% needed but not provided upon request; 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 7 • • 10% provided upon 2nd request 2% Help refused. NOTE: Comparison not exact because of shifts in questions. 4.2 Repositioning the Bus to Use Ramp: In some cases, as the driver is starting, or after the driver has begun the boarding process, he/she realizes that the bus should be repositioned to complete the process properly or safely. 2007: WC: • 82.1% of drivers repositioned without prompting. • In 12.2% of the cases the PWD requested moving the bus. o Of those, in 31.2% of cases, the driver willingly complied; in 6.2% the driver reluctantly complied; in 62.5% the driver refused. 2004-05: • In 45.5% of the cases the driver willingly complied, • In another 45.5% the driver reluctantly complied. • In 9% of the cases the driver refused to reposition the bus to facilitate use of the ramp. Comparisons not exact because 2004-05 questions combine WC and Standees, and reflect both general and rush hour samples. Though this is an inexact comparison, it appears drivers have improved their abilities or willingness to position (and/or reposition) the buses. 4.3 Use of Kneeler: Customers with mobility devices: The kneeler is used in conjunction with the lift or ramp to facilitate access and reduce the vertical distance. In fact, the normal means of using a ramp is to first kneel the bus to reduce the distance between the bus step and the sidewalk or street and then to deploy the ramp 1 . If a bus is not close enough to deploy the ramp on the sidewalk and it must be deployed to the street, and if the kneeler is not used, the ramp slope will be too steep and many passengers would find it very difficult—if not impossible—to roll up such a slope, in addition to traversing the path to the bus. The findings from the 2007 were: 1 This assumption is based on a street with a normal curb to road height ratio. In cases where the use of a kneeler would not have been beneficial, testers were instructed not to request it. Page 4 - 8 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings • • • • 86% of the time, the driver offered the kneeler without a request; 12% of the time, the driver provided with the kneeler upon request; 1% of the time the driver reluctantly complied with the passenger’s request; 2% of the time the driver refused to employ the kneeler Note that in 12.5% attempts to use the kneeler, the kneeler failed. The parallel findings from the 2004-05 study were: • • • • 74% of the time, the driver offered the kneeler without a request 17% of the time, the driver provided with the kneeler upon request; 4% of the time the driver reluctantly complied with the passenger’s request; and, 5% of the time the driver refused to employ the kneeler. Comparison: There has been a clear improvement in 2007 over the 2004-05 study, which is further notable in view of the fact that the MBTA now has more kneeling, low-floor buses than it had previously. 4.4 Kneeler use for Ambulatory Passengers (passengers using canes): People with disabilities who were using canes (rather than wheelchairs or scooters) also faced difficulties with failed or refused kneelers: • • • • 2007: 88.6% Driver complied with or without request 7.4% were granted use of the kneeler reluctantly, and 4% were outright refused 2004-05: 76.3% Driver complies with or without request. Of those where there was no immediate compliance: o 11.5% were granted use of the kneeler reluctantly, and o 12.2% were outright refused. Among those drivers attempting to use the kneeler, o 9.5% failed because the driver could not operate the equipment Comparison: The percentage of drivers who only reluctantly provide the required service has declined, as has the percentage of drivers who refuse to provide the ramp. The percentage of passengers prevented from boarding is also, and understandably, somewhat lower. It is also of significance that a small percentage of ambulatory passengers are consistently unable to board buses because of the reasons stated above. In 2007, we see that—as in 2004-05— 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 9 drivers seem to be somewhat less accommodating to ambulatory passengers with disabilities than to those using wheeled mobility devices. 4.5 Others’ Help: Regulations and the Dangers of an Untrained Helping Hand Even when initial boardings are successful, there are dangers that passengers with disabilities confront situations that would be easily preventable by adherence to proper procedures. Often, passers-by stopped to help boarding passengers. These people, observing the person with a disability struggling with a steep ramp, high curb, stuck wheel, or difficult lift, assisted the person with a disability by pushing or pulling the wheelchair, lifting a wheel or some other action. In every case, the driver was observing the passenger’s difficulty and offered no assistance. Unfortunately, although this may reflect the good natured citizens in Boston, it represents a potentially dangerous situation. Passers-by have likely not been trained to provide assistance to a passenger using a mobility device and could inadvertently cause a problem, damage a wheelchair or even harm a passenger . Even a small occurrence of this phenomenon is troubling, in view of the fact that a passenger being offered assistance by a random person on the street would reasonably suggest that the passenger was exhibiting a significant degree of difficulty which the bus driver was either not observing or was observing and not attending to. The statistics below indicate the occurrence rates of this type of assistance in 2007 and in 2004-05. 2007: The comparable data for the 2007 observations with mobility device passengers are: Passenger help with ramp: 8.9% of all ramp use Passenger help getting to securement area: 0.5% of all efforts, 30% of efforts where PWD was not helped by others. 2004-05: The danger of an untrained passenger helping a PWD occurred in 10% to 36% of the cases (depending on the circumstances – e.g., boarding, exiting, and moving in the bus). Note that ADA regulations require drivers to provide reasonable assistance and the MBTA specifically trains drivers to safely and appropriately provide this assistance. Drivers’ help is not regarded as unsafe. Comparison: The data do not permit a direct comparison because of the way they are categorized and because of the use of combined samples in the earlier data presentations. There appears to be a very slight improvement, much of it due to the T’s effort at upgrading the buses to low floor coaches. When help is needed and not provided by drivers, passenger’s interventions appear to be at similar rates to the earlier test period. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 10 5. Driver Attitude Because denigration of customers with disabilities creates a hostile environment that many would consider to be a barrier to access, we examined driver interactions with people with disabilities. We specifically examined the interactions of drivers and people with disabilities in relation to the individual steps of the journey because that is the way they were observed and because there are significant differences in the way a driver may deal with a broken securement strap versus, for example, a request to use the lift. Throughout the study, we categorized the driver-passenger interactions as follows: • • • • Friendly: Driver was friendly, cordial or otherwise pleasant and cooperative Business-like: Driver was business-like, task focused and professional Unpleasant: Drive was unfriendly, surly, argumentative or unpleasant but not defiant Defiant/Hostile: Driver was defiant, hostile, verbally abusive or rude. 2007: The ratio of friendly and business-like attitudes versus unpleasant or defiant/hostile drivers is slightly improved—with the percentage of those subjected to unwanted attitudes dropping a 2 or 3 percentage points. (See separate attitudinal observations below.) However, in a direct comparison of the total probability of encountering unpleasant/hostile/ defiant attitudes during a typical weekly trip to work the probability of facing an “unpleasant” driver is still over 65%, . 2004-05: In general, most drivers (81%) who deal with customers with disabilities are business-like or friendly most of the time. There was nevertheless an almost a one-in-five probability that a person with a disability encountered at least one hostile, defiant or unpleasant attitude by the driver on any single ride, i. e., in almost one-fifth of the ride segments (18.7%) the driver manifests one or more observably hostile or unpleasant comments or actions. In a typical trip--two buses to work, two buses home--the probability of facing a hostile or unpleasant driver attitude is thus 74.8%. 5.1 Boarding Attitude Observations: Dealing with the lift at boarding: 2004-05: 32% of the drivers were friendly 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 11 63% were business-like 5% were unpleasant. 2007: WC: 47% of the drivers were friendly 39% were business-like 13.9% were unpleasant. Though more drivers were friendly in 2007, the combination of friendly and business-like responses in 2004-05 was higher. In general, this area has improved little. Dealing with the kneeler at boarding: 2004-05: 14% were friendly; 69% were business like; 16% were unpleasant; and, 1% was defiant/hostile. 2007: WC: 31% were friendly; 64% were business like; 4% were unpleasant; and, 1% was defiant/hostile. There was improvement in this area in 2007. Dealing with the ramp at boarding: 2004-05: 9% were friendly; 83% were business like; 6% were unpleasant; and’ 1% was defiant/hostile. 2007: WC: 28% were friendly; 68% were business like; 4% were unpleasant; and, 0.5% were defiant/hostile. This area has improved in 2007. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 12 Repositioning bus to use ramp: In response to the need to reposition the bus to use the ramp, drivers in both 2004-05 and 2007 were less accommodating than is required: 2004-05: 45.5% the driver reluctantly complied; and, 9% of the drivers refused to reposition the bus to facilitate use of the ramp. 2007: 6.2% the driver reluctantly complied; and, 6.2% the drivers refused (WC), However, drivers were less accommodating to standees, refusing seven out of nine requests for repositioning the bus. Comparison: While there are ups and downs in different areas, the overall pattern indicates a deterioration in performance. 5.2 Attitude at Ride Denials: When drivers denied a ride at the bus stop, for whatever reason, there appeared to be higher-than-usual levels of driver anger – especially during rush hour periods. 2004-05, WC: Instead of the usual levels for the categories of “unpleasant” or “defiant or hostile” (generally under 7% for both negative categories combined) we observe that 16% of the drivers were rated at the denial settings as “unpleasant,” and 21% were rated as “defiant or hostile.” 2007, WC: The data from 2007 manifest an improvement in driver attitudes when dealing with PWDs with mobility devices that are denied entrance (without attempting to board). Drivers were generally friendly or business-like. However, when the ramp failed, 4% of drivers were unpleasant and 0.5% of drivers were defiant/hostile; when the lift failed, 39% of drivers were unpleasant and 14% of drivers were defiant/hostile; Note: this does not provide a direct item-by-item comparison with the earlier data. 5.3 Attitude Toward Ambulatory Passengers 2004-05: For people using canes -- Responses to requests for the use of the kneeler: • 16% of the drivers were unpleasant; and, • 1% were hostile 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 13 2007: • 4% of the drivers were unpleasant; and, • 1% were hostile Comparison: Generally improved although data differences prevent an exact and direct comparison. 6. Bus Signage Bus signage was observed to be generally compliant, compared to other aspects of the bus operations we examined. 2004-05: More than four-fifths (84% to 85%) of the front and side signs were in good shape. However, 8% to 9% were degraded, and 2% to 3% were replaced with paper signs. In 4% to 6% of the buses, the signs were missing or not working. The ISA designated decals (the sticker blue wheelchair symbol) on “accessible buses” were found on 97% to 98% of buses; priority seating decals were even more constant, at 99% 2007 and Comparisons: Rates of compliance with signage requirements on the front and sides have improved, with over 95% of the buses having these signs in good shape. The certainty of a set of ISA decals, however, has declined from the previous 99% to a range from 89 to 93%. Comparison: General signage has improved, but compliance with ISA decals has deteriorated from the previous high level. 7. Service Within The Bus Getting onto the bus is of course just one part of the journey – especially for a customer with a disability. Described below are the passengers’ experiences passing through the various steps of the securement and transport process. 7.1 Getting to the Securement Area: The passenger with a mobility device must be able to reach the securement area to ensure that his/her device is properly restrained and/or the passenger transfers to a seat (if needed). Sometimes, drivers must assist with this process and both MBTA and ADA regulations clearly state that this type of assistance must be provided. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 14 2004-05: In about one-third of the boardings, some assistance was necessary. In these cases: • 59.5% of the drivers assisted without request; • Another 27% of drivers assisted only when requested; • 2.4% reluctantly helped upon request; • 11% refused requests by passengers for assistance. 2007, WC: When assistance was required: • 69% of the time the drivers assisted without request; • Another 20% of drivers assisted only when requested; • 9% reluctantly helped upon request; • 3% refused requests by passengers for assistance. Comparison: More drivers assist without request, and fewer drivers refused to help. This is an improvement. The 12% refusal/reluctant rate (3+ 9) is a 1.4% absolute improvement over 2004-5 (which equaled 2.4 and 11 = 13.4%) As a relative percentage increase it reflects a 10% improvement. 7.1.1 When the driver does not help: 2004-05: In one situation, the passenger gave up and exited. In most (90%) cases, people with disabilities maneuvered by themselves to reach the area. (In the other 10% of these situations, another passenger helped the person with a disability reach the securement area – with the accompanying issues that the passenger may not know how to properly assist a passenger using a wheel chair. 2007 and Comparison: Although changes in samples and computations do not provide item-by-item comparisons, the overall pattern is of no change. In a few cases in both periods, the PWD could not reach the securement area and exited the bus without riding. 7.2 Securing the Mobility Device to the Bus: A Reasonably Safe Ride Once at the securement area, the mobility device must be secured, and if needed (i.e., if a scooter and not a wheelchair) the passenger should be asked to transfer to a seat. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 15 7.2.1 Flip seat operation: Frequently there is a flip seat that must be disengaged to allow room for the mobility device and access to the securement area. Most drivers were able to disengage (flip up) the flip seat. 2004-05: 91% did it without difficulty; 7% with difficulty; 0.5% were unable; and 1% (8 drivers) refused. In three cases, the passengers with disabilities simply rode the bus not in the assigned areas. The drivers made no attempt to intervene nor did the persons with disabilities protest (per their instructions from us). 98% did it without difficulty; 1% with difficulty; 0.2% were unable; 2007: and .2% refused. As before, some PWDs were obliged to ride in “unsecure” areas of the bus. Comparison: Clear improvement in operation of flip seat. 7.2.2 Brakes/Locks: Drivers are obliged to ensure that the mobility device is immobilized, frequently through the use of installed wheel locks or breaks. This requirement becomes particularly important in a case where a driver may not otherwise properly secure a mobility device. Though exactly how and when a mobility device’s wheels are eventually locked or secured depends on the type of mobility device used and the securement system employed, this is a step of the process that should be executed. Either drivers may observe the person with a disability engage the brakes or lock the wheels, or the drivers may engage the brakes for the customer. This requirement, however, was often ignored. 2004-05: 53% of the drivers made no effort to lock/brake the devices or ensure they were locked/braked. 2007: 48% of the drivers made no effort to lock/brake the devices or ensure they were locked/braked Comparison: Slight improvement from 53% to 48%. Thus, in both cases, about half of the time, the driver was attentive to this important step of the process. 7.2.3 Securement Straps: A motorized mobility device may weigh a few hundred pounds. Without the proper securement straps in place, a hard turn or a short stop by the bus may 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 16 easily flip the person with a disability out of the device and may also create a “missile hazard” as the unsecured wheelchair careens into other passengers. Moreover, placement of securement straps on arm rests or foot rests (removable) or on plastic wheel frames can result in a broken mobility device and provide inadequate securement of the device. In fact, during both the 2004-05 and the 2007 study, our testers experienced times where their wheelchairs would have flipped over, had the observers (who were sitting nearby) not intervened and grabbed the chair as it literally began to tip. In every case, this was because the drivers had not properly secured the wheelchairs. Note that the MBTA’s driver training program specifically trains drivers how to properly secure a wheelchair. Ultimately, if the person with a disability successfully boards – and most do most of the time – a safe ride is only possible if the straps are attached to the device in the proper locations. As we shall see in the next few sections, there was only a marginal probability of a PWD in a mobility device having it securely strapped to the bus with the brakes properly set. Poorly equipped buses: 2004-05: Although drivers are obliged to check the number and operation of the securement straps before each bus leaves the garage, we observed 2 buses with no straps and 2 buses with only one strap. We observed: • 10% of buses with only 2 straps, • And 6% with just 3 straps. • Also, 1.4% of the straps had a tightening device defect. • In sum, we observed that about 17% of the buses were not properly equipped in terms of securement straps. 2 2007: • • • • • We observed: 0.3% of buses with no straps, 0.5% with one strap, 3.5% with 2 straps, And 1% with 3 straps. 89% had four straps. Comparison: Clear improvement. 2 Note that our confidence in the generalizability of this number is not assured because it is not always possible to see all of the straps unless they are deployed or are at least attempted to be deployed. Page 4 - 17 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings 7.2.4 Strap use and drivers not familiar with strap use: 2004-05: • Only 29% of the drivers appeared familiar with the proper use of the securement straps. • Another 7% succeeded but with difficulty. • 6% were simply unable to use the straps; and, • A rather remarkable 54% attached the straps to non-structural parts of the wheel chairs or scooters (e.g., removable arm rests or leg rests). • Note: Three customers with disabilities attached the straps to the devices by themselves 2007: • • • • • 13% of drivers attached no straps whatsoever; 10% only attached one strap; 34% attached two straps; 14% attached 3 straps; and, Only 29% attached all four straps. Of those attaching straps – independent of the number of straps: o 31.6% attached them to structural parts of the mobility device; o 11% attached them with notable difficulty; and, o 2.3% were unable to use the straps. In 116 cases (18.1% of all cases) the driver refused to help secure straps. In 3 cases the driver insisted the PWD do it him/her self. 7.2.5 Total Safety Rates: Four Securement Straps and Proper Locks/Brakes: 2004-05: We found there was only a marginal probability – 8.7% -- of a passenger having their mobility device secured properly by the driver. That is, in 91.3% of the rides, the wheelchair or other mobility device was NOT properly secured with the correct number of straps on the designated areas. If one examines the proportion of passengers with disabilities whose mobility devices were properly secured to the bus AND where the driver assured the device was properly locked, one finds that only 4% of the passengers with disabilities were safely riding according to these criteria. Therefore, 96% were riding in violation of ADA and MBTA regulations. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 18 2007: If we count 4 straps correctly connected to structural parts, only 6.7% of PWDs with mobility devices were secure. If we add those who also had wheels locked, we find that only 4.2% were in compliance and considered safe. Comparison of total safety: The substantive sum of these efforts indicates little change. Statistical note: To derive these figures from the data, one creates a triple crosstabulation, combining: 1. Mobility devices attached with 4 straps, 2. Use of the straps on structural parts of the device, and 3. Driver ensuring that the wheels are locked or with brakes on. 7.2.6 Driver intervention: MBTA regulations require that if the device cannot be properly secured, the situation represents a safety hazard and the driver is to call the dispatcher and advise the person with a disability about the situation and the availability of the next bus. 2004-05: • In 27% of the cases the driver said it was OK to ride without the straps in place. • In 72% of the cases, the driver neither intervened nor commented, and the person with a disability rode the bus in violation of MBTA regulations. Note that on three trips, our testers (passengers with mobility devices) concluded that the situation was so unsafe that they exited before the ride commenced. In each situation, the securement equipment was broken or the driver was unable to operate it even with instruction. 2007: • In 43% of the cases where it was clearly unsafe, the driver indicated it was OK for the PWD to ride. • In 57% of the cases the driver neither commented nor intervened. In addition, a PWD exited rather than be subjected to the unsafe ride. Comparison: There is a decline in adherence to MBTA/DOT rules in the 2007 study. 7.2.7 Shoulder & Lap Belt for passengers with mobility devices: 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 19 Although its use is not required by law, a shoulder and lap belt is standard equipment on transit buses and must be available. It must be offered to every passenger if it is installed. Passengers can then accept or decline this offer. Use of this additional belt system is highly recommended, as the securement straps only secure the wheelchair, not the passenger. 2004-05: • In most cases (92%), however, the strap was neither requested nor offered. • In less than 7% of the cases the driver offered the safety strap. When the safety strap was used, drivers often had difficulty employing it properly: o It was “effectively” used only 21% of the time; o It was used with difficulty 46% of the time; and, o About one-third of the time, 32%, the driver was unable to use the safety strap when attempted. 2007, WC: In half the cases, the use of the belt was problematic. • It was effectively employed in 49.4% of the cases; • Employed with difficulty in 19.6% of cases; and, • Drivers were unable to use it in 31.0% of relevant cases. Comparison: Clear improvement although the comparisons are not exact. 8 Pulling Away from the Curb Drivers are obliged to ensure that all customers, particularly those with disabilities, are properly seated before pulling away from the curb and into traffic. 2004-05: • We found this was the case 43% of the time, i.e., correct and safe. • In 36% of the cases the drivers were inattentive to the passengers. • In 21% of the cases the driver pulled away while passengers were still in the aisles. In our study of passengers using canes, the safety rating for drivers pulling away from the curb was generally higher: • Drivers were inattentive to passengers only 32% of the time; and, • Drivers pulled away too soon only 16% of the time. 2007, WC: • Correct and safe in 77.4% of the cases; • Inattentive in 17.6% of the cases; • PAX in aisle in 4.8% of the cases; and, 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 20 • PAX fell in 0.2% of the cases. 2007, S: • Correct and safe in 63% of the cases; • Inattentive in 18.4% of the cases; • PAX in aisle in 18.4% of the cases; • PAX fell in 0.3% of the cases. Comparison: Clear improvement between 2004-05 and 2007, but drivers performed worse in cases where ambulatory passengers were riding. 9 Exiting the Bus Drivers are obliged to remove the securement straps, ensure the brakes or locks are disengaged (either by doing it themselves or observing the person with a disability do it), and assist the person with a disability to the exit area. 9.1 Removing Securement Straps and Getting to an Exit: 2004-05: Drivers were almost always helpful in removing the securement straps from the mobility devices: 97.4% did it without request; another 1.7% did it when prompted. Three drivers complied with reluctance, and one driver refused to unstrap the passenger. 2007: Removing the safety strap was seldom a problem: In one case the driver refused to help. Comparison: There was significant improvement in this area. 9.2 Getting the Mobility Device to the Exit Area: 2004-05: Most drivers helped passengers with disabilities reach the exit (41% without request; 28% upon request). 3% helped reluctantly 6% refused to help. Without driver help, 19% managed to reach the exit by themselves and 2% were helped by fellow passengers. 2007: Again, most drivers helped passengers with disabilities reach the exit (81% without request; 11% upon request). 4% helped reluctantly and 4% refused to help. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 21 Comparison: Not exact comparison but overall appears to be marked improvement. 9.3 Pulling to the Curb: This variable relates to the driver pulling to the curb to alight the passenger. 2004-05: Drivers appeared cognizant of the need to pull close to the curb (to allow use of lift or ramp) and either succeeded the first time or repositioned as needed). 2007: As before, generally fine. In only 1% of the cases were the buses too far from the curb and there was no obstruction. For WC PWDs, the bus was repositioned 93% of time when needed. Only 18.2% required prompting. For standee PWDs, 22.2% had to request repositioning of the bus to allow exiting. Comparison: Not comparable data. Overall there appears to be little change – with, however, both periods reflecting high levels of compliance. 10 Exiting the Bus: The following elements refer to sequence steps required for a passenger to get off of a bus (alight). 10.1 Kneeler use: 2004-05, WC: • Most drivers (90%) offered the kneeler for people with mobility devices; • Another 2.6% provided it upon request; • 2% provided it reluctantly; and, • 3% refused. 2007, WC: • Kneeler offered without request in 99.6% of relevant times; • 0.2% offered when requested; and, • 0.2% refused. 2007, S: • Kneeler offered without request in 60.3% of relevant times; • 0.34.7% offered when requested; • 22.1% were provided the kneeler reluctantly; and, 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 22 • 2.9% were refused. Comparison: Clear improvement for WC PWDs, Treatment of standees was less compliant. 10.2 Ramp Use: 2004-05: Drivers provided the ramp when requested, although 1.3% did so reluctantly. (Note: As with lift buses, there is no alternative method of exiting for a person with a mobility device on a ramp bus). In 1% of the cases, the driver was obliged to deploy the manual method for ramp use. 2007: Only 0.2 percent provided ramp reluctantly. Comparison: Improvement, though this was not a real problem area to begin with. 10.3 Lift Use: 2004-05: Driver actions with lift exits were generally helpful. However, three drivers rushed the customers with disabilities; 2 provided assistance with obvious reluctance; and 4 were inattentive while the person with a disability exited. Obviously, this is a somewhat select population in that only those who successfully boarded via the lift could exit via the lift – a possibility prevented at the onset to 29.5% of the passengers with disabilities trying to use lift buses. 2007 and comparison: Almost all drivers were fully compliant. One driver was inattentive, but none experienced difficulties using the lift to exit. Comparison: Improvement, but data do not provide exact comparison. 10.4 Exit to Sidewalk or Street: 2004-05, WC: • 8% of customers with disabilities were left in unsafe areas of the street. • 10% were left in a safe area but far from the curb, or by sections of curb too high for their mobility devices to surmount. In these cases, they needed to travel in the street until they located a curb cut. Sometimes, as noted above, a passenger or passer-by helped them, with corresponding dangers of accident or device damage. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 23 2007, WC: • 2.5% of customers with disabilities were left in unsafe areas of the street. • 13.5% were left in a safe area but far from the curb, or by sections of curb too high for their mobility devices to surmount. 2004-05, S: Drivers generally attempted to pull to the curb to allow a person with a disability using a cane to alight the bus. • 16% were left too far from the curb in an unsafe area. • 14% pulled to a safe area but not near the curb. Most drivers repositioned the bus to help the passengers with disabilities upon request. 2007, S: • 8.9% of customers with disabilities were left in unsafe areas of the street. 22.5% were left in a safe area but far from the curb, or by sections of curb too high for them to easily get onto the sidewalk. In these cases, they needed to travel in the street until they located a curb cut. We note however that in 20% of the cases where the PWDs asked for a repositioning of the bus—and it was appropriate to be repositioned--drivers failed to reposition the bus 64% of those times. Comparison: For PWDs in mobility devices there is a reduction (improvement) in the numbers left in unsafe areas—from 8% to 2.5%. For standees, there appears to be modest improvement. 10.4.1 Driver interactions with customers using canes: 2004-05: The drivers’ interactions with customers exiting while using canes appeared to be less cooperative than for customers with mobility devices. 11.5% were unpleasant and 3.4% were hostile/defiant. 2007 and comparison: The percentage of drivers who are very negative toward “standees” has diminished notably: The recent test period revealed 1.3% of drivers were unpleasant, a clear improvement. 11 Failure Response In addition to examining whether a person with a disability was able to get a safe and properly executed accessible ride, the study also examined how the MBTA responded when the system failed and the passenger was unable to get 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 24 transport. When such a failure occurs, the driver is obliged to contact a dispatcher or supervisor to determine the next step. Examples of this type of failure would include things like the bus having no room, or if required accessibility features of the bus do not work (either at boarding or in the securement area). When the driver calls to report such a problem, the dispatcher should tell them what to do. It may be that the fastest response would be to wait for the next scheduled fixed route bus if it will be along within 30 minutes. Alternatively, a special bus could be dispatched to pick up the passenger or a mechanic or supervisor could be sent to the scene. In any case, the driver is supposed to call the dispatcher and the dispatcher is supposed to offer a remedy. In 2004-05, this requirement was generally ignored. In the 2007 study, response was not improved. Drivers faced with the inability to accommodate customers with disabilities normally suggested “the next bus” will be able to help, and they did not call the dispatcher to see if this is actually a reasonable solution. As part of this research, we examined what happened when the equipment failed or other problems required “alternative transportation” in whatever form was offered, after consultation with the dispatcher or supervisor. Comparison: See below for specific percentages. 11.1 What happens if the customer with a disability does not board? 2004-05: Our assessment revealed that two-out-of-three times (64%) the driver did nothing to follow up on a failed boarding (combining WC and S), and the customer with a disability was obliged to wait for the next fixed routed bus without any information about its accessibility or expected arrival. 2007, WC: 2007, S: 69% of drivers called the supervisor 2007: 35% called the supervisor. Comparison: Inexact comparison because earlier data reflect combined WC and S data. In general, for PWD in mobility devices there has been an improvement in calling the supervisor. For those with walkers or canes, there has been a marginal deterioration in this function. 11.2 More on failure response: Most often, when a driver could not accommodate a passenger with a disability, he/she did not follow procedures to ensure another ride. The common response 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 25 was, “The next bus will have room”…or “The lift on the next bus will work” and the driver simply left. 2004-05: In only 36% of the failed boarding attempts, did the driver call the supervisor to report the problem (which is MBTA procedure). Sometimes this happened upon request of the customer needing the lift. Calling the supervisor however did not always guarantee that the person with a disability was able to board the next bus. In fact, in 9.3% of the cases, the passengers with disabilities were unable to board the next bus even after the supervisor had specifically arranged pick up by it. 2007, WC: In all cases of lift failure, the driver refused to call the supervisor, even when requested. 2007, S: • In cases of kneeler failure, the driver called 64% of the time. In one case of failure, however, the driver refused to call even when requested. • Ramps have very low rates of failure. In one failed attempt, however, the driver refused to call even when requested Comparison: Failure to call the supervisor appears widespread. Note that without calling the supervisor, arrangements for “alternative transportation” cannot be made. 11.3 Informing Passengers of next steps and alternative transportation: Drivers are required to inform passengers with disabilities about the outcomes of their discussions with the supervisors to let them know when they can expect a ride. In the rare cases where a driver did actually call a supervisor, we found however, that this was usually overlooked. 2004-05: The rate of not informing customers with disabilities ranged from 27% of the time to 100% of the time, depending on the event, e.g., failed lift, no room in securement area, rush hours; stuck on lift midboarding. 2007: Because drivers so often did not contact the supervisors about the problem or denials, there was often no information to impart to the PWD. This is, of course, not an indication of success. In one ramp failure, the PWD was informed that the driver called the supervisor. Also, in one of four lift failures with a standee the driver informed the PWD that he/she had called the supervisor, though in both cases this was not observed. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 26 Comparison: No direct percentages are presented, and thus exact comparisons not available. In general, there appears to be no change. 11.4 Alternative Transportation Outcomes: As noted, when we followed the progress of person with a disability who was unable to ride the bus we found that most were not treated according to stated procedures. Most often, as noted above, nothing was done. 2004-05: Almost three-quarters (73%) of the customers with disabilities who were denied their “first” attempt at riding the bus were not correctly serviced. • In 7% of the cases, a special bus was called, which the person with a disability boarded. • In 9% of the cases, the driver did call the supervisor but he/she was unable to help and the person with a disability was unable to board the next fixed route bus. We termed this a “not useful intervention.” • A fifth of the time (20%) the supervisor was called and the person with a disability was able to board the next fixed route bus. We term this “a useful intervention.” • In 8% of the cases, nothing was done and the person with a disability was unable to board the next fixed route bus. That is, the driver did not call the supervisor and the next bus was unable to accommodate the person with a disability. 2007, WC: Less than 16%--of those who could not ride their intended bus (i.e., not board or not get to securement area) were correctly serviced by a useful call to the supervisor linked to reasonable accommodations (i.e., designated fixed route or supervisor van). Most often, the supervisor was not called. Of those who were successful in securing alternative transportation: 87.5% received a fixed route bus, and 12.5% received a supervisor van. Comparison: Exact comparisons not possible because of the several samples and the presentation of the data. The rate of calling supervisors – the essential step to arranging alternative transportation – appears to have not improved, and may have deteriorated. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 27 11.4.1 Alternative (Next) Bus Arrival: The USDOT ADA Regulations, Title 49, Section 37.153 (f) states that transit entities are required to provide alternative transportation any time the passenger cannot be accommodated within 30 minutes on a fixed route, due to inoperable lifts. 2004-05: Ignoring, for the moment that a significant number of passengers with disabilities had already failed to secure rides, and just focusing on the arrival of the one targeted “alternative transportation” ride (usually the next fixed route bus), we find that 47% arrived within 15 minutes, and 43% arrived within 30 minutes. 10% arrived after the 30 minute cut off time . 2007: (WC) 85% arrived within 15 minutes, and 15% arrived after the 30 minute cut off time. Comparison: There was faster arrival within the 30 minute period. But a slightly higher number of targeted alternative buses/vans arrived after the 30 minutes. In general, this reflects only a modest improvement in a variable that does not occur as often as it should. 13. Stop Announcements A new element observed in the 2007 bus study was compliance with required stop announcements. Though this item was included in the study and was observed on nearly every ride, we lacked a reference point for our observations. At the time the study instruments and processes were finalized, the MBTA was still in the process of formulating revised rules and guidelines on when stops were to be announced. Lacking this reference, we used a “common sense” approach and instructed observers to listen for announcements at major transfer points, major intersections along routes and when stops were requested. We also asked observers to listen for the audibility and quality of the announcement, as well as whether announcements were made so that they could be heard both inside and outside of the bus. Our results for this experimental observation are provided below. In this analysis, we combine the observations made during the mobility device-related tests and the ambulatory passenger tests. That is, we average the two sets of tests/observations to provide one measure for each item. 13.1 Use of Automated Annunciator, or Driver via Microphone, or Unaided Voice, or No Stop Announcements: Overall, the Annunciator was used 85.5% of the time. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 28 When that was not available (or not used), the driver used a microphone, no microphone (but announced the stops), or did not announce the stops. In the 14.5% of cases where the Annunciator was not used, drivers used microphones 3% of the time, used their unaided voice 20.5% of the time, or did not announce the stops 74% of the time. 13.2 Quality of Annunciator: The Annunciator was found to be working 85.5% of the time, inoperative 5.35% of the time, and too low in volume 9% of the time. In a separate set of observations, the Annunciator was judged to be garbled 3.6% of the times. 13.3 Required Waypoint Announcements Certain stops are required waypoints, and should be announced. The observations reveal that these occurred on the runs as follows: Always: 85.6% Usually: 2% Sometimes: 1.7% Never: 10.7% 13.4 Announcing Each Stop The system can announce each stop, or the driver may use a microphone or his/her voice. The observations reveal that these stop announcements occurred on the runs as follows: Always: 89% Usually: 4.6% Sometimes: 1% Never: 4.9% 13.5 Announcing Requested Stops Often, passengers will request that the driver announce a specific stop. Our observers found this service was very often provided . (Note, we do not include any runs where the driver was not asked to announce a specific stop.) Always: 92.5% Usually: 3.5% Sometimes: .7% Never: 3.5% 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 29 13.6 External Announcements Stops are announced on an outside loudspeaker. We must point out, however, that while our observers could attend to these announcements when the bus pulled up for them, we must caution the reader about their ability to accurately determine the certainty of announcements when they were inside the bus. Thus, with that caveat stated, we found the following about outside stop announcements: Always: 36% Usually: 3% Sometimes: 1.5% Never: 58.5% 13.7 Drivers’ Attitudes about Providing Announcements Drivers were very business-like, or sometimes friendly, about providing announcements. Our rates found that 13% were “friendly” and 87% were business-like in their attitudes about this task. 14. Discussion and Conclusions: People with disabilities continue to face an array of difficulties using the MBTA’s buses. While many drivers are helpful and often kind, and while most of the buses are equipped to serve the population of travelers with disabilities, the clear message of these data is that routine travel for this population remains uncertain. Even when passengers with disabilities are able to board, they face a series of obstacles in actually boarding, getting to and from the securement areas, and alighting from the buses. These passengers continue to face a range of other dangers; from well-meaning passers-by and passengers, from faulty equipment, and from drivers who do not follow required procedures. People using canes are more successful at boarding but sometimes face greater driver hostility and continue to experience less willingness to use kneelers or to reposition the bus for safe departures. Overall, though there are noted improvements in equipment reliability (brought on mainly through the retirement of older lift equipped buses) passengers with disabilities continue to face a relatively high occurrence of problems and potential barriers to their transport. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 4: Findings Page 4 - 30 Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations The underlying logic of the study was described previously in Chapters 1 and 2 and the findings in Chapter 4. In this section we provide specifics on the sample frame, sample selection and selection algorithms, and routing rules. We discuss our quality assurance procedures and also present our tests and findings for inter-rater reliability. 5.1 Introduction Once we determined that we were obliged to field teams of people with disabilities and trained observers, we focused on the development of a sampling methodology that would allow us to select a random sample of bus routes, times and run segments. It was, of course, necessary to work within constraints: • • • We limited the bus selection to only fully accessible fixed routes, which was not an issue because all of the MBTA’s regular local fixed routes are now accessible. For reasons of safety and the needs of the people with disabilities who were our testers, we were generally unable to field teams before 6 AM and after 8 PM. We focused our efforts at random selection of the first bus trip segment of the sequence of trip segments – specifying the time, route, bus route segment and exact bus stop. After that, the logic of a chain of following connections determined the remaining bus segments – although we followed a highly structured series of algorithms to ensure that selection bias would not influence bus route/bus segment choices. To help reduce selection bias in subsequent trip segments following the randomly chosen first run segment (because the latter bus trip segments had to follow in geographic and temporal sequences), we employed a route selector (staff person) who had lived in Boston for more than 4 years. • 5.2 Sampling Frame The MBTA provides a web-based listing for all routes, run segments, and times. Thus it was possible to download every route and run segment, and generate a complete, machine-readable grid of all buses on all routes and every run segment. We used this as our sample frame. 5.2.1 Selecting Sample: A. We used the SPSS random generator to select the first sub-sample by selecting 400 cases out of over 34,500 cases (which reflect over 34,500 rows--all bus run segments with accessible buses). B. If a row were selected that has a route that did not meet specifications (e.g., did not have a bus segment with specific times (but rather had text on it describing, for example, stops or special conditions about the weekend schedules) the sample selector was instructed to skip to another row/route/schedule via the following rules: C. If a blank row: Or if 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Page 5 - 1 • A row without specific route data (e.g., It lists main stops or destinations) Or if • A run segment that starts before 6 AM and after 7 PM Then: D. The route selector skipped up or down (determined by a coin flip) 6 rows . If that row was also inappropriate (e.g., a blank line, an early or late run), the selector continued up or down 4 more rows in the same direction. E. Then we selected a second sample from the total by selecting 500 rows from out of 34,500 rows -- but here we also restricted the sample to only the weekday bus runs. The logic of this procedure is that weekday runs must be sampled five times, but the Saturday or Sunday run segments, only once. Thus we “added” the equivalent of four weekday samples to equal the correct distribution. As above, we skipped any row that has only text or blank lines -- using the algorithm listed above. And, as above, we also limited our sample to run segments that started after 6 AM and before 7 PM. (Note: a 7 PM start will run to 9 PM or later) F. To ensure we did not over sample from the start or end of the list, we divided the list into three parts. 5.2.2 Selection of Seed Start on a Chosen Run Segment: Note that to this point our sampling process only guided the selection of the first route of the chain of bus run segments used in a testing session. We shall describe the chained routing process below. First, however, it may be helpful to describe in greater detail how we determined the location of the first bus ride of the set of bus rides that a team attempted to board. A. To determine where in the selected first run segment to assign the starting point (what we called a “seed start”), we referred the sample selector to the table of “Random Numbers For Seed Selection” which is a random list of numbers from 1 to 6. B. Then the sample selector was instructed to visually segment the selected run into six parts using the map of each bus route provided by the MBTA. With the random numbers from the 1 to 6 random number chart (where: 1 = start of run; 2 = near start of run…6 = equals near end of run), the sample selector picked the appropriate part of the run segment to start the ride and ride sequence. C. There were additional parameters put on the sample selection process: • Any seed start location must be within approximately 12 minutes of another bus line (to which the team of tester and observers will transfer). • The next bus route must have an accessible route and reasonable connection times. • The sample selector could pick the “next” valid route if the selected route does not have connections that met the stated criteria. D. The sample selection and routing process was repeated for the 95 rush hour observations (all with mobility devices) and the 168 observations of people using canes. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Page 5 - 2 5.2.3 Connecting Trips: It was obviously not possible to start each run from a new initial seed point. Thus, we had to chain observations following the initial (and random) selected segment. To pick the direction of the next connecting trip, the route selector flipped a coin to pick the direction of next bus direction at the desired intersection. This instruction was overruled if a direction made little sense (e.g., goes directly into the Atlantic Ocean or goes in a direction with no reasonable connecting bus). We also required the route selector to alternate directions if she found the route was generating a spiral with no options for connection buses. In the route selection rules, a team could only go back in the exact opposite direction (same bus route) if there are many drivers on that route, e.g., if it were a reasonably frequently used route and the team would most likely not encounter the same driver. The series of ride chains – usually 5 to 8-- would be thus grouped together to generate a sequence of trips that started at a random point and followed rules to maintain close to random selections thereafter. Examples of routing schedules are provided at the end of this chapter. We recognize that departures from absolute randomness were inevitable on non-initial runs given the constraints of chained selections, but we did not see any systematic bias in the design that would influence our assessments of buses or drivers as they responded to people with disabilities attempting to ride Boston area accessible fixed routes. 5.4 Quality Measures In addition to formal inter-rater reliability measurements (discussed below) we sought to measure reliability and validity in many ways and formats: Large Training Teams: To start, we sent out two or three observers with one person with a disability. We did this in the initial runs (which were not included in the observations in the sample) and then debriefed the observers and the person with a disability to examine and discuss any differences. This process helped us with the training as well as with our oversight procedures. By the time the teams were permitted to collect data, we had resolved notable differences in the rating process. Mixed Pairs: We also varied the teams – not allowing the same pairs to go out repeatedly. Statistical Analysis: We examined the data to search for patterns of scores that would indicate systematic bias or differences by observer after accounting for systematic differences in the testers. (That is, some testers had greater difficulties with their mobility devices than others; passengers with canes exhibit varying levels of agility.) We observed no systematic bias by the observers. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Page 5 - 3 Supervisor Oversight: Another form of quality check was our sending out supervisors and the research directors to accompany the teams. We recognize that the supervisors were known to the observers, and thus may have influenced their behaviors. However, the similarity of patterns across observations, the interactions with the people with disabilities, and the discussions among the observers, people with disabilities, and the supervisors after alighting each bus mitigated the possibility of duplicity and atypical behavior. Selection of Observers: Yet another form of quality control was exercised in the selection of observers. Most were trained physical therapy graduate students or similarly skilled individuals who prided themselves on their accuracy and objectivity. Observer Comments: An additional indicator of quality control is seen in the comments and scores of the observers. One finds rating forms where the drivers are highly praised in the marginal comments and where drivers are given top ratings. By the same token, one can review the scores and comments for drivers who were rated at inept, hostile, or who tried hard but had faulty equipment. Internal Consistency of the Data: Reliability and validity are also observable in the internal consistencies within the data. For example, rush hour buses are far more likely than others to have notations about “people in the aisles” when the driver leaves the bus stop or that the bus was rated as having a “standing load.” In a related fashion, some of the findings reflect careful observations that would not emerge a priori. Drivers’ who had routes that passed hospitals and other medical facilities were generally rated as more capable with the lifts and ramps than were other drivers who had fewer occasions to use the equipment. Instrument Links to External Data: Every instrument (observer form) indicates the number of the bus that the team attempted to board (and if boarded), the type of bus (e.g., ramp, lift, articulated), the time of the attempted boarding, the ambient temperature, and any precipitation. In addition, the routing sheets reflect specific run segments, direction, time, boarding location, and exit location. It is therefore possible to corroborate every observation form with known data about the buses, the run segments and even degree of crowdedness. Trends over time: We examined the data set for the earlier vs. the later observations. We did not find systematic shifts over time. Specifically, we were concerned that observers may have become angered by drivers or the system as they became familiar with the difficulties faced by people with disabilities. This did not appear to occur. 5.5 Inter-Rater Reliability To formally test inter-rater reliability, we constructed a version of the training video that offered several scenarios of compliant service, minimally compliant service and service that was unsafe and/or non-compliant. We could then display the video to our observers and exactly compare the observers’ ratings of a standardized scene. For example, in one scene the bus is shown pulling to the curb. The observers are asked to determine if the bus is: a) within one foot or into safe area b) too far from curb to use lift or ramp 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Page 5 - 4 c) repositioned to allow use of lift or ramp In other “tests” we compared the observers’ ratings for drivers’ interactions with people with disabilities, for helping passengers with mobility devices reach the securement area, exit the bus, etc. We used a version of the training video – but without the titles or labels indicating the quality of service. Each service interaction was independently evaluated by the observers. A copy of the reliability video is attached to this report. Analysis of the observers’ scores demonstrate no consistent pattern of bias. While there is normal variability, there is no indication that the data are systematically skewed. Apparently, the research design, statistical checks, monitoring, and training were sufficient to ensure compliance with the protocol. 5.6 Study Limitations As with any research endeavor, there are caveats and limitations about the generalizability and validity of our data. These include: Random selection: We generated a random sample of initial run segments based on the full listing of all accessible bus run segments (bus routes and within that group, specific bus runs). We used the web-based listings from the MBTA from the period of our research. It is possible; however, that the MBTA failed to list all possible accessible bus run segments. If the MBTA had other unlisted bus routes, or if new bus routes became accessible during the several weeks of the study, we may have missed them in the original sample frame. On the other hand, there are no a priori reasons to suspect that any new routes would systematically differ from the routes we covered as reflected in our measures. Random number generation: As with any computer random sample generation effort, there may be departures from randomality in the computer program that selected the rows (bus run segments). We note that we used one of the most common and respected computer programs: SPSS version 16. Alternate route selection: The process of selecting alternate rows when a randomly selected row was blank or contained only text (e.g., information about Sunday runs, special loops during rush hours) was carefully designed to avoid personal choice and only to follow specific algorithms. Again, the random number generation of those numbers is subject to computer program faults. Chained bus ride selections: While the initial run was selected via the stated random procedures, the subsequent trips (run segments) logically had to follow after the first run. Thus, while we instituted explicit controls to ensure random selection of chained followup routes, the possibility of bias or departures from randomality cannot be entirely excluded. Note that we also attempted to reduce route selection bias by employing an individual who was totally unfamiliar with the Boston area. Observer bias: The observers were trained, supervised, debriefed, and required to follow a very detailed six to five -page observation schedule (longer for mobility than for people using canes). Their answers have been examined for systematic bias and each 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Page 5 - 5 observer was tested to ensure reliable scoring. No observer gave only negative grades, most were very positive about aspects of the drivers’ efforts to pull to the curb, to use the ramps, etc. In addition, they were encouraged to write marginal comments – and those comments reflect both positive and negative events. Nonetheless, the possibility of observer bias can never be entirely dismissed. While we found no systematic bias in our statistical reviews, small variations in ratings may remain. Tester bias: It is possible that our testers (people with disabilities) may have been irritated with the T because of their previous use of the system. The major protection against this source of bias is that the testers did not rate the service or interactions; all ratings were done by the observers. More, we only employed testers and observers who had no known history of trouble with the T and who stated they had no set opinion about the T, one way or another. Another major protection against bias was that we insisted upon highly specified “scripts” that each tester was to follow. Examples include: • They were to politely request use of the lift or the ramp. If the driver were to say the lift or ramp was not needed, they were to explain that they could not enter the bus without it. • They were to request the lap belt. If the driver refused, they were to say nothing else. • They were to be polite and non-reactive in all settings. • They were to request use of the securement straps. • They were to be prominently positioned at the bus stops so that it was clear the driver could see them. • The observers were not to indicate they knew the testers. o On a few occasions, when the lack of securement straps on the wheelchair was about to cause an accident (wheelchair tip over or be thrown forward), the observer or another passenger intervened. Despite all of our controls, however, it is conceivable that testers could have angered drivers in ways that were not seen by our observers and not indicated in our statistical reviews. Instrument-induced errors: In a previous section we described the process we undertook to develop, test, retest, refine and then refine again the instruments (observation forms). Many of the subscales went through 20 or more revisions before inclusion in the final version. We also discussed the expert review of the instrument we commissioned. Copies of the instruments are appended to this report. It is nevertheless possible that certain scales may not have totally reflected the range of actions, and thus limited what our observers recorded. We attempted to guard against this by repeated pre-testing and by allowing observers to write comments in the margins. As noted. However, the process is not foolproof. Generalizability: We make no claims that our findings may be generalized to other metropolitan public transit bus systems. Moreover, for reasons of sample size, we do not compute differential rates of compliance by “garage” although we suspect there might be systematic variations. Overall: Any research effort of this complexity, size, and multifaceted design is open to various threats to validity and reliability. We have attempted to address these threats wherever possible, given the economic and temporal constraints. More, we have sought to be as clear possible in our presentation of the findings. We have used very simple 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Page 5 - 6 and straightforward statistical analyses to make the data and findings as transparent as possible. 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Chapter 5: Methods and Limitations Page 5 - 7 Appendix 1: Survey Instrument MBTA Bus Accessibility Study A1. Seed Point______________ ____-____ A2. Is this a start-over: Y N A3. DATE____- I. PRE/ EARLY BOARDING INFORMATION 1. Observer ID__ __ __ 2. Tester ID__ __ __ 3. Opp Obs__ 4.On Duty Y__ N__ 5.Test:1.pow.ch__ 2.man.ch__ 3.scoot__ 4.cane__ 5.walker__ 6.frail__ 7.no obv.disab.__ 6. (Size, Ad Hoc ) Approximate Wheel Chair/Scooter Size: Length____ Width___ 7. Request : 1. kneel__ 2. lift__ 3. ramp__ 4. priority seat__ (Enter first request with «1 », 2nd request with « 2 ») 8. Route # __ __ __ 9. Bus destination (end pt.)_____________ __ __ 11. From (start) __________________________ 10. Bus No.__ __ 12. Time boarding_______ AM/PM 13. To (exit stop)_________________________ 14. Time off bus_________AM/PM 15. Bus type: 1. Lift Coach__ 2. Low Floor__ 3. Non-Accessible__ 4. Articulated__ 16. Crowded scale: 1.Underused __ 2.Seated Load __ 3.Stand load __ 4.Overcrowded __ 17. Load observed: 1. Within bus__ OR 2. From outside__ 18. Signs 18.1 Front Destination Signage 1.Good__ 2. Degraded__ 3.Not Working__ 4. Paper__ 18.2 Side Destination Signage 1. Good__ 2. Degraded__ 3. Not Working__ 4. Paper__ 18.3 ISA Decal at door 1.Yes __ 2.No __ 3.N/A __ 4.N/O __ 18.4 Kneeler Decal at door 1.Yes __ 2.No __ 3.N/A __ 4.N/O __ 18.5 Priority seating decals 1.Yes __ 2.No __ 3.N/A __ 4.N/O __ 18.6 Stop request device @ securement 1.Yes __ 2.No __ 3.N/A __ 4.N/O __ 19. Weather: Approx current temp___ F. Precip: Rain__ Drizzle__ Sleet__ Snow__ II. RIDE DENIAL OR PASS-BY RD1. Bus stops, driver says: 1. Bus full__ 2. Lift or ramp does not work__ 3.Securements full__ 4. Some other explanation__ specify____________________ RD2. Driver calls supervisor Y__ N__ RD2.1 Informs PWD of solution (e.g., another bus right behind with equip. or space) Y__ N__ RD2.2 Record: Are (is) others at bus stop: Y__ N__ RD3. Bus passes obvious PWD at bus stop without driver stopping__ RD3.1 Record: Are (is) others at bus stop: Y__ N__ Attitude (see box below) A1. Driver was friendly, cordial or otherwise pleasant and cooperative A2. Driver was business-like, task focused and professional 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 1 A3. Driver was unfriendly, surly, argumentative or unpleasant but not defiant A4. Driver was defiant, hostile, verbally abusive or rude Hereafter use abbreviated Attitude and/or Alternative Transportation forms. Example: A 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like __ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Alternative Transportation AT1. PWD is told that scheduled transportation (i.e. next fixed route bus) will pick them up__ AT2. PWD is told that specific transportation (i.e. “The Ride,” another bus) will be arranged__ (Begin Alternative Transportation Battery—at end of document)) III. PULLING TO CURB: NOTE: OBSTRUCTED__ OR UNOBSTRUCTED__ CP1. Bus pulls within one foot of curb__ CP2. Bus pulls into safe area for PWDs to get from curb to bus__ CP3. Bus pulls too far from curb to use lift or ramp at sidewalk__ CP4. Bus is repositioned to allow use of lift or ramp__ CP5. Was repositioning at request of PWD? Y__ N__ IF Obstructed: IIIA: OB1. Unoccupied car__ OB2. Unoccupied truck__ OB3. Occupied car__ OB4. Occupied truck__ OB5. Other (specify if possible)__ ______________ OB5. Can’t see/define__ IV. BOARDING WC/SCOOTER USING RAMP: Request Kneeler KR1. Driver offers without request__ KR2. PWD requests and driver immediately complies__ KR3. Driver reluctantly complies with request__ KR4. Driver refuses to kneel bus__ KAT 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like __ Defiant/hostile__ Request Ramp RR1. Driver offers without request__ RR2. PWD requests and driver immediately complies__ RR3. Driver reluctantly complies with request__ RR4. Driver refuses to use ramp__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Power Ramp use with bus at curb RF1. Driver powers ramp to sidewalk or street without a problem __ RF2. Driver has difficulty using ramp controls, but finally succeeds __ RF3. Driver unable to use ramp controls __ (go to “manual section”) RF4. Driver refuses to use power ramp__ Manual Ramp Use (Ramp will not power deploy) RM1. Driver manually pulls out ramp without a problem__ RM2. Driver fumbles, but eventually deploys ramp manually__ RM3. Driver does not know how to deploy ramp manually __ RM4. Driver says ramp is broken or can’t be deployed__ RM5. Driver refuses to deploy ramp__ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 2   Bus is moved to improve position (Mark “last” item in this group) RP1. Driver repositions bus without prompting Y__ N__ RP2. PWD requests that driver reposition bus__ RP2.1 Driver willingly complies with request__ RP2.2 Driver reluctantly complies with request__ RP2.3 Driver refuses to comply with request__ Boarding PWD Using Ramp: KB0.5 Driver assists PWD on ramp? 1. Not needed__ 2. Driver’s help needed but not offered__ 3. Driver’s help needed and provided promptly upon request__ 4. Driver’s help needed and provided reluctantly upon request__ KB0.6 Did a passenger or passerby help PWD up ramp Y__ N__ KB1. PWD board bus? Y__ N__ KB2. If PWD can’t board: KB2.1 Driver calls for assistance without request? Y__ N__ KB2.2 Driver calls for assistance when requested Y N KB2.2.1. Driver informs PWD of next ride Y__ N__ (Only possible if call for assist made) (Complete Attitude questions then go to Alternative Transportation Battery) RAT 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ V. BOARDING WC/SCOOTER USING LIFT position LP1. Driver repositions bus without prompting Y__ N__ LP2. PWD requests that driver reposition bus__ LP3. Driver willingly complies with request__ LP4. Driver reluctantly complies with request__ LP5. Driver refuses to comply with request__ Lift activation LA1. Driver activates lift without a problem __ LA2. Driver fumbles with controls but, but succeeds__ LA3. Driver appears unable to activate lift__ [Lift fails to work: See equipment problems] LA4. Driver refuses to use lift when asked by PWD__ Bus is moved to improve Boarding Lift: [Check ALL that apply] LB1. Driver waits for PWD to board lift __ LB2. Driver provides assistance to PWD if requested__ LB3. Driver rushes PWD to board lift__ LB4. Driver reluctantly provides assistance to PWD if requested__ LB5. Driver does not pay attention to PWD during lift boarding__ LB6. Driver refuses to assist PWD when requested__ Getting on board: KB1. PWD boards bus? Y__ N__ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 3 KB2. If PWD can’t board: KB2.1 Driver calls for assistance without request? Y__ N__ KB2.2 Driver calls for assistance when requested Y__ N__ KB2.2.1 Driver informs PWD of next ride Y__ N__ (Only possible if call for assist made) (Begin Alternative Transportation Battery) LAT 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Equipment Problems - If lift broken EP1. Driver notifies PWD that equipment is broken Y__ N__ EP2. Driver reports to dispatcher without prompting Y__ N__ EP3. Driver reports to dispatcher after PWD’s request Y__ N__ EP4. Driver informs PWD of next ride Y__ N__ (only applicable if dispatcher contacted first) (Complete Attitude questions then, if needed, go to Alternate Transit Battery) EP5. Driver refuses to call dispatcher__ Equipment Problems - Passenger stranded on lift LS1. Driver reassures PWD__ LS2. Driver keeps PWD informed__ LS3. Driver slow to act (to help them get off of lift)__ LS4. Driver appears not to know what to do, PWD must prompt help to get off lift__ LS5. Driver attempts to physically remove passenger, alone &/or over PWDs objections __ LS6. Driver reports to dispatcher Y__ N__ LS7. Driver reports to dispatcher after PWD’s request Y__ N__ LS8. Driver informs PWD of next ride Y__ N__ (only applicable if dispatcher contacted first) (Complete Attitude questions. Then, if needed, go to Alternate Transit Battery) LS9. Driver refuses to call dispatcher Y__ N__ EPA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ VI. SECUREMENT SECTION WHEELED MOBILITY DEVICES Getting to securement area [Skip to next item if PWD does not need help getting to securement area] SA1. Driver assists PWD without a request__ SA2. Driver provides assistance if requested__ SA3. Driver reluctantly assists when requested__ SA4. Driver refuses to provide PWD assistance__ SA4.1 What happens if no help provided? SA4.1.1. PWD exits bus Y__ N__ SA4.1.2. PWD manages alone Y__ N__ SA4.1.3. PWD is helped by passenger Y__ N__ SA4.2 PWD reaches securement area Y__ N__ SA4.3 Was getting to securement area difficult for PWD? Y__ N__ SGA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 4 Driver asks non-disabled pax to give up their FLIP seats and non-disabled pax refuses PG1. Driver apologizes, explains he/she can’t force pax to move__ PG2. Driver refuses to help; tells PWD “there is nothing I can do.”__ PG3. Driver orders pax without a disability to get out of seat__ PG4. Driver tells PWD they must get off the bus__ If PWD with an obvious disability is unable to park in securement area PU1. Driver allows PWD to alight bus, calls dispatcher, & gets info on next accessible ride __ PU2. Driver lets PWD exit bus but does not report problem; leaves PWD to wait for next bus__ PU3. Not allowing PWD to decide about leaving bus and directing PWD to exit bus; also does not report problem, leaving PWD to wait for next bus __ PU4. Driver refuses to let PWD off bus, telling PWD they’ll have to stand __ PU5. Driver allows PWD to ride – neither comments nor intervenes__ (Complete Attitude questions. Then, if needed, go to Alternate Transit Battery) PUA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ If securement area is under a flip seat UF1. Driver properly locks flip seat in up position__ UF2. Driver has difficulty operating flip seat __ UF3. Driver unable to operate flip seat __ UF4. Driver refuses to operate flip seat__ Locking of mobility device wheels (either using clamp locks behind wheels for traditional wheelchairs or making sure that motorized devices are in park, as appropriate for the model WC used) LD1 Driver watches PWD lock wheels (observing wheels are locked)__ LD2 Driver asks PWD if he/she can lock them __ LD3. Driver provides assistance without request __ LD4. Driver fails to ensure mobility device wheels are locked __ LD5. Driver refuses to lock wheels if requested __ LMA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Securement Straps (this includes attaching the belts to mobility device, floor cleats as necessary and ensuring that belts are tightened) SSS1. No. of securement straps used to secure mobility device: 0__ 1__ 2__ 3__ 4__ NA__ N/O__ SSS2. How many securement straps are available #____ N/A__ N/O__ SS1. Driver uses securement straps to secure structural areas on lower corners of mobility device __ SS2. Driver has difficulty with securement system, but eventually secures WC/Scooter__ SS3. Driver unable to use securement straps __ SS3.1 Driver secures straps to non-structural areas, e.g., foot rests, wheel spokes, arm rests__ SS4. Driver refuses to help__ SS4.2.Does driver insist PWD secure him/herself__ SAA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 5 General Securement Problem Check off: (Check ALL that apply) Driver knows what to do but the equipment is not working correctly SP1.1 Flip seats won’t disengage__ SP1.2 Securement belts won’t clip into the floor__ SP1.3 Securement belts won’t properly tighten__ SP1.4 Securement belts not in operational condition__ SP1.5 No belts__ Driver’s actions re: faulty or missing securements: DA1. Driver calls dispatcher, & ultimately advises PWD of next available bus __ DA2. PWD requests that driver call for assistance__ DA3. Driver reluctantly complies with request__ DA4. Driver refuses to call__ DA5.Driver tells PWD to exit bus__ DA6.Driver tells PWD they can ride anyway__ DA6.1 Driver allows PWD to ride – without comment or intervention__ DA7.Does driver call dispatcher Y__ N__ DA8.Does driver advise PWD of next ride Y__ N__ (skip to Alt. Trans Section) DAT 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Lap and Shoulder Belts Belt offer (this is a piece of optional equipment that should be offered but is not required to be used) BO1. Driver asks PWD if they would like lap & shoulder belt__ BO2. Driver responds provides belts upon specific request__ BO3. Driver is pushy about the use of lap & shoulder belt, even if PWD declines the offer __ BO4. Driver refuses to transport PWD unless lap and shoulder belt is used __ BO5. Driver refuses to provide lap & shoulder belt even when requested (i.e. “you don’t need that” or “if you want that you have to use it yourself,” etc.) __ BO6. Belt not requested and not offered__ BO7. Belt not available__ N/O__ BOA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Belt Application: (IF BELT USE ATTEMPTED) LU1. Driver effectively employs lap and shoulder belt LU2. Driver fumbles with belts but finally succeeds LU3. Driver is unable to use lap and shoulder belt ___ BAA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ If PWD is on a scooter Transferring to seat ST1. Driver suggests that PWD consider transferring to nearby seat __ ST2. Driver fails to suggest scooter PWD transfer to a nearby seat __ ST3. Driver is insistent PWD transfer to nearby seat__ ST4. Driver absolutely requires PWD on scooter to transfer to a seat __ STA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Requesting Assistance SR1. Driver offers without request__ immediately complies__ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: SR2. PWD requests and driver Page A - 6 SR3. Driver reluctantly complies with request__ SR4. Driver refuses to assist PWD__ SRA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ (If Ride Aborted Go to Alternate Transit Battery) VII. PULLING AWAY FROM THE CURB PA1. Driver watches pax in rear mirror to be sure all pax seated or secure __ PA2. Driver inattentive; pulls away while people are still getting seated __ PA3. Driver pulls away soon when doors close and while pax are walking aisles__ PA4. Driver pulls away after doors close and someone falls __ VIII. PULLING TO CURB FOR EXIT: NOTE:OBSTRUCTED__ OR UNOBSTRUCTED__ CE1. Bus pulls within one foot of curb__ CE2. Bus pulls into safe area for PWDs to get from curb to bus__ CE3. Bus pulls too far from curb to use lift or ramp at sidewalk__ CE4. Bus is repositioned to allow use of lift or ramp__ CE5. Was repositioning at request of PWD? Y__ N__ IX. SECUREMENT AREA ASSISTANCE Unlocking of mobility device wheels (for wheelchairs only) MU1. Driver watches PWD unlock wheels (observing wheels are unlocked)__ MU2. Driver asks PWD if he/she can unlock them __ MU3. Driver provides assistance without request __ MU4. Driver fails to ensure mobility device wheels are unlocked __ MU5. Driver refuses to unlock wheels if requested __ MUA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Un-strapping of securement belts BU1. Driver un-straps securement belts__ BU2. Driver provides assistance when requested__ BU3. Driver reluctantly assists when requested__ BU4. Driver refuses to provide PWD with assistance__ BUA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ Getting from securement area [Skip to next item if PWD does not need help leaving securement area] GA1. Driver assists PWD without a request__ GA2. Driver provides assistance if requested__ GA3. Driver reluctantly assists when requested__ GA4. Driver refuses to provide PWD with assistence__ GA4.1 What happens if no help provided? GA4.1.1. PWD exits bus Y__ N__ GA4.1.2. PWD manages alone Y__ N__ GA4.1.3. PWD is helped by passenger Y__ N__ GA4.2 PWD leaves securement area Y__ N__ GA4.3 Was leaving securement area difficult for PWD? Y__ N__ N/A__ GAA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 7 IX. PULLING TO CURB TO ALIGHT: NOTE: OBSTRUCTED__ OR UNOBSTRUCTED__ (for exit) CE1. Bus pulls within one foot of curb__ CE2. Bus pulls into safe area for PWDs to get from curb to bus__ CE3. Bus pulls too far from curb to use lift or ramp at sidewalk__ IF Obstructed: IXA: OBE.1. Unoccupied car__ OBE2. Unoccupied truck__ OBE3. Occupied car__ OBE4. Occupied truck__ OBE5. Other (specify if possible)__ ______________ OB5. Can’t see/define__ Repositioning ER1. Bus is repositioned to allow use of lift or ramp__ ER1.2. Was repositioning at request of PWD? Y__ N__ X. ALIGHTING BUS Alighting bus via ramp Kneeler uses before ramp deployment KA1. Driver offers without request__ KA2. PWD requests and driver immediately complies__ KA3. Driver reluctantly complies with request__ KA4. Driver refuses to provide kneeler__ If alighting using Power Ramp RE1. Driver offers without request__ RE2. PWD requests and driver immediately complies__ RE3. Driver reluctantly complies with request__ RE4. Driver refuses to provide kneeler__ If alighting using Manual Ramp Use RA1. Driver manually pulls out ramp without a problem__ RA2. Driver fumbles, but eventually deploys ramp manually__ RA3. Driver does not know how to deploy ramp manually __ RA4. Driver says ramp is broken or can’t be deployed__ RA5. Driver refuses to deploy ramp__ If alighting via lift: [Check ALL that apply] LV1. Driver waits for PWD to alight lift __ LV2. Driver provides assistance to PWD if requested__ LV3. Driver rushes PWD to alight lift__ LV4. Driver reluctantly provides assistance to PWD if requested__ LV5. Driver does not pay attention to PWD during lift alighting__ LV6. Driver refuses to assist PWD when requested__ Getting off bus: KB1. PWD alights bus? Y__ N__ KB2. If PWD can’t alight: 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 8 KB2.1 Driver calls for assistance without request? Y__ N__ KB2.2 Driver calls for assistance when requested Y__ N__ KB2.2.1. Driver informs PWD of next ride Y__ N__ (Only possible if call for assist made) LAA 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ XII. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION BATTERY Use when alternative service has been dispatched as a remedy to any denial of service. AS1. Alternative service arrived within 30 minutes of original attempt to ride bus Y__ N__ AS2. Type of alternative service provided: __Fixed Route Bus, __Supervisor Van, __”The Ride” Van, __Other: ________________. AS3. Alternative service arrived within: ___ 5-15 Minutes ___ 16-30 Minutes __31-45 Minutes ___More than 46 minutes AS4. Describe how ride was ultimately provided: __________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____ ATT 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ XIII. Announcing Stops Stop Announcement Events and Responses Type of Announcement Stop Wypt Rqst Conct Location/Description Action or Comment Means of Announcements AE1. PA System (microphone for driver)__ or AE2. Automated Annunciator __ AEW.1. Annunciator working AEW.2. Annunciator inoperative__ AEW.3. Annunciator volume inadequate __ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 9 AEW.4 Annunciator garbled__ (If appropriate, check both low volume and garbled) AE3. Manual Announcement (operator’s voice only) __ AE4. No announcements observed __ Announced Required Waypoints AW1. Always __ AW2. Usually __ AW3. Sometimes __ AW4. Never ___ Announced Each Time Bus Stopped AS1. Always ___ AS2. Usually ___(99%-60%) AS4. Never ___ AS3. Sometimes ___(60%-1%) Announced on Request (only if requested by passenger) AR1. Always __ AR2. Usually __(99%-60%) AR3. Sometimes __ AR5. Not Applicable___ AR4. Never ___ External Announcements EA1. Always ___ ___ EA4. Never ___ EA2. Usually ___ EA3. Sometimes ASA (General attitude relating to all stop announcement activity) 1 Friendly__ 2 Business-like__ 3 Unpleasant__ 4 Defiant/hostile__ 2007 MBTA ADA Bus Study Appendix 1: Page A - 10