A pilot program offering on-demand transportation to people with disabilities by New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is facing a wave of criticism. The Access-a-Ride (AAR) service started in 2017 as an improvement over standard paratransit services, offering on-demand transportation that could be booked via smartphone. Typically, AAR passengers had to schedule trips a day in advance, thereby restricting their ability to plan spontaneously. Since its onset, the on-demand service has been limited to 1,200 of the 60,000 noteworthy annual AAR users.
Those who have benefited from the program recognized the significant advancement in service quality compared to traditional AAR. The MTA is now looking to triple the number of participants in the program. However, it will also cap the number of trips and limit fare subsidies; moves that significantly impact the cost and accessibility of the service.
The proposed changes mean that users will be facing a limit to the number of rides they can take, reducing their usage to either 25 or 40 rides per month. Furthermore, ride costs could skyrocket, potentially reaching tens of dollars per trip and accumulating to hundreds of dollars monthly—starkly higher than the standard transit fare. Several users have expressed their concern that such changes would make the service impractical.
Some have even questioned the legality of such restrictions and increases in charges. It is a complex question, and the answer is mired in technicalities surrounding both federal and state regulations.
A citizen posed the question, "Mr. Elegudin, are these usage restrictions and additional charges even legal? Such restrictions and additional charges are not found anywhere else in the NYC transit system.” Elegudin, a former accessibility chief for MTA New York City Transit, responded that federal regulations seem to allow for some of these changes, but questions whether they should.
Under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), paratransit is intended to serve individuals with disabilities who cannot use fixed-route transit, with the level of service expected to be similar to traditional systems. However, the question arises whether these new changes provide service commensurate with regular transit.
The MTA argues that the on-demand program is a premium service, therefore justifying higher fares. If it is viewed in this way, it alludes to an interpretation in which those with disabilities may have to pay more for basic services—an interpretation in stark contrast to the ADA's guidelines that a public entity cannot impose additional charges to cover the cost of providing services to those with disabilities.
In 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice took legal action against Uber for additional fees they posed on riders with disabilities, who would naturally need more time to enter a vehicle. If paralleled, could the MTA's proposed actions eventually face similar consequences?
The allegations against the MTA seem like a legal loophole to evade ADA obligations, which amounts to a form of legalized discrimination. In NYC, such actions appear to conflict with the NYC Human Rights Law. As this period of uncertainty continues, the impacts of these changes on one of NYC premier transit options will the watched with great scrutiny.
