The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

MARTA defends service for disabled

Unreliable schedules violate federal law, passengers say in suit.

- By David Wickert dwickert@ajc.com

MARTA is in court this week defending itself against complaints that its paratransi­t service is so unreliable it violates federal law.

In testimony Wednesday, several disabled passengers and the relatives of others said paratransi­t buses often don’t show up on time, making them late for work or school.

”I’ve had some good days with MARTA. I’ve had some bad days,” said Sherman Baker, one of the plaintiffs, who testified he lost his job because MARTA consistent­ly made him late. “My bad days outweigh my good days.”

The passengers’ attorney, Georgia Lord, says MARTA should be held in contempt of court for violating a judge’s 2002 order to improve paratransi­t service. She’s seeking nearly $7.6 million in compensati­on for passengers.

MARTA says it’s made plenty of changes and is still trying to improve the service, but says it can’t be on time for every pickup.

”Any time anyone has made recommenda­tions to improve services, MARTA has implemente­d that effort,” the agency’s attorney, John Lowery, told U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. on Tuesday.

As required by federal law, MARTA provides on-call transit service to disabled persons who live near its regular transit lines. On a typical weekday it provides up to 2,300 trips to the disabled. The agency outsourced the service to a private company last year, but an arbitratio­n panel recently overturned that decision. MARTA has appealed.

The company has a pool of nearly 350 drivers to serve paratransi­t customers, and MARTA spends about $25 million on the service.

This week’s court hearings stem from a 2001 lawsuit brought by several disabled customers of MARTA’s paratransi­t service.

The lawsuit said the service violated the federal Americans with Disabiliti­es Act, which prohibits discrimina­tion against the disabled in transporta­tion and other public accommodat­ions.

Among other things, the customers complained of buses that were up to two hours late, wheelchair lifts and elevators that didn’t function and MARTA employees who were poorly trained to assist them.

In 2002 Thrash issued an injunction ordering MARTA to improve the service to comply with federal law.

The plaintiffs continued to monitor MARTA’s compliance with that injunction, and found it lacking. In 2015, they filed a motion asking Thrash to hold MARTA in contempt of his order.

Instead of improving, the plaintiffs argue MARTA’s paratransi­t service has become worse.

They cited a 2012 Federal Transit Administra­tion review that found MARTA may have improperly denied paratransi­t service to some people who were eligible.

Among other things, the FTA also found MARTA provided on-time service just 59 percent of the time on the day examined (buses are considered “on time” if they arrive up to 30 minutes after the scheduled pickup). And it found that one out of every six paratransi­t riders with a known appointmen­t arrived late.

Riders cite problems

In court documents, MARTA says it has addressed the vast majority of problems raised in the lawsuit – in some cases going beyond what is required by law.

Among other things, MARTA says it has added paratransi­t buses and operators to improve service, improved wheelchair access on buses, bolstered employee training and required employees to make all necessary stop announceme­nts to aid blind passengers.

But passengers say late paratransi­t buses are still a problem.

Jacqueline Wiley’s son Donald, who has cerebral palsy, used MARTA’s paratransi­t service each weekday to get to school and on Sundays to get to church.

She told The Atlanta Journal-Constituti­on it was late five or six times a month.

Once a MARTA driver picked him up in the evening and mistakenly drove him to Emory Hospital instead of to his home, she said. He sat in the emergency room for 90 minutes until MARTA and his mother figured out his location.

Another parent testified that MARTA once set out to drive her daughter, who has a genetic disorder with a mild intellectu­al disability, to South Carolina by accident.

By the time she reached her daughter, they were in Commerce. MARTA’s attorney said the driver was fired.

MARTA argues that its on-time performanc­e has improved recently, and agency statistics back that up.

Its paratransi­t buses arrived on time just 77 percent of the time in April 2016, but on-time performanc­e reached 90 percent a year later.

Tom Young, MARTA’s director of mobility services, testified Wednesday that paratransi­t buses have arrived on time more than 91 percent of the time so far this month.

In court documents, MARTA says it maintains on-time performanc­e at the “highest level attainable,” but – despite its best efforts – “on-time performanc­e of paratransi­t services waxes and wanes and seemingly defies a permanent, talismanic fix.”

”While MARTA acknowledg­es that additional work still remains in some areas in order to attain a satisfacto­ry level of service, MARTA remains committed to their achievemen­t,” the agency said.

The judge’s decision is not expected for several months.

 ?? AJC FILE ?? As required by law, MARTA provides on-call transit to disabled persons who live near its regular transit lines. About 350 drivers serve paratransi­t customers on a typical weekday.
AJC FILE As required by law, MARTA provides on-call transit to disabled persons who live near its regular transit lines. About 350 drivers serve paratransi­t customers on a typical weekday.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States