Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing by nelsonnygaard

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing December 2023

Glossary of Terms Term

Definition

ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act

TNC

Transportation Network Company, also called Ride-hailing companies (such as Uber or Lyft)

WAV

Wheelchair-accessible vehicle

On Demand or Demand Response Services

Transportation services that are available on-call through mobile or desktop apps and call centers, rather than through a fixed schedule and/or route

TLC

Taxi and Limousine Commission (New York City)

CPUC

California Public Utilities Commission

Dwell time

The amount of time needed for a vehicle to stop and collect and alight passengers

Table of Contents Page Towards Accessible Ride-Hailing for All (Introduction)

Charting A Path for Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing (Background) Promise of Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

7 8

What Is the State of On-Demand WAV Rides? Don’t Taxis Already Provide On-Demand WAV Rides? Challenges and Opportunities

9 9

Potential Interventions to Achieve Ride-hailing Access for All

Appendices Appendix 1 Stakeholder Interviews

Appendix 2 Focus Group Summary

Towards Accessible Ride-Hailing for All (Introduction) People and communities across North America are impacted by transportation infrastructure and services that are not fully accessible to everyone. A person’s mobility is made possible by the combination of services, infrastructure, and built environment available to them in their neighborhood, city, and region.

Ride-hailing is a viable solution for wheelchair users who rely on wheelchairaccessible vehicles (WAVs) to transport them and their wheelchairs to where they need or simply want, to go. For transportation purposes, wheelchairs fall into two main categories: power and manual. Power wheelchairs are often large and heavy and cannot be compactly folded into a standard sedan’s trunk as most manually operated wheelchairs can be. While many manually operated wheelchair users would prefer to stay in their wheelchairs while in transit, for expediency’s sake, they will often transfer to a non-WAV vehicle’s standard seat and request their driver stow their wheelchair in the vehicle’s trunk. Fixed-route public transit vehicles, such as buses and subways, are wheelchair accessible and offer all wheelchair users significant access to urban areas, however suburban and rural wheelchair users continue to experience tremendous barriers to mobility. One major barrier power wheelchair users continue to face is the historically limited number of WAVs in the fleets of various transportation providers. WAVs are expensive to purchase and often must be modified after purchase to properly accommodate all wheelchair users. These modification costs can exceed $30,000 dollars. The urgent need for accessible transportation solutions will only continue to grow, as the U.S. Census Bureau has projected that by 2030, the population of older adults will reach record level,1 and that already “25.5 million Americans aged 5 and older have self-reported travel-limiting disabilities. 13.4 million are aged 18 to 64 and 11.2 million are age 65 and older.”2

U.S. Census Bureau, Older People Projected to Outnumber Children for First Time in U.S. History, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html 2

https://www.bts.gov/travel-patterns-with-disabilities#_ftn1

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

In the past decade, people’s frustration with the shortcomings in the accessibility of transportation systems, coupled with increasingly digital lifestyles, has fueled the growth of interest in new on-demand transportation options that are more convenient and accessible than traditional options, like fixed-route public transit, driving a privately- owned car, bicycling, or walking.

While transit agencies offer paratransit service as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the manner defined over 30 years ago, many riders find it inefficient and not suited to their needs now. Both transit agencies and riders are calling for more accessible transportation options to meet their needs and goals for universal mobility. Transit agencies are still recovering from losing large proportions of riders during the COVID pandemic, and many former transit riders with the financial means have shifted to driving cars, ride-hailing, or other service alternatives they can access and afford. Additional challenges for transit agencies include transit operator shortages, and for-hire transportation regulations that are out of their direct purview and in need of further explanation and improved coordination to support effective paratransit service. Ride-hailing companies, commonly referred to as transportation network companies (TNCs), that connect people who can request and pay for a ride through a mobile application have filled gaps in transportation access for many people, including people with disabilities. TNCs are now operating in areas previously underserved by transportation infrastructure and services, like suburban neighborhoods, rural communities, or urban neighborhoods with unreliable services. People who can use TNC’s mobile applications to request and pay for rides have access to an on-demand transportation option that may make opportunities easier to reach – so long as they do not need a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV). This Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing does:

•

Present the various barriers to achieving equitable access to on-demand transportation for people who need a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV);

•

Describe the spectrum of the problem in four indicator localities – Los Angeles, CA, New York City, NY, Washington DC, and Toronto, ON, CA;

•

Offer policy, programmatic, and investment solutions that support the expansion of access to on-demand WAV rides in the four indicator cities and how they might apply to similar cities across North America

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

This Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing does not:

•

Promote any company or service: these recommendations apply to all TNC operators and regulators nationally

Ultimately, this Roadmap provides policymakers and their stakeholders with information on the impacts of the current inaccessible transportation landscape and offers recommendations to accelerate the growth of wheelchair-accessible ride-hailing in their communities. While the Roadmap references connections to other forms of demand-responsive transportation, such as paratransit, taxicabs, and non-emergency medical transportation, the focus is on removing barriers to accessing on-demand rides in wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) hailed through mobile applications.

Charting A Path For Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing (BACKGROUND) Disparities in access to ride-hailing and on-demand transportation services for people who use wheelchairs are affecting the mobility and quality of life of people in communities across North America. Cities, regions, states, and their partners (community-based organizations, public transit agencies, ride-hailing companies, taxicab, and for-hire vehicle companies) should review regulatory frameworks, capital and service investments, and partnerships to seek an equitable and effective progression toward wheelchair-accessible ride-hailing to enable a universal mobility future.

How Did We Get Here? This report was created through a combination of research, analysis, workshops, and direct contact with stakeholders, including WAV providers, drivers, and users. The Team: Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber) commissioned and supported this project through the sharing of data, resources, and staff expertise in a series of meetings, interviews, and workshops. United Spinal served as a key partner in reviewing and framing materials, participating in core team meetings biweekly to help frame the research and analysis, providing feedback, and supporting expanded stakeholder discussions through their network of partners. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting conducted research, facilitated discussions, and analyzed data to write this report. Data and Research: The team identified four study markets that represented typologies of various regulatory and user frameworks. The cities were selected in coordination with Uber and United Spinal and with consideration to local regulations, markets, and correlating WAV vehicle availability. The team was provided with WAV vehicle time and cost data by Uber Technologies Inc. for the four target locations. Additionally, extensive academic and industry research was conducted and supported with case studies and expert interviews. Finally, a series of focus groups and surveys, targeting ride-hail drivers, were used to validate and modify recommendations. Stakeholders: This project interviewed, workshopped, and collaborated with multiple stakeholders across various organizations related to WAV access. This included disability rights organizations, transit advocates, and WAV vehicle users. This project also engaged in discussions with legislators, regulators, and implementers in the four target locations and their respective states. Finally, this project also included discussions with, and a survey of, Uber drivers, including both those who currently drive WAV vehicles and those who do not.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Promise of Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing The progression towards universal mobility is underway in many cities and regions in North America. People who use wheelchairs and public transit agencies are calling for new solutions to achieve a transportation future where everyone – of all identities, in all stages of life, and regardless of any disability – has access to infrastructure, services, and environments to obtain greater opportunities. Those opportunities include education, housing, employment, health care, nutritious food, recreation, and other essential components of a full and healthy life. Working towards universal mobility involves partnerships and investments that increase the accessibility of physical corridors, intersections, facilities, transit and for-hire vehicles, and transportation services, as well as decreasing trip travel times between people’s homes, work, and desired destinations. Today, people who need a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) to get to work, travel to appointments and meetings, pick up their kids, or meet up with friends tend to have fewer transportation options. Those options tend to be less convenient, more costly, siloed, and require greater time and energy to secure and complete than those available to people who do not use wheelchairs. To achieve the goal of universal mobility for all with integrated transportation systems, people, regardless of disability, should have meaningful, non-siloed transportation options. There is ample opportunity for local, regional, state, and federal government agencies and stakeholders to improve existing governance, regulatory, and partnership conditions to promote and sustain on-demand transportation using WAVs. Ride-hailing and other innovative transportation services have been closing gaps in transportation for some individuals and communities historically marginalized by past transportation services and infrastructure. Through interviews with various stakeholders working with the disability community, the research team repeatedly documented the particular benefits of WAV TNCs, including improvements to access, clarity and reliability in mobility, and clear communication with providers. These benefits are only available to users where there are enough WAV drivers to meet trip demand. A sufficient workforce of trained WAV drivers, however, remains one of the greatest challenges to universal mobility discussed later in this report. Stakeholders interviewed generally wanted greater and clearer access to WAV TNCs, recognizing the potential benefits of this service if challenges are addressed.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

What is the State of On-Demand WheelchairAccessible Vehicle Rides? People who use wheelchairs and need a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) tend to be underserved by regional transportation infrastructure, services, and built environments that are not fully accessible. While transit agencies offer paratransit service as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the manner defined over 30 years ago, many riders find it inefficient and not suited to their needs now. Private companies in the business of demand-responsive transportation also struggle to operate effective accessible transportation services. All publicly funded transportation in the United States is subject to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) ADA regulations, which prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities. Governed by Section 37.77(c) of the DOT ADA regulations, all publicly funded transportation services, including demand-response or on-demand services, are required to offer people of all abilities an integrated and nonsegregated trip experience. This includes service parameters such as response times, fares, service area, and schedule, among others.3

Don’t Taxis Already Provide On-Demand Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicle Rides? In the United States, the ADA requires demand-responsive transportation fleets, such as taxis, be accessible to people with disabilities, but it does not mandate a proportion of existing vehicle fleets to be composed of WAVs. Instead, Title III of the ADA mandates that all “new vans” that are part of demand-responsive transportation providers’ fleets be accessible. This ambiguous language dates from the start of ADA congressional negotiations in the late 1980s, when taxi and other transportation companies advocated minimizing their costs to transition to WAVs and secured language to limit vehicular-accessibility requirements to new van purchases only. WAV vehicles are significantly more expensive than other vehicles, and without further government incentives or policies to support the transition of existing fleets, can be cost-prohibitive for companies and individuals. Partially due to this cost concern, most taxicab companies tried to avoid meeting this requirement by purchasing used vehicles instead of new ones.4 Now, over three decades since the passage of the ADA, only a very small percentage of taxis nationwide are accessible. 5 While the ADA establishes national standards for taxicabs, local taxi regulators are responsible for oversight and enforcement of federal, state, and local laws such as ensuring that permitted taxi providers do not discriminate against people with disabilities. A landmark 2011 court case ruling

Golden, Marilyn, et al. Accessible Transit Services for All. No. FTA Report No. 0081. United States. Federal Transit Administration. Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation, 2014. 4

A Loophole Large Enough to Drive an Autonomous Vehicle Through, Stanford Law School

Leadership Conference Education Fund, Equity in Transportation for People with Disabilities 3 (2012), Link 9

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

issued by the Southern District of New York ruled that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC)’s regulation of taxis in the city and oversight of “street hail” service providers had resulted in less than 2% of the city’s fleet being wheelchair accessible. The unavailability of taxi transportation and significant disparities in wait times for people who use wheelchairs resulted in “the unavailability of taxi transportation and significantly increased wait times for disabled persons who require wheelchairs, [which] is not meaningful access.” 6 The 2011 ruling moved the NYC TLC to directly invest in increasing WAV taxi fleets and signaled to taxi regulators in peer cities that they should work to ensure that taxis under their jurisdiction are accessible to people with disabilities, especially for people who use wheelchairs. Recognizing some of the challenges included cost and general lack of awareness and information, the NYC TLC invested in dedicated oversight, financial assistance, and education, and has steadily increased the number of WAVs in the yellow and green taxi fleet for people who use wheelchairs. By 2020, the TLC committed to growing the proportion of WAVs in the taxi fleet to fifty percent — or approximately 6,800 vehicles. Additionally, there are approximately 240 wheelchair-accessible green taxis on the road, as several Street Hail Livery licenses have been set aside for WAVs. The 2011 ruling had some indirect influence on WAV taxi investments in regions outside of NYC. Washington DC and Chicago, for example, updated their taxi and for-hire vehicle permitting and operational requirements to increase WAVs around the same time, though direct influence cannot be confirmed.

Noel v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, S.D.N.Y. 837 F.Supp.2d 268 (2011), Link

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Challenges and Opportunities Barriers to Providing Equal Access to On-Demand WheelchairAccessible Vehicle Rides It is clear that both public and private sector on-demand transportation providers fall short of meeting the federal mandate to ensure equal access to public transportation services regardless of an individual’s disability. While access to on-demand rides should be equivalent whether via a sedan or WAV, both public and private transportation providers struggle with providing access to on-demand WAV rides, let alone equal or equivalent access at the same level of service as those who do not need a WAV. Through this research, several key trends and barriers preventing equal access to on-demand WAV rides have been identified: WAVs cost more time and money to operate. In addition to the greater cost of purchasing a WAV, WAVs use more gas, have higher maintenance costs, and need drivers who are trained to transport people who use wheelchairs. One Uber WAV driver in New York noted the nearly $73,000 cost of purchasing and retrofitting a Toyota Sienna. Another Toronto Uber WAV driver mentioned that Dodge Caravans, his vehicle, and a common WAV, have habitual transmission issues that require additional, costly maintenance. Transporting people who use a wheelchair also requires more of the driver’s effort and time, as drivers must secure passengers into the vehicle before starting the ride. Drivers must also ensure that wheelchair users board and exit the vehicle safely. An Uber WAV driver in New York with over three years of WAV experience said, “You have to push the wheelchair into your car and secure it, and sometimes the electronic wheelchairs can be very heavy.” These greater on-the-job duties experienced by WAV drivers coupled with the ongoing labor shortages in the transportation industry call for an infusion of incentives to promote and increase the purchasing and operations of WAVs. The cost to operate WAVs is also higher for TNC companies, with Uber set to spend an estimated $71 million net on WAV service in 2022. This cost reflects the TNC company’s costs to have WAV operate on their platform, above fares paid by riders. In the first half of 2022, the average (net) cost to Uber per WAV ride was $204.28. The average cost was highest in regulated markets such as New York ($284.75), San Francisco ($271.93), Washington DC ($170.10), and Los Angeles ($145.23), followed by other high-demand regions such as Austin ($161.96) and Boston ($161.96). By comparison, the 2021 National Transit Database reports identify the cost per unlinked trip for transit agencies in these same regions as $3.31 for bus in New York City, $35.56 for bus and $123.83 for demand response in San Francisco, $13.35 for bus and $135.42 for demand response in Washington DC.7 If the public sector were to offer incentives, including direct financial assistance to both current and future companies and drivers who purchase and operate WAVs to offset the higher costs incurred to provide WAV rides, it would offer an opportunity to fill a need in achieving universal mobility.

https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 11

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

WAV driver training and support is not consistently available. Education and training opportunities for people who want to drive WAVs are not readily available in many regions. While several localities require WAV driver permits to transport people who use wheelchairs in exchange for payment, many regulating agencies do not offer driver training courses nor set training curriculum standards. As one Toronto Uber WAV driver noted, “We receive general safety updates from Uber but not specifically for Uber WAV.” Instead, WAV driver training tends to be provided either by non-profit organizations as constrained budgets allow or by private WAV fleet companies training drivers that they employ. A New York Uber WAV driver relies on emails from the Independent Drivers Guild about Uber WAV updates and changes to Uber policies. Performance targets for WAV ride services do not account for real-time factors. It is important for regulatory authorities to establish performance requirements and collect trip information to continuously monitor how well companies are fulfilling the on-demand transportation needs of people who need WAVs. However, some localities have set service performance targets for on-demand WAV rides that require continuous improvement but do not consider external factors that inhibit WAV service performance, like the limited availability of WAVs and drivers in the region or delays due to recurring congestion. If regulatory authorities were to set performance targets for on-demand WAV transportation based on the existing performance of other on-demand transportation services in the region, like taxicab service, and those that incentivize partnerships across providers, they may be more achievable, realistic, and support the goal of achieving equivalent service between on-demand WAV and non-WAV service. There are high regulatory burdens for on-demand transportation operators. On-demand transportation regulations, like taxicab and for-hire vehicle company permits, are needed to protect customers’ and drivers’ interests and limit negative externalities from the industry on broader society, such as public safety and environmental pollution. However, these regulatory approaches vary widely by North American locality, imposing high financial and administrative costs on on-demand transportation operators, which inhibits and discourages the growth of WAV services. In some localities, companies and drivers must comply with requirements set by various government agencies at the local, regional, and state levels to register their business, obtain regulatory permits for vehicles, drivers, and/or dispatching software, demonstrate compliance with unique local standards, like service performance targets, and comply with ongoing administrative processes. One New York Uber WAV driver waited more than two months to receive a document verification appointment with the Taxi and Limousine Commission, leading him to cite administrative burden as his chief complaint as a driver. Greater coordination between agencies with jurisdiction over regional on-demand transportation and dedicated staff to provide technical assistance and improve information on regulations helps to reduce the cost of compliance, minimize information duplication, and alleviate constraints on the availability of WAV rides.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Understanding Regulatory Climate for On-Demand WAV Rides In most cities and regions, wheelchair users often have less or no access to on-demand rides compared to people who do not use wheelchairs. We investigated the rules, policies, and programs that exist to ensure people who use wheelchairs have access to on-demand WAV rides in four indicator localities – Los Angeles, California; New York City, New York; Washington DC; and Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Below is a summary of the ride-hailing regulators, permits, and requirements for the performance of WAV rides by indicator locality. Additionally, Figure 1 shows where each indicator locality’s regulatory approach lies on the WAV ride-hailing regulatory spectrum.

Ride-hailing Regulator(s)

Ride-hailing Regularity Permit(s)

WAV Performance Requirements

Monitoring Activities

Los Angeles, CA

New York City, NY Washington DC

Toronto, ON

California Public Utility Commission (CPUC); CPUC Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (CPED); Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (LACMTA)

New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC)

District of Columbia Department of ForHire Vehicles (DFHV)

City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (ML&S)

• TNC Subclass TCP-P Permit • California Driver’s License

For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) License FHV Base License FHV Driver’s License New York Driver’s License

District business registration Public vehicle-forhire license, as needed District, Maryland, or Virginia Driver’s License

Vehicles-For-Hire (VFH) Permit Transportation Company License VFH Driver’s License Ontario Driver’s License

To qualify for offset payments: WAV response time of 25 minutes for 50% of WAV ride requests in the county (Level 1 Offset Time Standard); OR WAV response time of 50 minutes for 75% of WAV ride requests (Level 2 Offset Time Standard); OR WAV response time of 20 minutes for 80% of ride requests for per-trip fee exemption

To retain permission to operate: Must use a WAV for at least 25% of all FHV trips dispatched by mid2022; OR Respond to at least 80% of WAV ride requests under 10 minutes and at least 90% in under 15 minutes by mid- 2021; OR Affiliate with a company that meets these requirements.

To retain permission to operate: Must offer WAV ride request option

To retain permission to operate: Wait times for for-hire WAV rides must be comparable to the average wait time for non-accessible taxicab service in the city

Trip data reporting Driver training Expense reporting Evidence of outreach

Trip data reporting Driver training Vehicle inspections

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Figure 1 Four Indicator Localities on the WAV Ride-Hailing Regulatory Spectrum

How do the regulatory frameworks governing on-demand WAV rides in these four localities compare? This is a critical question to determine what regulatory approaches and policy levers can effectively increase the availability and performance of on-demand WAV rides. There are notable differences in how on-demand rides are regulated and managed by government agencies in the four indicator localities:

•

Different levels of government can provide regulation. In New York City, Washington DC, and Toronto, ride-hailing and for-hire vehicle companies are permitted and overseen by city governments with direct purview over local transportation planning, operations, and project delivery within city boundaries. In Los Angeles and other California cities, ridehailing companies, or TNCs, are permitted and overseen by the state government with direct purview over public utilities and franchises that span multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, permitted ride-hailing companies in California must interact with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to obtain operating permits and apply for payments to offset the higher costs of operating WAVs.

•

Funding challenges can be addressed in a highly centralized process. In California, ride-hailing companies must pay the CPUC, on a quarterly basis, a $0.10 per-trip fee for each TNC trip completed in each county to go into an Access for All Fund. In 2020, California passed a law that endorsed the use of funds collected by Local Access Fund Administrators (LAFAs) to develop WAV programs locally. LAFAs incentivize ride-hailing companies to provide WAV rides with short wait times by creating eligibility requirements for application-based financial grants that offset their higher expenses to provide WAV ride-hailing.

•

Service performance is measured differently when WAV rides are required. Ridehailing companies are required to provide all customers in New York City, Washington DC, and Toronto with the option to request a WAV ride. These three localities then measure performance on this requirement on a broad spectrum, from simply offering the option in Washington DC to establishing ambitious fleet composition percentages or target wait times in New York City. 14

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Gauging Existing Options for WAV Rides The table below summarizes the different options for WAV rides available to people who use wheelchairs in each indicator locality. Importantly, Figure 2 shows the relationship between the regulatory framework and the existing WAV performance, with an emphasis on indicators that a wheelchair user might find valuable.

WAV RideHailing Options

WAV Taxi Options

Transit WAV Ride Options

Los Angeles, CA

New York City, NY Washington DC

Toronto, ON

Uber, Lyft

Uber, Lyft, Via*

Uber

Uber, Lyft

Yes; Reserve with individual taxi WAV companies

Yes; Reserve by phone, online, 5 mobile app options, or street-hail

Yes; Reserve by phone, online, or Taxi Magic app with Royal Taxi, Yellow Paratransit

Yes; Reserve with individual taxi WAV companies

Transport DC offers 15 low-cost taxi WAV rides per month to prequalified riders and unlimited market rate taxi WAV rides to all, on-demand, operates 24/7 Paratransit is offered as required by ADA; not ondemand, requires preapproval

Wheel-Trans offers lowcost WAV rides, to prequalified riders, sameday when booked at least 4 hours ahead, operates 24/7 Paratransit is offered by City of Toronto; not ondemand, requires preapproval

Los Angeles County Access Services and City of Los Angeles CityRide provide paratransit as a complement to the Los Angeles transit system as required by ADA; not ondemand, requires preapproval

NY MTA Access-A-Ride provides paratransit as a complement to the NYC transit system as required by ADA; not on-demand, requires preapproval

* = Via ceased New York City Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicle operations in 2021

Figure 2 Four Indicator Localities on the WAV Ride Level of Service Spectrum

Increasing Access to WAV Rides Access to financial and technical assistance for purchasing, operating, and building skills to drive WAVs can increase the availability of WAV services and increase access for more people. The four indicator localities administer the following regulatory approaches and investment programs to increase WAV fleet size, drivers, and providers of WAV rides: 15

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Los Angeles, CA Regulatory Approach to Increase WAV RideHailing WAV RideHailing Investment Programs Regulatory Approach to Increase WAV Taxis Taxi WAV Investment Programs

New York City, NY Washington DC

Toronto, ON

State requires TNCs to pay per-trip fee to support public investments that expand access to ondemand WAV rides

City requires high-volume for-hire services to offer WAV ride request option using own vehicle fleet or through affiliates

City requires WAV ride request option; If cannot be fulfilled through the company’s digital dispatch, may refer to a company or other provider that can fulfill request

CPUC Access for All fund offers quarterly offset grants to TNCs, LA Metro to administer LA County funds

None

Accessibility Fund offers annual offset grants to PTC WAV drivers

City requires at least 2% of permitted taxi fleet be WAVs

City requires WAV portion of taxi fleet

City requires all taxis to be WAVs

City Accessible Dispatch Program centralizes taxi WAV ride requests; offers taxi WAV purchase grants, taxi WAV driver bonus, pertrip bonus, and quarterly payments

District-WMATA Transport DC program centralizes ondemand WAV taxi requests; City offers incentives for ride wait times ≤ 30 mins; offers WAV purchase grants periodically

Toronto Accessibility Fund offers annual grants to taxi WAV company owners and drivers to cover capital and operational costs

None

City requires high-volume for-hire services to offer WAV ride request option using own vehicle fleet or through affiliates

The following programs are intended to support expanded WAV ride-hailing:

•

Though the NYC TLC does not offer financial assistance to High-Volume For-Hire Services (HVFHS) Bases to offset costs incurred to meet the Central Dispatch WAV Trip Mandate Exception, their potential affiliated Street Hail Livery Base Licensees may be eligible for grants from the Street Hail Livery Base Improvement Fund grants to purchase accessible vehicles.

•

After TNC offsets were disbursed, Los Angeles County’s share from the TNC Access For All Fund is currently about $6.6 million, or about 31% of the total funding available for all counties across California. The CPUC rulemaking process has provided for Local Access Fund Administrators (LAFAs) to administer funds in each county on behalf of the CPUC. LAFAs will be required to assist the CPUC with the 2024 report to the State Legislature and to monitor and audit the collection and expenditure of Access Funds in their respective counties. In June 2021, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 16

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Authority (LA Metro) applied to be designated as Los Angeles County’s LAFA. Once approved, LA Metro planned to develop Los Angeles County’s Access for All Program Guidelines with guidance from a task force and procure on-demand WAV ride services from competitive providers to increase availability of on-demand WAV rides in the county. LA Metro released funding applications in December 2022 with a submittal deadline in February 2023 to the public. Metro planned to manage the county’s allocation of funding, accept Offset Requests and Exemption Requests from TNCs and Access Providers, and conduct quarterly performance monitoring reviews through 2027. •

In Toronto, the Accessible Funding Program (AFP) was created in the 2019 adoption of By-Law 1517-2019, to disburse grants to Municipal Licensing and Standards (ML&S) licensed vehicle-for-hire drivers and owners to offset the higher costs of operating WAVs and support the availability of accessible transportation rides.89 Despite this, in a focus group interview, one Toronto driver shared that he thought that this city-funded subsidy was only available to taxicab drivers and that Uber WAV drivers were excluded. In 2021, Private Transportation Company (PTC) drivers were eligible for an AFP disbursement of up to $2,187.50, while taxicab owners were eligible for up to $4,796.42 for each registered side entry WAV and/or up to $3,625.42 for a rear entry WAV operated in 2020. Notably, Toronto’s per-ride cost to TNC companies for WAV rides is significantly lower than others studied, at $68.11 per ride.

•

The Washington DC Public Vehicles-for-Hire Consumer Service Fund (PVFHCSF) consists of revenues from passenger surcharges, licensing fees for for-hire vehicles, assessments levied by the Department of For-Hire Vehicles (DFHV) on private vehiclesfor-hire and taxis for penalties, Out-of-State Vehicle Registration fees collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and 16.67% of the funds collected by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer from companies that use digital dispatch for private or public vehicles-for-hire other than taxicabs totaling 6.00% of all gross receipts for trips that physically originate in the District. After supporting DFHV operations costs, the PVFHCSF is intended to support a broad range of investments to improve the vehicle-for-hire industry in the District, including on-demand WAV services.

Analyzing WAV Ride-Hailing Level of Service Our research indicates the quantity and quality of transportation options accessible to people who need a WAV in a locality is largely a result of the regulatory framework for for-hire transportation, coordination of transit operations between multiple providers, and the amount of private mobility company contributions. Using data from Uber WAV trips completed during October 2019 and sample weeks from November to December 2019 and May 2021, Nelson\Nygaard analyzed the level of service experienced by people using WAV ride-hailing in each indicator locality. Although the data reviewed is not comprehensive, it provides useful references for Uber WAV performance at two points in time, before the COVID-19 pandemic impacted North American travel behavior, and May 2021, the most recent data available at 17

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

the time of this analysis. Because the data does not cover full months, it is normalized where possible. Figure 3 shows average daily WAV trips by weekday and weekend during 2019 and 2021 dates in the data sample. Across all localities, Uber provided many more trips on weekdays than on weekends – from nearly twice as many in New York to over three times as many in Los Angeles – suggesting that WAV ride-hailing is mostly not for recreational or social purposes.10 Figure 3 Average Daily WAV Trips Completed, Weekday and Weekend

The experience of Uber WAV ride-hailing in these four localities is an indicator of ride-hailing access conditions and gaps in other parts of North America. The table below compares the results of several WAV ride-hailing performance indicators calculated to better understand the current level of service provided within each locality by typology.

City of Toronto Vehicle-for-Hire Bylaw Updates webpage accessed July 21, 2021.

City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 546 Section 546-13.2 Accessibility fund program eligibility criteria.

Nelson\Nygaard has completed multiple accessible transportation projects that include trip purpose as part of the analysis. Weekend trips are often social/recreational.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Los Angeles, CA

New York City, NY

Washington DC

Toronto, ON

WAV Ride-Hailing Market Typology

Regulation: Low Demand: Low

Regulation: High Demand: High

Regulation: Moderate Demand: High

Regulation: High Demand: High

Average Daily WAV Trip Volume

Volume: Low* Trend: Up

Volume: High Trend: Up

Volume: Moderate* Trend: Flat

Volume: Moderate* Trend: Down

Average Daily WAV Trip Travel Time

Travel Time: Moderate* Trend: Up

Travel Time: High* Trend: Down

Travel Time: Moderate Trend: Down

Travel Time: Low* Trend: Up

Average Daily WAV Trip Distance

Trip Distance: Long Trend: Flat

Trip Distance: Short Trend: Down

Trip Distance: Moderate* Trend: Up

Average WAV Wait Time

Wait Time: Moderate* Trend: None

Wait Time: High* Trend: None

Wait Time: High Trend: Up

Wait Time: Low* Trend: None

Average Variation in estimated vs actual arrival time

Variation: High Trend: Up

Variation: Low Trend: Flat

Variation: High Trend: Up

Variation: Low Trend: Up

Average Dwell Time at pickup11

Dwell Time: High Trend: Up

Dwell Time: High Trend: Down

Dwell Time: Low Trend: Down

Average WAV Trip Fare

Trip Fare: Low* Trend: None

Trip Fare: High Trend: Down

Trip Fare: Moderate Trend: None

Trip Fare: Low Trend: Up

Average Uber Contribution Per Trip

Loss Per Trip: High* Trend: None

Loss Per Trip: High Trend: Flat

Loss Per Trip: Low Trend: Flat

Loss Per Trip: High Trend: Flat

Average Uber Contribution Per Mile

Loss Per Mile: High* Trend: None

Loss Per Mile: High Trend: Flat

Loss Per Mile: Low Trend: Flat

Loss Per Mile: Moderate Trend: Down

Average Taxes & Fees Per Trip

Taxes & Fees: Low Trend: Up

Taxes & Fees: High Trend: Flat

Taxes & Fees: Low Trend: Flat

Taxes & Fees: Moderate Trend: Up

*Changed in 2021

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Based on analysis of Uber WAV trip data and regulatory approaches in indicator localities, people in localities where WAV level of service is highly regulated and monitored, including minimum wait times and WAV trip fulfillment, experience better WAV ride-hailing level of service and more WAV service options. Additional takeaways on the WAV ride-hailing level of service experienced in each locality between 2019 and 2021 are:

•

In New York City, WAV customers consistently experienced the shortest wait times, estimated and actual arrival times and dwell times at pickup compared to all other study localities. New York had the greatest number of average daily trips in both 2019 and 2021 with steady growth every month in the study period. New York also requires mandatory WAV training courses for all new and renewing drivers, providing greater numbers of drivers for WAV vehicles. High demand for WAV service appears to be matched by a high supply of WAVs and the availability of WAV drivers.

•

Toronto WAV riders experienced longer average wait times, were booking significantly fewer rides per day, and were traveling farther distances. Average daily trips in Toronto decreased by more than 300% between 2019 to 2021. Continued demand for Uber WAV in Toronto was from customers who were choosing the service to reach farther destinations and there appeared to be fewer WAV drivers to meet those demands. The demand for shorter WAV rides was likely being met by taxis, given the local requirement that all taxis be WAVs.

•

In Los Angeles, WAV trips completed increased four-fold despite their wait times, estimated and actual arrival time, and dwell times at pickup increasing. Los Angeles had the fewest average daily trips in 2019 but saw a major increase of 144% between 2019 and 2021 in daily trips. This sustained demand for WAV rides despite the lower level of service indicates that Uber WAV was one of the best options for WAV riders in the region and an increase in the supply of WAVs and availability of WAV drivers would likely result in increased ride requests.

Dwell time refers to the time a vehicle spends at a scheduled stop without moving. This time is often needed to secure the wheelchair in the vehicle and can be seen as another disincentive to the driver as the extra time is unpaid.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

•

In Washington DC, WAV riders made fewer average daily trips and experienced longer wait times and variation in their estimated and actual ride arrival time but faster travel times. Average daily WAV trips in Washington were low and remained flat. Reduced demand for Uber WAV may be related to the increase in same-day WAV ride services fulfilled by WAV taxis and the availability of low-cost WAV rides.

The experience of Uber WAV ride-hailing in the four localities could well serve as an indicator of the various levels of availability in ride-hailing services as well as service gaps in other parts of North America.

What Steps Forward Can Expand WAV Ride-Hailing? There is no one-size-fits-all intervention or solution to expand WAV ride-hailing services across North America and improve access to affordable, reliable, and convenient options that bring communities closer to achieving universal mobility. Ultimately, cities, regions, and their partners must design or redesign their WAV ride-hailing services so that they are centered on the needs and preferences of people who use wheelchairs. This Roadmap offers lessons learned, practical experiences and helpful references that can be leveraged to make progress towards expanding access to on-demand WAV rides.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Potential Interventions to Achieve Ride-Hailing Access for All This section examines specific potential interventions identified throughout the course of this study to improve equity and access for people who need WAV ride-hailing. These interventions are organized by category, and not by order of significance or magnitude. This section also identifies lead entities as well as other players who must be involved in each intervention to achieve desired outcomes, as well as the type of intervention recommended. The interventions were built upon the research, workshops, and interviews noted above and validated through focus groups with WAV drivers and potential drivers to ensure they are actionable and beneficial. Additional needs and findings from interviews and focus groups, not directly related to WAV access but relevant to improved equitable access for all, are noted in the interviews in the appendices. Because the current level of ride-hailing services utilizing wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs)— vehicles that accommodate wheelchairs—require corporate subsidies to operate, continued and additional subsidies are needed to sustain and/or expand the scope of WAV services and to improve their quality of service.

The following recommendations focus on potential financial, regulatory, and policy actions: Recommendation: Create a new subsidy stream dedicated to capital fleet investments that increases the number of WAVs in service and streamline regulatory requirements to reduce administrative burdens where possible, in order to increase the number of WAVs in service. Funding may come from per-trip fees imposed by regulators, local/state taxes, vehicle or registration fees, or other new revenue sources. Lead: Regulator Justification: The current shortage of WAVs in taxi and for-hire vehicle fleets is a major barrier to providing convenient, reliable, and affordable wheelchair-accessible transportation. Recommendation: Establish and administer a permanent WAV driver funding program that minimizes administrative burdens and ensures reimbursement remittances are seamless and timely. This may be a structured grant program or other incentive program to reimburse drivers in part for vehicle purchases, training, and other costs associated with WAV ownership and/or operations. Lead: Regulator Justification: WAVs use more gas, have higher maintenance costs, and need drivers who are trained to transport people who use wheelchairs. For many for-hire 22

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

transportation and TNC drivers, the high cost to purchase a WAV, retrofit a vehicle to WAV status, and ongoing operations and maintenance costs can be significant financial barriers and a disincentive to offering WAV service. Recommendation: Update and revise federal guidance for transit agencies and for-hire transportation service providers to identify, clarify, and share funding information – and relevant requirements – eligible for planning, operations, and customer support to fulfill ADA requirements and meet accessibility needs and requirements (coming from national research noted below). Lead: Regulator, potentially in partnership with researchers and industry Justification: The current vast myriad of guidance on various federal grant opportunities makes it difficult for private WAV service providers to proactively present partnering opportunities to local public sector transit providers. In order to increase ADA and safety compliance, as well as provide greater WAV service availability, federal guidance on funding programs and opportunities which could include providing WAV services must be clarified and standardized for use by private sector WAV service providers. WAV service providers also need clear guidance on how to support WAV workforce needs as well as obtain capital to support WAV fleet resources. In addition to funding needs, new policies, standards, and guidance are needed to ensure equivalent levels of service for WAV riders, and to monitor performance across service functions. The following recommendations focus on policies and regulations, as well as the data and monitoring required to achieve the goals of those policies. Recommendation: Standardize levels of WAV services across all local jurisdictions’ programs providing those services, including taxis, shuttles, liveries, or TNCs. Lead: Regulator Justification: Some localities have set level of service standards for on-demand WAV rides that require continuous improvement that does not consider external factors, like the availability of WAV fleet and drivers in the region or delays due to recurring congestion. There is an opportunity to set performance targets for on-demand WAV transportation based on the existing performance of other on-demand transportation services in the region, like taxicab service, and that incentivize partnerships across providers that are more achievable, realistic, and, ultimately, support the goal of increasing access to on-demand WAV rides that is equal to non-WAV service. Recommendation: Monitor and publicly report the level of service standards provided by all for-hire transportation companies in the locale, including taxis, shuttles, paratransit vehicles, liveries, and TNCs. This could be administered by a local regulatory authority charged with ADA oversight authority and include specified metrics to monitor and publicly report across services. Lead: Regulator 23

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Justification: People who use WAV transportation services frequently experience less reliable and convenient travel than non-WAV passengers. WAV passengers are more likely to experience a lack of same-day transportation options, as well as no-shows and late arrivals for reserved WAV rides. Current reporting must be made more accurate to reflect the level of service being provided and match consumer needs. Unfortunately, the data currently collected is not conducive to robust analysis supporting policy/service improvements. Investing in research to address this data deficit would be cost effective almost assuredly in the near term. As suggested above, coupled with appropriate consumer data and feedback, appropriate and accurate service provider data could provide a clearer, more concise roadmap to better service delivery. This would save time and money for providers, public and private sectors, and importantly, for the consumer. Recommendation: Conduct annual or mileage-based WAV inspections and WAV passenger comment and complaint investigations in all WAV services, and in relation to non-WAV service. This could be administered by a local regulatory authority charged with ADA oversight authority and include specified metrics to monitor and publicly report across services. Lead: Regulator Justification: During interviews, the research team consistently heard that WAV riders often experience lower levels of service, including vehicles that could not accommodate their needs and drivers unprepared to provide them with necessary assistance. By conducting regular WAV inspections and customer comment and complaint investigations, the regulator agency could compile data to help evaluate the effectiveness of specific companies, pilot initiatives, and overall quality of WAV transportation available (for TNCs and other WAV options). Passengers are more likely to experience dignified and effective WAV transportation service regularly when providers are incentivized to provide quality service. In Toronto, PTC drivers must comply with vehicle inspections at a cityoperated facility before initial operations and then every six months thereafter. Recommendation: Establish WAV trip data sharing and reporting requirements. WAV trip data should be publicly reported, with a focus on metrics that demonstrate demand and supply by WAV trip type. This could be administered by a local regulatory authority charged with ADA oversight authority and include specified metrics to monitor and publicly report across services. Lead: Regulator Justification: Demand for on-demand WAV accessible transportation tends to be underestimated due to missing or incomplete data on WAV trip-making. This reporting could demonstrate and justify some of the other recommendations, by clarifying the gaps in demand and supply.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Recommendation: Integrate government contracted WAV drivers into a centralized WAV ride dispatching system with several reservation options. Lead: Regulator, in coordination with TNC companies Justification: Limited regional WAV drivers may be available to fulfill on-demand ride requests yet are not allowed to fulfill requests for transportation due to segmented contracting. Transit agencies often contract with WAV transportation companies to provide paratransit services for people with disabilities who cannot otherwise utilize fixedtransit services like bus and rail. Agencies can explore integrating contracted WAV drivers into on-demand dispatching systems to maximize public mobility benefits generated by these contracts when WAVs would otherwise go underutilized. Recommendation: Reward sustained or improved on-demand WAV level of service, especially as it compares to local non-WAV service performance. WAV drivers' contributions to service performance should be celebrated and encouraged through incentives like grants and awards with public ceremonies. Lead: Regulator, TNC companies, and/or Public Private Partnerships Justification: WAV drivers and the transportation workforce are essential to operating the services that provide people with access to opportunities.

The research team also examined recommendations that complement financial, regulatory, and policy actions related to WAV services. These recommendations are focused on shifting transportation service needs and a lack of adequate data in order to conduct thorough service analysis to form a strategy to serve people with disabilities on local and national levels. Recommendation: Launch a national research initiative to develop guidance on best practices and models for providing effective WAV services by leveraging innovative public / private partnerships and funding schemes Lead: US DOT, in coordination with University Transportation Centers and non-profit organizations working with populations using WAV services. Justification: Mobility services and models have changed drastically since the passage of legislation such as Section 504, IDEA, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Technologies that have evolved and will continue to evolve can improve the transportation universe of people with disabilities. Despite this, there is a lack of detailed evaluation of on-demand responsive WAV transportation service models, including ADA paratransit service models. Additionally, transit agencies and regulatory agencies wield insufficient guidance to collaborate and design service models that coordinate siloed transportation fleets, drivers, and other resources to improve WAV passenger experiences. Federally focused and funded research (such as 25

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

through the Transit Cooperative Research Program, TCRP12 is needed to determine WAV service needs and opportunities. Detailed quantitative analysis including costs, funding sources, gaps in needs, and impacts is also needed. to provide guidance and programs at the national level, help guide states, local authorities, and regulators, and support drivers and providers in meeting the accessibility needs of people with disabilities. Recommendation: Develop WAV driver training curriculum standards that local for-hire vehicle licensing authorities can adopt to offer continuous training opportunities, including making public facilities and resources available for training venues: Lead: Regulator, in coordination with TNC providers Justification: Education and training for people who want to drive WAVs is not readily available in many regions. In a focus group, Washington DC and Toronto drivers agreed that their peers were largely unaware of the existence of Uber WAV. While several localities require WAV driver permits to transport people who use wheelchairs in exchange for payment, many regulating agencies do not offer driver training courses nor set training curriculum standards. Standardized training curriculums and opportunities would ensure equivalent level of service across drivers, help resolve long-standing supply chain issues for drivers and help increase awareness of the needs and opportunities for WAV drivers.

Link to TCRP website: https://www.trb.org/TCRP/TCRP.aspx

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Appendix 1 Stakeholder Interviews (Introduction) This memorandum summarizes Nelson\Nygaard’s discussions with 12 stakeholders conducted in December 2021 and January 2022. See Figure 4 for a list of those interviewed. The end of this memo includes a list of the topics and questions the interviewers loosely followed in our discussions. Responses and observations are summarized into:

•

Rider perspective

•

Planning and regulatory considerations

•

Operational considerations

Figure 4 Stakeholders Interviewed

Name

Organization

Type

John Pare

National Federation of the Blind

Advocacy

David Rishel

Delta Services Group

Consultant

Lee Page

Paralyzed Veterans of America

Advocacy

Annette Williams and Maddy Ruvolo

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

Transit agency

Zainab Alkebsi

National Association of the Deaf

Advocacy

Judy Shanley

Easter Seals

Advocacy, training

Rashidi Barns

First Group

Transit operator

Carol Tyson

Disability Rights and Education Fund

Advocacy

Lilly Shoup

Rebel Group

Consultant

Kelly Israel

Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Advocacy

Autumn Elliot

Disability Rights California

Advocacy

Kimberly Beer

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation

Advocacy

Rider Perspective Rider’s Disabilities and Needs Vary Though this project focuses specifically on the availability of on-demand wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs), interviewees noted differences among those who use wheelchairs, particularly those who need 27

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

WAVs and commented on the needs of people with other disabilities.

People who use Wheelchairs Most people using powerchair wheelchairs require WAVs, but some who use foldable wheelchairs can travel in other vehicles (e.g., sedans and SUVs). This is an important distinction for fulfilling trip requests. Some that use manual wheelchairs can transfer to a vehicle and their upper body strength dictates how much assistance they may need to do so.

People with Other Disabilities While most people with vision or hearing disabilities do not need a WAV, their perspective on travel via Uber was informative, particularly around communications. For people with hearing disabilities, the use of an app for ride-hailing has been transformative compared to having to use a telephone to request a taxicab. Riders appreciate being able to confirm pickup and drop-off locations and making payments without needing to speak to an individual. For those with vision disabilities, a smartphone’s voice controls, and text-to-speech functions are essential features. Some noted that Uber’s driver identification sound effects have helped riders and drivers connect. However, riders with vision disabilities noted some challenges using the app following software updates. Certain features are either removed or relocated, which makes it difficult to use the app. One interviewee wanted to be able to contact Uber to report these issues and noted such opportunities used to exist when Uber regularly met with organization leaders to discuss ongoing needs and concerns. Some suggested enabling users to provide helpful information about their disabilities within the app that would explain disability status or communication preferences. For example, one could write “don’t call, text only” on their profile. Such information could have broader applicability for those who do not speak English, for those who may rely on another person to arrange their trip (e.g., a child booking a trip for an elderly parent), or for those whose disability is not apparent.

Personal Experiences Using Uber Several interviewees described their experiences using Uber, discussed below.

Five Minutes May be Insufficient to Board a Waiting Uber Several interviewees discussed the app feature that gives users five minutes to board once the driver has arrived at the pickup location. According to some, while five minutes may be sufficient for an ambulatory rider, this may not be sufficient for riders with certain disabilities. Some suggested that offering some form of payment to drivers (and indicating that the rider needs more time) in such instances.

Trip Refusals Happen for Different Reasons Some of the reasons cited for drivers refusing trips on arrival include: 28

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

•

Fear of damaging accessibility equipment

•

Not allowing service animals

•

Time needed to board and de-board

•

Liability concerns

One interviewee reported better experiences when boarding at a hotel, in part because the hotel staff can assist them and possibly intervene if the driver is reluctant to accept the rider.

In-Vehicle Observations One interviewee who can transfer to a seat prefers to do so but noted that riding in the front seat provides more back support and more legroom. Being able to include this preference in advance would be helpful and would avoid having to negotiate this with the driver. Some interviewees noted that drivers are usually very helpful in stopping their vehicles in a good location for them to de-board the vehicle.

Broadening Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicle Use When asked if WAV should be used for all rides or just exclusively for wheelchair user rides, interviewees unanimously agreed that WAVs should be used for all rides. They believed it would be in the interest of drivers to be able to complete more trips, regardless of the rider type, and might encourage more drivers to purchase/lease WAVs.

Planning and Regulatory Considerations Discussions with legal advocates, consultants, and transit agencies yield some important observations about planning and regulations.

How Litigation is Shaping Service Interviewees cited the ADA litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Some were also aware of and supported California Senate Bill 1376 “Transportation network companies: accessibility for persons with disabilities,” which requires placing at least of $0.05 for each completed trip into the TNC Access for All Fund. Some expressed dissatisfaction with Uber’s assertion it is a technology company that is therefore not subject to the ADA transportation provisions. Some interviewees noted that WAV service is better in cities where litigation or regulations resulted in minimum WAV requirements. The 2016 lawsuit by Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago demanding that Uber provide more WAVs ultimately led the City of Chicago to require Uber to increase WAV availability and reduce wait times.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Concerns about Vehicle Trends Several interviewees were apprehensive about trends in automated and electric vehicles. For electric vehicles, a key consideration is ramp-equipped vehicles (not buses). The ramps for such vehicles are placed beneath the vehicle floor, the same location where some electric vehicle manufacturers place batteries. See Figure 2. While some noted that incentives are present to increase the number of electric vehicles, including California’s EV requirement, incentives should be offered for purchasing WAVs. Figure 5 BraunAbility WAV with deployed ramp

While the broad use of automated vehicles will not happen for a number of years, some interviewees noted that riders requiring assistance would not be served by such vehicles if a driver is not present.

Policies and Incentives The team’s discussion with SFMTA covered incentives. SFMTA noted that incentives must be tied to desired outcomes. For example, SMFTA has a no strand policy for paratransit services. Such a policy should be broadly adopted. SFMTA suggested that drivers should be compensated for deadhead (nonrevenue) trips. They also suggested offering subsidies to drivers to purchase, maintain, and insure WAVs.

Suggested Performance Measures Interviewees suggested that WAV performance metrics should be established and be separate from metrics for non-WAV trips, with a strong emphasis on customer experience and satisfaction such as:

•

Number of WAV rides requested

•

Number of WAV rides rejected

•

Number of WAV rides completed

•

Average and median wait times

•

Number of repeat customers (customer loyalty)

•

Customer satisfaction and experience (survey) 30

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Operational Considerations Dispatching Interviewees had limited familiarity with how WAVs are dispatched. Some suggested that WAVs should be dispatched the same way as other vehicles and within one tracking system. Others suggested that TNCs could utilize a central dispatch center for WAVs and pool their supply of vehicles and trained drivers together. This way, it could reduce market fragmentation for a relatively low demand and at the same time, maintain a baseline of quality across all TNC platforms.

Driver Training First Transit, which operates paratransit service in many cities, provides ADA driver training. Other interviewees commented that training is an essential yet difficult task that takes time and familiarity. Some noted in the TNC model, training may need to be incentivized. Interviewees from SFMTA recommended that WAV drivers be equivalent to full-time drivers in order to increase competency.

Vehicles First Transit noted that lead times for vehicle purchases have grown significantly; what previously took one month takes up to five months now. Interviewees noted that SUVs, trucks, and crossovers are not ideal for wheelchairs. Suggested models include:

•

Nissan Taxi MV-1

•

E150 Full-size Van

•

Toyota Minivan with Lift

•

Sedan

•

Chrysler

•

Ford Transit Vans

Customer Marketing and Outreach Advocates (in particular) noted previous instances when TNCs met with leadership. This included targeted outreach events. Other outreach has included local training programs at elderly housing locations. Participants representing advocacy organizations who participated in direct discussions once per quarter found them helpful. More than one participant asked Uber to reconvene these discussions.

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicle Study Stakeholder Interview Topics Adjust according to interview participants. We are interested in hearing from stakeholders who are public regulators, public and private partners, private providers, advocates, and affiliates of the paratransit community. Specifically, we are looking for insights into the technical requirements, challenges, and opportunities for providing wheelchairaccessible vehicle (WAV) service. These interviews will help inform Uber’s WAV service implementation and delivery considerations.

Regulations and Compliance •

What are some coordination efforts your agency/organization undertakes to provide WAV services for the public?

•

What is the compliance rate for wait-time targets? What is the incentive and penalty for compliance?

•

Who are the main providers in your region that are favorable to work with?

•

What are some exemptions or loopholes that providers use to rid of the regulation’s primary intention?

•

What is the impression of TNC WAV providers - particularly Uber?

•

What regulations are obstacles to your agency/organization from providing adequate WAV services? (Insurance, funding eligibility, etc.)

Funding and Procurement •

Who are the biggest funders? What are some partnerships or funding arrangements you have?

•

What are some future funding streams that are coming to light?

•

How does the new infrastructure bill (federally) impact WAV service?

•

How do your local state and city ordinances impact WAV service?

•

What are some considerations behind procurement methods for drivers and vehicles?

Operations and Customer Experience (Quality of Service) •

Discuss expectations for each WAV service permit type.

•

What are some innovations or new systems that were incorporated for dispatching vehicles? 32

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

•

What is the biggest pain point for customers using or wanting to use WAV service?

•

What are the customers’ average demographic profiles in your region?

•

What are the customers’ most common trip purposes or destinations?

Additional Questions •

Do you have any recent documentation like grant applications, compliance reports, or permit applications that you can share with us?

•

What other agencies/organizations would you recommend for us to interview?

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

Appendix 2 Focus Group Summary In the summer of 2022, Nelson\Nygaard organized and hosted three focus group meetings to better understand driver awareness of wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) capabilities, learn about barriers and incentives to becoming a WAV driver, and create a forum for drivers to communicate about their WAV experiences. Drivers noted the differences in navigating different regulatory practices and market dynamics in their respective cities: Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, and Toronto.

New York City Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicle Drivers Awareness: The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (NYC TLC) mandates applicants to undergo WAV training before obtaining a taxi license. Because of that, New York City focus group participants had a broad awareness of their responsibilities as WAV drivers. They mentioned the detailed seatbelt procedure required and emphasized the importance of securing the wheelchair in the vehicle. Emails from NYC TLC and the Independent Drivers Guild 13 keep New York WAV drivers up to date on service requirements as well as changes to health and safety policies, such as mask requirements. These obligations do not prevent New York drivers from making WAV trips, but NYC TLC’s vehicle requirements have proved difficult to manage. Currently, the only people who may apply for a new For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) vehicle license are owners of wheelchair-accessible cars and drivers who are part of a lease-to-own arrangement.14 Starting: New York drivers were encouraged to make WAV trips due to unrelated licensing and practicality factors. One driver found that renting a non-WAV through Uber partners was too expensive (more than $350 per week) and instead explored ownership options. After researching, this driver found that electric vehicles and WAVs were the best options for purchasing, and without a place to charge an electric vehicle, he decided to buy a WAV. Another driver began offering WAV trips as a method of securing a NYC TLC license plate. This route proved difficult, with the driver waiting over two months after official approval to receive his license plate. Overall, drivers complained about the prohibitive cost of purchasing a WAV. Multiple drivers mentioned the need to upgrade their WAV’s rims to account for the noise created by standard-issue rims. Those who could not afford to purchase a new WAV used the NYC TLC community to find a van that could be retrofitted for WAV trips. Barriers: New York drivers found it difficult to physically handle wheelchairs and properly accommodate wheelchair users. Motorized wheelchairs can be cumbersome, heavy, difficult to operate on the ramp, and difficult to secure. Drivers did not feel compelled to contact Uber support, feeling that Uber’s systems were helpful for simple problems but inadequate for complicated questions. Drivers agreed that the TLC administrative burden was difficult to keep up with, with policies changing often.

The Independent Drivers Guild is an organization advocating for the rights of drivers across the country with 80,000 For-Hire Vehicle drivers in New York City and 250,000 Drivers across NY, NJ, CT, MA and IL. 14

FHV Wheelchair Accessibility Owner/Driver Information, New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission 34

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

In addition, New York WAV drivers doubted the profitability of making WAV trips, citing the high cost of vehicle purchase and limited financial incentives. One driver estimated $400 in daily earnings during a 14-hour workday. Despite the increase in Uber WAVs, drivers did not notice an increase in ridership. Incentives: New York drivers reported the increased ease of finding WAVs to purchase and feel that WAV trips are helping people. However, drivers felt promotions were better in the past and reiterated the increasing WAV maintenance costs. Initially, they believed the increased trip rates would pay for their car and car insurance but with rates dropping from $220 for every 65 WAV trips to $130 for the same number of trips, WAV trips became less valuable. One driver speculated that the demand for drivers was affecting the price of WAVs, noting the $73,000 cost of her fully retrofitted Toyota Siena. Drivers would like to make more trips and encouraged Uber to allow for scheduled WAV trips within the app. Feasibility: New York WAV drivers plan to continue to provide WAV service in the next 12 months. Already owning the WAV makes it easy to continue to offer WAV trips. Their experience would be improved with increased promotions, more WAV trips, and a list of WAV trips to accept in advance.

Los Angeles, Washington DC, and Toronto WheelchairAccessible Vehicle Drivers Awareness: Drivers were aware of seatbelt procedures and the use of cones to alter other drivers and increase safety while loading or unloading passengers. These drivers were not aware of additional Uberprovided training outside of initial training and received updates from Uber but none regarding WAVs specifically. Requirements centered around safety and did not impact drivers’ decision to provide WAV service. Starting: Financial incentives and the opportunity to help the community compelled drivers to offer WAV service. Riders appreciated the WAV service and mentioned Uber WAV as their last reliable transportation option. WAV trips also offered better income at one point but today, drivers face limited WAV trip demand. The process of becoming a WAV driver was seamless, with a one-week onboarding process and four-hour training sessions. The option to rent WAVs made starting easier. Barriers: Drivers reported a positive experience making WAV trips but expressed a desire for more riders, often experiencing zero to two WAV trips per day. To account for this, one driver waited for trips near senior housing and built relationships with senior housing officials. Customers repeatedly asked drivers for their personal phone numbers to schedule future trips, leading drivers to believe there was unmet demand in their regions. Additionally, drivers requested increased marketing and advertising efforts to tap into this perceived unmet demand. WAVs are becoming more expensive to maintain, with one Toronto driver spending $1,000 per month to rent the vehicle and $10,000 annually on maintenance. This Toronto driver also mentioned that a Toronto WAV subsidy is provided to Toronto taxi drivers only, with Uber WAV drivers excluded. Incentives: Drivers requested increased rider demand and financial incentives. They mentioned that they only receive trip requests from the Uber app and hypothesized that customers only use Uber as a last resort. Drivers suspected that customers choose WAV trips for reasons unrelated to accessibility, such as vehicle capacity, cost, and trunk space. Feasibility: Current WAV drivers would like to continue to provide WAV service in the next 12 months, 35

Roadmap to Wheelchair-Accessible Ride-Hailing

citing their satisfaction in helping the community but noting their frustration dealing with low ridership demand. Drivers recommend the WAV service to other Uber drivers but warn against low ridership demand. They felt that not enough Uber drivers or customers were aware of the WAV service. Lastly, drivers were nervous that because of the low demand, Uber may discontinue WAV service entirely.

Non-Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicle Drivers Awareness: Non-WAV Uber drivers were unaware of using Uber to provide WAV trips. A Toronto driver could not find the WAV option in his Uber app. Riders have mentioned their wheelchairs and these nonWAV drivers will assist them getting in and out of their wheelchair but were unaware of vehicles specifically retrofitted for non-foldable, electric wheelchairs. The same Toronto driver knew that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) contracted with Wheel-Trans15 for WAV trips but did not think Uber was associated with similar trips. Starting: If they were able to get started as WAV drivers, the non-WAV drivers mentioned that vehicles must be supplied by Uber. Additionally, drivers must be offered an hourly wage due to the inefficiencies created by the increased travel time required to pick up wheelchair users. Drivers suspected there would be low demand for WAV trips, furthering the need for an hourly wage. Drivers were receptive to additional, Uber-provided WAV training but were wary of the return on investment of a WAV purchase. Barriers: Since the non-WAV drivers who participated in the focus group discussion were unaware of Uber WAV, they expressed desire to make these trips if compensated accordingly. They suggested that Uber provides higher trip rates for WAV trips. Incentives: Non-WAV drivers reiterated higher trip rate suggestion and Uber-provided WAV. In addition, drivers requested that WAV could also support Uber X and Uber XL trips to account for the perceived low WAV trip demand.

The City of Toronto's paratransit service, Wheel-Trans, accepts reservations from consumers over the phone or online.