A systems analysis of Access-A-Ride, New York City’s paratransit service

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport & Health journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jth

A systems analysis of Access-A-Ride, New York City’s paratransit service Jessica Murray Psychology/Human Development, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States

AB S T R A CT The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires paratransit service to bridge gaps in accessibility on public transit. Access-A-Ride (AAR) should be a comparable alternative to fixed-route service, but requires 24-hour advance planning and is known for high cost, inefficiency, and poor service. This pilot study uses narrative analysis and systems theories to examine the interaction between users’ experiences and federal and transit agency policies. Methods: An “activity meaning system” was developed to identify consistencies and inconsistencies between policy and practice. Values analysis was used for texts from three stakeholders: the ADA section regarding paratransit, a section of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)’s AAR guidelines, and one user narrative. For more detail from users’ perspectives, plot elements were coded for 25 narratives about AAR taken from in-depth interviews with eight adult wheelchair users living in New York City. Quotations from values analysis and plot analysis were also coded using ecological systems theory. Results: Values analysis indicated that federal policy denounced discrimination, while acknowledging limitations to providing comparable service. The MTA’s values placed responsibility for miscommunication on users and emphasized externalities and costs. The user narrative shared most of the values of the ADA and MTA policies, except for recognizing cost. Plot analysis revealed over twice as many complications (n = 139) as resolutions (n = 65). Complications included limited options, logistical issues, excessive time or distance, and psychological/physiological problems, while resolutions were acceptive, reactive, or proactive. Systems analysis revealed that values of stakeholders were aligned with ecosystem levels. Complications occurred in similar frequencies at micro/meso and exo/macro levels, but resolutions were most frequent at the micro level. Conclusions: The findings reveal a need and opportunity for dialogue about policies affecting how AAR service is delivered and highlights areas where policy has failed to ensure equal service, causing distress for users.

1. Introduction Access to transportation is a common concern for people with reduced mobility, whether they are in an urban or suburban environment. In New York City, over 55% of the population uses public transportation to commute to work (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), and 42% use the subway (Santiago et al., 2012). Fewer than 20% of subway stations are wheelchair accessible, and while most buses are accessible, bus travel is incredibly slow, especially over long distances. The quality of paratransit service, called Access-ARide (AAR) in NYC has been mixed since the 1990’s, but demand and cost have both increased, leading to cost-

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.06.007 Received 29 September 2016; Received in revised form 22 June 2017; Accepted 23 June 2017 2214-1405/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Murray, J., Journal of Transport & Health (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.06.007

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

cutting measures (Gartland and Michael, 2014; Kaminer, 2010; Landa, 2016; Perez-pena, 1996). Literature on paratransit service often focuses on reining in costs by analyzing route efficiency (Gupta et al., 2010) or providing case studies where interventions have reduced the demand for paratransit (Fei and Chen, 2015). This study takes a different approach, analyzing policy documents and passenger narratives, and applying a systems analysis to both to understand how policies play out in practice. In some respects, this is a case study of paratransit delivery in New York City, so some results or recommendations may not be directly transferrable to other cities with their own unique circumstances. However, the methods used to analyze federal policies, transit agency interpretation of those policies, and passenger experiences in relation to each other are universally applicable. 1.1. Background of Access-A-Ride Section 504 of the Rehabilitative Act of 1973, was the first U.S. federal law that regulated disability discrimination for any institutions receiving federal funding, which includes the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The Department of Transportation interpreted Section 504 as applying to all subway renovations, a position the MTA refused to support for years (Goldman, 1983a). The State of New York had already implemented a similar law mandating that public buildings maintained with state funds include wheelchair accessibility in all renovation plans, but the MTA argued that the subway wasn’t a building, and that station renovations were primarily repairs (Goldman, 1983b). The Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association brought a lawsuit against the MTA for failing to adhere to the state’s rules in 1980. As part of the settlement of the lawsuit in 1984, the MTA agreed to make 100 key stations accessible by 2020. This is an exception to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement for cities to propose plans to make key stations in their fixed-route commuter systems, and all intercity rail stations compliant within a 20-year timeframe (Part 37 – Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities, FTA, 1991; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 12162, 1992). The ADA policymakers also required paratransit, compelling the MTA and other public transportation operators to provide alternate service “comparable to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities” for those who cannot use public bus or fixed-route service (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 12143, 1992). This service has historically been contracted out through the MTA’s New York City Transit (NYCT). Since the 1990’s, Access-A-Ride has become a lifeline for many people with mobility disabilities, but not without complications. To qualify, users are required to be assessed in person on a number of eligibility requirements, including whether their disability is full, continual, temporary (less than 5 years), or conditional, meaning that weather or other temporary obstacles make travel more difficult (MTA Guide to Access-A-Ride Service, n.d.). After approval, users must call to arrange their rides at least 24 h in advance. If the service is available at the time they request it, a driver is sent to their location, and may pick up or drop off other passengers along the way to their destination. In the past 25 years, the costs of operating AAR—and demand for the service—have rapidly increased. Today, New York City operates the most expensive paratransit service in the United States. Comparisons with other cities show that in 2014, New York City had the highest number of ADA-mandated trips per year (6,448,134), highest cost per trip ($70.77), was second only to Los Angeles in terms of the number of registrants (144,692 vs. 163,000), with the highest ratio of registrants (17 per 1000 area residents, vs. 14 in L.A.) (Citizen’s Budget Commission (CBC), 2016). In terms of fixed route transit station accessibility, New York City is the also the worst in the nation with less than 20% of stations currently meeting ADA guidelines. The next closest city in the U.S. is Philadelphia, with 49% accessible stations. The City of New York’s Comptroller’s office performed a financial audit of dedicated service carriers (DSC) and broker car services (BCS), which make up the majority of paratransit trips, the rest being provided by taxis or livery car services. Of these DSC and BCS trips, the audit found “134,750 trips as Customer No-Shows, 67,569 trips as No Fault No-Shows, and 31,492 trips as Contractor NoShows” (Landa, 2016, p. 10). The audit also condemns drivers for failing to use GPS systems and the MTA for not providing oversight of their contractors. Potentially tens of thousands of individuals were stranded at their pickup location at some point in 2015. Ridership, which was rising rapidly prior to 2010 has been decreasing since (Gewolb, 2015). This is due to efforts to control costs, which are expected to increase to $621 million annually by 2020 (Citizen’s Budget Commission (CBC), 2016). These efforts include reducing the number of trips by having more restrictive eligibility requirements, providing feeder service to accessible bus routes, and contracting taxi or livery car services. A 2014 pilot study providing voucher cards for Yellow Taxi Service to be used at the passenger’s discretion has been quietly discontinued, with no report of its efficacy. AAR is a costly and inefficient mode of transportation that segregates people with disabilities who are unable to access other public transit modes. There have been calls for reform due to the costs associated with operating the service, reports of poor passenger experiences (Kaufman et al., 2016), and conclusions that missed pickups cause distress for users (Landa, 2016).These reports call for making the service more efficient to reduce costs, but don’t analyze user experiences. 1.2. Research objectives The main objective of this pilot study was to see if the combined application of several qualitative research methodologies could reveal new insights about the problems described by Access-A-Ride passengers. The first goal was to analyze and compare the policies of two AAR stakeholders (the federal government and the MTA) to a passenger narrative to see if and how they differ. The second goal was to analyze user narratives about AAR to understand shared challenges and how users resolved problems with the service. The third goal was to apply a systems framework to the data in order to determine where problems were originating and where interventions were possible. 2

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

2. Theoretical background This study utilizes two theoretical frameworks; activity-meaning theory (Daiute, 2014a, 2014b), and ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Activity-meaning theory is based on cultural-historical activity theory, which defines development as the complex interaction of individuals in social systems (Engeström et al. 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). An activity-meaning system examines how stakeholders across dynamic systems mutually develop meanings that are understood by each other. Narrating is one of many cultural tools of interaction between participants in an activity-meaning system, and narrative inquiry is a theory-based qualitative method for examining the dynamic and interrelated meanings that people create through telling their lived experiences. This conceptualization complements the context of development described by Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) bioecological systems theory. This theory includes five interconnected systems; micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono. Starting at the level closest to the person, microsystems are immediate environments and the people in those environments, including home, school, work, family, and social circles. The mesosystem describes the interactions between microsystems, such as tensions between work and home environments. The exosystem consists of interactions between mesosystems of people close to the individual, as well as environments where the individual occasionally spends time, making up less of their daily experience than their immediate surroundings. The macrosystem has varied impact on the individual’s life, and includes abstract variables, including government policies and societal attitudes. The chronosystem includes all of these systems, taking time and history into account. Bronfenbrenner’s theory is often seen as a framework rather than a theory, and narrative analysis is a theory and a methodology that can be applied to the interactions between Bronfenbrenner’s systems. Through narrative analysis, we can examine the complexity of the AAR system by looking for the “diverse values that organize meaning,” among participants (Daiute, 2013, p. 68). Narratives from this study are often “small stories,” what Bamberg and Georgakopoulou (2008) describe as “underrepresented narrative activities, such as tellings of ongoing events, future or hypothetical events, and shared (known) events.” Despite their seeming insignificance, they are windows into meaningful experiences that have evolved through reflection, subsequent experiences, and life histories (Polkinghorne, 2005). Narrative analysis is different from other qualitative methodologies like content or thematic analysis, in that it considers the underlying structure of how information is communicated. For example, a thematic analysis of user narratives may result in a list of problems, but applying plot analysis reveals characters, settings, complications, and resolutions of problems, even if they are purely psychological. In this way, narrative analysis reveals where individuals are situated within a system and gives insights into how their experiences are connected to policies they may not realize are affecting their daily lives.

3. Methods In-depth, open-ended interviews were conducted with eight adult wheelchair users living in the New York City metropolitan area. Data were collected in the spring and summer of 2014 as part of an exploratory study examining work, home, and transportation environments for adults with mobility disabilities living in New York City (Murray, 2014). Participants were recruited through snowball sampling and compensated $40 for one to two hours of their time, and interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes or other locations they selected. They answered questions about their travel behaviors and experiences in semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions focused on work, home, and transportation environments. Questions were broad but grounded in specific locations and contexts (ex. What is your commute like? Tell me about your daily routine. If they mentioned a specific mode: How is that experience for you?). Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and unique narratives—a self-contained retelling of a story—were identified. Of the eight participants, six spoke about using the service. Those who used it regularly were unemployed or self-employed (see Table 1 for participant profiles). The implications of this disparity are addressed in the discussion section. From the total sample of 234 narratives, 80 were about transportation, and 25 were about AAR. These narratives were parsed into independent clauses, or thought units, for coding. For the values analysis, texts relevant to definitions, guidelines, and implementation of paratransit were selected from other stakeholders. In this study, two types of narrative analysis were employed: values and plot analysis. A systems analysis was used to classify both the values and plot elements by level within an ecological system.

Table 1 Participant profiles. ID

Gender

Participant age

Disability cause

Years using a wheelchair

Employment status

Personal care attendent

# of AAR narratives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

M M M M F F F F

39 39 47 39 35 28 36 37

IL IN IN IN IN IL IN IL

7 4 22 12 4 7 30 19

SELF PART SELF UN UN FULL PART UN

Y N N Y N Y N Y

1 0 2 8 6 2 0 7

Disability cause; IL = Illness, IN = Injury.

3

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

3.1. Values analysis Values analysis looks for explicit or implicit expressions of beliefs and attitudes, and can represent a divergence in interests. Values are found in narratives as well as policy documents and institutional texts, highlighting what is most important for different stakeholders. The issue of timeliness was reported by participants who used AAR at the time of the interviews or in the past, or was a reason why participants did not use the service. Three texts were purposively sampled from policies related to paratransit at three levels of the ecological system in order to study the phenomenon of late pickups, an experience shared by all participants who had experiences with or opinions about AAR. The texts were chosen because of length and relevance to this issue: 1) Section 12143 from the ADA related to paratransit service, 2) Text from the MTA’s Access-A-Ride guidelines, “What to do if an AAR Vehicle is Late”, and 3) One user narrative that best represented a common theme of late pickups from the sample of user narratives and was similar in length to the other texts. Values analysis identifies the implicit or explicit values expressed in narratives and other texts (Daiute, 2014b). The key questions for this analysis were: What values are present in the ADA section on paratransit, the MTA’s policy, and the user narrative? Which values are shared between stakeholders? Which are not shared? Six values were identified through an iterative process of summarizing the implicit or explicit values expressed in the policy documents and user narrative. These were conceptualized as statements that would encapsulate the meaning expressed through the various texts in a way that could apply to all three stakeholders. The value statements were: 1) People with disabilities have rights, 2) Denying service is discrimination, 3) MTA is responsible for providing service, 4) Paratransit is expensive, 5) Paratransit exists in the real world (problems happen), and 6) The individual is responsible for their own mobility. A second researcher coded the three system narratives for reliability of the value statements, and a raw agreement score and Cohen’s Kappa reliability coefficient were calculated using Recal2 for all of the codes. Cohen’s Kappa is a coefficient that measures inter-rater reliability and accounts for the possibility of agreement occurring by random chance, meaning that values are typically lower than raw agreement scores. There was an average agreement rate of 92% across the six codes (Κ = .72). See Table 2 for reliability ratings for individual value codes. 3.2. Plot analysis Plot analysis focuses on narrative elements, including characters, settings, an initiating action, complicating action(s), a high point, and resolution strategy and/or ending (Daiute, 2014a). Initiating actions are events that set the story into motion, typically followed by complicating actions that build suspense until the high point or turning point of the story. Resolution strategies bring closure to the previous complications and an ending implies that the story is complete. All narratives have one high point, but can have multiple complicating actions and resolution strategies (Daiute, 2014b). Characters and settings provide important context for analyzing narratives within a systems framework. Complications, and resolutions don’t always neatly align with real-world problems and solutions. In this theoretical context, plot elements refer to the structure of narratives and the context of individual narratives. For example, a resolution strategy of expressing frustration may not actually resolve the user’s real-world complication of their driver showing up late, but in the context of telling the story, the expression of frustration is how the complication is resolved for the individual. Because the research question focused on common problems and the ways that AAR users resolved those problems, narratives were parsed for independent clauses and relevant quotations received one of three plot codes; complicating action, high point, or resolution strategy. Key questions for the plot analysis include; what are the pivotal experiences and complications that arise for users in their daily travel experiences? How do they resolve these complications? Patterns of plot elements were identified by summarizing complicating actions, high points, and resolution strategies by theme, then further categorizing them where appropriate. A second researcher plot-coded 20% of the narratives for reliability, and an average agreement rate and Cohen’s Kappa were calculated using Recal2. Reliability ratings for individual plot codes are as follows: complicating actions (% agreement = 85.3, Κ = .69); high points (% agreement = 95.6, Κ = .70); resolution strategies (% agreement = 85.3, Κ = .65). 3.3. Systems analysis Drawing from Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory, quotations from values and plot analyses were coded by one of four systems (micro, meso, exo, and macro). Key questions for this analysis were; which systems are referenced in the policy documents and user narratives most frequently, and which were not addressed? In which level of the system do complications for Table 2 Reliability ratings for values analysis. Value

% Agreement

K

People with disabilities (PWD) have rights Denying service is discrimination MTA is responsible for providing service to PWD Paratransit is expensive Paratransit exists in the real world (problems happen) Individuals are responsible for their own mobility

96.3 92.6 81.5 96.3 96.3 88.9

0.78 0.79 0.46 0.84 0.9 0.6

4

5

Example resolutions

Example complications

Settings

Characters

“I make sure I leave enough time in between.” “I just relax.”

“My patience was really being tested.”

First names, family members, personal attendant, doctor, friends, etc. Immediate environments; home, hospital, work, etc. Transportation when describing the experience of travel or planning “I was afraid to take public transportation.”

Micro

Table 3 Systems criteria and examples for plot and values analysis.

“I can go anywhere in the five boroughs for $2.50.”

“The problem was that I lived in Manhattan and had to commute to Long Island.” “I add more time so I don’t lose my appointment.”

Transportation environments in reference to traveling between microsystems “They’ll take you the long way.”

Similar to micro; mentioned because of tensions between people in different microsystems Interactions between microsystems

Meso

They third-party characters, with limited or disconnected contact with the participant Family members’, personal attendants’, or AAR drivers’ microsystems Interactions that have limited or indirect influence “My driver who’s supposed to pick me up is stuck in Queens.” “They’re supposed to be waiting on the curb outside.” “They have to pick me up at my door and drop me off.” “They were trying to organize another pickup for me.”

Exo

"They" institutions, public figures, lawmakers, or policy-makers Overall, broad descriptions of places and society Mentions or criticisms of policies and systems “I think other cities would be worse because everything is so far away.” Sometimes Access-A-Ride doesn’t work with you.” “They would be better off putting money into improving the subway.” “In the world we live in, that’s not an option. [being late]”

Macro

J. Murray

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

Table 4 Frequency of value expressions per text. Value

ADA

People with disabilities (PWD) have rights Denying service is discrimination MTA is responsible for providing service to PWD Paratransit is expensive Paratransit exists in the real world (problems happen) Individuals are responsible for their own mobility

✓ ✓✓ ✓

MTA

✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓

✓

USER ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓

users arise? At which levels are they resolved? Based on the context element of Bronfenbrenner's theory, criteria for micro, meso, exo, and macro systems were developed as a guide for coding, including characters and settings, which offered clues for identifying the focus of each clause. For example, clauses with first names or first-person pronouns and immediate settings were coded as micro, clauses with third-person plural pronouns with external or imagined settings were coded as exo, and clauses with third-person plural pronouns and generalized settings were coded as macro. This systems-coding scheme was applied to all three values-coded stakeholder texts, and to the complicating actions and resolution strategies for the 25 user narratives (See Table 3 for systems criteria and examples for plot and values analysis). 4. Results Values analysis revealed some shared and some divergent meanings across stakeholders in the system. The values of nondiscrimination, rights of people with disabilities, and paying attention to practical issues were not shared across all stakeholders. The complications, resolutions, and high points from the user narratives revealed shared experiences that were typically frustrating and outside of the users’ control. Not all experiences were negative, and many of the participants also expressed appreciation for the service, despite its shortcomings. Applying a systems model to the narrative codes revealed that complications originated in the meso, exo, and macro systems, but were resolved more often at the micro level. 4.1. Values analysis Twenty-seven independent clauses were coded from the three texts for the six value statements (see Table 4 for frequencies across the three texts). Not surprisingly, the ADA’s values center on rights and discrimination, and defining the responsibility of the transit agency to provide a service to people with disabilities. The text acknowledges the realities of providing service, but fails to address the expense of the program, a common value in the MTA's policy, or the role of the individual. The MTA guidelines do not acknowledge individual rights or discrimination, but acknowledge their obligation to provide service. They place emphasis on complications that arise, costs associated with the service, and the user’s responsibility for handling issues that arise. Values present in the typical user narrative reveal the users’ balanced understanding of the system, with the exception of acknowledging operating costs. 4.2. Plot analysis From the 25 user narratives, 229 independent clauses were identified. Each narrative had one high point, and multiple complications and resolutions. Common types of plot elements were defined through an iterative process of summarizing the issues with short phrases, and grouping similar issues into larger categories (see Figs. 1 and 2). High points were categorized according to similar themes, with expressions of anxiety and frustration being the most common (n = 7). Other types of high points included choosing a different mode of transportation (n = 7), choosing to accept AAR despite its flaws (n = 5), making the best of a bad situation by framing it a different way, or looking for a positive outcome (n = 2), practicing patience (n = 2), AAR dispatchers resolving the issue (n = 1), and experiencing an environmental barrier while using AAR (n = 1). Feelings of frustration or anxiety constituted nearly a third of the high points of experiences using the service. Of the seven high User Expresses Anxiety/Frustration User Chooses a Different Mode User Accepts AAR (despite its flaws) User Makes the Best of Bad Situation User Practices Patience AAR Resolves Issue User Experiences Environmental Barrier 0

1

2

3

Fig. 1. Issue at high point (n = 25).

6

4

5

6

7

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

Types of Complications (n = 139)

Psychological/Physiological Logistical Time/Distance Only Choice/Alternative is Worse

Types of Resolutions (n = 65)

Acceptive Reactive Proactive 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fig. 2. Types of complications and resolutions (n = 204).

points that involved choosing a different mode of transportation, three specifically mentioned rejecting AAR altogether, expressing as a deliberate choice made in the past. For example, one high point involved the reaction of one participant’s co-workers who read an online interview about the participant's transportation challenges. The pivotal moment in the story was when she was quoted as saying, "Access-A-Ride isn't an option for me, because I need to be on time" and the co-worker responded, "I guess Access-A-Ride isn't an option for anyone, because everyone needs to be on time!" Complications (n = 139) outnumbered resolutions (n = 65) by more than two to one. The most frequent complication was that AAR was the user’s only transportation option or choice (n = 51). Of these types of complications, there were four subcategories. Many referenced other transportation environments as being worse in different ways (n = 22). This included physical and psychological barriers in the subway, having to wait in poor weather for the bus, or being unable to afford a taxi. Many of the complications described AAR as the only choice due to financial or spatial disadvantages (n = 14). Some complications described other cities or states being worse for mobility because they didn’t provide public transportation (n = 10). The remaining complications described other modes being undesirable due to negative interactions with other passengers (n = 5), leaving AAR as the only choice. Logistical complications (n = 32) also included several subcategories. Most were described as circumstances that were outside the participants' and even the AAR drivers' control. Most referenced problems like weather, traffic, and other passengers in the AAR vehicles (n = 11). A small number of complications relayed policy problems such as needing 24-hour advanced scheduling, bureaucratic processes, or other city policies like snow shoveling (n = 6). The remaining complications referred to miscommunication (n = 6), missed pickups (n = 5), and the service being unreliable, and dependent on the driver or dispatcher that was handling the ride (n = 4). Of the psychological and physiological complications (n = 24), the majority dealt with feeling frustrated or disappointed by the service (n = 10). The remaining issues were stress (n = 8), and exhaustion from riding in an AAR vehicle (n = 6). Complications related to time and distance (n = 32) were overwhelmingly about the service taking too long (n = 11), and being late (n = 10). The remainder mentioned traveling excessive distances based on how far they needed to travel (n = 5), wasting time (n = 4), and the non-spontaneous nature of using the service (n = 2). Resolutions (n = 65) fell into three categories: acceptive (n = 19), reactive (n = 19), and proactive (n = 27). Acceptive resolution strategies encompassed several positive attitudes towards AAR; accepting the service despite its flaws, and appreciating AAR because of comparatively limited transportation options in other places, because of the value of the service compared to taxis, or because of a level of comfort established from using the service over time. For example, one participant talked about becoming friends with a driver, and the relative ease of door-to-door service compared to trying to navigate the public transit system. Reactive resolution strategies fell into three main categories; expressing frustration or anxiety (n = 11), finding ways to cope (n = 5), and questioning other transit policies that led to the necessity for AAR (n = 3). Coping resolutions included physical reactions like finding ways to be more comfortable or trying to relax. Resolutions that referred to questioning policy mentioned subway accessibility and the costs of operating AAR vs. improving the subway, despite the scale of the problem. Proactive resolution strategies included choosing another mode (n = 16), planning (n = 6), and communicating to resolve issues (n = 5). When talking about choosing another mode, most users’ resolutions referred to using a private automobile or trying to obtain their own car (n = 10), taking the bus or train (n = 4), or needing to find an alternative without mentioning a specific mode (n = 2). Of the ten resolutions that mentioned a private automobile, four mentioned AAR being unreliable or the car being necessary for finding a job. Planning resolution strategies involved padding travel times (n = 5) and making sure to be at the pickup point before the scheduled time (n = 1). Most of the communication resolutions involved speaking with an AAR dispatcher to handle a missed pickup or other problem (n = 4), or referred to using a tactic of asking to arrive by an appointed time to get better service (n = 1). 4.3. Systems analysis Independent clauses from the texts used for values analysis (n = 27), and the complications and resolutions from plot analysis (n = 204) were coded as microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, or macrosystem. Values coded as meso were only present in the user narrative, so micro and meso were collapsed into one category in order to compare values across the three stakeholders (see Fig. 3). From text sampled from the ADA, values were distributed across the three categories; micro/meso (n = 1), exo (n = 3), macro (n = 2). From the MTA’s policy, values only referred to micro/meso (n = 5), and exo (n = 10). The user narrative’s values were more concentrated in the micro/mesosystems (n = 5), with far fewer expressions of values in the exosystem (n = 2), and macrosystem (n 7

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

Macro

100%

Exo

80%

Micro/ Meso

60% 40% 20% 0%

ADA

MTA

User

Fig. 3. Value expressions by system.

= 1).This suggests that each stakeholder’s values are reflected in the system level in which they operate. For instance, the ADA’s values refer to macrosystem and exosystem influences most frequently, whereas the user’s values largely reflect micro-level concerns that affect their day-to-day experiences. The MTA’s values are noticeably missing macrosystem level values: People with disabilities (PWD) have rights, and Denying service is discrimination. Systems analysis of plot elements revealed that complications occurred at similar frequencies at the micro level (n = 36) and meso level (n = 35). Micro types of complications were most often psychological and physiological in nature, ex. “My patience was really being tested,” or “It’s so tiring.” Meso types of complications were often logistical or referred to excessive time or distance, ex. “They could leave, they could be on the [wrong] corner,” or (to a driver) “You’re taking me in a loop—you’re taking me around the world.” The greatest frequency of complications occurred at the exo level (n = 49), and often involved logistical issues, but featured many complications about the alternatives being worse. For example, “I’ll do the bus if I have no choice,” or from a participant who described a filmed outing to document subway accessibility, “We even had our little subway map that indicated all the accessible stations, which was incorrect. We went to three of those stations, and—where there was supposed to be access, what we encountered were steps instead.” The fewest complications occurred at the macro-level (n = 19), and consisted of logistic complaints tied to policy or the built environment, such as “It’s such an expensive program,” or “Able-bodied folks can’t believe that you would have so many obstacles getting from A to B.” Macro-level complications also involved hypothetical scenarios like living in other cities, where alternatives were worse, ex., “Everything is so far away,” or “many people don’t have a car.” Resolution strategies were highly concentrated at the micro level (n = 32), while fewer resolutions occurred at the meso (n = 14), exo (n = 12), and macro (n = 7) levels (see Fig. 4). Micro-level resolutions were primarily classified as acceptive and reactive, ex. “it’s not too bad,” or “I was afraid [to ride the bus]” At the meso level and exo level, resolutions tended to be more proactive, for example, “I try to, in advance, you know, make things [easier],” or “if [I] get a car, they’ll pay for the conversion.” Macro-level resolutions were primarily reactive and acceptive, ex. “in the world we live in, that’s not an option [being late]” or “I mean, it’s mass transit, so I don’t mind, just be considerate of when, you know, my time and what I have to do.” 5. Discussion Several findings reveal previously unreported issues in regards to AAR service. The plot analysis revealed the high emotional toll of AAR’s poor service, and that study participants were more likely to be proactive in their problem solving. For several participants, limited transportation options forced drastic life changes like moving, or purchasing vehicles in order to find balance. Systems analysis as applied to plot elements also revealed that complicating actions were equally prevalent at micro and meso levels, with the most found at the exo level, and the least at the macro level. Resolution strategies, on the other hand, were concentrated at the micro level, and less frequent at meso, exo and macro levels. This suggests that many of the complications that occur for these AAR users were beyond their control. Users seem to be experiencing high emotional burdens because they are resolving complications internally, either through expressions of frustration or by accepting the broken aspects of the service. Encouraging more proactive resolution strategies like communicating with drivers or dispatchers, or finding alternative transit modes may empower users to assert more control over situations that seem hopeless. There was a stark socioeconomic divide between participants in this study. All participants were asked the same questions about transportation, but those who used the service had limited financial resources and were more likely to be unemployed. The rest had a negative past experience with the service or had no opinion or knowledge of the service. Those who did not use AAR were more likely 80

Resolution Strategies

70

Complicating Actions

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Micro

Meso

Exo

Macro

Fig. 4. Plot elements by system.

8

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

to be engaged in formal employment and spoke about choosing other transportation modes because of the service’s unreliability. While this is not a generalizable result, it’s an important insight for future research. Employing in-depth qualitative analysis provided valuable insights into three perspectives from the activity-meaning system of AAR, which can be applied to longer policy documents, although the focus of analysis may need to target specific problems individually. Plot analysis reveals the extent and kinds of problems occurring for AAR passengers that cannot be addressed through making routes more efficient. For instance, many participants described complications with scheduling their rides, or dealing with other bureaucratic processes. Issues outside of the obvious problems of timeliness are equally important. Integrating a systems analysis with narrative analysis reveals some of the interactions between policy and daily practice, and highlights the processes that occur across abstract boundaries. These insights offer the basis for policy makers, individuals and advocates to look for small ways to ease the frictions that impact user experiences. 5.1. Strengths and limitations The methods employed in this study provide a window into user experiences, an area that is rarely explored in studies related to paratransit operations. Values and systems analysis provide an entry point for policy analysis by locating the direction of tensions within the activity system. However, there are stakeholders in the system who have not been included in this pilot study. The drivers and dispatchers who handle daily AAR operations also play a key role in the daily lives of those who rely on the service. The decentralized operation of AAR, which relies on more than a dozen contracting companies, with possible variations in labor practices, presents a unique challenge for data collection. Because of geographic specificity, results of this pilot study may not generalize to paratransit service in other cities and there was not enough statistical power to provide a person-level analysis with demographic characteristics. Some participants contributed more narratives than others, which may skew the plot analysis results. The texts chosen for values analysis are small samples of the complete text of the ADA and MTA’s policy on paratransit service, so values missing in this analysis may be present in other parts of these policy documents. Future values analysis would likely have to be focused on a specific phenomenon that relate to policy and other texts. 5.2. Relevance to policy-makers The most frequent complication among study participants was that they had no other transportation option besides AAR. To reduce paratransit use, the MTA should compare long-term cumulative costs of AAR to creating a universally-designed transit system. While the MTA has cited high cost estimates for single station upgrades when citizens complain about the lack of elevators in planned station upgrades (Tangel, 2016), they have failed to provide a comprehensive cost estimate for making all stations ADA compliant. A 10 year projection for paratransit will cost the agency over 5 billion dollars, but there is no comparable figure for accessibility upgrades. Creating a separate system for people with disabilities as a solution to an inaccessible fixed-route system is unsustainable. Investments in technology and contracting to demand-responsive transport providers can improve passenger experience and save money over time (Kaufman et al., 2016), but wheelchair accessibility is necessary for making taxis and ride-sharing part of a viable solution, and taxis and third-party services are currently behind in accommodating passengers with disabilities. Many participants rejected AAR for its unreliability, but others found that using bus service elicited negative reactions from nondisabled passengers or drivers, and in some cases being ignored by bus drivers who didn’t have room for them. In order to reduce reliance on paratransit, the MTA should increase space on buses for wheelchairs and improve efficiencies in onboarding procedures for passengers with disabilities. Users must also be able to trust the systems in place to ensure that service is delivered and their complaints taken seriously. The values in the MTA’s policy emphasize operational concerns, placing importance on logistics and payments, and assigning blame to individuals when pickups are missed. Their policy states that passengers should wait for their ride to be at least 30 minutes late before inquiring about the location of their driver, giving drivers implicit permission to be late and communicating to passengers that their time has little value. The MTA should revise this policy and find technological solutions to automatically notify passengers about minor delays. The section of the ADA on paratransit contains no provisions for individual recourse if the MTA fails to uphold their paratransit responsibilities. Another ADA section outlines how individuals can file their own lawsuit for violations or file a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) or FTA, who can bring lawsuits in cases of public importance (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 12188, 1992). For this accountability process to work, large numbers of individuals must file written complaints or have the financial resources to bring a lawsuit. The alternative is for AAR passengers to file a complaint with the MTA, who has not engaged in oversight of late or missed pickups. Participants in this study frequently accepted AAR with its flaws and utilized coping mechanisms to deal with frustrations. A better solution would be to employ a local independent agency that can investigate passenger complaints and log them for federal agencies. 6. Conclusions While each city and transit agency are likely to encounter unique challenges dependent on geography, density, and resources, the methods used in this pilot study can be applied to different problems and contexts. The unfunded mandates of the ADA have caused resistance from the MTA to make accommodations throughout the transit system, which has led to developing a separate system for 9

Journal of Transport & Health xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Murray

people with disabilities, resulting in greater costs in the long term. Analyses of policy documents and user experiences highlight the negotiation involved in ensuring public transit access as a right, and suggest the need for an independent agency to handle user complaints. Results of this pilot study show that transit agencies can gain insights from narrative analysis of policy documents and stakeholder narratives to understand where user needs, government directives, and agency policies are not aligned. These insights can help balance individual and transit agency concerns in pursuit of more equitable policies. Acknowledgements An earlier version of this research was published by the Journal of Transport and Health as part of their proceedings for the 2016 International Conference on Transport and Health (Murray, 2016). References Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 § 12143, § Sec. 12143. Paratransit as a Complement to Fixed Route Service, 1992. Retrieved from 〈http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ adastatute08.htm#12162〉. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 § 12162, § 12162. Intercity and Commuter Rail Actions Considered Discriminatory, 1992. Retrieved from 〈http://www.ada. gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12162〉. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 § 12188, § Sec. 12188. Enforcement, 1992. Retrieved from 〈https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12188〉. Bamberg, M., Georgakopoulou, A., 2008. Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk Interdiscip. J. Lang. Discourse Commun. Stud. 28 (3), 377–396. Bronfenbrenner, U., 1994. Ecological models of human development. In: International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Elsevier, Oxford. Citizen’s Budget Commission (CBC), 2016. Access-A-Ride, Ways to Do the Right Thing More Efficiently. Retrieved from 〈http://www.cbcny.org/content/access-rideways-do-right-thing-more-efficiently〉. Daiute, C., 2013. Narrative Inquiry: A Dynamic Approach. SAGE Publications, Cambridge, England. Daiute, C., 2014a. Plot analysis. In: Narrative Inquiry: A Dynamic Approach. SAGE Publications, pp. 114–149. Daiute, C., 2014b. Values analysis. In: Narrative Inquiry: A Dynamic Approach. SAGE Publications, pp. 68–113. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R.-L., 1999. Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Fei, D., Chen, X., 2015. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) paratransit cost issues and solutions: case of Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC). Case Stud. Transp. Policy 3 (4), 402–414. Gartland, S.M.J., Michael, 2014, April 20. MTA Denying Access-A-Ride to Some Riders Claiming Disabilities. Retrieved from 〈http://nypost.com/2014/04/20/mtadenying-access-a-ride-to-some-riders-claiming-disabilities/〉. Gewolb, M., 2015. Oversight: Transportation Services for Seniors and People with Disabilities in New York City. Retrieved from 〈http://www.nylpi.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/04/Committee-Report.pdf〉. Goldman, A.L., 1983a, January 5. Subway Projects Barred on Access for the Disabled. The New York Times. Retrieved from 〈http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/05/ nyregion/subway-projects-barred-on-access-for-the-disabled.html〉. Goldman, A.L., 1983b, September 15. Issue and Debate; Wheelchairs in City’s Subways and the Cost of Redoing Stations. The New York Times. Retrieved from 〈http:// www.nytimes.com/1983/09/15/nyregion/issue-and-debate-wheelchairs-in-city-s-subways-and-the-cost-of-redoing-stations.html〉. Gupta, D., Chen, H.-W., Miller, L.A., Surya, F., 2010. Improving the efficiency of demand-responsive paratransit services. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 44 (4), 201–217. Kaminer, A., 2010, February 5. For Disabled Riders, Access-A-Ride Can Be Hardly Hassle Free. The New York Times. Retrieved from 〈http://www.nytimes.com/2010/ 02/07/nyregion/07critic.html〉. Kaufman, S.M., Smith, A., O’Connell, J., Marulli, 2016. Intelligent Paratransit. Landa, M., 2016. Audit Report of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Oversight of the Access-A-Ride Program (Financial Audit). Office of the Comptroller, New York, NY, US. Retrieved from 〈http://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/audit/?r=05-17-16_FK15-098A〉. MTA Guide to Access-A-Ride Service, n.d. Applying or Recertifying for Paratransit Service & Eligibility Determinations. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from 〈http:// web.mta.info/nyct/paratran/guide.htm#ParatranSservice〉. Murray, J., 2016. A48 – a systems analysis of Access-a-Ride, New York City’s paratransit service. J. Transp. Health 3 (2, Supplement), S33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jth.2016.05.079. Murray, J., 2014. Work-Life Experiences for People with Mobility Disabilities in New York City (Master’s Thesis). The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Retrieved from 〈http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/455/〉. Part 37 – Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities, FTA, 1991. § Section 37.53 Exception for New York and Philadelphia. Retrieved from 〈https:// www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/part-37-transportation-services-individuals-disabilities#sec.37.53〉. Perez-pena, R., 1996, May 2. New Service is No Easy Ride, Disabled Say. The New York Times. Retrieved from 〈http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/02/nyregion/newservice-is-no-easy-ride-disabled-say.html〉. Polkinghorne, D.E., 2005. Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research. J. Couns. Psychol. 52 (2), 137. Santiago, N., Bajrami, B., Kazui, A., Gordon, C.E., 2012. Handicapped accessibility in New York rail transit: comparison of railroad stops in urban and suburban areas. In: Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting. Tangel, A., 2016, January 29. MTA Under Pressure to Add Elevators to More Subway Stations. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/mtaunder-pressure-to-add-elevators-to-more-subway-stations-1454110968. U.S. Census Bureau, 2013. Means of Transportation to Work (Universe: Workers 16 years and over). Retrieved from 〈http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/ jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_13_5YR_B08301&prodType=table〉. Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychologicial Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

10