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

Abstract

Abstract 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.