Editorial: Time to review eligibility rules

CITIZENS Area Transit should reassess its eligibility standards to make sure that genuinely disabled people are given a chance to use the bus system's paratransit service.

Sun reporter Martin Kuz described Sunday how deserving disabled passengers have been prevented from using the bus system's paratransit service. For example, Arleen Post can't walk more than 200 feet without gasping for breath. She has heart disease, a degenerative back condition, arthritis and poor vision in one eye. So it's surprising that CAT informed Post she was no longer eligible to use the bus system's paratransit services.

In a letter to Post, CAT wrote that eligibility for paratransit service "is based on lack of functional ability as a result of a disability that would prevent you from using the fixed-route bus service, not just make it more difficult." Post is suing the Regional Transportation Commission, which oversees CAT, for the denial.

Then there is the case of Paul Martin, spokesman for Nevadans for Equal Access, a group seeking to increase business compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Martin has a form of muscular dystrophy that can be particularly devastating when he sweats a lot, causing his body to release chemicals that can paralyze him. Because of his condition, CAT allows Martin to ride a paratransit bus -- but only when temperatures hit 90 degrees or above.

Since paratransit users are required to book their rides three days in advance, CAT's ruling effectively has kept Martin from using paratransit services, forcing him to look elsewhere for transportation. "How am I going to know three days from now what the weather's going to be? ... People with disabilities aren't like other people. You can feel good one day and feel like hell the next, and they don't consider that," Martin said.

These aren't the only two cases but they are emblematic of a too rigid approach being used by CAT in determining which disabled riders are allowed to use the paratransit system. The new eligibility standards adopted in January 1997 started out with the best of intentions -- getting CAT into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and reducing abuse.

Before the eligibility requirements were imposed, the program was being taken advantage of by some who weren't disabled, seeing it as a free ride to pick up groceries or go gambling. No one knows better than the disabled the need for clear, unambiguous eligibility requirements for services for the disabled. For instance, there is nothing more infuriating than seeing someone who isn't disabled take advantage of a handicapped parking space. That is why CAT, and other organizations, must adopt rules governing who can use these services for the disabled.

CAT's disability requirements, though, seem too restrictive. The requirements appear to be at cross purposes with the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was supposed to increase the opportunities for the disabled, not reduce them. "If the federal government and the state government can determine that a person's disabled and the condition's not going to get any better, that should be sufficient enough proof (for paratransit eligibility)," Gloria Chaffee, president of the National Federation of the Blind of Nevada, said. "If paratransit isn't for the disabled, we don't need it at all. What is the point?"

CAT, named as one of the 10 best transit systems in the nation, is doing a good job overall in providing public transportation for valley residents. And many disabled riders are pleased with the performance of CAT's paratransit service. But it's clear that it is time for CAT to revisit its rules and standards to make sure that the disabled do not have roadblocks in the way of opportunities that the ADA was supposed to foster.

archive