___________________

²⁰⁶ See generally Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12161, and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

²⁰⁷ See 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

²⁰⁸ 42 U.S.C. § 12132. See also Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110, 115 (2d Cir. 2011).

²⁰⁹ 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a).

²¹⁰ 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).

²¹¹ 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

²¹² 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A)–(B).

vidual with a disability” is defined as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers . . . meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public”²¹³

Title II, Part B, applies specifically to public transportation. Under Part B, “it shall be considered discrimination . . . for a public entity to fail to operate a designated public transportation program or activity conducted in such facilities so that, when viewed in the entirety, the program or activity is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”²¹⁴ Additionally, “[i]f a public entity operates a demand responsive system,”²¹⁵ namely, a “system of providing designated public transportation which is not a fixed route system,”²¹⁶ then “it shall be considered discrimination . . . for such entity to purchase or lease a new vehicle for use on such system . . . that is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless such system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of service to such individuals equivalent to the level of service such system provides to individuals without disabilities.”²¹⁷ The ADA defines “designated public transportation” as “transportation (other than public school transportation) by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than transportation by aircraft or intercity or commuter rail transportation (as defined in [another section of the ADA])) that provides the general public with general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis.”²¹⁸

The duty of a public entity to not discriminate is extended to discrimination “through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability.”²¹⁹ Meaning, if a government entity allows a private third-party company to provide services on behalf of the public entity, then the third-party must comply with the public entity’s duties under Title II.

2. Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Transit agencies are federally required to comply with the ADA regardless of whether they use federal funding for a particular service or program. In addition, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in their programs and activities. The aim of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is to protect the rights of people with disabilities in various aspects of life, such as employment, education, health, and access to information.²²⁰

One section of the Rehabilitation Act that relates to public transit is Section 504 (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination based on disability for any program or activity that receives federal funding. This means that public transportation authorities, such as city buses and rail transit, must ensure that their services are accessible and inclusive for people with disabilities. For example, they must provide reasonable accommodations—such as ramps, lifts, or audio announcements—for people who use wheelchairs, have mobility impairments, or are visually or hearing impaired.

In addition, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C § 794(d)) establishes accessibility requirements for information and communication technology (ICT) developed, maintained, procured, or used by the federal government.²²¹ Under Section 508, agencies must give employees with disabilities and members of the public with disabilities access to information comparable to the access available to others. This means that federal agencies must make their websites, documents, software, and other digital products accessible for people with disabilities, such as by using alternative text, captions, or keyboard navigation. This also applies to any public transportation authority that receives federal funding or contracts with the federal government.

3. Remedies

Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are enforceable through a private right of action.²²² Section 504 (29 U.S.C. § 794a) provides that the “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.)” shall apply to aggrieved individuals under Section 504.²²³ In 1986, Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 as part of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, to permit private suits in federal court against state entities for violations of Section 504, Title VI, Title IX, the Age Discrimination Act, and similar nondiscrimination statutes.²²⁴ Section 2000d-7 gives states express notice that a condition for receiving federal funds is the requirement that they consent to suit in federal court for alleged violations of Section 504 and other enumerated statutes.²²⁵

The ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., expressly provides that the remedies, procedures, and rights available under the Rehabilitation Act also apply to the ADA. To make a prima facie case under Title II, a plaintiff must show: (i) plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability; (ii) plaintiff was denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities for which the public entity is responsible, or was otherwise discriminated against by

___________________

²¹³ 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

²¹⁴ 42 U.S.C. § 12148(a).

²¹⁵ 42 U.S.C. § 12144.

²¹⁶ 42 U.S.C. § 12141(1).

²¹⁷ 42 U.S.C. § 12144.

²¹⁸ 42 U.S.C. § 12141(2).

²¹⁹ 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1).

²²⁰ PUB. LAW NO. 93-112, 87 STAT. 355 (1973) (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.).

²²¹ 29 U.S.C. § 794(d).

²²² See U.S. v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006); Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 184–185 (2002); Frame v. City of Arlington, 616 F.3d 476, 482–483 (5th Cir. 2010) (reh. en banc granted).

²²³ 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2).

²²⁴ See PUB. LAW NO. 99-506, TIT. X, § 1003, 100 STAT. 1845 (1986).

²²⁵ See Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1662 (2011); Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 280; Lane v. Peña, 518 U.S. 187, 199 (1996).

the public entity; and (iii) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination is by reason of plaintiff’s disability.²²⁶

Plaintiffs in ADA and Section 504 cases may recover compensatory damages upon a showing of intentional discrimination and injunction—forms of relief traditionally available in suits for breach of contract—but punitive damages are not available.²²⁷ In addition, the prevailing party may be awarded attorney’s fees.²²⁸

B. Application to Micromobility

The ADA is very broad, and the details of interpreting and applying the law are in the enforcing regulations. DOT regulations in 49 C.F.R. Parts 37, 38, and 39 establish minimum accessibility standards for public transportation services and vehicles, including rapid rail vehicles, light rail vehicles, buses, vans, commuter rail cars, intercity rail cars and over-the-road buses. DOT regulations implementing Section 504 are in 49 CFR Part 274. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within the U.S. DOT is charged with ensuring public transit providers comply with the DOT regulations implementing the transportation-related provisions of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

In November 2015, FTA issued Circular 4710.1, which provides guidance for recipients and sub-recipients of FTA financial assistance concerning their compliance with the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the DOT regulations in 49 C.F.R. Parts 27, 37, 38, and 39.²²⁹ While new and emerging technologies present general and specific challenges to public transit agencies’ compliance with these statutes, the DOT explains that:²³⁰

The ADA does not stand in the way of new technology, but it does require that new technology, and the benefits it brings, be accessible to all persons, including those with disabilities. This point applies to all vehicle acquisition provisions of this regulation, whether for rail or non-rail, private or public, fixed route or demand responsive vehicles and systems.

The FTA has not issued specific guidance to transit agencies pertaining to micromobility or partnerships with micromobility companies.²³¹ However, in 2016, U.S. DOT issued guidance specific to transit agencies using taxis and TNCs to provide part of a transit agency’s services.²³² The “Dear Colleague” letter affirms long-standing guidance that transit agencies that enter into partnerships with private entities to deliver any portion of their demand response services must ensure that people with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs, are provided with an equal level of access.

1. Adaptive Vehicles for Users with Disabilities

The requirements of the ADA and Section 504 raise concerns about whether—and to what extent— bikeshare and scooter share systems must be accessible to and usable by persons along the full spectrum of disabilities, including both physical and intellectual disabilities. In addition, dockless share systems have the potential for devices to be discarded on sidewalks, crosswalks, transit stops, curb ramps, or at other rights of way, making it difficult for persons with mobility or visual impairments to safely traverse the pathways.

a. Services, Programs, and Activities of a Public Entity: Part A of Title II of the ADA

Under Title II, Part A, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”²³³ Similarly, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act guarantees meaningful access to, “participation in” and the “benefits of” any programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance for qualified individuals.²³⁴ Title II emphasizes program access, meaning that a public entity’s programs and services, viewed in their entirety, must be equally accessible to disabled persons.²³⁵

The ADA implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.150, generally require a public entity to operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph does not:²³⁶

1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with § 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens.

The regulations applicable to program accessibility require a public entity to “operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its

___________________

²²⁶ Frame v. City of Arlington, 616 F.3d 476, 482 (5th Cir. 2010) (reh. en banc granted).

²²⁷ See Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002).

²²⁸ See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b), 42 U.S.C. § 12205; 28 C.F.R. § 35.175.

²²⁹ U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FED. TRANSIT ADMIN., FTA C 4710.1: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA): GUIDANCE (2015) (hereinafter “FTA ADA Circular”), available at www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Final_FTA_ADA_Circular_C_4710.1.pdf.

²³⁰ 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D.

²³¹ Murphy, supra note 68.

²³² U.S. Dep’t of Transp. Secretary Foxx, Dear Colleague Letter (Equity, Access for Shared Mobility Initiatives), Dec. 5, 2016, www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/policy-letters/dot-dear-colleague-letter-equity-access-shared-mobility.

²³³ 42 U.S.C. § 12132.3.

²³⁴ 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

²³⁵ Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 694 (9th Cir. 2014), citing Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1215-16, 1222 (9th Cir. 2008).

²³⁶ 28 C.F.R. § 35.150.

entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”²³⁷ Court have interpreted the phrase “services, program, or activities” broadly. For example, the Ninth Circuit held that “services, programs, or activities” can be construed as “anything a public entity does.”²³⁸ The focus of the Ninth Circuit’s inquiry—which concerned sidewalks—the court wrote, was not on whether a sidewalk can be characterized as a service, program, or activity, but on whether it is “a normal function of a government entity.”²³⁹ The Sixth Circuit also found that the phrase “encompasses virtually everything that a public entity does.”²⁴⁰ The First, Second, and Third Circuits similarly determined that Title II “does not limit the ADA’s coverage to conduct that occurs in the ‘programs, services, or activities’” but instead “is a catch-all phrase that prohibits all discrimination by a public entity, regardless of the context” and “is intended to apply to anything a public entity does.”²⁴¹

To state a claim under Title II, Part A, “a plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to make reasonable modifications that would accommodate the plaintiff’s disability without fundamentally altering the nature of the program or activity, and that the accommodation would have enabled [him] to meet the program’s essential eligibility requirements.”²⁴² In 2020, the District Court for the Northern District of California declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by an individual who uses a wheelchair against the city and county of San Francisco, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Motivate, LLC, and Lyft, Inc. alleging San Francisco’s bikeshare system violated Title II, Part A.²⁴³ The plaintiff in Schulz v. Bay Area Motivate, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140960 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2020), asserted that he was excluded from renting a docked or dockless bicycle because none were “hand-powered” bicycles that he could use.²⁴⁴ He further alleged that he was “constructively excluded” from renting an adaptive bicycle because such rentals were available for only five hours on Sundays, whereas the docked and dockless bicycles were available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.²⁴⁵ The Plaintiff said that the adaptive bicycle rentals “would be ‘meaningfully access[ible]’ to him if the program had ‘more extensive and longer hours’ with staff available to assist him with using a bicycle and to ‘configure’ a bicycle for his use.”²⁴⁶

The Court in Schulz found that nothing “compels a finding that expanding the time staff are available to assist persons who wish to rent adaptive bicycles would result in an unreasonable financial or administrative burden on either the MTC or San Francisco,” and that the plaintiff had “identified, for pleading purposes, a reasonable accommodation that would enable him to use one component of the Bikeshare Program.”²⁴⁷ The Court, therefore, held the Title II, Part A, claim is not subject to dismissal. In 2021, the parties in Schulz agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice after the Defendants agreed to continue the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Adaptive Bike Pilot with extended hours and staffing and to engage in outreach to the public and promotional activities regarding the adaptive bikeshare pilot.²⁴⁸

b. Designated Public Transportation: Part B of Title II of the ADA

Pursuant to ADA Title II, Part B, “it shall be considered discrimination . . . for a public entity to fail to operate a designated public transportation program or activity conducted in such facilities so that, when viewed in the entirety, the program or activity is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”²⁴⁹ Additionally, “[i]f a public entity operates a demand responsive system,”²⁵⁰ namely, a “system of providing designated public transportation which is not a fixed route system,”²⁵¹ then “it shall be considered discrimination . . . for such entity to purchase or lease a new vehicle for use on such system . . . that is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless such system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of service to such individuals equivalent to the level of service such system provides to individuals without disabilities.”²⁵² The ADA defines “designated public transportation” as “transportation (other than public school transportation) by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than transportation by aircraft or intercity or commuter rail transportation (as defined in [another section of the ADA])) that provides the general public with general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis.”²⁵³

Courts have not found that shared micromobility systems meet the definition of a demand responsive system for purposes of Title II, Part B. In a case involving the City of San Francisco’s bikeshare program, the Northern District of California found that “the phrase ‘any other conveyance,’ as used in § 12141(2), is properly interpreted as something similar to a bus or railcar, i.e.,

___________________

²³⁷ See 28 C.F.R. § 35.150.

²³⁸ See Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Yeskey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 118 F.3d 168, 171 (3d Cir. 1997), aff’d, 524 U.S. 206, 118 S. Ct. 1952, 141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998)) (internal quotations removed).

²³⁹ Id.

²⁴⁰ Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564, 569 (6th Cir. 1998).

²⁴¹ See Kiman v. N.H. Dep’t of Corr., 451 F.3d 274, 287 (1st Cir. 2006); Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1997); Yeskey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 118 F.3d 168, 172 (3d Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

²⁴² A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified School Dist., 815 F.3d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

²⁴³ Schulz v. Bay Area Motivate, LLC, No. 19-cv-02134-MMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140960 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2020).

²⁴⁴ Id. at *3-4.

²⁴⁵ Id.

²⁴⁶ Id.

²⁴⁷ Id. at *5-6.

²⁴⁸ Stipulation, Case No. 3:19-cv-02134-MMC (filed 06/04/21).

²⁴⁹ See 42 U.S.C. § 12148(a).

²⁵⁰ See 42 U.S.C. § 12144.

²⁵¹ See 42 U.S.C. § 12141(1).

²⁵² See 42 U.S.C. § 12144.

²⁵³ See 42 U.S.C. § 12141(2).

a vehicle used by a public entity to transport groups of people, as opposed to a vehicle or other device by which an individual can transport himself or herself.”²⁵⁴ The Court found the Plaintiff failed to allege “any facts that could establish the Bikeshare program is the type of program covered by Title II, Part B.”²⁵⁵

2. Blocking Sidewalks

Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act “unambiguously extend to newly built and altered public sidewalks,”²⁵⁶ which are a service, program, or activity of the local entity within the meaning of Title II.²⁵⁷ Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, provides “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”

The regulations applicable to existing facilities, including sidewalks, require a public entity to make its services, programs, and activities, readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.²⁵⁸ Specifically, 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a) requires a public entity to “operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” In addition, the entity must also maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.²⁵⁹ The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA further provide that:²⁶⁰

A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services, program, or activity.

Sidewalks have been described as “critical pathways for navigating the many places within a community” that facilitate travel and enhance sustainability and public safety “by providing pedestrians with a walking space outside of the roadway.”²⁶¹ The ADA does not directly address sidewalks, nor does it define the “services, programs, or activities” that must be accessible to persons with disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12132. However, several circuits have interpreted this phase broadly to include sidewalks.²⁶²

For example, the Ninth Circuit held that public sidewalks are a service, program, or activity within the meaning of Title II, by reasoning that “services, programs, or activities” can be construed as “anything a public entity does.”²⁶³ The focus of the Ninth Circuit’s inquiry, the court wrote, was not on whether a sidewalk can be characterized as a service, program, or activity, but on whether it is “a normal function of a government entity.”²⁶⁴ The Sixth Circuit also found that the phrase “encompasses virtually everything that a public entity does.”²⁶⁵ The First, Second, and Third Circuits similarly determined that Title II “does not limit the ADA’s coverage to conduct that occurs in the ‘programs, services, or activities’” but instead “is a catch-all phrase that prohibits all discrimination by a public entity, regardless of the context” and “is intended to apply to anything a public entity does.”²⁶⁶ While declining to go as far as these circuits, the Fifth Circuit agreed that that phrase “services, programs, or activities” in 42 U.S.C. § 12132 “is at least broad enough to include curbs, sidewalks, and parking lots. Streets and sidewalks, as well as public parking areas, are reasonably understood to be services within the meaning of Title II.”²⁶⁷

In 2019, four individuals with disabilities filed a lawsuit against the City of San Diego, Bird Rides, Lime, Razor USA, Uber, Lyft, and Wheels Labs, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging the city and the dockless scooter defendants violated the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and state anti-discrimination laws by failing to ensure sidewalks and pedestrian walkways were kept free of dockless scooters.²⁶⁸ The Court in Montoya v. City of San Diego, 434 F. Supp. 3d 830 (S.D. Cal. 2020) denied the city’s motion to dismiss. However, the Court dismissed the Title III ADA claim against the dockless scooter companies because it was unpersuaded that a sidewalk is a place of public accommodation, “akin to a private retail store, showroom or storage facility.”²⁶⁹

On February 1, 2022, the parties in Montoya reached a settlement after the city took steps to better control how dockless scooters are used within its boundaries.²⁷⁰ The settlement required the city to increase the daily hours of the contractor

___________________

²⁵⁴ Schulz v. Bay Area Motivate, LLC, No. 19-cv-02134-MMC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209256, at *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2019).

²⁵⁵ Id. at *6.

²⁵⁶ Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc).

²⁵⁷ See Barden v City of Sacramento, 292 F3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002).

²⁵⁸ See 28 C.F.R. § 35.150.

²⁵⁹ See 28 C.F.R. § 35.133.

²⁶⁰ 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).

²⁶¹ Robin Paul Malloy et al., Land Use Law and Sidewalk Requirements Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 51 REAL PROP., TR. & EST. L.J. 403, 405 (2017).

²⁶² 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (emphasis added).

²⁶³ Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Yeskey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 118 F.3d 168, 171 (3d Cir. 1997), aff’d, 524 U.S. 206, 118 S. Ct. 1952, 141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998)) (internal quotations removed).

²⁶⁴ Id.

²⁶⁵ Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564, 569 (6th Cir. 1998).

²⁶⁶ See Kiman v. N.H. Dep’t of Corr., 451 F.3d 274, 287 (1st Cir. 2006); Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1997); Yeskey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 118 F.3d 168, 172 (3d Cir. 1997).

²⁶⁷ See Frame v. City of Arlington, 575 F.3d 432, 436 (5th Cir. 2009).

²⁶⁸ Montoya v. City of San Diego, 434 F. Supp. 3d 830 (S.D. Cal. 2020).

²⁶⁹ Id. at 844, citing Jankey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 14 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1178 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (10)) aff’d 212 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000).

²⁷⁰ See Disability Rights California, www.disabilityrightsca.org/cases/montoya-et-al-v-city-of-san-diego-et-al.

responsible for documenting, moving, and seizing improperly parked scooters.²⁷¹ The city also agreed to distribute flyers with rules and regulations for safe dockless scooter operation to hotels in the city, and to update and highlight the information on its website about dockless scooters.²⁷²

C. Accessibility Standards for Mobile Applications

Bikeshare and scooter share systems typically work through a mobile app that riders use to locate and unlock devices and to pay for rentals. Mobile apps are generally covered by the same standards for access by people with disabilities that apply to non-mobile software and web applications. Applicable federal law includes the ADA, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998,²⁷³ and the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) of 2010.²⁷⁴

The ADA requires a public transportation system to make adequate communications and information available, using accessible formats and technology (e.g., large print, braille, audiotape, and electronic files usable with text-to-speech technology) for persons with different types of disabilities.²⁷⁵ If the information is available on a mobile application or website, then there are additional requirements.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to federal government agencies and the technology providers that sell to them.²⁷⁶ Section 508 requires all information and communications technology the federal government develops, procures, maintains, and uses be accessible to people with disabilities, and to the extent that those agencies provide information technology to the public, it must be accessible by persons with disabilities.

The CVAA Rulemaking and Order from October 2011 provide guidelines on what performance objectives must be met for advanced communication devices and applications.²⁷⁷ This includes access without vision, with low vision, without hearing, without color perception, with limited manual dexterity, without speech. The objectives also address availability of information without requiring vision or hearing.

While the DOT ADA regulations do not set standards for website accessibility, the FTA suggests that agencies review the U.S. Department of Justice guidance “Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities,” which notes general related obligations under the Rehabilitation Act.²⁷⁸ The U.S. Access Board is responsible for developing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) accessibility standards to incorporate into regulations that govern federal procurement practices. For technical guidance on making websites accessible, see the Access Board’s Section 508 Standards for Electronic and Information Technology, which apply to the federal government and address access to websites and other electronic information by people with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities.²⁷⁹ Accessibility of mobile apps should follow Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2 standards, including multimedia access.²⁸⁰ The WCAG 2.1 standards recommend, among other things, providing text alternatives for non-text content, captions and other alternatives for multimedia, and creating content that can be presented in different ways, including by assistive technologies, without losing meaning.

D. Examples of Ways Cities Have Addressed or Are Attempting to Address Accessibility Concerns

Adaptive bikes and scooters are designed or modified to accommodate the needs of persons with different abilities or mobility challenges. Adaptive devices can include scooters with seats, hand-powered bikes (handcycles), tricycles, and multi-person bikes. While adaptive devices can help those with physical disabilities to move around, they can be just as beneficial to a user with a temporary injury like a broken leg or arm, or an older user that may not be comfortable riding a bike or scooter. However, adaptive bikes and scooters are often expensive and difficult to transport and store, which limits their availability and use. Bikeshare and scooter share systems can help overcome some of these barriers by providing adaptive bikes as part of their fleet. Bikeshare and scooter share systems can also integrate adaptive bikes with public transit and other modes of transportation, creating a more seamless and equitable mobility network.

In June 2022, the National Institute for Transportation and Communicates (NITC) (a U.S. DOT University Transportation Center) issued a report on the accessibility and equity issues presented by shared micromobility systems.²⁸¹ NITC found that less than five percent of cities have adaptive vehicle requirements for micromobility. However, in recent years, some cities, such as Detroit, Portland, San Francisco, have integrated adaptive device models into their micromobility networks.²⁸²

Portland, Oregon’s Adaptive BIKETOWN is an adaptive bike rental company whose goal is to increase access to cycling for all users. Adaptive BIKETOWN has hand-powered, foot-powered, electric-assist, and multi-person bikes available to riders.²⁸³

___________________

²⁷¹ Id.

²⁷² Id.

²⁷³ WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998, 1998 Enacted H.R. 1385, 105 Enacted H.R. 1385, 112 Stat. 936.

²⁷⁴ TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2010, 111 P.L. 260, 124 Stat. 2751.

²⁷⁵ 49 C.F.R. § 37.165; 49 C.F.R. Part 37, App. D.

²⁷⁶ 29 U.S.C. § 794(d).

²⁷⁷ F.C.C., FCC-11-151 (Oct. 7, 2011), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf.

²⁷⁸ FTA ADA Circular, Ch. 2.8.2, p. 2-20 (discussing 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(f)).

²⁷⁹ 36 C.F.R. Part 1194.

²⁸⁰ Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, June 5, 2018, www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21//.

²⁸¹ ANNE BROWN, AMANDA HOWELL, & HANA CREGER, MOBILITY FOR THE PEOPLE: EVALUATING EQUITY REQUIREMENTS IN SHARED MICROMOBILITY PROGRAMS, NITC-RR-1401, (Transportation Research and Education Center, June 2021).

²⁸² MoGo Detroit, Adaptive MoGo, https://mogodetroit.org/mogo-for-all/adaptive-mogo/.

²⁸³ Adaptive BIKETOWN, https://adaptivebiketown.com/.