---

The Center for Independent Living is a non-profit organization founded and staffed by people with severe disabilities. Its purpose is to provide the supportive services that make it possible for many severely disabled people to live independent lives as active and contributing members of the community. Specifically, the Center for Independent Living provides mobility training for the blind, counseling, attendant and reader referral services, housing assistance, wheelchair repair, advocacy, and transportation. In addition, the community affairs department works with governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to make the physical and social environment better suited to the needs of the disabled. Our experience once again demonstrates the obvious: mobility is the single most serious problem that faces the disabled.

Methodology

The test sample was drawn from persons on the Center for Independent Living mailing list. If it was determined that the individual was a disabled BART user, an in-depth interview was arranged. We found people were willing to participate in the

---

study. Forty-three persons were interviewed, twenty of whom were users, five of whom only used it once. A full range of disabilities was represented in the sample.

The telephone numbers were from local directories. As a result, the people in our sample probably are more independent than might be found in a more representative sample. Also, married women may be underrepresented, being less likely to be listed. Further, none of our sample was institutionalized. An attempt was made to get respondents from all areas served by BART; this effort was not entirely successful for various reasons. For one, the ratio of users to non-users varied markedly from area to area. We discovered relatively high rates of use in zip code 94704 (central Berkeley and south-campus) and much lower rates in Hayward, Concord, and LaFayette. We only found one user in San Francisco.

It should be borne in mind that for a variety of reasons, the central and south-campus area of Berkeley is much more active and mobile than average. A disproportionate number of BART users in our survey were from this area. Therefore some of our findings can only be projected to larger populations with limited reliability.

We are by no means unique in our failure to obtain a

---

a representative sample. This has been a chronic shortcoming of surveys of disabled people in the United States. The extreme difficulty of finding a representative sample is attributable largely to the isolation of large segments of the disabled population. Many disabled people leave their residences very rarely if ever. Sometimes there is no contact with anyone outside the disabled person's family. More frequently, their only outside contact is with an agency of one kind or another. The few agencies (such as Social Security or the welfare department) which do have contact with a large and fairly representative proportion of the disabled population are prevented by confidentiality requirements from letting others have access to their clients. There is a multiplicity of other agencies providing services to the disabled. Gaining access to clients is possible in many cases, but most of these agencies only serve people with certain characteristics. Furthermore, there is little coordination between agencies. Services are thus distributed very unevenly across the spectrum of disability, and even if one draws a survey sample from the clienteles of a number of agencies, the sample is unlikely to be very representative.

---

Findings

We found that the age of users tended to be younger than that of non-users. The ages, excluding two non-users (old people) who gave none, follow:

                 

	USERS	NON-USERS
under 20	2	0
20's	9	6
30's	3	2
40's	2	2
50's	2	7
60's	1	3
80's	0	1

In regard to sex distribution, three-quarters of the people who used BART were male. Of the entire forty-three, the ratio M:F was 1.9:1. Almost all the women non-users were low mobility, in fact the least mobile.

               

	male	female	TOTALS
USERS Disabled	10	3	13
Blind	5	2	7
Total	15	5	20
NON-USERS Disabled	13	10	23
Blind	0	0	0
Total	13	10	23

NUMBER OF TIMES USED          

	once	two-three	six	regular
M	4	1	2 (1) *. Blind are not included in parenthetical figure.	8 (4) *. Blind are not included in parenthetical figure.
F	1	1	0	3 (1) *. Blind are not included in parenthetical figure.
Total	5	2	2	11

The distance that people lived from the station correlated somewhat to their use of BART. People who said BART was no use to them all lived a mile or more away, many with cars; those who used BART but had no other transportation plus those who wanted to use BART were almost all within a half mile. There are two non-users for whom no data are charted.

---

         

	under ½ mi.	½-1	1-2	2+
USERS	2	5	4	9
NON-USERS	3	4	7	7
Total	5	9	11	16

Mobility includes how able a person is and how much he/she goes out. The chart below indicates the mode of personal locomotion. Our sample probably overrepresents electric wheelchairs. Still, the evidence shows less mobility among non-users.

                 

	USER	NON-USER
Ambulatory	2	1
Electric wheelchair	6	5
Push chair	4	9
Semi-ambulatory *. Semi-ambulatory cannot walk without difficulty or help.	1	6
No mobility	0	2
(Blind are not included in these.)
Note: For people with several modes, we have counted the primary one.

People used BART to go to a variety of places. Several BART users expressed frustration at not being able to attend social or recreational events because of the limited hours of operation. The kinds of trips:

               

	Frequency of response
visits (to family, friends)	4
shopping	5
sightseeing or tour	7
commute to job (or school)	7
appointments, business	6
social events	0

Four categories of use/non-use exist, coinciding to an extent. They are: people with access to other transportation, those who feel they have no use for BART, those who would like to use it but do not with any regularity, and people who use BART. Significant characteristics of the groups are discussed below.

Of the people who had access to other transportation (twenty-eight), over half had not tried BART. Nineteen owned

---

an automobile (and many drove themselves), seven blind and one cerebral-palsied were AC Transit riders, and one quad had access to a van. Twenty-one (of the twenty-eight) preferred the other transportation over BART; of these, only six were female (but three women were among the seven who wanted to use BART), eleven were over fifty, three in their forties, and six under thirty-one. For the most part, living situations were such that other people were readily available: four lived alone, six with their parents (all but one of them young), one (young) had a roommate, and others lived in families. Six of the twentyone were of low mobility (three rarely go out). Of the six, four were over sixty; five were women (three wanting to use BART and one who had); and one (male) could drive.

Among those people saying BART was no use to them, there were seven who fell into no other group (footnote (a)) and of these three had checked about BART. They were all different ages. Some may have had a car available; in general their mobility tended to be low.

Of the people who would like to use BART but do not, M:F was 5:4. Mostly they were over forty and mobile. Those who had no transportation were low mobility, an eight-year-old whose first trip was a hassle and a woman who would not go alone and stays home winters.

Of the people who had used BART, only twelve expressed any intention of continuing to ride it (footnote (b)). Except for one mobile male with a car, all were young: six blind had access to AC Transit, and five quadriplegics involved with Center for Independent Living were without other transportation. The level of disability varied, but only two (out of the twenty) were low mobility.

We reiterate that because of the small size and doubtful representativeness of the sample, the data presented here should be taken as only suggestive, not definitive. It is particularly important that policy decisions not be made on the basis of this study alone. A perspective that upholds the interests of the disabled must be maintained through the involvement of disabled community groups such as the Center for Independent Living.

---

---

Factors Discouraging Use

In general, BART does not seem to have had a great impact on the disabled population. For the most part, they do not use BART. This is partly due to the limited mobility in general, but also has to do with BART itself. Factors discouraging use fell into four broad categories:

The first is the whole process of riding BART, with its incumbent demands and hassles for the disabled person. Although attempting to adapt to their particular needs, BART was not designed by or for the disabled. The ticketing process is quick and efficient for the able-bodied, as is the process of getting to the station platform and getting on and off the train. At almost every point in the process, disabled users we spoke with encountered difficulties.

Although using the system would be somewhat cumbersome even if it were to operate with complete reliability, the fact that there are frequent mechanical failures is further discouraging. These breakdowns were one of the most frequent criticisms of BART made by users and non-users alike. In addition to the actual inconvenience they cause, breakdowns engender fear of using the system. Several persons expressed anxiety about being trapped and helpless in an accident situation.

The second broad category of factors involves the inaccessibility of the environment surrounding BART stations. Whereas for the able-bodied middle-class commuter BART is just another mass transit link, when a wheelchair-bound BART user gets off the train he/she is virtually left in the middle of nowhere. "There is no place to go." That is, assuming there is a way to get to

---

the station in the first place. If a person's home or destination is a substantial distance from the station, one is confronted with a complete lack of accessible public transportation. Even if one's destination is relatively close, a person in a wheelchair is usually prevented by the absence of sidewalk curb ramps from going beyond the BART parking lot. Such was the tenor of responses from both non-users and users.

The third category of discouraging factors involves the lack of information about the BART system. Some of our respondents had no real knowledge of whether or not they could use it. They assumed that because they were disabled they were automatically excluded from BART use.

The fourth broad category involves the fact that for many disabled persons BART is irrelevant; it does not occur to them that it might be useful. If it is a person's habit not to get out and do things, he/she may withdraw even when an opportunity is presented. People who have been immobile for many years simply have no idea of the impact that mobility can have on their lives, e.g., mobility facilitates developing and maintaining friendships.

In this context, even though there were a few people in our sample whose travel patterns may have been altered by BART use, not a single respondent felt that BART had changed his/her quality of life or self-feelings. This may in part be because there is a time lag between a change in the quality of a person's life and the perception of such a change. Even a substantial change in mobility for someone previously isolated from society would not offset the tendency to "feel the same inside," unless the level of social interaction also changed.

---

Rider Experiences

The disabled people who were BART riders were the more active segment of our sample, and tended to be younger and somewhat more able-bodied. One basic comment indicated this, "Even with the hassles, I can use it independently," said in conclusion by an active young quad. This was in line with other comments that the system did not fit all disabilities, only those with specific abilities. Some people mentioned "the whole way the system is oriented is to bring people in from the suburbs," and felt commuters' hours were not the only times they would like to use it. At night there is a "particular need," said an active woman with dystrophy; "it is dark and cold...for me there is no other way if I want to go to a downtown movie." Similarly on weekends, she might visit friends, but now must take a weekday off. She felt limited socially by the hours.

There was a recurring theme of disorientation prompted by mechanical breakdowns and delays. One blind woman, discussing the confusion when a train is stopped, suggested "People are better than machines." This reflects the constant experience of elevator difficulty, machine dysfunction, and a sometimes alienating environment with unknowns. A disabled person using the system is more dependent on the maintenance of efficiency and feels trapped by the hassle of a malfunction.

The Elevator and Phone

Everyone who needed the elevator to get into the station had negative experience with it. "Its silly to have all that security." And, indeed, one woman who had taken her chair-bound eight-year-old to the Emporium described it as a "police thing"

---

to pass through the checkpoints. This woman was one of several who mentioned that a simpler system of entry would save work for the station agents, who "have enough to do without having to deal with" so many extras. The less dependent someone needs to be, the more pleasant for all involved. Stressing a vital link, many said that its ridiculaus for any station not to have an elevator.

The following story, besides relating the isolated feeling, indicates basic design deficiencies and the odd nature of operation of this device, unfamiliar and virtually inaccessible to its rider: "Once, I got stuck in the levator. I think they operate by weight. I was in the El Cerrito Plaza; I left the platform, went in the elevator, and it didn't go anywhere. I couldn't tell if it was moving. The phone was in the corner (a bad place) and inaccessible. In mid-car would be better. There is no communication once you're in there. You feel trapped; its aesthetically unpleasant, steel, and shiny." (In addition, the agent may hold the door too long or close it too soon.) There is a discontinuity when the remote control mixes with a breakdown; help or repair may seem far away.

Many suggestions were offered for changing the phone-summons to "something you just hit, a pushbutton." The only people who can use the phone have full use of their arms, and speak and hear well. Many travellers are not so able: the phone may be outside their limited reach, communication disorders may prevent verbal contact, or the mere weight of the receiver may be too much. Any intermediary process as this eliminates some disabilities.

---

"You can't reach the telephone. I just hold it off the hook and assume someone is there. Also, my hearing aid is on the same side as my good arm," thus blocking this cerebral-palsied man from getting the phone to his good ear. "Inside the elevator I had to call to get it to move. There are no buttons inside the elevator." These inconveniences are sometimes circumvented by the bold: "I have total weakness and can't raise my arms so I crawl with my fingers up to the buttons. But at Nineteenth Street they have an ashtray fastenned on the wall right in the way so I can't get to the phone at all." It's a physical factor: "I hold it off the hook a little but sometimes I drop it. A whole lot of times I see a train go past while I'm sitting there." To circumvent barriers at this point, common suggestions included a pushbutton or intercom, electric mats, something (electronic?) you could put on your chair, or breath-activated devices. Security controls should not interfere with legitimate use.

Breakdowns

When people cannot use other transit, they absolutely depend on BART to function. "When I was using it, on Mondays, there was some problem every single time. I was late for class six different days,...and I'd allowed two hours; the Muni and AC would have been faster," said one twenty-nine year-old blind man. Although the blind people interviewed met with few insurmountable barriers, being in the dark was only compounded by malfunctions.

"There's no way if the machines don't work properly. I bought a round trip ticket to go to the City. It was supposed to be eighty cents but the machine only registered seventy-five.

---

Someone behind me pointed it out, or it would really have been a mess trying to get out without knowing, and trying to find nickels and dimes." The computers "and everything" are fine as long as they work. One woman with leg braces took two trips with an able-bodied companion but does not think she could do it alone, it was so inconvenient. At MacArthur there was a very long walk and then the elevator was out; also, using the elevator twice at Rockridge to get ticketted and on the train was "ridiculous." The location of elevators was irregular, away from the train, in locked hallways, or at the platform end narrowly protected by a rail.

Station Layout

"Paraplegics say the same thing to me," said one blind person, "You just walk into the station and feel helpless. There is no way to instantly orient yourself." It would help if people had a chance to tour a whole train in the yard, to see the dimensions. The speaker above was shown around but there was no chance to try things and nowhere to go for later questions. To take care of business requires a full knowledge of the workings and where to go at each station. "The faster you can learn how to, the more you will use it." There should be Braille labels on all machines and buttons, to facilitate these procedures.

A major difficulty, similar to the inconvenient location of elevators, occurred to the blind in the varied designs of stations. "Every station is different. There should be standard reference points, as in other depots. Every station should be on the same scale; this is an architectural flaw." The number of transitions a person must make from street-level to destination

---

is enough without feeling lost between these connections, searching the station. "When you go alone you need to get an agent to know where things are. It would be easier, for example, if the escalators were in the same place. You can get clues about where things are from certain sounds (ticket machines, turnstyles)."

The Platform Edge

Several people suggested a railing at the edge of the platform by the tracks. It would be useful to know where the ends of the train will be, not just to know where to board, but upon exitting to know what part of the station you would be in. This requires a spot where the train stops consistently. "Railings, for people standing to hold. If you try looking for something to hold onto you put your hand in someone's face."

"They claim there is a texture difference at the edge but it is not worth a damn. (Balboa Park is an example of a good edge.) If you trail your cane along the edge, fifteen people think you are going to kill yourself. I would feel safer walking on the platform if you could feel the difference; that would be just as good as a railing." The risk of falling on the track creates anxiety and real danger; there is no safety in the minimal texture change at the edge.

The Gap

The gap at the edge when the train is in a station was a major cause of irritation to chair travellers. Some took it for granted and mentioned it in an off-hand manner, but others had tales to tell. "The distance between the train and platform is hazardous. Coming off the train my hand control on the wheelchair came off; sometimes the train may be lower than the platform, and it stops the chair cold." A fifty-five year-old who

---

pushes his chair tried it once and the agent showed him how to jump over the crack.

Getting Situated and Egress Time

Once on the train, there is the danger a chair will roll, or a walking person, not fully able, may lose balance. There were suggestions for straps, as well as special seating both for the walking disabled and wheelchairs. In a crowd, a chair needs to be out of traffic, but near a door.

Also important is that drivers recognize the time it takes to leave the train. If someone with leg braces is seated and must wait for the train to stop before starting for the door, especially if seated away from the door, he/she may not have time to walk the distance. The only way for a driver to know what stop a person will be getting off is for a wary agent to ask, "May I tell the driver what stop you will...," or for the driver to see the person board and to wait and watch at each station, or for the platform agent to carefully observe people getting off. One person's chair stuck between the doors and his attendant (a young woman) "nearly broke her back" pushing on the doors to get him out; the driver only saw her and said, "Get out of the way, lady!"

The same wheelchair takes a while to get set for riding, then the attendant braces it with a foot in front of the wheel. Sometimes the BART driver takes off too fast. This quadriplegic, having muscular dystrophy, always takes his attendant because his head falls back if the train changes speed fast.

P.A. Announcements

People have had mixed success with asking other riders for

---

information. This points out the necessity of clear, basic announcements as well as helpful agents. Some of the interviewees did not like to ask passers-by for the names of stations or bus locations. The blind need to know what station they're at and where an arriving train is going. "I had a hard time finding which train to take. It was crowded, and with the machines....They should announce a train before it enters the station. They should say, `This train is going to...' Its not enough to hear it after you're on." Sometimes there is no announcement at all, or it is inaudible. "On short trips you can count the stations, but not all the way from Richmond to Hayward." If you do not hear your stop, you may pass it.

Interaction with Other Riders

In general, the BART users in our sample kept to themselves, preferring to keep contact with others to a minimum. As can be seen in the section preceding, blind people disliked having to ask others for information, perhaps because sometimes the results were not any help. "If you ask a passerby what the sign says, you never know what answer you'll get," said one blind user. The physically disabled users, as far as we can ascertain, did not ask other riders for assistance at all. People either brought an attendant with them or got along without help. Four people spoke of their wheelchairs rolling during acceleration and deceleration, yet a couple of these said specifically that they preferred not to ask other riders to set their brakes.

On the other hand, there were instances of unsolicited aid being offered where it was not called for. One respondent told of being "assisted" off a BART train at the wrong station.

---

The disabled member of this study team has had several similar experiences. Train operators or other users have occasionally misread his intentions and help up trains so he could get on or off when he did not want to.

Several users mentioned riding BART under crowded conditions, but nobody said it posed a severe problem. On the other hand, at least one person consciously avoids using the system during rush hours. Another user recently rode from San Francisco to the East Bay during the afternoon rush for the first time and found it a somewhat traumatic experience. She found that once she got on the train she was stuck in one place, being surrounded by standees. She thus had to abandon her usual practice of switching to the side of the car away from the platform at each station so as not to obstruct the door.

Station Agents

Again, the reports were of varied levels of helpfulness from the agents. One deficiency seems to be in knowledge; "there's a lack of preparedness in dealing with the individual who does not fit in." He had some disgruntlement about this service. There should be some training in the possible problems of disability.

Some people never had a problem. "The agents are very courteous. You tell them the destination, they take you to the waiting place. They know you can grab the elbow." But "they don't know the busses or what a station I'm unfamiliar with will be like. They should know where the bus stops." And some even

---

felt they were oversolicitous, "They hang around after you're O.K. and don't need them:" the reverse of the no-pressure situation.

The importance of the agents to the non-ambulatory has already been stressed: for smooth entry, through boarding, and for leaving. Absense of agents on the trains was reflected in statements such as, "There's nothing station to station" for getting information. Connections and information are the big things. You're probably going to miss your train in a situation like the following: "About the dollar bill changers. You have to get the head up just the right way, and it can't be crumpled. I called the agent. You have to keep turning it, it could take all day. And it must be dry. I was out in the rain, so I had to get the station agent to help, and it was a big hassle. I had to sign things." (The speaker was a blind person.) Some disabled pointed out that agents should have knowledge of elevators that don't work in other stations and about the surrounding terrain of their station.

A number of people thought there ought to be someone you could talk to, a phone number to call if they had problems with the system. This is in line with statements that they had heard some publicity, but no real explanation of BART's accessibility and availability. "They say some things are helpful but they don't say what." Especially among non-users, the knowledge of the system is poor; many asked if there were ramps or elevators.

There should be input for suggestions. "I don't know how decisions are made," said one interviewee. Others felt there should be a disabled Board member. There was some

---

consensus that "wheelchairs and the visually handicapped did not fit in when it was being conceived." This situation is unfortunate "because we have to rely on it more" (than the non-disabled); for some disabilities, it is the only public transit. There was a feeling that BART was not concerned about the disabled. Consumer participation is an essential element to serving all segments, and it was evident, by the proportion of non-users, that there was little contact with BART, and that was among already active disabled, for the most part.

Despite a high frequency of criticism, approving comments were heard: "To go to San Francisco is much easier, instead of transferring busses. I go and visit friends more." "I'm doing the same things, but my feelings are changed with respect to how much I'm willing to depend on others for rides now." Generally the effect of BART was limited. Beside the surrounding physical world of barriers keeping the disabled isolated, the new system offers significant disincentives to its use. Expressions that BART had potential "if it functioned as it should, smooth to get into and out of," repeatedly cropped up, reflected in the non-users' shying from accidents, delays, and bad publicity. People want safety in place of error, and would like to see the system run in an effecient and businesslike manner.

"Under the guise of speed and efficiency," the system does not satisfy the needs of the disabled, many of whom are isolated, wanting independence and the missing link of connecting transportation. But it does offer a lesson for future design of the rapid transit component of metropolita: the disabled work best without impediments to movement from place to place, and require a responsive staff and management. Finally, and perhaps the most important, barrier-free architecture, from the outset, must consider all shapes and sizes of people.

---

Appendix 1
Design and Policy Improvements

1. Design Improvements

• Use Braille labels wherever instructions are necessary.
• Need accessable and manual controls in elevators.
• Improve operation and effeciency of elevators.
• Make phones more accessable and usable or eliminate entire phoning system.
• Bathroom doors too heavy.
• Textured differences near tracks.
• Have spaces for wheelchairs on trains.
• Have straps on trains.
• Automatic lockdowns for wheelchairs.
• Railings — See paragraph in report on "Platform Edge."
• The entire process of purchasing tickets, moving through the station and using the trains is hard and slow for most disabled people. Physical modifications could improve the situation.
• Improve mechanical effeciency and reliability to prevent breakdowns.
• Station layouts are not standardized and hence confusing for the blind.
• Steps are too steep for older persons at many stations.
• Increase connecting transportation — accessable and local.
• Improve ramping and have stop lights in areas surrounding stations.

11. Policy Improvements

• Run weekends and nights
• Lower fares for the disabled
• Increase publicity

---

― 21 ―
• System tours for blind and disabled, in addition to a manual of mobility tips.
• Have a number to call when people have problems with BART; ombudsman.
• Let disabled persons know, when they enter a station, at which stations elevators are not functioning.
• Announce upcoming stations regularly and audibly.
• Slower acceleration.
• Allow more time for exiting train.
• Allow blind persons with guide dogs to go through the gate.

  *. It is extremely difficult to negotiate the turnstyles with a dog.

• Increase warnings and enforcement to reserve disabled parking spaces. E.g. "Violators Will Be Prosecuted" signs.

---

Appendix II
Specific Station Complaints

• Concord — No ramps, no way to get around.
• 19th St.
  • — Stop lights are needed at intersections.
  • — ashtray blocking elevator phone.
• Grand and B St. (Hayward) — Needs curb cuts.
• Balboa Park — Textured difference is GOOD.
• Berkeley — Elevator hallway locked.
• McArthur — Elevator location, no agent there.
• 24th ST. (S.F.) — Elevator buttons removed ("vandals").
• Daly City — Restroom doors heavy.
• Coliseum — No elevator, overpass.
• Lafayette — Parking inadequate.
• San Leandro St. by Hegenberger —No sidewalks in the area.
• Fruitvale — 3 parking spaces all used by non-disabled, and no sidewalks.

---

Appendix III
Interview Schedule

Name:

Address:

ph#:

We're working in conjunction with the BART Impact Study. The study concerns disabled people's experiences and attitudes about BART. Would you be interested in answering some questions?

Disability:

User_____? Would you be willing to be interviewed ($5 or BART ticket)? Where?_____

Non-user_____? Reasons you don't use BART: (lack of knowledge, confidence, connecting transportation, distance from sta., cost, * phys. barriers, need assistance, doesn't go where you want to, hours of operation)

What could be done so you would use BART:

Age: Sex: Level of mobility: (attendants, devices used)

Living situation:

Frequency you use BART:

What kinds of trips do you take on BART: (shopping, appointments, sightseeing, commute to job, visit friends or family)

Tell experiences you've had using BART:

Do you have any criticisms of BART (policy or design):

Has BART changed your travel, living, or social patterns: (things you're able to do)

BART's affect on quality of life: (self-feelings, access, involvement in community life)

Improvements for BART to be of better service: (design, policy, anything BART should know, input into decisions)

About this text
Courtesy of The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, Calif., 94720-6000; http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8x0nb3jw&brand=oac4
Title: The Impact of BART On the Physically Disabled: A Pilot Study
By:  Eric Dibner, Hale Zukas, Ken Stein
Date: Spring, 1975
Contributing Institution: The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, Calif., 94720-6000; http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
Copyright Note:

Transmission or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Works not in the public domain cannot be commericially exploited without permission of the copyright owner. Responsibility for any use rests exclusively with the user

The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, Calif., 94720-6000; http://bancroft.berkeley.edu