Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vehicle Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney briefs committee on ADA "equivalency" standard for vehicle-for-hire accessibility; members ask licensing follow‑up
Summary
City Attorney Ian Whitehiser told the Accessibility Advisory Committee that federal ADA regulations allow taxi providers to meet accessibility obligations through an ‘‘equivalency’’ standard across their service, and committee members urged licensing staff to require clearer documentation of how providers meet that standard.
City Attorney Ian Whitehiser told the City of Bend Accessibility Advisory Committee that federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules include an ‘‘equivalency’’ standard allowing private taxi and transportation providers to meet accessibility obligations either by operating accessible vehicles or by demonstrating comparable service across their fleet.
Whitehiser said the federal rules state that “providers of taxi service are not required to purchase or lease accessible automobiles” but that vehicles other than sedans (for example, vans) “are required to be accessible unless the provider demonstrates equivalency.” He emphasized that equivalency can be satisfied by comparing schedules, response times, fares, geographic coverage, hours of service, reservation capability, capacity constraints and other operational elements across a provider’s system.
Committee members pressed for a clearer local approach to licensing. Carl Burnett and others said the city’s licensing application currently relies on self-certification and that applicants can complete a checkbox without documenting how they meet ADA requirements. Burnett said he did not believe an equivalent system — such as on-demand accessible vehicles available by app or phone at comparable rates and response times — exists in Bend. He urged the city to require concrete documentation at licensing time so compliance can be evaluated before a citizen is denied service.
Liz Diether Martin and Liz Woodfin asked for specific, actionable information from providers: which vehicles in a fleet are non‑sedans, which of those are wheelchair-accessible, and whether vehicles can support manual or powered wheelchairs. Woodfin suggested allowing applicants to upload photos of vehicles as part of the license application to improve accuracy and accountability.
Next steps discussed: Whitehiser and staff agreed to follow up with the city licensing office to determine what the current application requires and whether the city can ask applicants to describe or document how they meet the ADA (either by vehicle configuration or via the equivalency standard). That follow-up — to include whether licensing staff can require documentation of vehicles and accessibility features — was proposed as the committee’s next practical step; no formal enforcement action or rule change was adopted at the meeting.
Why it matters: Committee members framed the issue as a consumer-protection and civil-rights concern: if licensing relies solely on a checkbox, accessibility may be inconsistent in practice. Members also noted the affordability problem: specialized medical shuttles that are accessible often charge higher rates, which undermines “equivalent” service if fares differ markedly.
No litigation or enforcement action was initiated by the committee. Instead, staff and the city attorney will consult licensing, and committee members plan to return the topic to a future meeting with more concrete licensing options.
