- FotostørrelserKvadratisk
Miniaturebillede
XXS - ekstrem lille
XS - meget lille
S - lille
✔ M - medium
L - stor - SprogAfrikaans Argentina AzÉrbaycanca
á¥áá áá£áá Äesky Ãslenska
áá¶áá¶ááááá à¤à¥à¤à¤à¤£à¥ বাà¦à¦²à¦¾
தமிழ௠à²à²¨à³à²¨à²¡ ภาษาà¹à¸à¸¢
ä¸æ (ç¹é«) ä¸æ (é¦æ¸¯) Bahasa Indonesia
Brasil Brezhoneg CatalÃ
ç®ä½ä¸æ Dansk Deutsch
Dhivehi English English
English Español Esperanto
Estonian Finnish Français
Français Gaeilge Galego
Hrvatski Italiano Îλληνικά
íêµì´ LatvieÅ¡u Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuviu Magyar Malay
Nederlands Norwegian nynorsk Norwegian
Polski Português RomânÄ
Slovenšcina Slovensky Srpski
Svenska Türkçe Tiếng Viá»t
Ù¾Ø§Ø±Ø³Û æ¥æ¬èª ÐÑлгаÑÑки
ÐакедонÑки Ðонгол Ð ÑÑÑкий
СÑпÑки УкÑаÑнÑÑка ×¢×ר×ת
اÙعربÙØ© اÙعربÙØ©
Forside / Albummer / Tag lift key 2
ADAPT (64)
The Courant 3/8/88 PHOTO by Skip Weisenburger: A man in a wheelchair [Claude Holcomb] wearing an ADAPT T-shirt with the no steps logo and with his small wooden letter board slung over his leg swings a huge sledge hammer at a curb. He is very much assisted by a man [John Bach] kneeling beside him. Behind the two of them is another man [Clayton Jones] in a manual chair; Jones holds a slightly smaller sledge hammer and gets ready to swing at the curb. They are in the street. Claude is looking up, with a look of determination, at a uniformed police officer standing just in front of them on the sidewalk side of the curb. John is looking down where their sledge hammer will land, and Clayton is looking at the curb, taking aim. In the street, mostly obscured by the policeman, is another person in wheelchair. Caption reads: Three men prepare to chip away at a curb Monday to protest the difficulty handicapped people have in using Union Station in Hartford. The men are, from left, Claude Holcomb, John Bach and Clayton Jones. They were arrested, as was a fourth protester. [Headline] 4 arrested during protest by handicapped By Constance Neyer, Courant Staff Writer Four people, including three with disabilities, were arrested Monday after they used sledge-hammers and a cane to protest the lack of full accessibility for the handicapped at Union Station in Hartford. The four tried to break a curb on Union Street for a “curb cut" to give handicapped people easier access to that entrance to the station. Almost immediately after the start of the 2 p.m. demonstration police rushed in and put the protesters into a cruiser. The four men, who were charged Monday afternoon with third-degree criminal mischief, refused to sign written promises to appear in Superior Court in Hartford today and were being held at the Morgan Street jail Monday night, Hartford police Sgt. Lawrence Irvine said. Early this morning, the whereabouts of the men could not be determined. Morgan Street jail officials were unavailable and Weston Street jail officials refused to comment. Morgan Street jail is not accessible to the handicapped, Hartford police said. One of those arrested was Clayton Jones, 39, of 41 Applegate Lane, East Hartford, who led a recent protest in his wheelchair to make the skywalk that connects CityPlace with the Hartford Civic Center accessible to handicapped people. Also arrested were John Bach, 40, of 10 Nepaug St, Hartford; Robert Baston,27, of 100 Executive Lane, Wethersfield; and Claude Holcomb, 27, of 2 Park Place, Hartford. "We're equal citizens and we're tired of waiting." said Lynda Hanscom of Manchester, who uses a wheelchair. Hanscom is chairwoman of the Connecticut chapter of American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation. She and others stayed at Union Station after police broke up the protest. They said that although handicapped people have access to the station, it is difficult to use. If a disabled person wants to use a train, the person must find parking near the Spruce Street entrance and enter here to get to a train, Hanscom said. The protestors said it is difficult for a disabled person to find the correct entrance because of a lack of signs at the station. A ramp at the Asylum Street side of the station is too steep for a person in a wheelchair, said Eugenia G. Evans of West Hartford, who was in a wheelchair. Evans and Hanscom sought to use a lift at the Union Street entrance, but it took more than [number unreadable] minutes for them to locate a building attendant who could use a key to operate the lift. Arthur L. Handman, executive director of the Greater Hartford Transit District, which operated Union Station, was angered by the protest. "People don't have to come attack with sledgehammers," he said. Handman said he told the protesters last week that it would take until later this week to make signs to point out the best entrances of the disabled. The station is near the end of a major renovation project. He said building plans for the station were approved by the office of licenses and inspection. If the ramp is too steep, that will be corrected, and more curb cuts will be made if needed, he said.
ADAPT (350)
San Francisco Bay Guardian 9/23/87 Disabled to march for transit access By: Cheryl Davis When members of the American Public Transit Association gather in San Francisco during the last week of September, they will be met by disabled people from across the country who plan to demonstrate against a national transit policy they say is unfair because it separates them from other transit users. Specifically, disabled activists intend to protest the widespread use of special vans to transport disabled riders door-to-door, a system commonly referred to as “paratransit.” That system, they say, is a form of segregation. In its place, they argue, all buses and trains should be equipped to accommodate people in wheelchairs as part of as overall policy fully integrating the disabled into society. “Full accessibility,” they argue, is a right that should not be denied because of cost. Paratransit is impractical as well as offensive, disabled transit riders say. Burr Overstreet, a Santa Rosa man who uses a wheelchair, called paratransit “a paternalistic system that screws people over, costs a fortune and it’s the first thing cut during economic downturns.” Paratransit users “are made to feel like helpless hospital patients,” Les Treece-Sinclair, a wheelchair user and staff person at the September Alliance for Accessible Transportation, a Northern California coalition, told the Bay Guardian. Most Bay Area transit districts, including the San Francisco Municipal Railway, use a combination of buses with lifts and paratransit vans for disabled and elderly patrons, and California law requires that all new buses be equipped with lifts. Local transit agencies have a good reputation nationally for working closely with disabled and elderly patrons. But, even so, there are problems. “Supposedly we [in Marin] have one of the better systems,” Overstreet said. “The combination of fixed-route and paratransit should in theory be fairly effective, but it’s not. The paratransit only runs Monday through Friday, 9 am to 3 pm. Disabled riders have to reserve in advance and disabled people who work cannot use such a paratransit system either to work or to socialize.” “Paratransit doesn’t come close to meeting the transport need of elderly and handicapped people,” said Treece-Sinclair. “At the moment, on many bus lines only every third or fourth bus will be accessible.” Jose Rodriguez, a public information officer for the Metropolitan Transit Commission, told the Bay Guardian Bay Area transit districts “are working hard to meet a basic level of service but we are aware of the need for improvement. As always, this is contingent on securing needed funds.” The debate between disabled people and much of the public transit industry centers around interpretations of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which states that persons with handicaps cannot be discriminated against under any program receiving federal funds. Since mass transit relies heavily on federal funds, Section 504 serves as a rallying point for disabled activists who argue for making all public transit wheelchair-accessible. The U.S. Department of Transportation in 1979 issued regulations that required full wheelchair access on newly ordered buses and called for retrofitting existing buses and modifying portions of existing rail systems to accommodate disabled users. Disable activists applauded the regulations, but APTA lobbied Congress vigorously, claiming the regulations were costly, unworkable and designed to reach only a small percentage of the disabled population. A 1979 Congressional Budget Office report supported APTA’s claims and called instead for paratransit systems. APTA sued to overturn DOT’s regulations and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 1981 that the regulations exceeded the scope of the Rehabilitation Act. DOT interim regulations gave local communities the option of determining levels of accessibility and many transit districts opted for paratransit. Paratransit advocates argue that outfitting buses with lifts and other special equipment is too expensive, given the number of disabled riders. Santa Clara County Supervisor Tom Legan, for example, said at a January board meeting, “We’re spending $3.5 million per year [maintaining] lifts for what amounts to 57 boardings per year.” But disabled activists say the official estimates of disabled ridership are too low. Palo Alto resident Brian Bolitho, who uses a wheelchair, told the Bay Guardian his commute to work alone account for more than 200 boardings per year on Santa Clara buses. Dennis Cannon, a transportation, specialist the federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, told the Bay Guardian, “The actual use of accessible buses could be five times higher, or more, than transit agency estimates. The driver often simply guesses the number of obviously disabled passengers.” Much of the expense of repairing lifts, Cannon added, could be avoided by improved maintenance and better training of bus operators. Some APTA members, Canon said, are reappraising the adequacy of paratransit. James Lee, accessibility coordinator for Alameda County Transit, agreed. “Since 1976, study after study has documented the inadequacy of paratransit. It is not cost-effective, nor is it demand responsive,” he told the Bay Guardian.