- SpracheAfrikaans 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©
Startseite / Alben / Schlagwort ribbon cutting 2
ADAPT (120)
Rocky Mountain News [2 articles together] RTD won’t be bullied, Agency director asserts Contractors target of get-tough policy By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer Regional Transportation District officials say they want to send a message that RTD can't be bullied. So they're considering whether to sue several contractors and consultants that they believe performed unsatisfactory work on the 16th Street Mall. "RTD is famous for saying, ‘Who? Me?“ RTD general manager Ed Colby said. “Those days are over. We're going to be proactive. RTD is going to be accountable to the taxpayers." RTD sources said that among the firms the agency might challenge on the $70 million mall project were Hill International Inc., management consultants for the mall complex; Johnson-Hopson & Associates, architects of the Civic Center bus station at the east end of the mall; and B.B. Andersen Construction Co., general contractor for the station. Colby terminated Hill and Johnson-Hopson last month when he said they allowed construction work at Civic Center to stop or slow repeatedly while haggling over construction changes. He also made Andersen promise to finish Civic Center, at the intersection of Broadway and Colfax Avenue, by Oct. 25. RTD officials filed suit Tuesday in Denver District Court against Weaver Construction Co. of Denver and the I.M. Pei architectural firm of New York City for their work in designing and installing the mall's granite paving. Unforeseen flaws and cracks have appeared in an “unusually high" percentage of the mall's granite paving slabs, officials say. Replacement and repair of the slabs along the 13-block mall-could cost $2 million to $8 million, they say. Colby said RTD is “evaluating potential suits against other firms but would not name the likely targets. The granite-paving suit and the consideration of other suits is the first of many steps RTD will take to erase its reputation for being inefficient and irresponsible managers of major construction projects, he said. “RTD is going to stand up for its rights," Colby said. Civic Center, which is supposed to be open for passengers by early December, is at least eight months behind schedule. Its cost overruns, RTD officials said, are still being tabulated. If it sues the companies it hired to build the mall, RTD would continue a long tortured history of litigation that has plagued [? word hard to read] the project since 16th Street was first torn up four years ago. Those suits and settlements include: * A 1983 settlement with Weaver for $2 million for more than l00 construction changes as-well as the delivery of improperly cut granite. * A $14.1 million lawsuit by Beaudoin Construction Co. of Denver for delays and cost overruns on the Market Street bus station. * A $400,000 settlement last month with B.B. Andersen that included payment of union-level wages to Civic Center construction workers, despite a regulation to that effect on all federally funded construction projects. Federal transit administrators, who have cited the mall as an example of how transit can galvanize a downtown area, said they will demand that [realistic?] building materials be used in future projects and that they and be kept within budget. “We raised questions at the outset about the wisdom of granite," said Ralph Stanley; director of the-Urban Mass Transit Administration. “We are now requiring construction oversight in all federally funded projects and an independent review by our agency of projects costing $25 million and over. You can demand a degree of excellence," Stanley said. 2nd Article: Ribbon snipped for bus station at 1 Civic Center Photo Rocky Mountain News Staff Photo by Frank Kimmel: A lone man [Joe Carle] in a manual wheelchair, back to the camera, watches as groups of people in suits cluster on an open plaza. A long ribbon crosses in front of a bus and one group surround a man who appears to be cutting the ribbon. Caption reads: Protester Joe Carle watches bus station opening. By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer When the ceremonial ribbon was snipped and the yellow sash fluttered to the pavement, the beleaguered Civic Center bus station remained standing. And more than a few Regional Transportation District officials joined in a collective sigh of relief. “There have been a number of headaches (on the project),' RTD chairman Byron Johnson said Wednesday at the station's formal opening. “But we're not worried about the headaches from this day forward. We see this as a tremendous breakthrough." Buses were supposed to be pulling out of the $20 million station, located at the intersection of Broadway and Colfax Ave., in April. But hundreds of complicated construction changes and bitter negotiations between contractors and consultants delayed its opening by six months. Last month, RTD general manager Ed Colby fired the station's architect and management consultant when parts of the concrete building had been left unfinished for 14 months and others had been ripped out and replaced as many as four times. Colby and his assistants took over management of the station themselves and demanded that the exterior be ready for Wednesday's ceremony and the arrival of President Reagan's mass transit director, Ralph Stanley. Stanley used the occasion to announce $6.5 million in federal grants to RTD and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. His brief speech was picketed by 10 handicapped demonstrators. Some of the the demonstrators were arrested in Washington last week when they disrupted a national transit convention where Stanley as a featured guest. "When you're putting on a party, nobody likes a crasher," said Wade Blank, who organized the silent vigil. We're here to make a statement." Workers were, at the site until 10:30pm Tuesday scrubbing the bus turn around out front and planting 17 trees along the Broadway facade.
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.