- FotogroottesVierkant
Miniatuurafbeelding
XXS - Zeer klein
XS - extra klein
✔ S - klein
M - medium
L - groot - TaalAfrikaans 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©
Startpagina / Albums / Labels UMTA
+ buses 4
ADAPT (597)
PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS 3-25-89 PHOTO (by SAM PSORAS/ DAILY NEWS): A group of people with picket signs are gathered in front of a dark wall with a door. A woman (Cassie James) in a motorized wheelchair is sitting sideways in the center. She has a huge sign that reads in great big letters "ACCESS NOW." She has shoulder length hair and is wearing glasses, a dark coat, white pants and stylish boots. In front and to her left another woman in a wheelchair is sitting in front of the doorway leaning to one side talking to a woman in a midcalf length coat holding a cane. The woman in the wheelchair is holding a sign that reads "Disabled In Action." Above the door on the side of the wall you can read "841 Chestnut ..." Behind the woman in the center is another person standing with a sign that reads "Access is a civil right!" That person is looking at 2 other women standing, one of whom is holding an 81/2 by 11 sized bundle and is wearing a coat and boots and seems to be holding a bull horn. Beside her the last person is holding a sign that reads "No Appeal." Caption reads: ALL THEY ASK is ALL ABOARD A contingent of eight protesters, some in wheelchairs, picketed the United Mass Transit Administration office, 841 Chestnut St., yesterday in support of a recent 3rd U.S. Circuit Court or Appeals ruling that all buses bought with federal funds must be accessible to disabled riders and that all who can't use buses must be afforded other mass transit. The protesters said they represented a variety of advocacy groups staging protests nationwide on behalf of 5 million disabled and elderly Americans.
ADAPT (591)
The Boston Herald, Thursday March 23, 1989 [Headline] Transit offices targeted for disabled protests [Subheading] Activists to show support for access decision By TOM SQUITIERI WASHINGTON — Activists for the disabled will picket federal mass transit offices in Boston and at least nine other cities tomorrow in a national show of support for a court action that could mean greater transit system access for the handicapped. The planned protests follow a U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down federal Department of Transportation regulations permitting local transit systems to provide services to disabled persons only if advance reservations are made. The court also ordered that new transit buses bought with federal money be accessible to the disabled, required some level of transportation be provided to those not able to use buses and struck down a cap that now places a state or transit system in compliance with the law after spending 3 percent of its operating budget on disability needs. "We are very hopeful the (Bush) administration will not appeal the ruling. This is the first decision this administration has to make on disability issues. and the national-disability community will be watching closely," said Timothy Cook. director of the National Disability Action Center, a Washington-based advocacy group. The Justice Department reportedly is reviewing a possible appeal. Throughout the 1988 campaign, Bush advocated bringing the disabled more fully into society, but the White House had no comment on a possible appeal. The court ruling only affects new buses purchased and does not require retrofitting of existing vehicles — although Cook said the "logic of the ruling" should extend to newly purchased commuter rail cars or renovated stations. Bush also is being pressured by congressmen —- including the Massachusetts delegation, which sent him a letter this week — not to appeal the decision. “If allowed to stand, this court ruling would help reduce many of the transportation barriers which face our disabled neighbors. It would accomplish this goal as intended by Congress and without undue expense to state and local governments," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
ADAPT (568)
METRO Magazine March/April 1991 This article is on 568, 555,551 and 547 and is included here in its entirety for ease of reading. Disabilities Act Forces Sweeping Transit Changes Public, private operators must comply with new ADA law. Uncle Sam hustles to fine tune countless provisions. By Lenny Levine The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will force sweeping changes on the transit industry, both public and private, and the battle to implement it is just being joined. When President Bush signed ADA into law last July shortly after overwhelming approval by Congress, it was the culmination of a decade-long struggle by advocates for the 43 million handicapped Americans and others to provide equal access for the disabled. The law affects transit buses, passenger trains, motorcoaches, stations and how the people who run them do business. Much is known about the law. Indeed, many in transit have long anticipated its provisions and made pieces of their operations “accessible,” the operative word. More, however, is not known. A slew of federal agencies is tuning the law. The name of the tune will unfold with time. What is known is this: Public agencies must make accessible all new vehicles purchased after last Aug. 25. Transit systems buying used vehicles must demonstrate “a good faith effort" to get accessible vehicles. Agencies that remanufacture vehicles to extend their life at least five years must make them accessible. All criteria, much of which has yet to be spelled out, must be implemented regardless of cost. All that also applies to private operators contracting with public agencies. There is some wiggle room, however. Waivers may be obtained in certain cases. That, too, will be spelled out as ADA is further refined. Motorcoach operators have more wiggle room, years of it. ADA says small private operators have six years after enactment of the law to become accessible, large operators, seven. But there begins the bureaucratic snafu. “What ‘small’ and ‘large’ mean haven't even been defined for us yet," said Steve Sprague, vice president for governmental affairs of the United Bus Owners of America (UBOA). He said “large” will probably be defined as Interstate Commerce Commission Class I operators. But the definition is a long way off. That definition — and countless other details that will govern the motorcoach industry —— will come from an old friend of bus folk. It is, ta da: THE STUDY. ”The study was mandated by ADA to govern the motorcoach industry. It is to be conducted by a broad-based committee of government, industry and technical people and advocates for the disabled over three years. Then the secretary of transportation reviews it for a year, and public comment is collected after that. Problem is, the study’s birth is overdue, wrapped up in Washington's womb of bureaucracy. Sprague, a member of the study’s committee, explained the delay like this: The committee is to be set up by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an arm of Congress. OTA has never conducted such a study. And Congress has not yet given OTA money to do the study, although “the powers that be at OTA are trying to get the money." Sprague predicted the end result of the study will be that “overall, access must be provided for the disabled" by private operators. That could take many forms, Sprague said: There could be a subsidized pool of over-the-road vehicles regionally; the public fleet could be subcontracted to private operators; and, of course, private operators could make their vehicles accessible, one way or another. QUOTE highlighted from text: "It's a good thing we were given time to get things done" —Steve Sprague Charter law prevents public agencies from doing charter business if private charter buses are available, Sprague said, and it will remain so, for now. And there’s still the definition of what “access” means. UMTA is drafting rules and regulations. And the federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board has been holding hearings around the nation and must publish a final rule by April 26 on access to buildings and terminals, but not buses. In the meantime, while waiting for the federal government to define "access," Sprague said the secretary of transportation cannot demand wheelchair lifts on motorcoaches, but can only say buses must be accessible; that could be lifts, ramps or free assistance in boarding. “So it doesn’t necessarily mean there will be a bunch of new lifts," Sprague said, “because the secretary could not demand physical changes in equipment while the studies are under way. He can just say, ‘Don't discriminate.”’ With all the expected changes due, Sprague said, “It’s a good thing that we were given time to get things together.” If private operators have a few years to get things together, public transit agencies face Armageddon July 26. That’s when UMTA publishes a final rule on access. The notice on the rule will be published in March, said Richard Centner, UMTA director of public affairs, and there will be 60 days for public comment. Included in this complicated rulemaking process is input from federal agencies previously mentioned, plus the Federal Railroad Administration, Justice Department and other agencies within the Department of Transportation. An interagency task force has been formed, Centner said, to make sure all segments of the bureaucracy are on the same track. APTA recently was cosponsor of a seminar on accessibility, and is collecting data. For more information, phone Deborah Dubin at 202/ 898-4098. Transit agencies around the nation have long been providing service to the disabled, be it with paratransit, demand-responsive service or accessible buses. Some were doing it before ADA became a buzzword, others in anticipation of it. The Rapid Transit District in Los Angeles, for example, recently celebrated a decade of accessible service to the disabled. In 1974 the RTD became the first transit agency in the nation to begin buying all new buses with wheelchair lifts. “Today, 97 percent of RTD’s bus fleet of more than 2,600 buses are equipped with a wheelchair lift, and in the next couple of years the entire fleet will be lift equipped," said RTD General Manager Alan F. Pegg. Three percent, or 40,000, of RT D’s 1.3 million daily riders are disabled. Wheelchair boardings average 400 a day. In 1986 half the proceeds from a San Francisco Muni senior citizen fare increase were earmarked for paratransit. In 1989 San Francisco voters followed the lead of other voters in the area and approved a local sales tax increase for transportation, with eight percent of it set aside for paratransit. The Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority in Ohio recently began a program to help visually-impaired bus passengers. Cards are provided displaying the passenger’s bus route in a number large enough for a driver to see. The Central Ohio Transit Authority and a local group will share a $42,000 grant from Project ACTION to create and demonstrate cooperative methods for improving accessible public transportation. A local steering committee has proposed: mobility fairs where passengers can get training in using lifts; training for drivers; tapes to train passengers to become independent when using the transit system; and hosts and hostesses on the agency’s 41 new lift-equipped buses to help new riders. In addition to changing the face of transportation, ADA is also spawning a host of products. New wheelchair lifts and securement devices are only the beginning. One new product, Luminator’s large-format GTI Matrix Sign, is nearly double the size of the company’s MAX sign system. The new system has 16 rows by 112 columns and can display characters 9.5 inches high on a single-line message or two lines of characters 4.1 inches high. Luminator, of Plano, Texas, promotes the system as beneficial to riders who have limited vision. Remember ADAPT? “We've gotten everything we wanted in public transit,” said Wade Blank, founder of a group called ADAPT. Blank’s group was a driving force behind ADA and he and his colleagues have been a fixture for years demonstrating at APTA conventions. “I missed the intrigue of this year's convention," Blank admitted. ADAPT is still active in the rulemaking process for buses and trains, working with UMTA on an advisory task force.... Blank said, though, there is still some work to be done in the private sector. He said he is negotiating with Greyhound to allow a wheelchair on its buses instead of stowing the wheelchair and having an attendant put the wheelchair passenger in a regular bus seat. Blank also noted that it might not cost much more to build all buses from scratch with wheelchair lifts. He said, “We have agreed to accept the regulatory process and accept the five or six years" it will take to implement ADA for private operators, but “we really don't need five or six years. "The writing is on the wall." Although Blank may miss the intrigue of bus conventions, his group is taking on a new public giant. The group has changed its name from Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit to Americans Disabled for Attendant Programs Today. ADAPT is tackling the nursing home industry, which Blank said gets $19 billion yearly from Medicaid. Blank would take S5 billion of that and put attendants in homes of the elderly to care for them, thus keeping them out of nursing homes. Many questions remain on implementing ADA They involve more than just making buses and trains accessible to wheelchairs. Are elderly people, for example, considered “disabled?” There will be detailed regulations devised to accommodate the blind and the deaf. That could include special markings on vehicles and terminals. Route signs, handrails and fare boxes must be “accessible.” What about securement devices? And ADA specifies new employment provisions. Beginning July 26, 1992, employers with 25 or more employees cannot discriminate against qualified people with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, promotion, firing, pay and job training. The employer must also make “reasonable accommodation" to disabled workers such as making existing facilities accessible, job restucturing, part-time or modified work hours and the provision of qualified readers or interpreters. On July 26, 1994, the provisions extend to employers with 15 or more workers. Transit people “are concerned about implementing ADA without cutting service," said an industry insider. “People candidly ask what will happen it they don’t (implement ADA)? lt will be a given there will he a lot of lawsuits if they don't, but we're all working together on this." "... in the next couple of years the entire fleet will be llft equlpped." -- Alan F. Pegg PHOTO: Close up of Wade Blank. He is wearing tinted, wire-rimmed, round glasses and his long hair falls from the part in the middle of his head. Caption reads: Blank. PHOTO: Close up on sign on the front of a bus reads "FLXIBLE" and an access symbol on one side. Caption reads: Luminaior's new matrix sign with letters 9.5 inches high is easier to read for passengers with vision problems.
ADAPT (484)
METRO Magazine March/April 1989 pp.18 - 21 Court Rules On Wheelchair Accessibility U.S. Court of Appeals orders that all new transit buses be wheelchair lift-equipped and paratransit service provided. by Jason Knott (This story continues through 484, 471, 470, 465, and 466. However, the entire text of the story is included here for ease of reading.) DRAWING: A large balance scale with a bowl hanging from each side of the balance. One bowl has the acronym APTA in it, the other has ADAPT. QUOTE below the picture: “I don’t think the government should mandate installation of lifts. It can become expensive for the smaller transit properties." —Davis There are more than 40 million disabled Americans and an estimated 67 percent of them are unemployed, according to the National Easter Seal Society. Meanwhile, a recent Harris poll revealed that three out of every 10 disabled persons say they cannot work because of a lack of accessible transportation. Moreover, the same poll shows that 49 percent of the disabled believe their mobility is limited because of transportation barriers. These statistics confirm that public transit accessibility is an important ingredient to mainstreaming the handicapped into society. On the flip side of the coin are the public transit authorities who are in the business of transporting ambulatory, as well as handicapped, persons in the most economical method possible. It would seem that the handicapped, who depend on public transit, would be natural constituents of transit agencies; however, the two groups have been at odds for years, grappling with each other over the accessibility of service. In particular one handicapped rights group — ADAPT (Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit) — has been fighting with public transit across the nation. ADAPT wants every fixed route transit bus equipped with a wheelchair lift. In order to express its point, the group conducts disruptive protests at conferences held by the American Public Transit Association (APTA). (See September/October 1988 METRO Magazine, “When Rights Clash," page 79) Today, disabled Americans can chalk up a victory in their constant battle for a broader distribution of handicapped-accessible transit service. On February 13, a federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Transportation to require transit authorities to equip all newly purchased buses with wheelchair lifts. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also determined the 3 percent cap placed on transit agencies for handicapped expenditures was too low in the case entitled “ADAPT vs. Burnley." Wade Blank. director of ADAPT, applauded the court decision, saying the ruling is significant in the sense it is "evolutionary." Blank said, "We are now getting back to where we were in 1978. When we filed originally, we targeted the 3 percent cap. We decided to broaden the case because the climate in the country has changed. We talked with our attorneys and they broadened it to include the original intent of Section 504, and to really challenge the 1980 case that APTA brought. We are victorious because of a major mood change in the country regarding handicap accessibility." Blank cited two other recent rulings in Detroit and Chicago favoring handicapped accessibility. The Philadelphia ruling is in conflict with APTA's official policy, which was spelled out in a position paper reissued in October 1988. The association favors the local-option approach by which each local transit authority determines its own handicapped transportation policy. APTA's Board of Directors recently rejected a similar proposal calling for all new transit buses to be lift-equipped, according to Albert Engelken, deputy executive director. In other words, APTA believes that each local transit authority should create its own balance between demand response - or dial-a-ride — service, and fixed route accessibility. “It is very important that people realize that APTA is not against wheelchairs on transit buses," said Engelken, “rather, we are for local decision. The board of directors unanimously supports this approach. Every transit system makes their decision after in-depth consultation with the local disabled community. They are not making their decisions blindly." What next? The Department of Transportation is currently exploring its options, which include seeking a rehearing by the appeals court, appealing the-decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, or accepting the ruling. Michael Jacobson, spokesman for the DOT, could not give an estimate on when a decision might be made. An appeal is possible despite President Bush's recent campaign commitment to handicapped programs. Whether the decision will affect bus procurements that are currently - underway is unclear. Jack R. Gilstrap, APTA's executive vice president, issued the following statement concerning the ruling: “Because of the cost impact of the decision which requires lifts on all new buses plus paratransit service, and because it is inconsistent with other court decisions which create conflicting obligations on the part of the DOT and local public transit systems, APTA is urging DOT to challenge the decision." “Obviously this decision is extremely important," said Charles Cowie, national sales manager for Mobile Tech Corporation, a Hutchinson, Kansas-based manufacturer of wheelchair lifts for transit buses. “The objective is to make accessibility and mobility easier for the disabled, but to some, the decision favors a sector of the populous that is not altogether popular." “In a philosophical sense, the ruling is great," said Bill Hinze, National Sales Manager for Ricon, a dedicated lift manufacturer in Sun Valley, Calif. “It’s like a mandate for racial integration — it should have been done years ago." However, Hinze indicated he is still an advocate of demand response systems. “I don't think the government should mandate installation of lifts," said Bob Davis, vice president of Bus Manufacturing USA, a Goleta, Calif.-based distributor of semi-automatic lifts. “It can become expensive for the smaller transit agencies." The court also ruled that the current 3 percent cap on handicapped spending was insufficient; however, many agencies were already spending a higher percentage. In fact, in California and state law already requires all newly purchased transit buses to be equipped with wheelchair lifts. “Other states were already adhering to a similar policy, although it is not written in law," said Don Smith, director of marketing for Lift-U, Inc. in Escalon, Calif. According to Engelken of APTA, an average of 6 percent of transit expenditures are directed toward improving handicapped transportation already — double the required limit. Moreover, an APTA survey indicates that 31 percent of all transit vehicles are lift equipped, with the number steadily rising. The court decision comes in the wake of several different movements toward the improvement of handicapped accessibility to public transit. [Subheading] Project ACTION As part of the APTA’s Elderly and Disabled Task Force, a three-year Congressional program called “Project ACTION" (Accessible Community Transportation In Our Nation) will soon establish six demonstration sites nationwide to study handicapped transit accessibility. The National Easter Seal Society is conducting the three-year, $3 million undertaking. Congress has earmarked $1 million in fiscal year 1988 UMTA research and technical assistance funds to initiate the project, and an additional $1.35 million in fiscal year 1989. Project ACTION is designed to improve access to transit services for the handicapped. It will involve national and local organizations representing public transit operators, the transit industry, and people with disabilities in the development of a cooperative model program promoting greater access to transportation. Project ACTION is the result of a mandate from Congress to find ways to better accommodate the transportation needs of people with disabilities. The program will focus on five key concerns of people with disabilities and local transit operators seeking to improve transit: * Identifying persons with disabilities in the community. * Developing effective outreach and marketing strategies. * Developing training programs for transit riders. * Developing assistive programs for people with disabilities. * Applying appropriate technology to solve critical barriers to transportation and accessibility. “APTA’s task force is examining numerous areas to improve handicapped transportation," said Engelken. “We are looking at how to improve the marketing of service and we are struggling with the wrenching problem that exists in that area. "We have to make sure that people are riding the buses,” added Engelken. “If we don't, then the federal and state government are going to say that transit agencies are spending their money unwisely.” [Subheading] Operating costs The court decision also comes at a time when some transit agencies are lowering their wheelchair lift operating costs. In fact, figures released by ADAPT, claim that Seattle Metro operating costs were $3.13 per lift in 1987, with a reliability rate of more than 98 percent. In comparison, the Bay Area Regional Transit Association cited operating costs of $118.55 per trip for wheelchair lift-equipped transit buses among the several different transit authorities operating in the region. This disparity is due to widely different methodologies for calculating costs, a condition that has led to an absence of reliable nation-wide data. Tim Cook, director for the National Disabilities Action Center in Washington, D.C. and the attorney representing ADAPT in court, said, “I’m not sure accurate figures exist because it varies from system to system. National figures are meaningless because many systems haven't made a decision to make a commitment to accessibility." “Every property has it differently organized. Some agencies will designate one mechanic to maintain 75 to 100 lifts," said Smith of Lift-U, “But it really depends on how committed the maintenance director or general manager is to wheelchair lifts." [Subheading] Technology Mobile Tech and Lift-U manufacture electro-hydraulic passive wheelchair lifts for the transit industry. These lifts do not require the driver to leave his seat to operate the device. Ricon is a leading manufacturer of dedicated lifts, which are common on paratransit vehicles. These lifts are ideal for the handicapped, but cannot be used by ambulatory passengers. The lift does not utilize hydraulics. Another lift on the market is the AMF Hubmatik swivel-lift manufactured in West Germany. The lift is marketed in the U.S. by Bus Manufacturing USA and Ortho Safe Systems in Trenton, N.J. The semi-automatic, electro-hydraulic lift requires the driver to swivel the unit out the door for boarding and departure. It is currently in use by Sun Line Transit Agency in Thousand Palms, Calif. Due to constant R & D by the manufacturers, lift technology is dynamically improving. According to Smith, future innovations in passive lift technology will include state-of-the-art circuit boards, LED's and microchips. Cowie of Mobile-Tech predicted a 180 degree turn in technology within the next two years. Hinze indicated his company is developing a lift that can be utilized by both handicapped and ambulatory passengers and reduce maintenance costs by up to 10 percent. The court ruling does not touch upon rail accessibility at all. Installation of wayside wheelchair lifts for rail systems has not been as active as bus development. According to Smith, some transit agencies have requested lifts be designed for installation on the railcars themselves; however, because of the small demand, this is not profitable for passive lift manufacturers. More R & D is necessary on the shock and vibration of railcars to produce a passive lift that can withstand that environment. However, San Diego Trolley has been using on-board lifts for three years, and recently ordered 41 more units according to Hinze of Ricon. This onboard lift eliminates the problem of railcar operators “spotting” their stops for wayside lift access. The ruling could also mean increased specification of wheelchair restraint systems such as the one manufactured by Q'Straint in Buffalo, N.Y. The system consists of four stainless steel floor plates mounted flush with the floor. Four belts, two in front and two in the rear, and a shoulder harness and lap belt secure the rider. [Subheading] Solving the problem Despite the jubilation one might expect among wheelchair manufacturers, many seem to believe a mixture of demand response service along with fixed route wheelchair service is the ultimate solution to transporting the disabled and elderly. "The degree of demand response versus fixed route service should be a local decision," Cowie said. “It is important to mainstream the handicapped in the bigger cities through fixed route service; however, demand response is good in rural areas." These thoughts were echoed somewhat by Smith, who is a member of APTA’s Elderly and Disabled Services Task Force. "There should definitely be a mixture of services," he said. “[The government] can't dictate how every community should handle this problem. Some communities have spent a lot of money of their dial-a-ride service. You need to have a local option. “Another solution," continues Smith, "might be to make fixed route service fully accessible and let another organization — outside the realm of public transit — take care of special needs or demand response service." He believes the transportation problems of the elderly and the disabled should be handled separately. the end of article BOXED TEXT next to main article: [Heading] The Long Road To Wheelchair Accessibility A federal appeals court has ordered the U.S. Department of Transportation to require transit authorities to equip new buses with wheelchair lifts, and provide public transport for riders unable to use lift-equipped buses. Attorneys who brought the lawsuit called it the most important decision ever handed down for handicapped people needing public transportation. The decision, in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals was, 2-1. “We conclude that ordering that newly purchased buses be accessible to the mobility disabled does not exact a fundamental alteration to the nature of mass transportation," Judge Carol Mansmann wrote in the majority opinion. “Also, by requiring that newly purchased buses be accessible, we are not imposing undue financial or administrative burdens on the local transit authorities." In the dissenting opinion, Judge Morton I. Greenberg said the section requiring new buses to be accessible was not meant to apply to transit systems choosing a paratransit system. Timothy M. Cook, director of the National Disability Action Center, argued the case before the appeals court and called the decision, “a major, major victory for the handicapped community. We can't say enough positive things about it.” Cook expressed hope that the ruling would not be appealed in light of President Bush's recent comments about his desire to bring the handicapped into the mainstream. The Transportation Department had appealed an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz in Philadelphia that canceled a 1986 department regulation calling for mass-transit authorities to spend up to 3 percent of their operating budgets on providing services for the handicapped. In his decision, Katz called the 3 percent requirement unreasonable, but ruled the department must resolve differences between equality for the handicapped and cost efficiency. Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT) appealed Katz's simultaneous ruling that upheld the right of transit authorities to decide whether to fit vehicles for the handicapped or provide other services. The appeals court ruling affirmed Katz's decision in favor of dropping the 3 percent provision, but it reversed his other decision by ordering transit authorities to equip new buses with chair lifts or other accommodations for the handicapped.