- BahasaAfrikaans 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©
Beranda / Album / Tags paratransit
+ wheelchair lifts 12
ADAPT (148)
Name of newspaper illegible Los Angeles Times? November 19,1984 Handicapped Stage Protests to Publicize Transportation Needs by Miles Harvey, Times Staff Writer PHOTO: Mary Frampton / Los Angeles Times A tidy looking woman in pants and a vest, with a slight smile on her face, sits in a manual wheelchair on a bus. She is sitting in the accessible doorway, the access symbol visible on the side of the doorway. Below and beneath her is a metal panel, like the barrier on some lifts that keeps the person from rolling off the front of the lift. Caption reads: Barbara Trigg rides a hydraulic lift onto a Los Angeles bus. Article reads: Washington -- It was a scene reminiscent of the 1960s civil rights demonstrations as angry protesters chanted slogans, picketed the White House and stopped traffic before they were finally dragged away by police. And the series of confrontations that ended with 27 arrests last month seemed to come down to a similar central issue— the right to sit on a bus, to have full access to public transportation. There was one striking difference, however. Unlike Rosa Parks and the black civil rights activist who battered down the Jim Crow barriers in the South, these protesters were in wheelchairs, and their goal was equal access for the physically handicapped. “It's a civil right to be able to ride public transportation," said Julia Haraksin, a wheelchair-bound Los Angeles resident who participated in the demonstrations. “In the ‘60s, the blacks had to ride in the back—and we can't even get on the buses." New, Radical Tactics Organizations representing handicapped persons long have urged Washington to require that new buses and rail systems built with funds from the Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transportation Administration be equipped to accommodate handicapped riders. But Haraksin and other handicapped individuals like her now are beginning to press the old arguments with new, more radical tactics. Frustrated by years of negotiating, lobbying in Washington, going through the courts and staging non-confrontational protests, some members of the handicapped community now are resorting more actively to confrontations and civil disobedience. Thus, early in October, 100 members of a newly formed coalition called American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit confronted a national meeting of city transportation heads here, using the kind of civil disobedience tactics used 30 years earlier by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Protesters were arrested when they blocked entrances and buses of those attending the American Public Transit Assn. convention. The strategy was to physically be a barrier because handicapped people have to face barriers all their lives," Wade Blank, a founder of Denver-based ADAPT said. Calling the protests here " Selma," leaders of ADAPT claimed victory and promised that their struggle has only begun. They already are focusing their efforts on what they hope will be a larger demonstration at the next meeting of the American Public Transportation Assn. a year from now in Los Angeles. But they and their cause may be in for a tough battle. Their opposition comes from the Reagan Administration, from many city governments and even from within the handicapped community. And as public attention focuses on the underlying budget choices involved, the opposition may swell with the addition of taxpayers concerned about the possible costs of a national full-access program. ADAPT argues that a legal right to full access for the handicapped already exists. Federal law states that Urban Mass Transportation Administration funds — which account for about 80% of the costs of new and replacement equipment in most municipal transportation systems—cannot be spent on programs that discriminate against, or exclude, the handicapped. The law does not make clear, however, whether handicapped persons must be provided with access to regular bus lines or whether they can instead be provided with alternative transportation systems. Nor does it indicate who should make that decision. Cities Make Decisions Current Transportation Department policy, which is strongly supported by the American Public Transportation Assn., allows each city to make its own decision on what type of transportation it will provide for the handicapped. This is in sharp contrast with Carter Administration policy, which in 1979 interpreted federal regulation to mean full access. Members of ADAPT, opposing the separate-but-equal philosophy of paratransit argue that it does not meet the needs of the handicapped and that it is inherently discriminatory. "It segregates the disabled people from the able-bodied community," Mike Auberger, an organizer for ADAPT, said. Because paratrasit requires advanced scheduling [unreadable] a ride is needed, he said, “you have to schedule your life according to the system. No one else has to do that. That shows the inequality right there." He and other members of ADAPT contend that because of long waiting lists for paratransit, some cities refuse to offer the service to new users - thus cutting off thousands of handicapped persons from any public transportation. Transit authorities, on the other hand, argue that full access can be too expensive, given the low percentage of handicapped riders in many cities. Lift-fitted buses cost an estimated $8,000 to $10,000 more than regular buses. Furthermore, lift systems are often unreliable and time-consuming to operate and maintain, transit administrators say. In Denver, for example, the transportation district has spent $63 million to purchase or retrofit buses with lifts. 80% of which was paid for by the federal government, according to spokesman Gene Towne. Since it started mainline access in 1982, the district has spent close to $1 million in maintenance of the lifts and expects to spend an additional $900,000 this year. Yet of the district's total annual ridership of 38 million, only 12,000 use the lifts, according to Towne. ADAPT counters that the issue is not cost but civil liberties. “In America we have a way of hiding, our prejudices with pragmatism," said Blank, a Presbyterian minister and veteran of the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s who now supports handicapped activists. Variety of Approaches Across the country, cities are using a variety of approaches to the problems of providing mass transit for the handicapped. In Los Angeles, mainline access is required by state law. Although 1,850 of the Southern California Rapid Transit District‘s 2,400 buses are fitted with wheelchair lifts some local advocates charge that the RTD gives only "lip service" to access, complaining of broken lifts, drivers who do not know how to use the equipment or refuse to do so and an overall lack of commitment to providing access. The system provides only about 1,400 rides a month according to the RTD. Handicapped activists charge that the low ridership is attributable to the system's poor management. There were and are people in the operation department (of the RTD) back there who were and are opposed to the idea of access from day one," Dennis Cannon, a Washington-based expert who helped to plan the RTD's access program in the 1970s said. But in the last six months, the RTD has made "a major effort" to overcome the problem, according to RTD General Manager John A. Dyer. The system boosted its fiscal year 1985 budget for handicapped service by $3 million, to $4.9 million, to provide for a program to educate drivers and upgrade the quality of equipment and service. In Oakland, half the city's 800 buses are lift-equipped and all of the Alameda — Contra Costa Transit District's new buses will be lift-equipped. Seattle’s Services In Seattle, 570 of 1,100 buses are accessible to the handicapped, providing about 5,900 rides a month. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle also contracts with private groups to supply paratransit bus and half-fare cab service, providing a total of 8,400 rides a month in Denver. 432 of the city's 744 buses are lift- or ramp-equipped, providing more than 1,000 rides per month. The city also uses 13 vans and small buses in a paratransit system that provides 3,200 rides a month. In New York City, where an estimated 35% of all the transit passengers in the country use Metropolitan Transportation Authority vehicles each day. half of the city's 4,333 buses are fitted with lifts. The city has no figures on how many handicapped riders use the system, but one official calls the number minuscule. A new state law calls for $40 million over the next eight years to retrofit “in the neighborhood of 30" subway stops for handicapped use, according to a transit authority official. In addition the law will increase the percentage of lift-equipped buses to 65% of the fleet, as well as provide a paratransit system in the city by 1988. Minneapolis-St. Paul uses 45 paratransit buses and contracts with private cab companies to carry handicapped persons in all, the city provides 40.000 trips a month. None of Chicago's 2.400 regular buses are fitted with lifts. Instead the city provides 42 paratransit buses, which offer 12,000 rides a month. Additionally, 14 of the city's subway stops have been retrofitted for handicapped access and 300 of Chicago's 1,100 subway cars are accessible. If there is a diversity of approaches to the problem, there is also a diversity of views on the militant new tactics used by ADAPT and its supporters. The views of the handicapped people are all over the lot on what type of transport they'd like," Bob Batchelder, counsel for the APTA, said. But transit specialist Cannon, himself a wheelchair user, counters: “I'm talking to disabled people who wouldn't do what ADAPT does ... but who support what they are doing and think it needs being done." Whether ADAPT's controversial style will work remains an open question. While no negotiations are scheduled, ADAPT leaders vow to continue to harass association meetings. But in Los Angeles, the RTD's Dyer indicated that he hopes demonstrations will be replaced at next year's convention with “serious dialogue and discussion of the issues." "It’s a new thing for the disabled to see themselves with power," ADAPT's Auberger said, "but it's also a new experience for the powers that be."
ADAPT (189)
San Antonio Light, April 21, 1985 Viewpoint Thomas F. Brereton [Headline] Give handicapped the transit they deserve PHOTO: Head shot of a man in suit and tie, with a beard and moustach. He is smiling, and he appears to be Brereton. San Antonio's convention calendar features an unwanted bonus this weekend: some out of town demonstrators who have vowed to disrupt a conference at the Hyatt, in order to focus attention on a neglected national issue. The American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT) are the unwelcome guests at the American Public Transit Association's western regional conference. They have been similarly unwelcome guests at APTA conferences in Denver, San Diego, and Washington, D.C., where 28 members were arrested for civil disobedience last October. So now San Antonio's VIA Metropolitan Transit gets to take its turn playing cat's paw to make their point. ADAPT's demand is a simple one: civil rights for the handicapped, specifically the right to ride the same bus as everyone else. This means requiring public transit systems to make all of their mainline services fully accessible, particularly by installing wheelchair lifts instead of relying exclusively on separate “para-transit” services like VIA-Trans. They contend that this dual service system is a segregationist anachronism: 25 years ago blacks could at least ride in the back of the bus: today the handicapped still can't even get on board. At first blush, it may seem hard to believe that a person who is wheelchair-bound would really prefer to struggle to and from the bus stop in order to ride a regular bus, rather than being picked up and delivered door-to-door in a specially equipped van. But there are some real problems with a van service which makes it inherently less usable than full access to the regular transit network. First there is the matter of registration. In order to ride VIA-Trans, you have to be certified by a physician or a social service agency as completely unable to use the regular bus. As a result, there are only about 7000 people registered in Bexar County. Estimates of the potentially eligible “mobility-impaired" population range from 12,000 to 52,000, depending on whose definition you accept. Out of town visitors, of course, have a special difficulty of making arrangements in advance. Then there is the matter of time. You have to call and make a reservation at least two hours ahead, and preferably a couple of days. This may be okay if you know you have a doctors appointment every Wednesday at 2 o'clock. but it is no way to go out drinking with your friends on the spur of the moment. And since this is a shared-ride system, you will probably have to leave a lot earlier than you would like, and then to endure a long, circuitous journey to your destination, while other passengers are picked up and dropped off en route. So imagine yourself now in a wheelchair. Which would you rather do: Wheel yourself down to the nearest bus stop to get on a bus and go whereever it takes you, or call VIA-Trans a couple of days in advance to make a reservation? You don't have to buy ADAPT's tactics in order to see their point. Handicapped people naturally want to be as independent as possible, with a minimum of degrading “special privileges." On the other side, transit authority spokesmen ridicule the demand for wheelchair lifts as economically prohibitive and technically impractical. A study by the National Research Council's Transportation Research Board estimates the total additional cost of operating a fully accessible fixed-route bus system at about $2,000 per year per lift-equipped bus. But unlike VIA-Trans, where more riders automatically mean more vans and drivers - at an average actual cost of $l0.70 per trip — this cost does not increase appreciably with greater use by the handicapped. Opponents of accessible transit also object that the wheelchair lifts break down too often. And, you would have to take some regular seats out of the bus, to provide space to secure the wheelchairs. And the requirements of operating the lift would throw the bus off schedule, because the driver would have to take extra time to assist the passenger. In reality, the actual number of times per day you would have to stop the bus to use this lift makes nonsense of this argument. But what about the problem of getting to and from the bus stop, along streets without curb cuts and often without sidewalks? This objection is an excuse for not solving one problem because there are other problems beyond it. If you were in a wheelchair, you would probably need to live in a different house, too. You would consider this a factor before you moved. Note that this is not an either/or proposition, between specialized vans and lift-equipped buses. The same study by the Transportation Research Board estimates that only 30 percent of the "severely transportation handicapped" could use an accessible fixed-route bus. The other 70 percent — those on medication, with mental impairments or multiple handicaps — would still need to rely on VIA-Trans, taxicabs, or other means to get around. To me. this whole argument is pretty one-sided. The real clincher is the simple fact that other cities have already done what VIA says is impossible: to provide full accessibility on their mainline services. The old excuses won't wash anymore. it's time we stopped putting a price tag on people's dignity and independence. Tom Brereton is a former professor of urban studies at Trinity University.
ADAPT (202)
Handicapped American, 12/84 Two articles: Article #1: [Headline] Anti-APTA Protest Grows as Disabled Demand Bus Lifts Disabled activists in several states are pressing the attack against the American Public Transit Association (APTA) in an attempt to persuade that organization to support wheelchair accessibility. At its seventh annual delegate assembly in November, the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities [CTD] urged all transit providers in that state to withdraw from APTA. “It is the urgent desire of CTD and its 77 organizational members across the state that Texas become a model of full, equal access to all transportation systems," according to the CTD resolution. CTD President Marshall Mitchell said that APTA'S transportation philosophy “is a powerful tool for discrimination and denies the vast majority of disabled persons equal access to the community." CTD is also opposed to paratransit as an alternative to wheelchair lift equipped buses because this "provides disabled people only limited use of the locally operated transit systems in all Texas cities." Mitchell said that not only does paratransit violate the equal protection clause of the l4th Amendment but operating two separate systems "is infinitely more expensive than would be totally accessible systems with only limited door-to-door service to meet the needs of those who could not use mainline service." APTA is holding a Western Regional Conference in San Antonio in April (see related stories). Meanwhile in November a spokesperson for disabled groups in neighboring Louisiana has requested that APTA's board of directors reverse its position on accessibility. Susan M. Daniels, in a letter to APTA chairman Warren Franks, said that "disabled people will no longer sit quiet while their rights are abridged." Daniels points out that the Regional Transit Authority which serves the Greater New Orleans area is not accessible, making it impossible for disabled people in that city to participate on an equal basis in community activities with nondisabled persons. In California, disabled activists are seeking to cut off the flow of public money to APTA. At its December meeting, the California Association of the Physically Handicapped (CAPH) passed a resolution calling upon various branches of the federal government to withhold funds earmarked for APTA because such payments represent "a misappropriation of public funds." More than 60 percent of APTA's operating money comes from public funds, according to the CAPH resolution. CAPH charges that this money is being used in part “to deny handicapped individuals the benefits of transportation services requiring federal financial assistance." In addition to blocking the flow of federal dollars to APTA, CAPH urges "that all public transit agencies be prohibited from paying APTA dues" while any investigations of APTA are in progress. Article #2: [Headline] Texans Plan San Antonio Showdown Chances are if you board a public bus anywhere in Texas you won't find any riders in wheelchairs. That's all going to change if Jim Parker of El Paso has anything to do about it. Parker and several other people in wheelchairs from across Texas have organized the state chapter of the American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT), a new national group that is trying to force bus companies and manufacturers to equip all buses with wheelchair lifts. In 1979, the Carter administration's Department of Transportation mandated such a policy, but the American Public Transit Association (APTA) successfully fought those regulations in court, arguing that it was a judgment best left to the discretion of the local transit provider. Disabled activists argued that such "local option” policies are no different from the old states’ rights arguments used in the South to block integration and lead to policies similar to "separate but equal" laws. Reagan's Department of Transportation has generally sided with APTA in this dispute and has suggested that paratransit services could provide similar service to the disabled at less cost. Opponents of lifts argue that they're unreliable. In Houston, Metro's Grumman Flexible buses’ wheelchair lifts were removed because the company said they caused too many maintenance problems. Continued on p. 4
ADAPT (240)
The Cincinnati Enquirer Photo by the Cincinnati Enquirer/Michael E. Keating: Four police officers holding a thin, tall man (Jim Parker)by his legs and arms suspending him in the air while they try to place him in the wheelchair. Another police officer and a passerby at the street corner are visible in background, as well as a city bus parked with its doors open. Caption: Cincinnati Police lower ADAPT activist Jim Parker into his wheelchair after removing him from a Metro bus. He had crawled aboard. [Headline] Group seeks access for wheelchairs By David Wells George Cooper and Bob Kafka climbed aboard a City Metro bus at Government Square Monday, paid their fares and were arrested. Cooper and Kafka were among several dozen members of the American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT) demonstrating this week against Metro and the American Public Transit Association gathered at the Westin Hotel. ADAPT disrupted operations at Metro’s main downtown stop on Government Square for about two hours Monday. Following arrests of Cooper and Kafka, Metro rerouted its buses and avoided further confrontation with the wheelchair-bound demonstrators. ADAPT wants full accessibility for the handicapped on all public transportation facilities. Regular Metro coaches do not have wheelchair lifts. The company does provide transportation for the handicapped with special, lift-equipped Access vans. ADAPT claims that Access vans are unreliable in poor weather and even in good weather require a 24-hour advance reservation. The group also wants the national transit association to adopt a resolution at its Cincinnati convention requiring full access for the handicapped. Wheelchair-confined demonstrators picketed Westin entrances throughout the day but were denied admission to the hotel or adjoining public atrium. Cooper of Dallas, and Kafka of Austin, Texas, were charged with criminal trespass after they refused requests from Metro and the Cincinnati Police to get off the bus. “There are no lifts in these buses. It is not safe (for the handicapped), “said Murray Bond, assistant general manager for the company. Yet, after Cooper and Kafka were arrested, they were transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center on the bus rather than being transferred to a lift van. “That was a judgement call on my part,” said Capt. Dale Menkhaus, who headed the police detail. “It was decided it would be much easier and safer to transport them on the bus than to try to carry them off of it.” Four officers rode with the prisoners to ensure they were not jostled on the five-block trip to jail. Also arrested at the demonstration was Mike Auberger from Denver, who Menkhaus said attempted to block the bus carrying Cooper and Kafka. Auberger was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to the Justice Center in a lift van. Menkhaus said it was “a no win situation” for the police. No matter how sensitively the officers acted, they still had to confront and arrest people in wheelchairs. Officers in that detail were briefed on handling the demonstrators. Menkhaus said. “Our officers were told to ask each individual what the best way to lift him was, even to the point of which limb they would prefer to have moved first.” Still, to the members ADAPT, they were being dragged off the buses. “People were being dragged off the buses because they just wanted to ride,” said Bill Bolte of Los Angeles. When ADAPT member Rick James, a cerebral palsy victim repeatedly tried to roll his motorized chair into the street and in front of buses, police officers unplugged the chair’s battery. It left James immobile on the sidewalk. Other ADAPT members reconnected the battery and James pulled up in front of another bus. Metro eventually took the bus out of service and left it parked at the stop during the demonstration. At the Justice Center, all three prisoners co-operated fully with deputies, said Sheriff Lincoln Stokes. About five other demonstrators boarded buses that pulled in the stops at Government Square but they got off the bus when asked to do so, Menkhaus said.
ADAPT (439)
The Daily Sparks Tribune April 14, 1989 page 4A [Headline] Push a wheelchair through Sparks by Andrew Barbano In all the heat generated by die wheelchair protests this week at the Sparks Nugget, the central issue has been lost: does every bus in the country need wheelchair lifts? I thought Donna Cline might shed some light on the real reason behind the ruckus. Cline, 30, was injured in a rural Nevada accident. She and Debra Donlevy were driving to Carson City late one night 11 years ago. Their car overturned near Hawthorne. Donna survived the long ride to Reno, Debbie was not so lucky. We buried her in Carson City while Cline lay in Washoe Medical Center. Debbie was my wife's daughter. Donna, who has not walked since, worked her way through broadcast school and became a television reporter. In 1985, while working at KVBC in Las Vegas, she was asked to compete for the Miss Wheelchair Nevada title. She won. And added the Miss Wheelchair America title in 1986. She took the cause of better access for the handicapped all the way to Ronald Reagan in the White House. “I leaned a lesson in it all," she told me this week from Springfield, Missouri, where she is a news co-anchor. "I found out that you'll get some awareness but you may not get what you set out to get.“ Peter Mendoza would probably agree. The unemployed Bay Area police dispatcher was here to attend the protests during the American Public Transit Association convention. He lost his job because of transportation problems, and has been protesting at APTA conventions for the past three years. “I‘m not used to being treated like a criminal,“ Mendoza says. “We're not a bunch of violent radicals. There are children here and people who’ve worked all their lives. We’re not radicals. We just want to make a point." He says that a lot of this week's problems could have been avoided. “In San Francisco, we sat down with APTA and the police and worked out the parameters of a demonstration. We even arranged for the peaceful arrest of those who thought they wanted to do so. We worked out training and helped arrange transportation. The judge sentenced those arrested to the overnight time served. There were no hard feelings. Sparks is 20 years behind the times when it comes to protests." Cline says “protest to increase awareness is wonderful but has anything more actually been accomplished? In the four cities I've live in, the demand (for wheelchair ramps) does not meet the number of buses. If you're going to take that amount of money, you should look at usage." She favors a specialized transportation system such as this area's Citilift. One caller to my radio show did not agree. "Separate is always unequal," he snapped. Mendoza, a member of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District‘s advisory committee on services for persons with disabilities, backs up this argument with numbers. “The Alameda-Contra Costa transit system did a study which showed a $10.84 cost per trip on a ramp-equipped bus. A paratransit system (like Citilift) costs $12.46 a trip." He says that nationally, the paratransit system is more expensive. Citilift figures bear him out. Such service is very specialized and will always cost more. “A bus ramp costs about the same as an air conditioning system, and I consider that a luxury. If you want to get rid of something that costs a lot, get rid of air conditioning." Mendoza feels specialized paratransit systems are good for rural areas, but Metropolitan areas need bus lifts. “Only three percent of the 37,000,000 disabled in this country are working and transportation is the number one reason," he passionately adds. Since I started doing talk shows, I've never had a week where one issue totally dominated as this one has. Many of my phone calls were from wheelchair users. Some Sparks residents feel that Mendoza and his group are just a bunch of out-of-town agitators who should leave. Others have accused the Sparks Police, John Ascuaga and his people of failing to defuse the situation upfront, as was done in San Francisco. Another said Nugget security guards were poorly trained and they have been the main problem. Mendoza's organization, ADAPT, almost seems to be contradicting itself by its actions. ADAPT has made its biggest gains in court and in Congress, not on the protest lines. After Congress passed a law mandating lifts on all buses, APTA got the law watered down to provide for local option. ADAPT sued and won on appeal. The protests this week centered on convincing APTA not to take its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ironically, a small news item appeared Tuesday noting the “Disability Awareness Festival" starts April 14. Wrong. It started Sunday at the Nugget. Maybe Sparks just needs to promote better understanding. The best suggestion I've heard came from a retired Sparks Teamsters Union worker named Mitch. He suggested a handicapped awareness day where civic leaders work a day in a wheelchair to see what it's like. I like that idea. So does Donna Cline. Any takers? (Andrew Barbano is a Reno-based syndicated columnist. He host a weekday morning news and talk show an Reno AM radio station KOLO 92.) Photo: President Ronald Reagan standing, head slightly tipped to his left. Seated beside him, and coming up to about is waist, is a woman in a wheelchair with conservatively coiffed hair and attire. Both are looking at the camera and smiling. Caption reads: Donna Cline, a former Miss Wheelchair Nevada and Miss Wheelchair America, with former President Ronald Reagan.
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.
ADAPT (589)
A-12 /The Houston Post/Wednesday, February 15, 1989 NATION & WORLD [Headline] Disabled hail ruling on bus access [Subheading] Court requires transit agencies to install wheelchair lifts ASSOCIATED PRESS PHILADELPHIA — Advocates for the disabled Tuesday hailed a federal court ruling requiring wheelchair lifts on new public buses, but a spokesman for transit agencies said the ruling doesn‘t address vexing problems. “We've been grappling with this for a long time," said Albert Engelken, deputy executive director of the American Public Transit Association in Washington. He said wheelchair lifts receive limited use where they exist and are an added expense to transit agencies at a time when federal subsidies are dwindling. A 3rd U.S. Circuit Court ol Appeals panel ruled 2-1 Monday that Congress has made its wishes on accessibility clear, and lift-equipped buses are part ol that mandate. The court ordered the Department of Transportation to rewrite a regulation allowing communities to offer alternative paratransit service, such as van rides. James D. Fornari, a New York City attorney for a group of veterans with spinal cord injuries, said the ruling will force transit systems to look for the most efficient means of serving disabled people. He said the ruling also could influence DOT regulations on light rail and commuter rail systems. Transportation department spokesman Bob Marx said DOT attorneys had not seen the decision and would not comment. Officials of Houston's Metropolitan Transit Authority also had not seen the decision, but MTA spokeswoman Carol Boudreaux said the authority would comply with any new regulations. Representatives of the disabled community in Houston lauded the ruling. “The disabled community is excited and we hope Alan Kiepper, manager of Houston Metro, hears this message from the courts and the disabled community. Access is a civil right," said Vicki Harris, executive director of the Center for Independent Living. Currently, Metro's MetroLift program provides scheduled curb-to-curb transportation for mentally or physically disabled persons who are unable to ride regular buses. Bob Kafka, an American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation representative who joined Harris at a news conference, said he believed the cost of retrofitting buses with wheelchair lifts would be too costly, but said he hoped the ruling would force Metro to buy new buses with lifts. "Disabled people are part of this community, and they should have access to mainline transit," he said. Engelken said his association's board, which comprises the heads of transit agencies across the nation, believes agencies should be able to decide on a local basis how best to serve disabled people. lt costs $15,000 to equip a bus with a wheelchair lift, and buses cost about $200,000, said Joaquin Bowman, a spokesman for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.
ADAPT (592)
[Headline] Wheelchair lifts required on all new transit buses Denver Post Staff and Wire Reports PHILADELPHIA -- Advocates for the disabled Tuesday hailed a federal court ruling requiring wheelchair lifts on new public buses, but a spokesman for transit agencies said the ruling doesn't address vexing problems. "We've been grappling with this for a long time" said Albert Engelken, deputy executive director of the Washington-based American Public Transit Association. He said wheelchair lifts receive limited use where they exist and are an added expense to transit agencies at a time when federal subsidies have been dwindling. On Monday, a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 that Congress has made its wishes on accessibility clear, and that lift-equipped buses are part of that mandate. The court ordered the Transportation Department to rewrite a regulation allowing communities to offer alternative "paratransit” service, such as van rides, to the disabled. It said the 24-hour reservations that riders need to make for such services hinder spontaneous use of mass transit. The ruling apparently will have no impact on the Regional Transportation District in Denver, which already has a handicapped accessibility policy that mirrors requirements outlined by the appellate court, an RTD official said. RTD spokeswoman Diana Yee said 80 percent of the system’s 750-bus fleet is wheelchair lift-equipped. Additional service is supplied by a 16-vehicle paratransit program called Handi-Ride that uses vans and small buses to respond to individual transportation requests. RTD also is requiring private operators; soon to takeover 20 percent of the system’s routes, to use buses equipped with wheelchair lifts. James Fornari, a New York City attorney for a group of veterans with spinal-cord injuries, said the court ruling will force transit systems to look for the most efficient means of serving disabled people. “We are quite pleased with this decision, and I see it as a springboard for making other transit systems, which have buses accessible to the mobility impaired, so they can be mainstreamed into American life and society," Fornari said. Engelken said his association’s board, which comprises the heads of transit agencies. across the nation, believes agencies should be able to decide on a local basis how best to serve disabled people.
ADAPT (593)
2/89 New York Times [Headline] Court Orders Buses Fitted for Handicapped PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 14 (AP) - A Federal appeals court ordered the Department of Transportation on Monday to require transit authorities around the country to equip new buses with wheelchair lifts. In its ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, said another Transportation Department regulation allowing communities to offer the handicapped services like special vans hindered the spontaneous use of mass transit by the disabled. The court also upheld a decision requiring the Transportation Department to eliminate a 3 percent limit on the amount of money transit authorities must spend to make transportation accessible. The lawsuit, filed by Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation, a coalition of disabled people, and 12 organizations, attacked a provision of the Federal regulations on public transportation that allows local authorities to offer people in wheelchairs transportation in buses, special vans or a combination of the two. Judge Carol Los Mansmann of the appeals court, writing the 2-to-1 decision, said, "Congress wanted to provide the disabled with the capability to utilize mass transit to the ‘maximum extent feasible.'" Timothy M. Cook, director of the Washington-based National Disability Action Center, who argued the case before the court, said the ruling was "a major, major victory" for the handicapped. But a spokesman for transit agencies said the ruling did not address vexing problems. Albert Engelken, deputy executive director of the American Public Transit Association, said wheelchair lifts receive limited use where they exist and are an added expense to transit agencies at a time when Federal subsidies have been dwindling. Many local transportation officials declined comment on the ruling because they had not seen it. But Peter Dimond a spokesman for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston, said, "we have made a pledge that all buses we purchase in the future will be lift-equipped." It costs $15,000 to equip a bus with a wheelchair lift and buses cost about $200,000, according to Joaquin Bowman, a spokesman for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.
ADAPT (596)
Page 8-A EXPRESS-NEWS, San Antonio, Texas, Tuesday, February 14, 1939 [Headline] Federal court order could have impact on VIA budget Complied from Staff and Wire Reports INSERTED QUOTE: “ The impact of the majority‘s decision will be very substantial throughout the country and will interfere with the local decision-making authority. I feel the court is overreaching." - Judge Morton Greenberg PHILADELPHIA — A court order Monday requiring the US Department of Transportation to require transit authorities to equip new buses with wheelchair lifts could have a significant impact on the budget of San Antonio's VIA Metropolitan Transit. Attorneys who brought the lawsuit that led to the ruling called it the most important decision ever handed down for handicapped people needing public transportation. Carol Ketcherside, assistant for governmental affairs to VIA manager Wayne Cook, said the wheelchair lifts add at least $15,000 to the cost of a new bus. The average life-time of a VIA bus is 12 years, she said, and when the expense is spread across a fleet of 500 buses, the cost for lifts "would be significant." The $15,000 cost does not include the cost for maintaining the lifts or for refitting bus stops to make them accessible, she said. All bus stops being built by VIA currently are accessible, however. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday a Transportation Department regulation requiring all new buses to accommodate wheelchairs conflicts with another allowing communities to offer only an alternative service, such as special vans to the handicapped, which VIA offers. The court said a rule requiring reservations 24 hours in advance for use of the alternative transportation hinders the spontaneous use of mass transit by the handicapped. As a result, the court ordered transit authorities to make "reasonable accommodations to their programs, i.e. purchase wheelchair-accessible buses." The court also upheld a controversial decision requiring the Transportation Department to eliminate a cap on the amount of money transit authorities need to spend on making transportation accessible. A federal judge ordered VIA in 1985 to upgrade its services for the handicapped following a class action suit brought in 1983. The bus company's response was to create VIAtrans, a fleet of specially equipped vans that provide service to the handicapped who give advance notice. Ketcherside also said VIA already spends more than the 3 percent maximum the Transportation Department can require for its accessibility programs. "We far exceed the requirements of the federal government" she said. She said VIA will have to wait to see whether the Transportation Department will appeal the ruling or issue new regulations in accordance with the appeals court order to determine how it will affect the transit company. A coalition of disabled people and 12 organizations called Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT) filed the lawsuit last year that led to the appeals court decision. ADAPT contended that a provision of the federal regulations allowed authorities receiving federal transportation funds to exclude the handicapped from "effective and meaningful" access. The provision allows transit authorities to decide among three types of handicapped-accessible transportation: accessible buses, vans for the handicapped, or combination of the two. U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz overturned the provision in cases where the transit authority buys any buses. He also overturned a regulation requiring authorities to spend no more than 3 percent -- of their average annual operating budget on transportation for the handicapped. Katz called the limit arbitrary and said it allowed transit agencies "to eviscerate the civil right" to transit service that Congress mandated for the handicapped. Circuit Judge Carol Las Mansmann in writing the 2-1 opinion also cited Congress' intent. "Congress wanted to provide the disabled with the capability to utilize mass transit to the 'maximum extent feasible.' The DOT has failed to show that requiring the future purchase of accessible buses oversteps this legislative intent." Mansmann wrote. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Morton Greenberg said the section requiring new buses to be accessible was not meant to apply to transit systems choosing paratransit system, such as special vans. He also [said] the 3 percent cap was not arbitrary. “ The impact of the majority‘s decision will be very substantial throughout the country and will interfere with the local decision-making authority," Greenberg wrote, "I feel the court is overreaching." Timothy Gold [Cook] who argued the case before the court, said the ruling was “a major, major victory for the handicapped community ... we can't say enough positve things about it." Gold [Cook], who is now director of the Washington-based National Disability Action Center, said he hoped the ruling would not be appealed in light of President Bush's recent comments about wanting to bring the handicapped into the mainstream."
ADAPT (598)
[Headline] Bus-lift rule leaves agencies in bind PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Advocates for the disabled yesterday hailed a federal court ruling requiring wheelchair lifts on new public buses, but a spokesman for transit agencies said the ruling doesn’t address vexing problems. "We’ve been grappling with this for a long time," said Albert Engelken, deputy executive director of the Washington-based American Public Transit Association. He said wheelchair lifts receive limited use where they exist and are an added expense to transit agencies at a time when federal subsidies have been dwindling. On Monday a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 that Congress has made its wishes on accessibility clear and that lift-equipped buses are part of that mandate. The court ordered the U.S. Transportation Department to rewrite a regulation allowing communities to offer alternative "paratransit" service, such as van rides, to the disabled. It said the 24-hour reservations that riders need to make for such services hinder spontaneous use of mass transit. . James D. Fornari, a New York City attorney for a group of veterans with spinal cord injuries, said the ruling will force transit systems to look for the most efficient means of serving disabled people. He said the ruling also could influence Transportation Department regulations being drafted on light rail and commuter rail systems. “We are quite pleased with this decision and I see it as a springboard for making other transit systems which have buses accessible to the mobility impaired, so they can be mainstreamed into American life and society," Fornari said. Transportation Department spokesman Bob Marx declined comment on the ruling.
ADAPT (612)
RMN [Rocky Mountain News] 2/14/89 [Headline] U.S. requires wheelchair lifts on transit authority buses PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A federal appeals court yesterday ordered the U.S. Department of Transportation to require transit authorities across the country to equip new buses with wheelchair lifts. Attorneys who brought the lawsuit that led to the ruling called it the most important decision ever handed down for handicapped people needing public transportation. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a Transportation Department regulation requiring all new buses to accommodate wheelchairs conflicts with another allowing communities to offer only an alternative service, such as special vans, to the handicapped. The court said a rule requiring reservations 24 hours in advance for use of the alternative transportation hinders the spontaneous use of mass transit by the handicapped. As a result, the court ordered transit authorities to make “reasonable accommodations to their programs, i.e. purchase wheelchair-accessible buses.” The court also upheld a controversial decision requiring the Transportation Department to eliminate a cap on the amount of money transit authorities need to spend on making transportation accessible. A coalition of disabled people and 12 organizations called Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation filed the lawsuit last year. ADAPT contended that a provision of the federal regulations allowed authorities receiving federal transportation funds to exclude the handicapped from “effective and meaningful” access. The provision allows transit authorities to decide among three types of handicapped-accessible transportation: accessible buses, special vans for the handicapped, or a combination of the two. U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz overturned the provision in cases where the transit authority buys any buses. He also overturned a regulation requiring authorities to spend no more than 3% of their average annual operating costs on transportation for the handicapped. Katz called the limit arbitrary and said it allowed transit agencies “to eviscerate the civil right” to transit service. Circuit Judge Carol Los Mansmann, in writing the 2-1 opinion, also cited Congress’ intent. “Congress wanted to provide the disabled with the capability to utilize mass transit to the ‘maximum extent feasible.’ The DOT has failed to show that requiring the future purchase of accessible buses oversteps this legislative intent.” In a 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 para-transit system.