- ენაAfrikaans 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©
დასაწყისი / გალერეა / საძიებო სიტყვები paratransit
+ DOT - Dept of Transportation 3
ADAPT (165)
[Headline] Disabled Advocates Are Rolling on Washington D.C. For the second year in a row wheelchair pickets will surround the national convention of the American Public Transit Association (APTA). Some 150 to 200 wheelchair demonstrators are expected to join the picket lines, although that number could increase dramatically by the time the four day long convention opens Sept. 30 in Washington, D.C., according to a spokesperson for the American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT). But, unlike the convention held in Denver last year, ADAPT will not be allowed to argue the case for accessibility on the convention floor. “Gilstrap (APTA executive vice president Jack Gilstrap) told us there was no way we were going to speak this year,” Wade Blank said. Nor does Blank expect APTA to vote on a resolution introduced at the 1983 convention calling upon APTA members to purchase only lift-equipped buses. When the Carter administration mandated accessibility in the late 1970s, it was APTA that successfully fought those regulations in court, arguing that it was a judgment best left to the discretion of the local transit provider. Some cities, like Seattle and San Jose, California, and-to a lesser extent-Denver, chose to make their systems accessible, but the vast majority refused, claiming the lifts were impractical and too expensive. However, accessibility advocates say that the technology is available to design both economical and reliable lifts, but that bus manufacturers will not use it as long as there is little demand for lifts from transit providers. APTA argues that in many, if not most cases paratransit systems can offer better and more economical services to disabled riders. ADAPT maintains that isn't so, arguing that cities such as Seattle are experiencing a steady drop in the per ride cost for lift-assisted trips while paratransit costs are constant, regardless of the number of trips. At the Denver convention, APTA's position was championed by Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, who told the delegates that the country couldn't afford to equip all its buses with lifts and continue as a great nation. New York City Mayor Ed Koch is expected to take a similar tack at this year's convention. In 1983, Denver Mayor Federico Pena, who was instrumental in getting ADAPT a place on the convention agenda, supported accessibility, just as this year's host mayor, Marion Berry, is expected to do. Access/Denver will send 43 wheelchair demonstrators to Washington, although at press time they were short $4,400 of the $15,000 needed to provide them with transportation, food and lodging. Among the individuals contributing to the fund drive was Wellington Webb, an unsuccessful 1983 candidate for mayor of Denver. In addition, Denver's HAIL, Inc., will be sending five representatives. Several other cities, including Dallas, El Paso, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Little Rock, Arkansas, Poughkeepsie, New York, and Chicago have confirmed that they will have representatives on the picket line. Boston's Disabled Liberation Front announced that it was sending eight pickets. ADAPT intends to provide a training session in confrontational politics in Washington on September 26. Ironically, one problem that demonstrators flying into Washington's Dulles International Airport will face is a lack of accessible buses between the airport and downtown Washington. "We were going to file a complaint," Blank said, "but it turns out that the Department of Transportation runs the bus system there and they say that they are the administrators, not the recipients, of federal funds, and therefor are not required to provide accessible service."
ADAPT (221)
[no source or date included] ADAPT has been targeting APTA because of a lawsuit which APTA filed and ultimately won. Under the Carter Administration, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued regulations in response to 504, which required all new buses to have wheelchair lifts. APTA filed suit saying that congress didn't intend 504 to put undue financial demands on the local transit authorities. The requirement for every bus to be lift-equipped was costly and cumbersome. APTA lost in the lower court, but appealed. The appeals court agreed with APTA that 504 didn?t mandate that all buses be lift-equipped. At present, every transit authority must make an effort to provide service to the elderly and disabled populations. There is an upper limit on the amount of money which must be spent on this service. Since para-transit is an expensive way to provide transportation services, the demand often exceeds the service available. California and Michigan have state laws requiring fully accessible transportation. In other states, transit authorities have started removing lifts from buses saying it is their "local option" to provide a fixed amount of para-transit instead of providing fixed route service. ADAPT promises to see APTA next year in Detroit.
ADAPT (350)
San Francisco Bay Guardian 9/23/87 Disabled to march for transit access By: Cheryl Davis When members of the American Public Transit Association gather in San Francisco during the last week of September, they will be met by disabled people from across the country who plan to demonstrate against a national transit policy they say is unfair because it separates them from other transit users. Specifically, disabled activists intend to protest the widespread use of special vans to transport disabled riders door-to-door, a system commonly referred to as “paratransit.” That system, they say, is a form of segregation. In its place, they argue, all buses and trains should be equipped to accommodate people in wheelchairs as part of as overall policy fully integrating the disabled into society. “Full accessibility,” they argue, is a right that should not be denied because of cost. Paratransit is impractical as well as offensive, disabled transit riders say. Burr Overstreet, a Santa Rosa man who uses a wheelchair, called paratransit “a paternalistic system that screws people over, costs a fortune and it’s the first thing cut during economic downturns.” Paratransit users “are made to feel like helpless hospital patients,” Les Treece-Sinclair, a wheelchair user and staff person at the September Alliance for Accessible Transportation, a Northern California coalition, told the Bay Guardian. Most Bay Area transit districts, including the San Francisco Municipal Railway, use a combination of buses with lifts and paratransit vans for disabled and elderly patrons, and California law requires that all new buses be equipped with lifts. Local transit agencies have a good reputation nationally for working closely with disabled and elderly patrons. But, even so, there are problems. “Supposedly we [in Marin] have one of the better systems,” Overstreet said. “The combination of fixed-route and paratransit should in theory be fairly effective, but it’s not. The paratransit only runs Monday through Friday, 9 am to 3 pm. Disabled riders have to reserve in advance and disabled people who work cannot use such a paratransit system either to work or to socialize.” “Paratransit doesn’t come close to meeting the transport need of elderly and handicapped people,” said Treece-Sinclair. “At the moment, on many bus lines only every third or fourth bus will be accessible.” Jose Rodriguez, a public information officer for the Metropolitan Transit Commission, told the Bay Guardian Bay Area transit districts “are working hard to meet a basic level of service but we are aware of the need for improvement. As always, this is contingent on securing needed funds.” The debate between disabled people and much of the public transit industry centers around interpretations of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which states that persons with handicaps cannot be discriminated against under any program receiving federal funds. Since mass transit relies heavily on federal funds, Section 504 serves as a rallying point for disabled activists who argue for making all public transit wheelchair-accessible. The U.S. Department of Transportation in 1979 issued regulations that required full wheelchair access on newly ordered buses and called for retrofitting existing buses and modifying portions of existing rail systems to accommodate disabled users. Disable activists applauded the regulations, but APTA lobbied Congress vigorously, claiming the regulations were costly, unworkable and designed to reach only a small percentage of the disabled population. A 1979 Congressional Budget Office report supported APTA’s claims and called instead for paratransit systems. APTA sued to overturn DOT’s regulations and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 1981 that the regulations exceeded the scope of the Rehabilitation Act. DOT interim regulations gave local communities the option of determining levels of accessibility and many transit districts opted for paratransit. Paratransit advocates argue that outfitting buses with lifts and other special equipment is too expensive, given the number of disabled riders. Santa Clara County Supervisor Tom Legan, for example, said at a January board meeting, “We’re spending $3.5 million per year [maintaining] lifts for what amounts to 57 boardings per year.” But disabled activists say the official estimates of disabled ridership are too low. Palo Alto resident Brian Bolitho, who uses a wheelchair, told the Bay Guardian his commute to work alone account for more than 200 boardings per year on Santa Clara buses. Dennis Cannon, a transportation, specialist the federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, told the Bay Guardian, “The actual use of accessible buses could be five times higher, or more, than transit agency estimates. The driver often simply guesses the number of obviously disabled passengers.” Much of the expense of repairing lifts, Cannon added, could be avoided by improved maintenance and better training of bus operators. Some APTA members, Canon said, are reappraising the adequacy of paratransit. James Lee, accessibility coordinator for Alameda County Transit, agreed. “Since 1976, study after study has documented the inadequacy of paratransit. It is not cost-effective, nor is it demand responsive,” he told the Bay Guardian.