- TungumálAfrikaans 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©
Heim / Albúm / Merki paratransit
+ buses with lifts 3
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.
ADAPT (269)
The Cincinnati Post Tuesday, May 20, 1986 Lighthouse logo of Scripps Howard and the motto: "Give light and the people will find their own way." Editor Paul F. Knue, Editorial Page Editor Claudia Winkler, Managing Editor J. Stephen Fagan, Associate Editor James L. Adams 125 East Court Street, Cincinnati. OH 45202 (513)352-2000 Editorials Title: Buses and the disabled Shades of the civil rights movement returned to Cincinnati yesterday when members of ADAPT, which stands for American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation, interfered with the operation of Queen City Metro buses. One latched onto a wheel well, and two others boarded and refused to leave. The protesters say members of the American Public Transit Association, who are meeting here this week, are moving slowly or not at all toward making all buses and trains fully accessible for the handicapped. They point to Metro, which has many buses without wheelchair lifts and 87 with lifts that it refuses to operate, as a microcosm of the problem nationwide. Some may condemn the protesters’ tactics of interrupting normal transit service, albeit by relatively non-violent means. The larger question, however, is whether the transit systems are going out of their way to leave the handicapped at curbside. That's certainly not the case with Metro. Metro has contracted with a private company to provide door-to-door (more accurately, curb-to-curb) service for the handicapped within Cincinnati. The system isn't perfect, but it is growing. Complaints abounds that scheduling the Access vans is difficult, and Metro has failed to meet a five-year goal of providing van service to all of Hamilton County, says general manager Tony Kouneski. The problem, here and elsewhere, is one of money. ADAPT wants the lifts as well as the door-to-door service. It’s tough to have it both ways, especially since federal dollars for mass transit have been cut almost 25 percent by the Reagan administration. States have been hard-pressed to fill that gap, and a sales tax increase for Metro failed miserably in 1980. Kouneski says if Metro did, indeed, have an extra $350,000 for operating and maintaining the 87 wheelchair lifts, the money would be better spent on door-to-door service. That's a decision that groups such as the Greater Cincinnati Coalition of People With Disabilities and Metro's own advisory council for the handicapped should help make and implement. Members of national groups such as ADAPT, meanwhile, have made their point. They should now turn their efforts to such things as legal parades and peaceful picketing. Instead of continuing their Cincinnati protest, they should devote their energies to lobbying Washington and the legislatures to fund their full-access plan before someone is seriously injured.
ADAPT (235)
The Cincinnati Enquirer (This article continues on ADAPT 232 but the story is included here in its entirety for easier reading.) Title: Disabled protesters spark Metro debate BY PAUL FURIGA The handicapped protesters who halted Queen City Metro buses have left jail and Hamilton County, but the controversy they created remains. Leaders in the disabled community shied away from the demonstrations and arrests, but quietly applauded members of American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation's (ADAPT) actions. Almost two weeks ago Cincinnati police arrested 17 ADAPT members when they attempted to block the Vine Street entrance to the Westin Hotel and the Fourth Street entrance to Queen City Metro's offices. The demonstrators came from all over the United States to protest at the convention of the American Public Transit Association at the Westin. Their protests raised hopes in Cincinnati. A fire has started; and it's important to keep the flames fanned," said Basil Vlahopoulos, co-chairman of Metro‘s Specialized Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC). “if it dies, it will take another 10 years to get it started.” Metro officials who run Access, the local transit service for the disabled, also find themselves in the public eye for the first time in several years. “I think we" understand the need is there for more service,” said Judith Van Ginkel, spokeswoman for Metro. “The question is one of funding and do we have the funds available.” “Every dollar is precious, and the issue is to put each dollar to best possible use,” said Murray C. Bond, Metro's assistant general manager. Both camps agree that the ADAPT visit raised the public awareness of public transportation for the handicapped. Both also agree that a big debate on Access is in the future, the result of the ADAPT visit and recent changes in federal regulations. Metro officials and handicapped leaders do not agree on the extent of problems with the current situation, or on the solutions that might improve transportation for the handicapped. At Metro, Access manager Carl Palmer and Bond point out that each one-way Access trip costs taxpayers more than $10. The annual cost for Access, Palmer said, is more than $1 million. For that money, he said Metro makes an estimated 105,000 one-way trips for passengers each year, charging them 60 cents each. Palmer said Metro turns away only 4% to 5% of those who call to schedule Access service. But he acknowledges that Access meets only 6% of the estimated potential demand in Hamilton County. A new federal interpretation of regulation 504, which mandates handicapped service, will require Metro to add about $200,000 to its Access service in 1987. That may allow service with two to three new vans, Palmer said. But even that, he said, will not make much of a dent. Bond says he sees few alternatives. As expensive as the Access service is, he argues that it would cost $6 million to equip Metro's 379-bus fleet with lifts that would accommodate handicapped passengers in lieu of Access.