- Rendezési sorrendAlapértelmezett
Kép címe, A → Z
Kép címe, Z → A
Kép készült, újabb → korábbi
Kép készült, korábbi → újabb
Feltöltve, újabb → korábbi
✔ Feltöltve, korábbi → újabb
Értékelés pontszám, magas → alacsony
Értékelés pontszám, alacsony → magas
Megtekintések, több → kevesebb
Megtekintések, kevesebb → több - NyelvAfrikaans 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©
Főoldal / Albumok / Címkék wheelchair lifts
+ cost 12
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 (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 (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 (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 (101)
RTD bobbles budget, buys rejected lifts By: Burt Hubbard News Staff The Regional Transportation District board of directors rejected to move to equip its new buses with wheelchair lifts but unknowingly included $1.2 million in its budget to buy them. The revelation came one day after the RTD board approved a $185.8 million budget that includes $21.4 million to buy 89 articulated buses for 1983. But the buses will cost the district only $20.2 million. The remaining $1.2 million is slated for wheelchair lifts that won’t be put on the buses. RTD Executive Director L.A Kimball has said that handicap ridership on the more than 300 buses that now have lifts do not justify the cost for the new buses. “WE HAVE CARRIED as many as 50 (handicapped) individuals on any particular day using 331 vehicles,” he told the board Thursday. RTD board member Charlotte Houston said Friday she didn’t realize that fact when she made a motion Thursday to add $1.3 million to the 1983 budget to outfit all 89 buses with lifts. The board defeated the motion 10-5. Those voting against the lifts said current low-frequency ridership by handicapped people doesn’t justify equipping more buses and cited increased maintenance costs of the lifts. Asked about the snafu, Houston said, “I guess I should have known.” Nor did RTD board member Tom Bastien know the lift money had been kept in the budget when he moved to equip half of the new buses with lifts. The board rejected the move 8-6. “THAT’S INTERESTING,” said Bastien Friday. “Why didn’t the (RTD) staff tell us?” Even Kimball said he wasn’t aware that the lift money was still in the budget. Kimball blamed the error on a staff member who, he said, apparently had failed to delete the money for the lifts from the budget. The confusion dates back to July 1981 when the district signed a contract with M.A.N. Truck and Bus Corp. to buy the 89 buses for $21.4 million with the lifts included. The buses were to be delivered between June and September 1983. But in December 1981, the RTD board voted to take the lifts off the buses and reduce the total price by $1.2 million. The 1983 budget, however, failed to reflect the reduced price. Kimball said the omission won’t alter the budget. “THERE’S NO NEED to change it,” he said. “We won’t spend it.” About 80 percent of the cost of the lifts would have been paid by a federal grant. And Houston and Bastien said the fact that they wouldn’t have had to increase the budget to get the lifts didn’t affect the vote. “I don’t think it would have made much difference,” said Houston. “We needed 11 votes to pass it.” The votes on the lifts came after about a dozen people, including several politicians, urged the board to make the buses accessible to the handicapped. The handicapped community has vowed to try again for the lifts after a newly elected RTD board takes office in January to replace the appointed 21-member board.
ADAPT (102)
Rocky Mountain News Friday, May 7, 1982 All RTD routes to serve disabled By Jerry Brown News-Staff Regional Transportation District officials plan to provide wheelchair-accessible service on all RTD routes beginning next month, fulfilling a commitment made three years ago. “As far as I know, we are the first in the country to get this far,” in providing bus service for the physically handicapped, said district spokeswoman Kathy Joyce. About 150 rides a week currently are taken by handicapped passengers on the 10 routes in Denver, two in Boulder and all routes in Longmont that offer wheelchair-accessible service, Joyce said, with a peak weekly ridership of 270. The expansion of accessible service follows completion of the installation of wheelchair lifts on 186 AM General buses purchased by RTD in 1977 and 1978. RTD purchased 127 new buses from General Motors of Canada, and RTD also has 33 older buses that had been previously equipped with lifts, giving the agency 346 lift-equipped buses out of a total fleet of 671. RTD spent $3,882,222 - or $20,872 per bus - retrofitting the AM General buses, Joyce said. RTD doesn't have cost figures for the lifts on the new buses, which were delivered early last year. The cost of lifts on those buses was included in the $15.5 million purchase price, Joyce said. Beginning June 6, half of all rush-hour buses and all off-peak buses will be wheelchair accessible, RTD Executive Director L.A. Kimball said. Wade Blank, co-director of the Atlantis Community for the handicapped, said his organization is pleased with the proposed new service. RTD also has promised a public relations program to promote the new service, another longtime Atlantis goal, Blank said. Atlantis filed a lawsuit in 1977 and staged a series of demonstrations in 1977, 1978 and 1979 in efforts to force RTD to make its regular routes accessible to the handicapped. In mid-1979, RTD agreed to make all its routes wheelchair accessible after the U.S. Department of Transportation issued national regulations requiring that half of all rush-hour buses be wheelchair-accessible by July 1982. The federal regulations were rescinded last year, but RTD agreed to meet its earlier commitment, anyway. Earlier Atlantis held more demonstrations to protest RTD’s decision not to put wheelchair lifts on 89 new buses scheduled for delivery next year. Atlantis is challenging that decision in Denver District Court. RTD became one of the first transit agencies in the United States to offer wheelchair-accessible service on regular routes last June when it began providing such service on some of its busier routes.
ADAPT (109)
The Denver Post Friday, Dec. 18, 1981 [Headline] Handicapped Will Protest RTD Wheelchair-Lift Ban By George Lane Denver Urban Affairs Writer The board of directors of the Regional Transportation District Thursday made it official – there will be no wheelchair lifts on 89 high-capacity buses expected to be delivered in 1983. The board actually decided a month ago there would be no lifts on the new buses, but they have been hedging on finalizing that action because of objections voiced by the area’s disabled community. Following the vote on the lifts, Wade Blank, co-administrator for the Atlantis Community for the disabled and organizer of the protest against the RTD action, told the transit directors that members of the handicapped community view the action as a violation of their human rights and they will respond to that violation Jan. 4. Blank later said members of the disabled community will be in “training for civil disobedience” between now and Jan. 4. He said beginning Jan. 4, 10 disabled persons in wheelchairs will stage a sit-in in the office of L.A. “Kim” Kimball, RTD’s executive director and general manager. “Everyday during the month of January, 10 disabled people will be occupying Kimball’s office,” Blank said. They won’t have any able-bodied people with them – and if they’re arrested they will be replaced by 10 more. At the conclusion of the board meeting, Kimball told the directors that the RTD staff will take steps to try to prevent this action, but he doesn’t think it proper to discuss those steps at this time. The RTD board during its Nov. 19 meeting voted to save more than a million dollars by not ordering the lifts on the new buses. The RTD staff recommended this action because they said the lifts are expensive (more than $12,000 per bus) and difficult to maintain. The staff proposal was to use the articulated buses on high ridership bus routes, freeing regular buses with wheelchair lifts to provide better service for the handicapped. A delegation from the handicapped community objected to this proposal, with arguments that RTD officials had promised several years ago that 50 percent of the district’s bus fleet would be made accessible to wheelchair-bound riders and all new buses would be ordered with lifts. About 25 disabled persons from Atlantis staged a wheelchair-bound sit-in following the November meeting until Kimball and three board members promised to attempt to get the entire board to reconsider the action. Thursday’s vote was the outcome of that promise.
ADAPT (135)
The Denver Post 7/8/90 [This article continues in ADAPT 138, but the entire story has been included here for easier reading] Perspective Access for the disabled: Cost vs. benefit Photo by RTD staff: A smiling African American man in a manual wheelchair, wearing a beret and with a sports coat over his lap is being helped to board a city bus by the driver, who is behind him. In front of the lift a woman stands waiting to board. Caption reads: A LIFT: The President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities was given a demonstration of an RTD lift during its 1987 convention which was held in Denver. By Al Knight Denver Post Perspective Editor Now, while the Americans with Disabilities Act is awaiting President Bush’s signature, would be a good time to reflect on what has been learned by this city's experience in attempting to provide full wheelchair access to public transportation. Assuming the president signs the bill as he says he will, public transit systems all over America will have to begin purchasing new buses equipped with wheelchair lifts, as well instituting a variety of other steps designed to enlarge employment opportunities for the disabled, improve services in state and local government, enlarge public accommodations, and create a national telecommunication relay service to aid the blind and deaf. Critics of the bill have argued that the nation is embarking upon a program without the vaguest clue of what its ultimate cost will be. In many ways, the dispute is a duplication of what took place in Denver in the early 1980s as the Regional Transportation District developed its policy on how rapidly to expand wheelchair access. There were a number of protests in which disabled residents in wheelchairs disrupted RTD service and were arrested. The protests were particularly disturbing for all concerned — RTD, the drivers and the police. The sight of an abled-bodied police officer toting away a wheelchair-bound citizen is not the stuff for law enforcement scrapbooks, nor is it the kind of publicity designed to attract bus riders generally. In 1982, the RTD board, which then was an appointed body, voted against equipping 89 new buses with special lifts capable of handling wheelchair passengers. That vote set off the protests. An elected board took over in 1983 and one of its first acts was to reverse that vote and authorize the purchase of the lifts at a cost of well over $1 million. At the same time RTD struggled with the issue of whether to retrofit existing buses with lifts, and in 1985 resolved it with a resolution that it would buy lifts for all new buses, but not pursue a retrofitting program. There had been a history of mechanical problems with some of the lifts, and on more than one occasion a lift would fail, dumping the wheelchair passenger in the process. In 1982, then Gov. Dick Lamm refused to go along with a proposal by the American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation, which was demanding wheelchair access to “all U.S. public buses." Lamm suggested in a speech to the American Public Transit Association that such a policy might result in rides costing $600 each: “If America can't say no to a system that costs $600 per ride, we don't deserve to continue as a great nation.“ But as they say, that was then, this is now. Just last fall, RTD was awarded a special citation for having "the finest accessible bus service in the nation." The award came from the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. Indeed. it is beyond dispute that RTD has in some respects led the nation. Its experience in developing its current fleet of buses was the prime example used by congressional supporters of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it is a fact that RTD was the first agency to order its over-the-road buses equipped with lifts. Until RTD's first order, these larger vehicles had been built without lifts. The RTD program hasn’t been accomplished without significant expense. It has cost about $8 million for the lift equipment and millions more for parts, maintenance and training. But the latest figures show per-ride costs are far below the $600 figure mentioned by Lamm. The lifts cost about $13,000 a copy. Because the life of a bus normally is calculated at 12 years, this works out to a little more than $1,000 a bus per year. To this must be added the maintenance cost, which has been dropping each year. As recently as 1985 the cost of maintaining an individual lift was $1,798. This year the average is just over $500. Even without the retrofitting program rejected by the board in 1985, RTD has managed to increase greatly its percentage of lift-equipped buses. In 1985, only 54 percent of buses were so equipped. This year 81 percent are. In recent years, disabled ridership has gone up sharply. In 1982 it was just over 9,000 wheelchair boardings, but last year it reached an estimated 45,000. According to RTD figures, the per-ride cost may have reached $80 in 1984, but with the increase in ridership and the drop in maintenance cost, the cost per ride now has dropped to about $19 a ride, according to the latest calculations. What is not known is how many of Denver’s disabled community actually are served by the lifts. In the mid-1980s, it was estimated that only a few hundred wheelchair-bound residents were regular bus riders. Even as RTD has fitted new buses with the lifts, demands for its HandyRide service have continued to increase. This door-to-door service is available to both the elderly and the handicapped. Some of its wheelchair passengers could be served by regular buses, but many others are unable to get to the bus stop and therefore require the HandyRide service. Precise calculations aren’t available, but it is estimated the cost per ride for using the van service is about $50. Lamm, contacted this week, said he basically hasn’t changed his position on the issue. He said the $600 figure he used in 1982 was based on the experience of the St. Louis bus company. “To govern is to choose," he said, "and I don't believe this nation should make every bus wheelchair-accessible. Should the handicapped be provided transportation? Of course, but it should be provided in the most cost-effective way possible.” Lamm mentioned the expensive elevator system that is a part of the Washington, D.C., subway system as an example of a method that isn't cost-effective. The Denver experience does indicate that the costs of accommodating the wheelchair-bound citizen may not be an endlessly upward spiral. But the key indicator that needs watching is the number of passengers using the service. The taxpayers, the RTD board and staff members clearly have done their part. The wheelchair service is now available on nearly every bus, yet ridership has flattened out. The estimate of 45,000 wheelchair passengers for 1989 is just a few hundred higher than the 1986 level. More persons must be encouraged to use the service. Now that maintenance costs are down, the only way to decrease the still-considerate per-ride cost is to increase the number of passengers using the lifts. The most compelling case the disabled community can make for greater access is to demonstrate an even higher usage of the existing facilities. Highlighted Text: Even without the retrofitting program rejected by the board in 1985, RTD has managed to increase greatly its percentage of lift-equipped buses. In 1985, only 54 percent of buses were so equipped. This year 81 percent are. Photo by The Denver Post/Duane Howell: A slight woman in a wheelchair is being escorted out by two uniformed and one plainclothes police. She is telling one of the officers something and they are all listening with slight smiles on their faces. Behind this group a man in a wheelchair is following, escorted by another police officer and behind them three other policemen stand guard. Caption reads: PROTEST: An unidentified demonstrator at the Regional Transportation District office was escorted out during a 1982 protest over the purchase of new buses.
ADAPT (299)
Detroit Free Press 10/6/86 PHOTOs by JONN COLLIER, Free Press PHOTO 1: A large group of posters in a line that almost looks like a pile, are behind a woman in a manual wheelchair being pushed up a curb or slope. Two people are helping her up. One holds a poster which reads "Stop the war against the disabled! [something] Congress". In the crowd behind are other large signs, some unreadable, and a very large one in the middle is partially readable and says "...for the disabled not for war!..." PHOTO 2: People in wheelchairs appear to be fanning out in an intersection with large city buildings in the far background. Between the three people in wheelchairs in the front you can see a line of other folks in wheelchairs across the intersection. Caption reads: Disabled demonstrators move through downtown Detroit, carrying signs and chanting “We will wide," in protest of the lack of wheelchair lifts on the nation's buses and trains. Title: Handicappers protest at transit convention By BOB CAMPBELL, Free Press Staff Writer About 150 militant disabled people, chanting "We will ride" and carrying signs in a procession from Tiger Stadium to the Renaissance Center, Sunday protested the lack of wheelchair lifts on the nation's buses and trains. At least 40 Detroit police officers in scout cars and on motorcycles kept the demonstrators — most of whom were in wheelchairs — on sidewalks along the two-mile route. After a request from Detroit Police Chief William Hart, who cited illegal actions of the protesters in other cities, Detroit's City Council last week withdrew a permit that would have allowed the demonstrators to parade through the streets. At one point, police insisted the protesters go through a puddle instead of using the street. At the Renaissance Center, the end of the procession, about 2,300 conferees were gathering for this week's American Public Transit Association national convention The demonstrators, who are at odds with the association on the accessibility issue, were kept away from the entrance to the Westin Hotel. See DiSABLED, Page 15A Title for part 2: Militant handicappers decry poor bus access Text box insert: Members of the group have been arrested at demonstrations at other transit meetings. DISABLED, from Page 1A HOTEL SECURITY was tight, and visitors had to identity themselves to guards before being admitted. The protesters — members of Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation — say public buses and trains should be equipped with mechanical wheelchair lifts. Members of the group have been arrested at demonstrations at other transit association meetings after chaining themselves to buses and stopping traffic. "In the ’50s, a lot of blacks were on the back of the bus." said Michael Parker of Peoria, ILL. “We still can't get on the bus." Several members of the group told reporters there would be other protests against transit association members. Wheelchair lifts were required on buses briefly in the late l970s. But a transit association lawsuit led to a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a federal requirement for lifts on all buses overstepped the intent of equal access legislation. said Jack Gilstrap, executive vice-president of the association. Most local transit agencies provide transportation to handicapped persons using mini-buses in services such as Dial-A-Ride. Gilstrap said. "The vast majority of people in wheelchairs prefer Dial-A-Ride or demand service," he said. “it runs 10-, 15-, 20-1 over lifts on every bus." Gilstrap said it is cheaper to offer special transportation service for wheelchair users than to adapt all public systems to wheelchairs. The subway authority in Washington D.C. spent between $50 million and $60 million to build elevators to allow wheelchair access tor "35 to 40 people a day," he said. MEMBERS OF the handicapper group complain of disparate quality of Dial-A-Ride systems among various cities. and they cite a requirement that rides must be arranged 24 hours in advance. Bill Bolte, 55, of Los Angeles, said: "l was a law-abiding citizen before l realized how oppressive society was getting toward handicapped people. The problem ls. we depress people because of the way we look. They don't want us around." Long-time civil rights activist Rosa Parks canceled her plans to join the ADAPT members, citing tactics that would "embarrass the city‘s guests and cripple the city's present transportation system." said to her assistant, Elaine Steele. Leo Caner, chairman of the 21 member Michigan Commission on Handicapper Concerns, said: "The general public has to be sensitized to handicappers. But getting the people sensitized by getting run over by a bus is not the way to do it." Free Pres: Special Writer Margaret Trimmer contributed In this report.
ADAPT (300)
Southwest Economist Newspapers Sunday, October 5, 1986 page 9 [Headline] Disabled will protest transit system barriers By J. Carole Buckner, staff reporter Chicago – Southwest sider Dennis Schreiber left for Detroit Friday knowing he faced a fair chance of being arrested there for civil disobedience. He was looking forward to it. In the rain-soaked parking lot of Our Lady of the Snows School, 48th St. and Leamington Ave., Schreiber said he told his wife Jackie that the trip is "a dream come true." Schreiber, who is blind, almost completely deaf and partially paralyzed, left with about 30 other handicapped persons, some coming as far away as Denver, Colorado, to protest at the American Public Transit Association's annual convention. For the past three months, Schreiber's group, Disabled Americans for Equality (DARE), has raised money to fund a delegation of protesters to go to Detroit, where they planned to hold a legal march to protest mobility barriers on buses and subways. The Reverend Wade Blank, leader of a contingent of protesters from Denver, called American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT), said the group's parade permit was revoked this week by Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. Despite the lack of a parade permit and potential for arrests, the disabled group plans to go ahead with it's march, aware of the publicity value to be gained with photos of police dragging wheelchairs into paddy wagons. The groups position, said Schreiber, is "that we want equal access to public transportation and all public facilities" Specifically, the protesters want transportation systems throughout the U.S., especially in cities such as Chicago, to be equipped with lifts for wheelchair users. Mark Mactemes, 37, said he is going on the six day journey and demonstration because he needs to use regularly scheduled public transportation to work. The Oak Forest resident has multiple sclerosis. "I graduated college in 1985 and cannot find a job because I can't drive to work and must rely on public transportation." The CTA offers bus service for the handicapped called Dial-A-Ride, "but you must call eight hours in advance and buses (minivans) only run until 10 PM," Jackie Schreiber said. The CTA subcontracts the service to four companies. In the past, CTA officials have refused to install wheelchair lifts on buses, saying the cost is prohibitive. Blank, said similar reasons were given in Denver, but after sustained efforts by handicapped groups, all the cities buses were equipped with lifts. The result has been an increase in handicapped ridership, from a few hundred to 2000 riders per month, he said. Blank said famed 1960s civil rights protester Rosa Parks is scheduled to March with the group on Sunday. In all, more than 300 handicapped persons, mostly in wheelchairs, or expected to demonstrate in Detroit, Blank said.