- IdiomaAfrikaans 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©
Início / Álbuns / Tags Wade Blank
+ 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals + APTA - American Public Transit Association 2
ADAPT (395)
St. Louis Post Dispatch 5-22-88 PHOTO by Ted Dargan/Post Dispatch: A Line of ADAPT people roll down a city street. The first person in line (Mike Auberger) has two long braids and sunglasses. His arms hang on either side of his motorized wheelchair and his ADAPT shirt is somewhat covered by the chest strap on his chair. Next to Mike is a man in a manual wheelchair with curly hair and a beard (Bob Kafka) who has is legs crossed and is wearing the same ADAPT shirt as Mike. Behind them a man (Jerry Eubanks) with no legs in a manual wheelchair is being pushed by a blind man (Frank Lozano) who is smiling. Behind them is another man in a maual wheelchair. Behind him is someone in a motorized wheelchair who is looking off to the side. Behind them is another person in a wheelchair. The photo is grainy so it's hard to make out many details. Caption reads: Disabled people demonstrating downtown last week for more accessible bus service. Title: Bus Stop By Joan Bray Of the Post-Dispatch Staff ACTIV1STS FROM local advocacy groups were absent from the scores of protesters who took to St. Louis streets last week asserting the rights of the disabled to accessible bus service. Leaders of the local groups say tactics, not goals, caused them and their members to opt out of the demonstrations. About 150 people blocked entrances at Union Station and surrounded buses at the Greyhound terminal. A majority of them were in wheelchairs, on crutches or otherwise disabled. And they were out-of-towners. They belong to a loosely woven group, American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit, called ADAPT for short. The group was protesting the policies of the American Public Transit Association, which was holding a regional meeting at the Omni International Hotel at Union Station. As a result of ADAPT's civil disobedience, 78 arrests were made, two group court appearances were held and a lawsuit was filed by the group over treatment at the City Workhouse. We support ADAPT's policies on access 1,000 percent," said Max J. Starkloff. He is executive director here of Paraquad Inc., which advocates rights for the handicapped. "But we have not participated in the demonstrations." "Our methods are negotiation, public testimony and organized public rallies," Starkloff said. "Our goals ore the same" as ADAPT's. Both the local activists and ADAPT want the transit association to push for installing a wheelchair lift on every bus in the country. They see 100 percent accessibility as a civil right. Rut the transit association notes in a written statement that no such accessibility is required by the Constitution, the Congress or the courts. It says the number of lifts on buses has increased to 30 percent now from 11 percent in 1981. In that same period, the administration of President Ronald Reagan has slashed the federal transit program's budget by 47 percent, the association says. The association says each local transportation agency should be allowed to determine how it will provide access for the disabled. Special services — like the Call-A-Ride service operated by the Bi-State Development Agency — may work better than lift-equipped buses in some areas, the association says. Local groups' methods for effecting change include working within the system. Starkloff serves on Bi-State's committee on transit for the elderly and disabled. The chairman of that committee, Fred Cowell, is executive director of the Gateway chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America. Bi-State has made a commitment to install wheelchair lifts on all its buses, Cowell said. But the committee wants the agency's board of directors to adopt a policy stating it will do so. "We know that the buses are here to stay," Cowell said. "If or when budget cuts come, special services such as Call-A-Ride would be the first to go." Cowell and Starkloff said they feared that between the bureaucracy and the protests, the primary point — the need for equal transportation — was being missed. "A disabled person is not unlike any other person," Cowell said. Disabled people need to get to their jobs, to medical care and to social engagements, be said. "There is absolutely no difference in their need to get around," he said. Starkloff noted that the cost of a van equipped for a wheelchair — a minimum of about $20,000 — was prohibitive for most people. But the disabled should not have to wait at a bus stop on the chance that the next bus may be equipped with a lift, be said. Nor should they have to plan their trips 24 hours in advance, as Call-A-Ride requires, he said. Cowell said, "The main thing the (BI-State) committee has been trying to do is develop a deepening concern for services for the disabled and elderly." The fact that the committee has been successful in persuading Bi-State to buy only buses with lifts prevented the agency from bearing the brunt of ADAPT's effort here, one of the protest leaders said. The Rev. Wade Blank, a Presbyterian minister from Denver, is a co-director of ADAPT. He has a daughter who is disabled. Two months ago, representatives of ADAPT met with State officials in preparation for their trip here and learned of the agency's commitment to lifts, Blank said. As a result, ADAPT aimed its protests at the transit association's meeting and Greyhound Bus Lines. Greyhound is bidding on local routes in some metropolitan areas — Dallas, for one, Blank said. But it does not equip its buses with lifts, he said. A spokesman for Greyhound said last week that, instead, it provided a free ticket for a companion for a disabled traveler. Regarding the transit meeting, Blank said: "Our whole intent is to go after people who are so much wrapped up in the system that they insulate themselves from the issue. They have to live and breathe (ADAPT's protests) when they go to these conventions." Demonstrators here represented some of ADAPTs 33 chapters across the country, Blank said. He said his headquarters was with a group in Denver called the Atlantis Community, which moves disabled people out of nursing homes into independent living arrangements. Funding comes primarily from church donations and foundation grants, he said. From 1978 to 1981, ADAPT protested — and "caused a major disruption" — in Denver every month, Blank said. In 1982, the buses there became 100 percent equipped with lifts, he noted. ADAPT has since protested in all the cities where the transit association has met and where it has been invited by other activists, for a total of about 15 cities, Blank said. [unreadable] ...only buses with lifts, he said. Blank said the failure of local groups to join ADAPT's protests did not weaken the cause. Another success that ADAPT points to is a ruling by a federal Judge in Philadelphia in January striking down a regulation of the US. Department of Transportation that allows transit authorities to spend only 3 percent of their budgets on the disabled. The Judge postponed the effect of the ruling while the Justice Department appeals it. Three percent of Bi-State's budget for the current fiscal year Is $2.6 million, said Rosemary Covington, an agency official who works with the advisory committee. But Bi-State will spend only $1 million because of delays in getting bids on new buses and in expanding the Call-A-Ride service. "We are having budget problems, but that wasn't the reason" the money wasn't spent, Covington said. The remaining $1.6 million does not roll over to the fiscal year that begins July 1, she said. She said that by early next year, Bi-State expected that 221 of its fleet of about 700 buses will be equipped with lifts, 12 of the more than 120 routes will be operated entirely with lift-equipped buses, the Call-A-Ride service will include all of St. Louis County and the city and a voucher system will be available for back-up cab service. Equipping all the agency's buses with lifts will take six to seven years, Covington said. Meanwhile the committee will help evaluate the services for the disabled, she said. "If ridership doesn't materialize" on the buses with lifts or "if it costs thousands or millions (of dollars) to maintain them, that will enter into the decision making," Covington said. Bi-State is training drivers how to use the lifts and plans to promote and advertise the service heavily, she said.
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.