- D'Reiefolleg, an där zortéiert gëttStandard
Numm vum Bild,A→Z
Numm vum Bild,Z→A
Datum erstallt,nei→al
Datum erstallt,al→nei
Datum verëffentlechen, nei → al
Datum verëffentlechen, al → nei
Bewäertung, héich →niddereg
Bewäertung, niddereg →héich
✔ Visitten,héich→niddreg
Visitten,niddreg→héich - SproochAfrikaans 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©
Staartsäit / Albumen / Schlagwierder local option
+ Seattle Metro 2
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 (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.