- שפהAfrikaans 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©
בית / אלבומים / תגיות Philadelphia
+ Tim Cook 5
תאריך פרסום / 2015
ADAPT (607)
[Headline] Disabled score transit win [Subheading] Court: Buses must have wheelchair lifts BY The Associated Press The Standard Times 2-14-89 New Bedford, Mass PHILADELPHIA — A U.S. appeals court ruling requiring wheelchair lifts on new public buses nationwide is the most important victory yet for disabled Americans seeking access to mass transit. plaintiffs’ lawyers say. In its 2-1 ruling Monday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is also upheld a lower court order that the federal Department of Transportation eliminate a 3 percent cap on the amount of money transit authorities must spend to improve transportation for the disabled. “The impact of the majority’s decision will be very substantial throughout the country and will interfere with the local decision-making authority," Judge Morton I. Greenberg wrote in his dissent. “I feel the court is overreaching." The majority opinion by Judge Carol Lois Mansmann said a Transportation Department regulation requiring all new buses to accommodate wheelchairs conflicts with a regulation allowing communities to offer only an alternative service to the disabled. The court noted that a 24-hour reservation needed for the alternative service hinders spontaneous use of mass transit, and ordered transit authorities to make "reasonable accommodations to their programs. i.e. purchase wheelchair-accessible buses." The cost of improving transit services for the disabled would depend on each system, Timothy Cook, who represented the plaintiffs, has said. 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. Judge Greenberg said the section concerning wheelchair lifts for new buses was not meant to apply to transit systems choosing alternative transportation for the disabled. He also said the 3 percent cap imposed in 1986 by the Reagan administration was not arbitrary. A coalition called Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation, which has chapters in 25 cities and whose members have been arrested at demonstrations around the country, filed the class-action lawsuit against the Transportation Department last year. Mr. Cook, who argued ADAPT’s case. called Monday's ruling "a major, major victory for the handicapped community. . . . We can't say enough positive things about it.” "We won on all points," added Stephen Gold. another ADAPT attorney. Mr. Cook. director of the Washington-based National Disability Action Center, said he hoped the ruling would not he appealed in light of President Bush's comments about wanting to bring the disabled into the mainstream. Transportation Department officials in Washington could not be reached for comment after office hours Monday. ADAPT contended that a provision of the federal regulations allowed authorities receiving federal transportation funds to exclude the disabled from “effective and meaningful" access.
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 (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 (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 (476)
June 1989 ROLL CALL Page 11 [Headline] CORD Reps Join ADAPT in Philadelphia to Support Third Circuit Ruling Amy E. Hasbrouck & Kent Killam When the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia handed down its landmark decision in February — mandating lifts on new public transit buses, and eliminating the 3% cap on spending for access -— only three of the 12 judges ruled in the case. Usually such rulings stand unchallenged, but in this case the Bush administration chose to file a motion to have the decision reheard, according to Bill Henning, Director, and Kent Killam, an Organizer/Advocate at the Cape Organization for the Rights of the Disabled (CORD). On Monday, May 15, all 12 judges heard arguments in a suit filed by American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT) demanding “meaningful” access to public transit for people with disabilities. Over 50 disabled rights activists turned out in Philadelphia over the preceding weekend to voice support for the original ruling, and objection to inaccessible public transportation. Many local activists were on hand for the weekend protests, including, Bill Henning, Michael Early, Killam and several others from CORD; BCIL member Leo Lucas; Fred Zepernick, an organizer for the Cape United Elderly; and Brian Shea, a member of BCIL’s Consumer Affairs Committee. Killam described what happened when the protesters arrived in Philadelphia on Friday afternoon. “We marched into the courthouse requesting to see the U.S. Attorney [Baylson] for the Philadelphia District," he said. “We could only get five people in through security, because they said the Attorney’s office was small. It got a little heated with security, and at one point we wound up blocking the metal detector and the gate. If they weren’t going to let us in to see the attorney and then we said ‘no one was going.’ They dragged chairs away, and we would wheel right back in.” Killam said the scene ended with Baylson phoning Attorney General Richard Thornburgh who was assisting the Department of Transportation (DOT) on the case. Baylson also met with the activists in the Ceremonial Court, an accessible courtroom on the first floor where the hearing would be held on Monday. “He said he had placed the call and expressed our concerns; how important this decision is for persons with disabilities to get out and be able to mainstream, the disabled term for integration. We were here showing our support and trying to express how important it was that this decision not be overturned.” Killam said Baylson sounded receptive. “On Saturday at 1 p.m. we gathered outside the courthouse on Sixth and Market streets," Killam continued. “We decided we wanted to ride the bus to New Jersey. To sum it up, we had three buses blocked." Bob Kafka of ADAPT crawled onto a bus at curbside, and as a second and third bus arrived, each was blocked and one demonstrator would leave his or her chair and climb onto the bus. Killam said when the second bus arrived, “The bus driver was holding up his hands saying ‘OH NO, not me!’ If they were smart they wouldn’t’ve let him through. We blocked that quarter of the intersection, traffic was blocked, people were pissed. They wound up having to let the motorists drive one at a time on the sidewalk. We plastered the buses with ADAPT stickers. “I didn't crawl on initially,” said Killam, who volunteered when another activist could not continue. “Toward the end I wasn't thinking much. I was thinking of what we had accomplished. And hoping it would make a difference, come Monday.” The police called the media, a press conference was held, then the demonstrators cleared the street. No arrests were made, and the police were very cooperative, according to Killam. “I felt people around were getting the point. I'm not sure if the proper people got the point." Killam said that one TV station gave the event limited coverage. “That night it was like a 25 or 30 second clip. ‘Bunch of radical gimps block buses’ that was about it." CORD Director Henning summed up the message of the action: “Without lifts on buses, the only way we can get on was to crawl.” On Sunday the group gathered in front of Independence Hall. Many people wore Revolutionary War costumes tri-cornered hats and white wigs. Someone also carried an ADAPT flag which resembles the American flag except that stars are arranged to form the international symbol of accessibility. The group marched around the two-block perimeter of Independence Hall. “When we were having the march a lot of people were applauding and taking pictures," said Killam. “Much better response on Sunday than on Saturday; we weren't blocking the buses." The march ended in the Liberty Bell pavilion. “We decided to rename it the Access Bell, as a lot of organizations have adopted it as their trademark. “We then marched across the street to the courthouse and did our all-night vigil. It started raining a little, but the building had an overhang. Different TV stations showed up. One station did a beautiful piece on the 11 o’clock news. One crew came at four in the morning to get footage for their 6:15 morning news on Monday. No one tried to make us leave. “Monday morning finally rolled around, and we went inside the courthouse to wait for the hearing. I'm told the hearing went well. Tim Cook, the attorney for ADAPT, did an excellent job! He was very to the point, well-worded, his thoughts were well organized, and he answered the questions very well. The DOT attorney was just mediocre." Bill Henning noted some highlights of ADAPT ‘s presentation. “Tim argued that federal statute guarantees access and so all buses must have lifts. Providing lifts is not a hardship economically and without lifts, there is extreme discrimination. The opposing attorney said it would be an undue burden to provide lifts." Henning wondered if crawling onto a bus is not an undue burden? He said it could be up to four months before the decision comes back, and described some possible outcomes. "They have a number of options, which range from accepting the original decision, to reconsidering it and issuing an entirely new decision." Henning said all the actions were designed to raise consciousness. “To that effect I think it was extremely well done," he said. “There was national attention on the event. This is an important decision because what it filters down to is that separate is not equal. It's vital that there be popular support. A lot of activists put themselves on the line for the cause."