- ಭಾಷೆAfrikaans 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©
ಮುಖಪುಟ / ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು / ಟ್ಯಾಗ್ ಗಳು ADAPT
+ buses 7
ADAPT (594)
El Paso Times 2-16-89 Editorials [Headline] Court decision right The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling requiring wheelchair lifts on all new public buses has long been needed. The tragedy is that it takes court rulings to force many public operations to provide for the disabled. For once, El Paso is ahead of the order. According to bus system officials, all buses on order will have the lifts, which add about $15,000 to a bus’ price. An average bus costs about $200,000. El Paso's attempts at meeting needs for the disabled — separate minivans and buses — have been far from adequate. Reservations had to be made at least a day in advance and buses often only could be used for the basic necessities, such as trips for food and to the doctor. For a long time, evening rides were not available. People in wheelchairs had to depend on friends to get to a movie, theater or any kind of recreation. And too often, that meant no pleasure trips at all. Credit tor this recent court win goes to the Americans Disabled For Accessible Public Transportation, who filed the class-action lawsuit. El Paso has an active chapter of ADAPT. Its members have not been shy in pointing out barriers. Monday's court victory is an important step in eliminating one of those barriers.
ADAPT (454)
The Daily Sparks Tribune Friday, April 14, 1989 [Headline] Last of protestors freed from jail The last of the handicapped demonstrators were released from jail Thursday night and both sides of the five-day confrontation said they accomplished everything they set out to do. Municipal Court Judge Don Gladstone said he is pleased with the Sparks Police Department's and the court's performance during the confrontation in which members of American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT) were arrested 72 times for acts of civil disobedience on B Street. The Colorado-based ADAPT came to town to protest a convention held by the American Public Transit Association (APTA) held at the Nugget earlier this week. APTA represents public transit authorities across the country and it is against the federal government forcing those authorities to install wheelchair lifts on all their buses. ADAPT co-founder Mike Auberger said his group accomplished what it wanted to do in Sparks -— make life difficult for APTA conventioneers and raise public awareness for handicapped issues. “Like I said before we even came here, not everybody is going to like what we do but when we leave everybody will have an opinion,” Auberger said. “I can change opinions but creating opinions is the hardest thing to do. "Most people are so busy in their own lives that they don't have time to be very creative and to make that happen." Thursday night Judge Gladstone released the remaining 30 ADAPT members who were serving jail time for such things as blocking fire exits at the Nugget and for obstructing police officers. Their fines ranged from $10 to $600. Wednesday afternoon, the city attorney’s office worked out an agreement with the group's attorney to allow the protesters to leave jail if they paid $100 towards their fines and agreed to pay the remainder after they go home. The protestors also had the option of staying in jail and working off their fines at $25 a day. Thursday night, however, Gladstone dropped the minimum payment to $50 and lectured the protesters. “I told them they need to review their leadership," Gladstone said in an interview this morning. "Society changes. Methods used in the past to get a message across aren't necessarily valid today.” Gladstone said the Sparks Police Department did a good job of handling the demonstrators after they were arrested. The court also made the point that “regardless of your race, color or creed you are held accountable in Sparks for your crimes." “I think the city and the jail facility will be a model to the country for the reasoned handling of a major demonstration by a group that required extraordinary medical care," Gladstone said. Auberger agreed that Sparks Police treated the protestors with care. “I believe they worked very hard at trying not to harm anyone," Auberger said. “There was a real intent on their part to be as professional as possible." However, Auberger said he believes the police over reacted and arrested the protestors for petty things. “I suppose that’s because you need a strong police force to keep the gambling in control," Auberger said. “But that (show of force) gets carried out into a lot of situations that have nothing to do with casinos. "Unfortunately, that relays to tourists the image of a really heavy hand." Auberger also accused the Nugget security force of reacting violently to the demonstrators. One protester suffered a broken knee when a casino security guard pushed a door against her knee. “If we had been in Reno, it would've been a different set of circumstances," Auberger said. “We would've been dealing with corporations instead of an individual (John Ascuaga). “(The Reno casinos) have a corporate image to protect. l think they would be less likely to do the kinds of things (the Nugget) did."
ADAPT (569)
Disabled occupy House offices; 59 are arrested By Frank Wolfe and Sonsyrea Tate The Washington Times 3/15/90 About 300 disabled demonstrators from 40 states occupied two congressional offices and the House Judiciary Committee room in the Rayburn House Office Building for about five hours yesterday before Capitol Police began making arrests. The participants at times discarded wheelchairs and dropped to the floor in one representative's office as part of their demonstration for passage — without weakening amendments — of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last night, 59 persons were arrested for unlawful entry when they refused to leave the building after the House ended its session about 8 p.m., Capitol Police said. The rest of the demonstrators left peacefully. Police, some wearing optional rubber gloves, carried the demonstrators out. The protest began about 3:15 p.m. when the activists, including 101 arrested Monday in the Capitol Rotunda, occupied the offices of Reps. Hamilton Fish Jr., New York Republican, and Bud Shuster, Pennsylvania Republican. Members of the group also occupied the meeting room of the Judiciary Committee, which is slated to consider the bill. It has passed the Energy and Commerce Committee by a 40-3 vote. But one of the amendments would make flexible the requirement that mass-transit authorities provide lift-equipped transportation for disabled people. Authorities could choose instead to provide “paratransit" services such as minivans. Protest leaders are concerned that such flexibility would lead to “segregated busing" in many states, said Mike Auberger, co-founder of American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation and one of the protest organizers. Mr. Shuster was in a meeting of the House Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday afternoon and belatedly learned of the protest. Mr. Fish, ranking minority member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, offered his support for the bill with no weakening amendments and said he would use all measures available to him to defeat any such amendments, according to Ed Tessier, a quadriplegic who helped to organize the protest. Those assembled in Mr. Fish’s office then left. Later in the afternoon, demonstrators occupied Mr. Shuster‘s office, demanding to see the congressman and hoping to make it difficult for staff employees to leave. Mr. Shuster, a member of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, acknowledged the demonstrators’ grievances and said the proposed transportation budget is severely lacking in money allotted for mass transit. “My heart goes out to them," the congressman told The Washington Times in a telephone interview. “I'm in a unique position. My mother was a double amputee in a wheelchair. I have more intimate experiences with the plight and problems of the disabled than perhaps any other member of Congress." The bill is slated for two other House committees, the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation — committees the two congressmen sit on - before reaching the floor of the House. Mr. Shuster said that 100 percent federal mandate" wheelchairs would add 10 percent to the cost of buses and would provide “zero accessibility" for the thousands of disabled who need more comprehensive para-transit services, such as the minivan to transport them to bus stops. "This is a feel-good bill," he said. “There is no money accompanying the bill to pay for the costs it is proposing." He cited New York City, where he said there is, on average, one wheelchair rider per 19 buses, as an example of the need for a mix of lift—equipped buses and paratransit services. If there is a federal mandate on lift-equipped buses, he said, there would be a reduction in services for handicapped riders and for the general public.
ADAPT (572)
WHEN IS TOO MUCH: "Helping" the Disabled by Mary McKnew Just as airplane pilots want assurance that a plane's steering wheel won‘t come off while flying over Europe, people utilizing a bus wheelchair lift deserve to expect that the lift will operate in a safe and predictable manner. However, I have to admit that too much focus on “safety” issues has me a little worried. To some transit officials, “safety” issues in providing transportation services for people with disabilities raise old stereotypes of helplessness and can quickly become a rationale for imposing paternalistic policies. For example, here in Olympia, the local Intercity Transit Authority and the state's Department of General Administration are co-sponsoring a shuttle service between the capitol and downtown Olympia with routes passing other major states offices. With the local parking problem, this system is extremely convenient. From the beginning, all vans used in the service have been equipped with wheelchair lifts. All this, of course, is very commendable. So, what's the problem? Unfortunately, the van's tie-down system, lack of grab-bars and driver policies reflect a paternalistic attitude towards disabled passengers by promoting dependence in the name of safety. The tie-down system is one of the most primitive I have ever encountered. It uses straps to bind each of a wheelchair's four wheels to the floor in a rather intricate system that takes the driver approximately five minutes to accomplish. To tie-down a wheelchair, the driver must get on his or her hands and knees. Thus, it is not possible for even very mobile wheelchair users to accomplish this independently. However, once the straps are in place, none of the wheels will move even a centimeter. During this five minute routine, other van passengers wait outside (some glancing at their watches) until the driver folds the lift back in place and allows them to board. After being strapped down, the driver then will place a seat-belt around the wheelchair user. Seat belts are not available for other passengers. If the wheelchair user decides to reject use of a seat belt, the driver will attempt (sometimes loud) persuasion, finally telephoning into the office to report that the passenger has refused use of the belt. I use a wheelchair for mobility due to a low and incomplete spinal cord injury. I object to many of the features in the Intercity Transit system that, to me, are designed on the premise that people with disabilities will always need a lot of assistance from the driver. Although the driver should be trained and willing to provide assistance if it is requested, the system should be designed to promote maximum independence. Most tie-down systems can be easily manipulated by most wheelchair uses with finger movement. Although some wheelchair users need a seat belt due to problems with balance, drivers should not assume they are needed by all such passengers. A policy that requires a driver to phone in to report a passenger's rejection of the seat belt is founded on the belief that people with disabilities are incapable of making sound decisions regarding their own safety. Additionally, although grab-bars are located along the ceiling walls of other seats, none are available near the tie-down area. Thus, if the bus lurches while enroute, a wheelchair passenger has nothing to hold onto. I suppose this makes it more likely a wheelchair passenger will comply with the seat belt policy, recognizing that a passive restraint is better than none at all. Intercity Transit has been providing paratranslt services to people with disabilities for a number of years. They have moved into the provision of mainline transportation services (i.e., access to the regular bus service) only recently. It appears that they have simply shifted their operating policies and procedures from one system to the other without considering if these are applicable to the new service. I have brought my objections to Intercity Transit’s attention. Although the staff disagree with most, they are reconsidering others. Safety is a concern to people who use wheelchair lifts. However, we cannot allow it to become a convenient rationale for either eliminating the service or instituting restrictive policies that treat people with disabilities in a disparate manner from other passengers. PHOTO (by Tom Olin): A large crowd marches downhill on a wide street. In the front row a little girl in a wheelchair (Jennifer Keelan) is pushed by her mother (Cindy). Beside them a woman in a motorized wheelchair (Diane Coleman) and a long skirt and white jacket has a sign behind her reading "we the people." Beside her a man in a manual wheelchair (Bob Kafka) with a big salt and pepper beard rolls along. In the row behind, between Bob and Diane, is a woman in a wheelchair (Mary McKnew) and a man who walks (Lannie Schuman) are visible and next to them another man marches behind Diane. Behind Jennifer and Cindy is Tari Susan Hartman. Rows of marchers go further and further back up the street to the top of the hill and presumably beyond. Caption reads: Just to the right at the placard Washington residents Lannie Schuman and Mary McKnew participate in a San Francisco demonstration for transportation rights. ABOUT THE AUTHOR... In 1987, Mary McKnew tried to get arrested for the first time. She sat in front of a San Francisco police van and refused to move. She sat in her wheelchair directly under the wheels of a bus and refused to move. "I did many illegal things." she says wryly. What she did, she did in the name of accessible public transportation for people with disabilities... a personal and political quest McKnew has been following for the past 12 years. Although McKnew wasn't arrested at that demonstration (in spite of her civil disobedience efforts), many others were. More than 500 people organized by the American Disabled tor Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT) marched through the streets oi San Francisco to the city hall to protest the continuing discriminatory policies supported by the American Public Transit Association (APTA). ADAPT has been a persistent thorn in the side of APTA for many years. Fortunately, their persistence paid off. With the final signing of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) expected any day, ADAPT—- and McKnew — will see many of their demands for fair, accessible transportation become reality. But McKnew says that just because you pass laws doesn't mean you quit being an activist. "The ADA will bring private transit companies under regulations just like public ones," she says, "but just passing a law doesn't mean we solve the problem. implementation is a whole other thing." In part, McKnew was referring to the possibility that some private companies may reduce the seating capacity in some of their smaller vehicles in order to side-step the accessibility requirements mandated by the ADA. "What the ADA will do is provide a clear avenue for lawsuits," she says. Is McKnew planning on handling some of those lawsuits herself? It may be too early to tell. Currently an executive policy assistant in the Office of the Governor, McKnew is also a second-year law student at the University of Puget Sound. (This story continues in the original format on 571 but is included here in its entirety for ease of reading.)
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 (553)
June 12, 1990 - Guardian. 5 Disabled 'ecstatic' as rights act clears House By DIANE COLEMAN The Americans with Disabilities Act, considered by many to be the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, easily cleared the House of Representatives May 22. It is expected to reach the president‘s desk by July 4. The act prohibits discrimination based on disability in public accommodations, employment, transportation and telecommunications. It is intended to address "rampant, daily discrimination in every sphere of American life,“ Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., told her colleagues on the House floor. “Mentally retarded persons are kept out of restaurants. Persons with cerebral palsy are turned away from theaters. . . . Employers cite fears of hiring disabled persons because their customers will feel uncomfortable or even repulsed,” Schroeder added. Despite strong opposition from private business and transportation lobbies, chief among them the National Federation of Independent Businesses and Greyhound Lines, Inc. , the Americans With Disabilities Act achieved bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. The House vote was 403-29. Under pressure from the NFIB and the National Restaurant Association, the House version of the bill was amended at the last minute to allow employers to remove people with HIV infection from food handling positions. Sponsored by Rep. Jim Chapman, the amendment passed narrowly, although the Texas Democrat conceded there is no “evidence that‘AIDS can be transferred in the process of handling food.” Tom Sheridan of AIDS Action, representing 500 community-based service organizations, predicted that the Chapman amendment would go down to defeat in the House-Senate conference committee. “It’s a horrible amendment for all people with disabilities because . . . it begins to codify the fact that irrational fear is protected by the law,” he said. Nonetheless at press time Senate conferees had agreed to include the restrictions. “Cheers and tears” filled the House gallery at the moment of the ADA's long-awaited passage, according to Tennessee disabled activist Michael Gibson, “but we all know that the bill is only a first step. Several agencies will be writing key regulations which offer innumerable opportunities to weaken the effect of this legislation,” Gibson said. SOME DELAYS, FEW LOSSES While many activists feared the House would water down the Senate version of the bill, Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund said that the ADA “has not been weakened anywhere near the extent that much legislation is. " According to Golden, who has worked intensively for the bill's passage over the last two years, various timetables and phase-in provisions were adopted to avoid other forms of compromise. The ADA’s protections against employment discrimination, which parallel those applied to federally funded entities since 1973, do not go into effect for two years. Prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations, such as theaters and restaurants, will require accessibility in facilities “construct[ed] . . . for first occupancy no later than 30 months after the date of enactment." Telephone companies will have three years to put in place a relay service for deaf people and others who depend on non-voice telecommunication. A requirement that all new public buses be lift-equipped will take effect in only 30 days. Many attribute this to seven years of non-violent civil disobedience by the American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit. Greyhound, a private carrier, was given six years to begin replacing its retired buses with accessible ones. Activists also waged a last-minute battle over employment discrimination remedies. Recently proposed legislation would add damages to the relief available to discrimination victims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the face of this, Golden said. the Bush administration tried “to renege on its agreement for parallelism” between the ADA and the 1964 act. It backed an amendment that would have kept remedies for disability-based discrimination at current levels if and when discrimination remedies are increased for other minority groups and women. The amendment was narrowly defeated just prior to the final vote on the bill itself. Overall, Golden said. “We're ecstatic." The ADA “will hopefully begin to convey to the American public. left, center and right (because in some ways I don't think the consciousness of the left is any better), that disability is not a personal issue, that there’s a systematic oppression of people with disabilities. . . . Even Congress has faced the fact of the systematic discrimination. " PHOTO (by Tom Olin): A closer view of a mass of marchers coming around a huge tree on a broad sidewalk leading up to the Capitol. Stephanie Thomas, Frank Lozano, Jennifer Keelan and others lead the march which is 12 across in some places and scattered in others. The ADAPT flag (an American Flag with the stars arranged in the wheelchair symbol instead of in rows) flies over the crowd from a few rows back. Some people are in suits and ties, some in T-shirts. Some are in wheelchairs, some carry cameras; children to older folks are in the mix. Caption reads: Seven years of nonviolent civil disobedience by the American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit has been credited for the requirement that all new buses be lift-equipped. Above, ADAPT march on U.S. Capitol.
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.