Some advocacy groups are insisting that all public transit equipment should be equipped to meet the needs of all disabled persons. Politically, this is difficult to oppose, but it is not the best way to go. Back in 1980 and 1981, in the 96th and 97th Congresses, this same subject was addressed as part of the implementation process for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The principal issue then, as now, was requiring that buses be equipped with lifts, regardless of local needs and conditions, or alternative means of transportation tailored by localities for themselves. Proponents of mandatory lifts tend to cast those who favor more flexible approach as being anti-disabled. Such was not the case 8 years ago, and it needs to be made clear again that being against mandatory bus lifts does not mean being against having transportation available to the disabled. In fact, the reverse is true. If we provide a common sense framework in the legislation, then local communities can adapt their transportation system to what works best for them. In Wisconsin, which has a long tradition of innovative action in solving social needs, a number of realistic solutions have been tried and proven. These examples are compelling evidence of how local decisions and solutions can best meet the need. Later in this hearing, Mr. Henry Mayer will give testimony to this subcommittee that will provide compelling evidence that local flexibility is the answer. Mr. Mayer served as a Milwaukee City Official during the study and test period that Milwaukee underwent to determine how best to serve the transportation needs of the local disabled communities. My own home town of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, is very proud of the system that they developed to meet the transportaiton needs of the disabled community. Back in 1979 when Federal dollars were made available, coalitions that included representatives of the disabled and the transit authority, were formed to study the needs of the disabled community to seek the best, most cost-effective system to meet these needs. Bus-lifts were considered and studied, and passed over in favor of a paratransit system. It seems once again that as with most problems that the federal government tries to legislate a federal cure for, the best solution can be found in each community. We should only establish a result oriented standard, leaving local flexibility to determine how best to achieve that standard. Milwaukee, Madison, Fond du Lac, and many other progressive communities have proven that local flexibility is the answer. The communities that have been successful in developing dependable, timely, cost effective transportation to the disabled should not be penalized through federal mandates that tell them, despite their findings to the contrary, bus lifts are the answer. The disabled community is not limited to those in wheel chairs. There are many other elderly and disabled citizens that enjoy the convenience and ease that door-to-door service provides them. It is important to look at ways for communities to not only provide service to the disabled, but to provide proven superior service through proven methods such as paratransit. Mr. Chairman, I also have a letter from Mayor Paul Soglin of Madison, Wisconsin, to Senator Kohl, describing why Madison has opted for paratransit service rather than lift-equipped mainline bus service. Basically, para-transit offers better service to the elderly and disabled, at less expense. Without objection, I would like to insert Mayor Soglin's observations in the record following my statement. Mr. Chairman, when we went through this same debate almost 10 years ago, we saw a number of 'horror stories'. For example, in Appleton, Wisconsin, $140,000 was spent on wheelchair lifts for buses to serve only nine people in Appleton. In short, Mr. Chairman, federal requirements do not guarantee the success of community programs. It is the efforts of local citizens that will determine their outcome. We should prescribe a performance-based standard of expectation in the legislation. I urge each of you to examine the experiences of Milwaukee, Fond du lac, and Madison closely. I think you will find them to be models of successful local initia tives. We should frame our requirements in such a way to encourage such flexible, efficient, and cost-effective local responses. [The letter referred to by Mr. Petri follows:] I understand that 8. 933, the Americans with Disabilities Act,· will soon be voted on in the Senate Committee on labor and Human Resources. As you consider the provisions of this sill. I ask that you seek to retain the option for cities to choose the best means of providing transportation service to the elderly and disabled. My immediata concern is that cities, such as Madison, continue to have the option of choosing whether or not to purchase buses with wheelchair lifts or to use available funds to improve demand responsive paratransit. The City of Madison has just faced a decision about whether to buy lift-equipped buses. Initially, I favored purchase of liftequipped buses. Am I learned more about the variety of transportation needs among disabled individuals and as I learned about the limitations of a fixed route, lift-equipped service, I changed my mind. I decided Madison should continue to focus its resources on paratransit service. The Madison Common Council strongly supported this position in a voice vote to purchase six paratransit type buses rather than to purchase mainline buses with lifts. First, Several factors were key in the City's decision. Madison's severe winter weather would result in unreliable lartequipped mainline service even for that portion of the disabled community that preferred to use it. Subzero temperatures, snow and icy streets, curbs and sidewalks would be substantial barriers to reliable service. Second, a significant portion of disabled individuals cannot use lift-equipped mainline service either because they do not use wheelchairs, because they are not sufficiently mobile, or because transit routes are not conveniently located. The Honorable Herbert Kohl Page Two NETA Finally, given a fixed number of dollars, Madison's paratransit system delivers many times more rides than a Lift-equipped mainline service. I have looked at the number of rides actually taken on lift-equipped mainline bus service in cities with olimate's similar to Madison's. The number of rides is quite small in comparison to the number provided by Madison's paratransit system. Over the past fifteen years, the City of Madison kas developed an outstanding paratransit system. In 1989, paratransit service expenditures equal 9.55% of the total transit' system's budget. The annual dollar amount equals $1,540,980 far exceeding the approximately $1,000,000 the City annually receives from the federal government for operating costs. The City's paratransit service will provide approximately 180,000 rides this year. Without the exclusive paratransit option, I think it is unlikely that the City would have the quality and quantity of elderly and disabled transit service we have today. I believe it is an option that is most appropriate for cities in a cold climate such as Wisconsin's. Thank you for your consideration. Bncerely, Paul R. sogrin Mayor COMMISSIONERS Raymond F. Gallagher James H. Wolford George L. Wessel Richard C. Southard Ronald J. Anthony William G. Gisel Ernestine R. Green Glenn S. Hackett James M. Wadsworth Theodore D. Williamson, Sr. Alfred H. Savage Executive Director PRS/cb Mr. MINETA. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Clement. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I would just request unanimous consent that my opening statement be admitted into the record. Mr. MINETA. Without objection; so ordered. [Mr. Clement's prepared statement follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CLEMENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today's hearing on the Americans With Disabilities Act. I am proud to join you and 21 of our Public Works Committee colleagues as a cosponsor of this important measure. I am proud to join you in supporting legislation which will end discrimination against disabled individuals. Twenty-five years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is time to make all citizens of the United States full and participating members of our society. Despite some reluctance, I believe that the business community will share our view that disabled Americans are as talented and skilled as the non-disabled and that they are excellent and hard-working employees. Businesses will also share our view that the disabled are consumers with desires, wants, and appetites as voracious as the non-disabled. All they need is access, all they deserve is equality. While our goals are lofty, crafting the most appropriate legislative solution is problematic. As in all areas guaranteeing the civil rights of one group of citizens, we are often asked to strike a legislative balance. And such a balance is a particularly delicate issue in the areas of public and private transportation. As a former public service commissioner, I understand the cost-sensitive basis on which transit service decisions are made. And while my service was prior to Congress' deregulation of much of the transportation industry, the cost-sensitive nature of these decisions has not changed, only the flexibility with which industry can implement them without State or Federal intrusion. Like you, Mr Chairman, and the other members of the subcommittee, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses and getting a clear understanding of the problems which confront the disabled community and an understanding of the issues which confront providers of transit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MINETA. Mr. Parker, Mr. Payne, any other members seek recognition? [No response.] [Mr. Payne's prepared statement follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. LEWIS F. PAYNE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership in calling for hearings on Americans with Disabilities legislation. In addition to serving on this Committee, I also have the pleasure of sitting on the Committee on Veterans Affairs. In that capacity, I am acutely aware of the difficulties disabled individuals must cope with in order to function in our society. I appreciate this Committee's interest in this matter, and I welcome this opportunity to explore possible avenues of improving transportation for this nation's disabled. I also thank all of the witnesses who are joining us today, and I look forward to hearing your views on the legislation before this Committee. [Mr. Costello's prepared statement follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY COSTELLO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I look forward to today's hearing and how it will affect the transportation of disabled individuals across the nation. This bill is an attempt to include the members of the disabled community into everyday life by making a variety of public facilities convenient to the disabled. In particular, it is my interest to see what direct impact this will have on transit authorities and transportation companies in Illinois and throughout the country. For years, a lack of good transportation has been a constant complaint from representatives of the disabled community. The Americans with Disabilities Act takes large steps toward making very transportation vehicle in the country accessible to the disabled, so that they can share the convenience of public transportation that is shared by many other non-disabled individuals. Through greater access to transportation, the disabled can have the same access to their workplace that is now enjoyed by others. That will enable many disabled workers to put their skills to work for America's businesses and other employers. Mr. MINETA. At this time, I would like to call together our first panel: Mr. Roland Mross, Deputy Administrator, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Department of Transportation, accompanied by John Cline, the Associate Administrator for Budget and Policy of UMTA as well as Don Trilling, the Deputy Director of the Office of Transportation Regulatory Affairs of the Department of Transportation. If you would please come forward to the table. TESTIMONY OF ROLAND MROSS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN CLINE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR BUDGET AND POLICY, URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND BY DON TRILLING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. MINETA. Mr. Mross, your full statement will be made a part of the record. So you may go ahead and proceed in your own fashion, sir. Mr. MROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Roland J. Mross. I am the Deputy Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation of the U.S. Department of Transportation. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of Transportation on the Americans with Disabilities Act which the Senate passed on September 7, 1989. As I am sure you know, the Administration strongly supports enactment of Federal legislation extending civil rights to Americans with disabilities. Appearing with me today to discuss this bill are John Cline, the Associate Administrator for Budget and Policy in the Urban Mass Transportation and Mr. Donald Trilling, Director, Office of Transportation Regulatory Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. Despite the best efforts of all levels of government and the private sector, and the tireless efforts of concerned citizens and advocates everywhere, many persons with disabilities in this nation still lead lives in a state of isolation and dependence. Sixteen years have gone by since the Rehabilitation Act was passed. In that time the doors of educational opportunity have been opened to persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, persons with disabilities are still, too often, shut out of the economic and social mainstream of American life. The Americans With Disabilities Act would directly address this problem. In brief, the purpose of the Act is to provide a clear national mandate to end discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and to bring persons with disabilities into the economic and social mainstream of American life, to provide enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to |