I AM CERTAIN HOWEVER, THAT A SOLUTION CAN BE FOUND THAT WILL SERVE TO INCREASE THE MOBILITY OF OUR DISABLED CITIZENS WHILE PRESERVING AND IMPROVING EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. WHETHER THIS SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A FLEXIBLE, COMMUNITY APPROACH OR WHETHER GEOGRAPHIC AND CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SHOULD PLAY A GREATER ROLE OR WHETHER FULL ACCESSABLITY IS WARRENTED, WILL I HOPE, BE BROUGHT OUT IN THE TESTIMONY WE HEAR TODAY AND NEXT TUESDAY. FOR THESE REASONS, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM OUR WITNESSES TODAY AS THEY SHARE WITH THE COMMITTEE THEIR EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE ON THIS ISSUE. WE MAY THEN MOVE FORWARD TOWARD OUR GOAL OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS THE DISABLED OF OUR SOCIETY ACCESS TO ALL FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION AND THEREFORE TO ALL WALKS OF LIFE ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much, Bud. Are there other members who wish to make opening statements? Mr. Petri? Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much for the courtesy of allowing me to do this, Mr. Chairman. I would like to put my full statement in the record and abbreviate it, if possible. Mr. MINETA. Without objection. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, as Yogi Berra would say, I have a sense of deja vu all over again as this subject comes before this Subcommittee. 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, the 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 approaches as being anti-disabled. Such was not the case eight 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 systems to what works for them. In my state of 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 that need. In this hearing today, Mr. Henry Mayer will give testimony to this Subcommittee that will provide compelling evidence that local flexibility is the answer. Mr. Mayer served as Mayor of Milwaukee during a study and test period that Milwaukee underwent to determine how best to serve the transportation needs of the local disabled community. 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 equipment mainline bus service. I would ask that his letter be inserted in the record at the conclusion of my statement. Mr. MINETA. Without objection. So ordered. Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Mr. Petri's prepared statement follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. Petri, a REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WISCONSIN Mr. Chairman, this bill as been referred to this subcommittee to address the transportation requirements which the bill would mandate; specifically the civil right of disabled persons to enjoy full availability of and accessibility to public transit facilities. Now, that is an admirable and moral goal, and it is achievable-but Mr. Chairman, as Yogi Berra would say, I have a sense of deja vu all over again. 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 initiatives. 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. My to As you consider the provisions of this sill. I ask that you seek Ав The City of Madison has just faced a decision about whether to than buses with lifts. Several factors were key the in City's Madison's severe winter weather would result in unreliable lift- and Second, a significant portion of disabled individuals cannot use not use lift-equipped mainline service either because they do wheelchairs, because they are not sufficiently mobile, or because transit routes are not conveniently located. The Honorable Herbert Kohl Page Two NTA Finally, given a fixed number of dollars, Madison's paratransit Over the past fifteen years, the City of Madison has 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 fron federal government for operating costs. The City's paratransit service will provide approximately 180,000 rides this year. the 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. COMMISSIONERS Raymond F. Gallagher James H. Wolford George L. Wessel Richard C Southard Ronald J. Anthony Robert D. Gioia William G. Gisel Ernestine R Green Glenn S. Hackett James M Wadsworth Theodore D Williamson, Sr. Alfred H Savage Executive Director PRS/cb |