« AnteriorContinuar »
system. But we would do just like we have with any other Federal program or state regulation. We would cope and do it.
Mr. SHUSTER. So that would be an additional cost, of course?
Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was doing a little math work and, evidently, Mr. Shuster was at the same time. Mr. Jenkins, it was one rider for every three days on one of those buses at 30 percent. Now, you say there are some buses that get 10 or 12 pickups a day. That means that you have buses that are equipped, that are riding the routes, that never get a rider?
Mr. JENKINS. No, not necessarily so. With the 27 vehicles that we have, you have to remember that at least 3 of those vehicles are used for spares. Our peak load is about 21 buses on the street each day—22, 23 buses—as a peak each day. Out of those buses that are out there, there are some that get one lift, but there are some buses that get more than one lift.
Mr. HASTERT. A day?
Mr. JENKINS. There are some days when you have holidays and when you have
Mr. HASTERT. Well, the numbers work out, sir, that say you get one lift every three days, average. So, evidently, you have got buses out there that never get lifts.
Mr. JENKINS. No. Each and every one of our buses get lifts at sometime or another. There are some buses that get more lifts than others. Mr. HASTERT. Every day? Every week? Every month? Mr. JENKINS. I would say on a weekly basis. It depends on where the person is going, shopping or to the medical facilities or going to work.
Mr. HASTERT. What is the extra cost of maintainingMr. JENKINS. There is no extra cost on public service. There is a reduced cost in non-peak hours.
Mr. HASTERT. I don't think you understood my question. What is the extra cost to put these lifts on your buses? What was the cost to do that?
Mr. JENKINS. The cost, when I put them on, was about $12,000 per unit. The federal government paid 80 percent of that. The state government paid 1643 percent of that. The local share was about three cents on a dollar.
Mr. HASTERT. So it is a 3 percent local share. Who is that? Is it the other riders who pick that up or is the taxpayer. Mr. JENKINS. The county government. Mr. HASTERT. The taxpayers. Mr. JENKINS. The taxpayers.
Mr. HASTERT. Then the Federal and state taxpayers pick up the rest of it; is that correct?
Mr. JENKINS. Right. That was in 1983 and 1984. Mr. HASTERT. So it would be more today? Mr. JENKINS. The federal share has been reduced, somewhat. Mr. HASTERT. So the state and local guys would pick up more of that; right-the taxpayers? Mr. JENKINS. Yes. Mr. HASTERT. What is that extra amount, do you think, per fare, or per rider, that the federal government and state government and local governments pick up? What is the cost per rider?
Mr. JENKINS. Our cost, per rider, of providing services is about $1.69 for every rider. It is a little less than $2.00 if you divide the handicap lifts and the cost of the maintenance and the work, without the capital investment. Mr. HASTERT. With the capital investment. Mr. JENKINS. I have never done that calculation, sir. Mr. HASTERT. What part of that does the fare pick up? Mr. JENKINS. Our fare cost recovery is about 42 percent. Mr. HASTERT. Under this new law, when you will be required to provide paratransit also, in addition to full lifts on your buses, what do you predict that the extra cost would be?
Mr. JENKINS. I don't think the extra cost would be that much. I would just have to divert some of my rural transit that we were already doing, call-in demand or Reserve-a-Ride, as it is called, throughout the entire county rather than just in the rural districts.
Mr. HASTERT. So, evidently, there will be a reduction of service to some people?
Mr. JENKINS. There will be something happening somewhere. I can't put my finger on what it going to be, whether it is going to be an increase in the fares, a decrease in the service, or something. Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MINETA. Let me thank the panel very much for their patience and participation at today's hearings; Mr. Capozzi, Mr. Massara, Ms. Daly and Mr. Jenkins.
(Mr. Capozzi's prepared statement, the prepared statement of Mr. Dirks submitted by Mr. Capozzi, and the prepared statements of Mr. Massara, Ms. Daly, and Mr. Jenkins follow:]
RANSPORTATION IN OUR NATION National Easter Soal Society
Project ACTION Orc. 70 Fast I.uke Street
1001 Connet'ticut Air.. N.W.. Suite 435 Chicago, Illinois 60601
Washington, D.C. 20036 1312) 726-6200
(202) 659-2229 TDD (312) 726-4258 FAX (312) 726-1494 TDD (202) 835.7393 FAX (202) 659.5234
DAVID M. CAPOZZI
NATIONAL EASTER SEAL SOCIETY
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1989
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
SEPTEMBER 20, 1989
Project ACTION is funded by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) to increase accessibility to public mass transportation for people with disabilities
My name is David M. Capozzi and I am the Vice President for Project ACTION (Accessible Community Transportation in our Nation) of the National Easter Seal Society. Project ACTION is a $3 million research and demonstration grant program funded by the Urban Mass Transit Administration.
The project involves national and local organizations representing public transit operators, the transit industry, and persons with disabilities in the development and demonstration of workable approaches to promote access to public transportation services for people with disabilities.
It will yield a cooperative model program of techniques to identify people with disabilities in the community develop outreach and marketing strategies, develop training programs for transit providers, and apply technology to eliminate barriers to transportation and accessibility.
Project ACTION was conceived by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Easter Seal Society and the American Public Transit Association.
Without accessible vehicles and stations, persons with disabilities are excluded from the opportunity to use transportation systems. This exclusion affects more than just their ability to travel independently. Most importantly, it effects their ability to be employed. When disabled people are able to depend on an accessible transportation system and join the work force, society as a whole benefits. Public benefit rolls are reduced and income tax revenues enhanced. Accessible transportation also allows individuals with disabilities to enjoy cultural, recreational, commercial and other benefits that society has to offer. Project ACTION is designed to increase transportation opportunities for people with disabilities through cooperation between the transit industry and disability organizations.
Effects of federal transit policies on purchases of
In order to assess the potentials for cooperative model programs for Project ACTION and to determine where the need in various communities exists, we assessed the effect of federal transit polices on the delivery of accessible transit services and then examined the level of accessible services available today.
Over the past 20 years federal transit policies have vacillated from requiring a bare amount of "special efforts" to "full access". The result of these conflicting policies is that transit providers have been confused about what they are required to provide and consumers with disabilities have
Testimony on the ADA
been frustrated at the level of transit services that have been provided under the federal regulations.
Prior to the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1970 (UMT Act), there was no federal pronouncement on how transportation should be provided to people with disabilities. The UMT Act stated for the first time that it is the national policy that elderly and handicapped persons have the same right as other persons to utilize mass transportation facilities and services ... and that special efforts shall be made in the planning and design of such facilities and services.
Subsequent to this, Congress passed the Federal Aid to Highway Act of 1973 that required projects receiving federal funding to be planned, designed, constructed and operated to allow effective utilization by handicapped and elderly persons. Then shortly thereafter, Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 of the Act requires that "no otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall solely by reason of their handicap be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination in any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance".
After the passage of this important legislation the Department of Transportation (DOT) began a long process of regulatory activity to interpret the requirements of these federal laws.
The first set of regulations issued by DOT in 1976 were known as the special effort regulations. These regulations required that genuine good faith efforts be made to provide transportation to handicapped individuals that is reasonable in comparison to nonhandicapped persons. In 1979, in response to section 504, DOT issued the full access regulations that required that all buses and train stations be made accessible. As a result of a court decision striking down these regulations, DOT issued interim local option regulations in 1981. Finally, in 1986, DOT issued final comparable service regulations implementing section 504 and the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. The effects of each of these policy changes can be seen in the following table and attached graph. (See Attachment "A").