TESTIMONY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Committee on Public Works and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation C.D. "Chuck" Busskohl, President Re: H.R. 2273, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989 Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, as President of my own company, operating both intercity and charter motorcoach businesses, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the United Bus Owners of America (UBOA), representing more than 1,000 members, I urge that significant changes be made in H.R. 2273, the Americans with Disabilities Act, before this Committee approves the legislation for full House consideration. My own business, Arrow Stage Lines, Inc., of Sioux City, serves Iowa, Nebraska and much of the West with intercity, charter and tour service. The United Bus Owners of America is an association of private bus owners and operators ranging in size from Greyhound's 4,000-bus fleet to single-vehicle charter operators. We also represent, as associate members, the commercial businesses which serve the needs of this industry. Our associates include coachbuilders, equipment and accessory makers, and representatives of a wide variety of service industries. In unison, we applaud the goal and concept of this legislation: the elimination of discrimination against our American neighbors with mental or physical handicaps. And, in unison, we speak out against the single-minded legislative approach to accessibility which drives this bill to demand in the case of private intercity transportation -- that the forest - be clear-cut so we may have a better view of the trees. In the legislative authors' enthusiasm to "do right," we believe that H.R. 2273 was introduced with serious flaws. These desperately need to be corrected prior to its becoming law. They threaten the very existence of the American private bus industry and, if they are not addressed, the passage of a bill designed to assist the handicapped will instead result in the near-total loss of intercity bus service to the handicapped and to every American. This Congress must understand that is may well jeopardize the most widespread, most affordable means of transportation now available to the American citizen to establish a worthy but limited goal of "full accessibility" for a small segment of this Nation's population. Specifically at issue is the requirement in H.R. 2273 that all new buses sold in the United States be made "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs."1 1 H.R. 2273, Title III, 303(b); Title IV, §402(b)(7)(B) Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, our operators today offer the most accessible, most available, most affordable means of public transportation in America. And, unlike our competitors, we do so virtually without assistance from this or any government. We survive because our members are good businessmen and women who are willing to accept a very narrow margin of profit to continue in business as independent, tax-paying enterprises. Despite the narrow margin of profit and the near-total lack of governmental funding, the estimated 46-million handicapped persons addressed in the preamble of this legislation already find that our owners and operators are among the most accommodating businesses in the Nation. With very few exceptions, private bus owners are prepared to transport handicapped persons in the same manner and level of service afforded fully-capable passengers. In many cases, handicapped persons are offered discount or totally free passage; in others, attendants travel at reduced fares or completely cost-free. Guide dogs have long been welcomed aboard our vehicles. Wheelchair-using passengers who are brought aboard by attendants are easily accommodated. It is only the occasional wheelchair-bound passenger, who may even remotely perceive that he or she is denied "ready accessibility" to the services offered by UBOA members. It is also this final category of potential rider whom, we believe, is being excessively accommodated by this bill's most serious degree of "legislative overkill," the apparent requirement that every new or re-manufactured bus sold in this country be equipped as "fully wheelchair accessible." Allow me to address four important aspects of the bill's intended requirements: cost, safety, practicality and finally, alternatives. First, however, it's critical that the goal of this Committee be carefully defined. Legislative language and perceived intent have a great deal to do with the way any legislation is enforced. If the transcript of these hearings is to be used as a guide for future enforcement, our perception of the intent is that all persons must have equal opportunity to board, move about within and use the available facilities of every passenger vehicle on the road. If that is the case, every motor coach used by UBOA members must, at a minimum, be wheelchair lift equipped; it must have aisles and restrooms which are wide enough to accept wheelchairs; it must allow enough seating space to secure a wheelchair. I'd like first to address the question of the cost of these changes to the private bus industry in America. For the moment, I'll limit my comments to equipment purchase costs. The average private line motor coach sold in the United States today is $200,000. It carries 47 passengers; it is 40-feet long and 102" wide. It's aisles are 14" wide and the floor of the passenger deck is approximately four to five feet off the ground, riding atop a luggage and storage compartment with a capacity of some 330 cubic feet. It's useable life, depending on the service requirements, is 8 to 12 years. The addition of a wheelchair lift and coach design changes to aisle, restroom and seating, will cost each new coach buyer an estimated $15-$35,000 -- depending on a variety of elements at the outset of this bill's life. I admit that the exact cost is in dispute, as are the durability of technologies involved. But because of vague language, frankly today's operator cannot be certain of the extent of changes which this bill mandates. - Lifts on intercity buses will need to reach the lofty second deck safely and to be fitted into a coach which is far more complex in its engineering than the everyday transit bus. While cost would be expected to drop over a period of time, reflecting the economies of volume as the luxury coach business adopts these standards, the lift will never be as inexpensive as its transit bus counterpart. By the same token, the mechanical reliability of lifts will, hopefully, improve dramatically in the future, reflecting technological advances which naturally follow a high-demand product. I'll come back to cost, but for now let's assume that every bus buyer in the Nation is prepared to pay the additional 10 to 15-percent front-end cost for the equipment. Let's move on to the question of safety. Lifting a passenger 18-inches from ground to the deck of a transit bus or a step-van a comparatively risk-free activity. Equipment need not be intricately designed, nor employees highly-trained to affect the loading of a passenger. Such is not the case with a four to five foot lift onto the second deck of a luxury coach. No doubt, insurance liability costs will mirror the increased risk from injury in falls caused by potential equipment failure or poorly-trained staff. But if we were to assume the optimum 100-percent equipment reliability and 100-percent reliable employees -- what's to be said about safety on once the passenger is on board. Today, the U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous cargo regulations prohibit the stowing of battery-equipped wheelchairs in bus luggage compartments. Will the DOT look more favorably to the transport of these explosive-potential batteries in the passenger compartment? Or should DOT simply drop it's prohibition? Technology is, at the moment, targeted on creation of a safe battery which may be stowed and transported, but if this legislation is approved quickly, will only non-electric wheelchairs be permitted? Will the wheelchair occupant be required to bring along his or her own seat belt? Will there be a standard implemented to see that all chairs are secured properly during transport? We UBOA interprets this legislation as prohibiting any rules for wheelchair bound passengers which it would not apply to fully-mobile passengers. As such, wheelchairs must be allowed to traverse aisles during a journey, certainly at least to the restroom. suggest, however, that an unsecured wheelchair not to mention its occupant would become a lethal missile in an emergency situation. Even if it remained on the deck, it represents a barricade to paths of escape, a violation of federal safety regulations. - I remind the Committee that the tragic crash of an out-of-service school bus being operated by a church cost 27 lives in Carrollton, Kentucky, just last year. In large part, those who died were not victims of the trauma of the crash, they died because they could not escape the burning bus. Federal investigators found that items as insignificant as picnic baskets and coolers in the aisle cost the lives of some of those who might otherwise have escaped. A picnic basket is far less impeding than a wheelchair. If we assume that there is a way to ensure that the wheelchair passenger is properly secured at the time of a vehicular accident, we cannot assume that the paralyzed occupant is capable of negotiating his or her way to a proper exit. Elevators in buildings -- where all other elements are stable all carry warnings that they are not to be used in times of emergency conditions. Will we expect a higher standard of mobile elevators? Or will each bus be designed with some form of ejection device for the occupant of a pre-designated seat or wheelchair pad? If so, how many devices or directions need be considered? From a safety and emergency escape standpoint, the on-board wheelchair can be a nightmare within a nightmare. This Committee must share the responsibility, with buyers and with manufacturers, of deciding on a reasonable and acceptable method and level of safety for the wheelchair-bound passenger. 26-421 0 90 - 14 |