Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
373404502
label
Transportation Suits [1975-1977]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
373404502
contentType
document
title
Transportation Suits [1975-1977]
citationUrl
collections
Lex Frieden Collection: Records on Disability Rights
Printed Materials
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
373404502
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3e18b793205d5256
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
foia Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection: Donated Historical Materials
Collection/Office of Origin:
Frieden, Lex, Collection
Series:
Printed Materials
Subseries:
Reference Materials
OA/ID Number:
52163
Folder ID Number:
52163-002
Folder Title:
Transportation Suits [1975-1977]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
OF
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
UNITED
AMERICA
STATES
OF
May 19, 1977
DECISION OF BROCK ADAMS,
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
TO MANDATE TRANSBUS
INTRODUCTION
The question before me is whether to mandate or encourage the
acquisition of a low-floor, ramped bus ("Transbus") by all local
transit authorities seeking federal assistance for the purchase
of standard-size mass transit buses, after a certain date. Fur-
ther questions include: if Transbus is mandated, what should be
(i) the effective date of the mandate; (ii) the design of the bus;
(iii) the federal role in introducing the bus; and (iv) the interim
bus acquisition policy.
In 1971, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration ("UMTA") of
the Department of Transportation ("DOT") initiated a major research
project to develop an improved transit bus that would attract mass
ridership, be accessible to those elderly and handicapped persons
for whom the high floors and stairs of current buses provide serious
obstacles and encourage continued competition among the manufacturers
of transit buses. UMTA enlisted the aid of the three major domestic
bus manufacturers, AM General, General Motors and the Flxible Co. (a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Rohr Industries), to supply prototypes of
such a bus for testing. Prototypes were built by all three manufactu-
rers, tested by UMTA contractors and demonstrated in actual service
in four cities. This process enabled the development of draft specifi-
cations for production of Transbus.
In July 1976, Robert E. Patricelli, who was then UMTA Administrator,
announced that DOT would not mandate Transbus. Instead, the agency
would permit the introduction of an advanced design bus ("ADB"), would
mandate requirements for making buses accessible to elderly and handi-
capped passengers (to become effective on February 15, 1977) and would
provide funds for research and development of under-the-floor components
that would be needed by a low-floor bus in the future. This decision
generated considerable public dišcussion. Many elderly and handicapped
2
groups asserted that the bus accessibility requirements were
unsatisfactory. Litigation was initiated challenging UMTA's
authority to fund acquisition of ADBs. Work on developing
Transbus came to a virtual halt.
Shortly after I was sworn in as Secretary of Transportation in
January, I took several steps to address these issues. First,
I announced that the decision against mandating Transbus would
be reconsidered and a public hearing on the matter would be held
on March 15. Second, I waived that portion of the regulations on
accessibility for the elderly and handicapped that might have been
inconsistent with a future decision on Transbus, until after that
decision was made. Third, I initiated new policies and procedures
for the interim acquisition of ADBs. A decision on Transbus was
promised by May 27.
In reviewing this matter I have had available to me the record on
which former Administrator Patricelli based his decision, the tran-
script of the March 15 public hearing, written material subsequently
submitted for the record, summaries of staff discussions with inter-
ested parties, also in the record, and, of course, the relevant
statutes which I am responsible for administering.
THE DECISION
After carefully weighing the data and views submitted by manufactu-
rers, the American Public Transit Association ("APTA"), individual
transit authorities, groups representing the elderly and handicapped
and others, I have decided, for the reasons stated below, to mandate
Transbus. This mandate will take the form of requiring the use of
a Transbus specification for all standard-size buses acquired with
UMTA assistance. The mandate will apply to all procurements contain-
ing vehicle specifications approved by UMTA, issued for bid after
September 30, 1979. The specifications already developed after con-
sultation with APTA and others will be used with some minor modifica-
tions. The specifications include a requirement for a stationary
floor height of not more than 22 inches, for an effective floor height
including a kneeling feature of not more than 18 inches, and for a
ramp for boarding and exiting.
Additionally, I have decided that DOT should encourage the formation
of groups of purchasers to make the initial purchases of Transbus
through advertised, low-bid competitions. Progress payments will be
permitted for these initial purchases. Finally, I have decided to
leave in effect the interim policy on accessibility for the elderly
and handicapped. That is, manufacturers must continue to offer
optional wheelchair lifts, and local transit authorities must either
purchase buses with lifts or provide special services for elderly and
handicapped passengers. Each of these decisions is discussed more
fully below.
3
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
In 1964, Congress responded to a growing pattern of declining
ridership and increasing financial difficulties in the Nation's
mass transportation systems by enacting the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Act of 1964 (UMT Act). There have been several major amend-
ments since 1964, and, as amended, it continues to provide the
legislative basis for the federal role in urban mass transportation.
Section 2 of the UMT Act states that its purposes are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning and
establishment of areawide mass transportation systems needed for
economical and desirable urban development; and to provide assis-
tance to State and local governments and their instrumentalities in
financing such systems.
To accomplish these purposes, sections 3 and 5 of the UMT Act
authorize grants to State and local public bodies to assist in the
financing of mass transportation related capital facilities including
standard-size transit buses. The federal share of a capital facili-
ties grant under section 3 is 80 percent of net project cost. Under
section 5, which also authorizes payments for operating assistance,
the Federal share of a capital facilities grant is a maximum of 80
percent of net project cost.-
Section 6 of the UMT Act, under which the Transbus research activi-
ties were funded, authorizes research, development and demonstration
projects in all phases of urban mass transportation. Section 9
authorizes grants for urban mass transportation planning and technical
studies.
A 1970 amendment to the UMT Act declared the mass transportation needs
of elderly and handicapped persons to be of national importance and
required DOT to exercise a special leadership role to insure that their
rights were protected. This 1970 amendment added section 16 to the
Act to read, in part, as follows:
SECTION 16. (a) It is hereby declared to be the
national policy that elderly and handicapped
persons have the same right as other persons to
utilize mass transportation facilities and
services; that special efforts shall be made
in the planning and design of mass transportation
facilities and services so that the availability
to elderly and handicapped persons of mass
transportation which they can effectively
1/ The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 also authorizes capital
assistance to mass transportation including assistance to
acquire standard size transit buses.
4
utilize will be assured; and that all Federal
programs offering assistance in the field of
mass transportation (including the programs
under this Act) should contain provisions
implementing this policy.
Equally important, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
established the right of every handicapped person to be free of
discrimination in any federally-assisted program. Section 504
reads:
No otherwise qualified handicapped individual
in the United States
shall, solely by
reason of his handicap, be excluded from the
participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal finan-
cial assistance.
Shortly after the adoption of section 16, DOT began implementing
the legislative mandate requiring special federal leadership in
the area of mass transportation for elderly and handicapped persons
through written guidelines for UMTA grantees. UMTA also financed
research and studies in the area. In April 1976, the earlier
guidance to grantees was formalized and strengthened by the publi-
cation of UMTA's regulations on transportation for elderly and
handicapped persons. These regulations set forth a comprehensive
scheme of planning, service and design requirements.
DOT has long recognized that a low-floor, standard-size bus that
provides access for nonambulatory and wheelchair-bound passengers
would be an effective means to accommodate these several statutory
mandates. The Transbus program was initiated, at least in part, to
test the feasibility of such a bus. Of the methods of accomplishing
accessibility that were studied and demonstrated in the Transbus
program, UMTA acknowledged that the ramped Transbus emerged as the
most desirable. The ramp was nonetheless not required in the spec-
ifications that were subsequently developed. The existing statutory
mandates regarding transportation for the elderly and handicapped
and the proven feasibility of a low-floor, ramped Transbus that
will result in substantial benefits to the able-bodied as well as
the disabled, argue convincingly for a Transbus mandate.
5
Section 16 of the UMT Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
and other statutory provisions have resulted in a number of law-
suits brought by elderly and handicapped persons. Although DOT
has generally been successful in that litigation, litigation
success alone provides no reason to avoid or defer a federal
mandate of technological improvements as they become available,
especially when, as here, those improvements significantly advance
the mass transportation interests of all persons, including the
elderly and handicapped, and when the improvements are quite
unlikely to be introduced without a federal mandate.
There is one additional statutory reason, apart from improved
accessibility, for mandating Transbus. First, DOT has a statu-
tory obligation to assist in the development of improved mass
transportation facilities and equipment. Until the recent
introduction of ADBs there had been essentially no change in
bus design since the advent of the "new look" bus in 1959. The
advanced designs presently being offered are logical intermediate
steps on the way to the introduction of Transbus, and in fact,
they are in part outgrowths of the Transbus program. Yet these
advanced designs fall short of accomplishing one of the major
goals of the Transbus program--a low-floor with attendant benefits
in boarding and exiting for all passengers. Thus, a Transbus man-
date will bring to fruition the full benefits of federally-assisted
research and development in the area of standard-size buses.
Finally, as the transit bus market has moved to new levels of prod-
uct improvement, it has become increasingly difficult to fashion
procurement methods since ADBs are of somewhat different designs,
with different levels of performance and, quite naturally, different
prices. A Transbus mandate will provide the necessary federal
leadership in the marketplace to allow transit bus manufacturers
to plan investments and tooling costs around certain required
minimum performance and design characteristics. This, in turn,
will permit low-bid procurements that will assist in the main-
tenance of a viable and competitive bus manufacturing industry
based upon a predictable federal policy.
6
THE NEED FOR A MANDATE
A review of the history of the Transbus program convinces me
that simply encouraging Transbus will not result in its prompt
introduction and may not result in its introduction even in the
long-run. Even after approximately $27 million of UMTA invest-
ment, all serious efforts toward producing Transbus stopped when
UMTA announced in July 1976 that it would not be mandated. The
history of change in bus design is not one of constant innovation.
As noted earlier, the so-called "new look" bus, the one currently
in use, was introduced in 1959.1/ ADBs will not be on the streets
for another year and do not offer the advances of Transbus.
A review of the statutes that guide this decision suggests strongly
that any inclination to postpone a mandate further would thwart
the intent of the Congress. A review of recent litigation suggests
equally strongly that the courts are also not prepared to countenance
needless delay in making urban mass transit vehicles accessible to
the elderly and handicapped.
Even if the Congressional and judicial concerns were not as clear as
they are, I believe it is my responsibility to insure to the extent
feasible that no segment of our population is needlessly denied
access to public transportation. It is now within our technological
capability to insure that elderly and handicapped persons are accorded
access to urban mass transit buses. This access is fundamental to
the ability of such persons to lead independent and productive lives.
In my view, a decision assuring that access could have been made
some years ago.
Today, the ADB represents the state-of-the-art in bus design from
the floor up. But their floor height (even with a kneeling feature)
does not make them accessible to the elderly and handicapped without
a wheelchair lift. The lift is an expensive piece of hardware,
principally benefiting those in wheelchairs. Many of those individ-
uals, however, regard the lift as degrading and have expressed con-
cern about the difficulty and safety of using it. In addition, use
of the lift slows bus operations since it takes time to deploy and
other passengers cannot board or exit during that time.
The low-floor Transbus can, on the other hand, accommodate a ramp.
The ramp is swift to deploy and can be used beneficially by many
passengers, including most categories of mobile elderly and handi-
capped. A low-floor, ramped bus will decrease the loading and
unloading time for all passengers.
1/ The lack of innovation in bus design prompted a study by the
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) documenting the need for
an improved transit bus. The NAE study concluded that a low-floor
bus was: "The most desirable means--within the existing state of
the art--for improving bus transportation." The low-floor, the
NAE noted, would result in a bus that was "not only
easy
and comfortable to use, but usable readily and without embarrass-
ment by the physically and economically handicapped, the aged,
the pregnant woman, the businessman, and the young adult."
7
It is important to keep in mind that in discussing bus accessi-
bility for the elderly and handicapped we are not concerned only
with those confined to wheelchairs. We are concerned as well with
any mobility-impaired person, a group which numbers at least 10
million. At any time there may be many other riders who are at
least temporarily disabled. We cannot deny these people the rights
that SO many others enjoy when it is within our ability to accord
them such rights.
I am acutely aware that many who are opposed to Transbus argue that
it is not now within our ability to produce a low-floor, ramped bus
which can operate safely and efficiently in day-to-day transit service.
These objections are discussed in detail below and, in my judgment,
satisfactorily refuted.
Further, a Transbus mandate does not interfere with the traditional
responsibility of local officials to plan for and implement mass
transportation projects. Routes, schedules and fares continue to
be matters of local decision and State and local officials retain
the authority to plan for and implement all transit services including
specialized services where these can contribute to overall mobility
needs. For those communities utilizing standard-size bus service
over fixed routes, the Transbus will permit faster and more efficient
bus service by minimizing the time required to take on and discharge
all passengers, including those who are elderly or handicapped.
Better accessibility, new styling features and a better ride will
attract and retain new ridership, add to the operating revenue of
transit operators and enhance the image of mass transportation in
every community. Moreover, testimony at the public hearing, as well
as a number of comments on the Transbus question, indicate that several
communities have been and continue to be vitally interested in obtain-
ing low-floor standard-size buses, but have been unable to do so
because of the commercial unavailability of Transbus. A Transbus
mandate will permit DOT to be responsive to these locally conceived
mass transportation objectives, as contemplated by the UMT Act.
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MANDATE
The record of the March 15 hearing (and the hearing conducted by
UMTA in 1976) contains conflicting projections of when Transbus could
be ready for production. AM General indicates that Transbus could
be available approximately 34 months from the date of a mandate.
Flxible says 36-60 months, and General Motors says five years. These
manufacturers have different views about the desirability of Transbus
and the adequacy of ADBs, and their existing investments reflect
these judgments.
8
My analysis of the entire record convinces me that all three current
manufacturers could begin deliveries in 3-1/2 years. This date
allows almost 2-1/2 years for development before bidding would
begin, and approximately 15 months thereafter before the buses are
actually delivered.
As I said in my opening remarks at the Transbus hearing, we have
a very competent bus manufacturing industry and I believe com-
petition, as well as innovation, must be encouraged. I am certain
that these manufacturers can meet the challenge of producing Trans-
bus. Additionally, I believe the pressure of effective competition
among the manufacturers will result in a prompt introduction of this
needed improvement. If one manufacturer is ready substantially
before the effective date of the mandate, we will consider sole
source procurements to get Transbus on the streets as soon as it
is available.
Accordingly, as I stated above, I am ordering that all bus procure-
ments utilizing UMTA capital assistance funds must use the Transbus
specifications after September 30, 1979. I urge those manufacturers
who can to make Transbus available voluntarily at an earlier date.
THE DESIGN OF TRANSBUS
In connection with the research effort to develop Transbus, UMTA
developed a complete procurement document - the Transbus Procurement
Requirements (TPR) - for use by local transit authorities in buying
Transbuses. The document contains four parts:
PART I : Bid Requirements/Contractual Provisions
Provides legal and other instruments for
procuring coaches;
PART II : Technical Specifications
Specifies the buses being procured;
PART III : Quality Assurance Provisions
Specifies the minimum quality control require-
ments in the manufacture of the buses; and
PART IV ; Warranty Provisions
Describes the warranty ooverage on the buses
after their acceptance by local transit
authorities.
9
The TPR was developed for DOT by Booz-Allen Applied Research with
full participation by the APTA Bus Technology Committee, AM General,
General Motors, Flxible, and UMTA. It was designed to be used by
procuring agencies in competitive procurements of Transbuses under
the UMTA Capital Grants Program.
It was originally intended that the Transbus prototypes developed
by each manufacturer would be tested and evaluated and a winning
design selected for use by all manufacturers. However, while the
three Transbus manufacturers met the performance requirements for
Transbus prototypes, all three used different approaches based on
their individual body styling, construction and manufacturing
techniques. UMTA concluded that to require all three manufacturers
to build buses around one manufacturer's design would put two of
the manufacturers at an unnecessary competitive disadvantage and
would stifle innovation. Thus, the design specification approach
was abandoned on January 8, 1975, when UMTA announced a policy which
would permit all three designs to qualify for production if they met
a performance specification to be developed by UMTA as a result of
testing and evaluation of the prototype vehicles.
The specifications that were developed as a result of this decision
nevertheless include certain design requirements such as floor
height, door width, step riser height and tread depths intended to
insure that accessibility goals are met. The specifications include
options for features such as power plant size, air-conditioning, bus
width, bus length, etc. The TPR requires every manufacturer to be
able to bid on any specified combination of options in direct cost
competition. The specifications are intended to be modified, from
time to time, as improved components or designs are developed.
I am today adopting, with some modifications, the specifications
developed and set forth in the TPR. The most important modification
is the one which makes the ramp a mandatory feature of the bus. The
TPR, as modified, will be available from UMTA on June 13.
In my judgment, use of this specification will promote the earliest
availability of Transbus without stifling innovation in manufacture
and design.
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN INTRODUCING TRANSBUS
As I indicated above, DOT has already invested approximately $27
million in the Transbus program. As a result of that investment
we have learned what is and is not technologically feasible in
10
connection with development of a low-floor, ramped bus. We have
identified the problems of the prototype buses as well as solutions
to them. We have determined which components need further develop-
ment, and which are presently able to be produced. In my judgment,
the $27 million was well spent.
I am aware that costs remain in connection with going to production
models of Transbus. I am convinced, however, that this type of cost
should properly be borne by the manufacturers. Direct federal fund-
ing for tooling and start-up costs is not appropriate given the
knowledge and experience already gained through the DOT investment.
Product quality, production methods and related matters are and should
be uniquely the responsibility of the manufacturer.
This would not be the case had the federal investment not already
proven the underlying feasibility of Transbus. We could not reasonably
require manufacturers to invest in a wholly unproven technology. But,
as discussed more completely elsewhere, I am convinced the technology
for Transbus is proven and consequently I believe it appropriate to
require the manufacturers to put that technology into production.
There is, however, another important responsibility for the government
to undertake in introducing Transbus into the marketplace. We should,
I believe, do everything feasible to assure early purchases of sub-
stantial numbers of the first production Transbuses. To this end,
we will encourage formation of purchaser groups to make initial pro-
curements of Transbuses from each manufacturer through advertised,
low-bid competitions. While I do not think it is appropriate to allo-
cate the market in an effort to guarantee that each manufacturer's bus
will be bought, we will permit each consortium to make initial Trans-
bus purchases from more than one manufacturer if the consortium members
so desire.
Additionally, we will agree to make progress payments in connection
with these initial purchases to help defray start-up production costs.
As I have already stated, we will also consider making sole source
procurements of any manufacturer's Transbus which is available sub-
stantially earlier than the others.
I believe that these steps represent the maximum necessary federal
role in introducing Transbus.
INTERIM ACCESSIBILITY POLICY
I am aware that even after Transbus is mandated purchases of con-
ventional buses will continue, with UMTA financial assistance, for
11
slightly more than two years. Inasmuch as these newly purchased
buses will continue in operation for 12 or more years, I believe
it is necessary to announce the policy that we will follow concern-
ing accessibility of mass transit for elderly and handicapped in
the period before the introduction of Transbus. I have decided
that our existing policy in this matter should be continued.
That policy is based on requirements that all manufacturers offer
optional equipment (e.g., lifts) for loading wheelchair-bound
and other handicapped passengers, and that local transit authorities
must either purchase accessible buses, or provide special services
suitable for transporting elderly and handicapped passengers.
Many handicapped passengers have expressed concern about the opera-
tion and safety of the lift. Additionally, the lifts are cumbersome
and time-consuming to operate and will become entirely outmoded by
the Transbus ramp. They do, however, make buses accessible to
mobility-impaired passengers. On the other hand, many elderly and
handicapped representatives oppose special services since they
require advance notification or have other disadvantages not associated
with regular scheduled bus service. These representatives argue
that "separate but equal" transit services are inherently unequal and
do not enable elderly and handicapped persons to lead the most fully
integrated lives possible.
Accordingly, I believe it appropriate to allow local governments to
decide how best to serve their elderly and handicapped populations
until Transbus is ready for production. Those who purchase lift-
equipped buses will thereby offer substantially enhanced accessibility
to their elderly and handicapped citizens. Those offering special
services will provide valuable experience for the period after Transbus
is introduced since even fully accessible fixed route buses will not
meet the transportation needs of all elderly and handicapped. DOT
will carefully monitor the activities of grantees of UMTA funds to be
certain that the transportation needs of elderly and handicapped
citizens are being addressed.
THE TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY OF TRANSBUS
A critical factor in determining the desirability of a Federal man-
date of Transbus is technological and economic feasibility. I find
that a bus that meets the existing Transbus specifications, as
modified to require a ramp, serves the needs of the elderly and
handicapped, can be produced in a reasonable period of time and
would be operationally acceptable.
12
Axles, tires and brakes are the most unique components of the Trans-
bus. These components do not require technological breakthroughs,
but merely enough time for proper development. The Transbus proto-
types, manufactured by AM General, General Motors and Flxible, showed
that in at least one instance the new axles were lightweight, used
many existing internal subcomponents and can accommodate the current
design automatic transmission.
Similarly, Transbus will probably require tires which are sub-
stantially smaller than those presently available. Such tires
have been undergoing development for some time and could be put
into production in time for Transbus deliveries. While I under-
stand that these tires will have shorter lives than current tires,
estimates of Transbus operating costs, as discussed later, include
an assumption that the smaller tires will be used. In my view, any
problems that the tires may cause are more than offset by the
greater accessibility of the Transbus.
Transbus brakes will also be somewhat different than existing bus
brakes, yet will utilize essentially the same technology. Despite
the smaller diameter wheels, the Transbus specification provides for
more brake area per pound of vehicle weight than on current buses.
Since this specification can be met using conventional drum brakes,
very little development will be required.
Several Transbus operating issues have arisen. These include road
clearance, problems associated with the kneeling feature and the appro-
priate width of the front door. Because the Transbus prototypes
experienced minor road clearance problems, the final Transbus
specifications require additional road clearance. After the pro-
totypes were tested, every observed ground clearance problem was care-
fully analyzed and the final specifications written so as to eliminate
those problems within the limits of the prototype technology. The
specifications call for road clearance equivalent to or better than
that attained by all three current model buses.
Some problems have been experienced in the past with the kneeling
feature found on ADBs, some current buses and Transbus. First, the
earliest kneeling devices did not always operate properly. This
was found to be a result of corrosion within electrical components.
When greater protection for that system was provided, the problem
was solved. Further, there were complaints of drivers not kneeling
the bus when passengers needed it. While this remains a potential
problem, it can be overcome by proper driver training. A bus that
can kneel to at least 18 inches will benefit all passengers, not
just those who need the ramp. These benefits far outweigh the
difficulties.
13
The front door width called for in the specifications is 44 inches.
This is wide enough to allow room for wheelchair-bound passengers
or to allow for a double stream of ambulatory passengers. This
feature is desired by many operators because it allows an inbound
and outbound stream at the same time, thus shortening the loading
and unloading time. Some operators prefer a narrow (24") door
making a double stream impossible and, therefore, fares easier to
collect. The productivity improvements stemming from the wide door
and consequent reduced loading time should more than offset any
occasional inconvenience in fare collection, and the wide door is
a prerequisite to achieving accessibility. For these reasons, the
narrow door option has been dropped from the specifications.
The record of the public hearing and studies done for UMTA demon-
strate the efficacy of the ramp in providing access for those with
mobility impairments. The Transbus specifications call for a ramp
that will yield the full benefit of this technology. The specifi-
cations provide that the maximum ramp angle on a level street with
no curb must not be more than 14 degrees. This means that on a
level street with a six-inch curb, the ramp angle will be less than
ten degrees; even with a typical crowned street and no curb, the
ramp angle would be approximately 15 degrees. This is within
the range in which most wheelchair-bound persons can be expected
to make unassisted entry although in some cases those in wheel-
chairs may need assistance in exiting. These angles can be
accommodated with a ramp not more than 6 feet long and a slight
incline where the ramp meets the bus floor. This type of technology
has already been utilized by at least one of the prototype
manufacturers.
Probably the most complex feasibility questions with respect to
Transbus involve its economic viability. The Transbus prototypes
included spacious seating arrangements with seating capacity for
42 to 43 people as compared to the maximum seating capacity of
current production buses of 51 to 53. Actually, Transbus could
have a seating capacity of 47 if it is designed with that goal in
mind. ADBs seat between 43-47 passengers, depending on their seat
design. Therefore, I do not believe that there will be a serious
loss of seating capacity. Moreover, full load capacity is more
relevant in determining transit system revenues, and Transbus
will have a full load capacity comparable to current buses.
A similar situation exists with regard to weight and fuel economy.
The Transbus specifications require that curb weight not exceed 26,000
pounds. This weight is about 1,000 to 2,000 pounds more than current
production buses but is the same as the ADB specifications. The added
14
weight is a reflection of the need for an additional axle and
related components. Transbus reliability and maintainability have
become issues as a result of the greater complexity of Transbus
prototypes, especially as compared to current buses. The low-
floor of the Transbus necessitates greater mechanical complexity
in the running gear of the bus, but does not necessitate new or
unique technology. It is important to remember that there has
been no significant change in bus design in almost 20 years. It
is not surprising, therefore, that those with responsibility for
maintaining buses are concerned. Experience and familiarity with
these changes and good product design will remedy this problem.
I am, therefore, convinced that bus maintainability and reliability
will not be seriously affected. Above the floor, Transbus will be
similar to ADBs. We will have had considerable experience with ADBs
before Transbuses are actually on the street.
Because of its greater complexity, smaller diameter tires and slightly
increased weight, the Transbus will cost more than the current bus.
The most reliable cost estimates indicate that, while the initial cost
of Transbus will be approximately 15 to 18 percent more than current
buses, this is only about five percent more than ADBs. A comprehensive
analysis of cost estimates showed that the Transbus would have
operating costs only about one percent higher than current buses.
I conclude that these added costs are not unreasonable in light of
the substantial benefits to all bus riders which Transbus will provide.
Bood
Secretary of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
al
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 76-1369
United Handicapped Federation, :
a Minnesota Non-Profit
:
Corporation, et al.,
:
:
Appellants,
:
Appeal from the United States
:
District Court for the
V.
:
District of Minnesota
:
Camille D. Andre, Individually
:
and in his official capacity
:
as Chief Administrator of
:
Metropolitan Transit
:
Commission, et al.,
:
:
Appellees.
:
Submitted: February 15, 1977
Filed: June 21, 1977
Before LAY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, *
Senior District Judge.
LAY, Circuit Judge.
This is a civil action brought by the United Handicapped
Federation, the National Paraplegia Foundation, and six
mobility handicapped individuals against officials of the
Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), the Secretary of
the United States Department of Transportation, the Admini-
strator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA),
and the AM General Corporation. The complaint alleges that
the defendants failed to make urban mass transit equipment.
*TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge, Eastern District
of Michigan, sitting by designation.
purchased with federal financial aid fully accessible to all
handicapped persons. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
have violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, $ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 1
S 16 (a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as
amended, 2 §§ 105 (a) and (b) of the Federal-Aid Highway
Amendments of 1974, 3 § 315 of the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1975, 4 Minn. Stat.
Ann. Chapt. 256C, and 42 U.S.C. $5 1983 and 1985 (3).
Plaintiffs originally sought preliminary injunctive
relief to restrain MTC and UMTA 5 from the purchase of 338
standard size buses which were to be used in a seven-county
metropolitan area and which were not equipped to transport
passengers confined to wheelchairs. The district court denied
a preliminary injunction and the buses were subsequently
delivered and payment made. The plaintiffs continued to seek
declaratory and other injunctive relief.
On March 11, 1976, the district court, the Honorable
Donald D. Alsop, granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment, ruling that none of the statutes relied on by
plaintiffs required that every standard size bus purchased
with federal assistance be specially equipped to transport
1 29 U.S.C. § 794.
2 49 U.S.C. $ 1612.
3 Pub.L. No. 93-643, 88 Stat. 2282.
4 Pub.L. No. 93-391, 88 Stat. 781.
5 UMTA was to contribute 80 per cent of the funding for
the buses.
-2-
passengers confined to wheel chairs.
6
He further held that
defendants had made "special efforts" to aid the elderly
and handicapped in utilization of the mass transportation
system. Finding no violations of the statutes or of the
Constitution, the district court stated:
UMTA has, in accordance with the mandate of
Congress pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation
(UMT) Act of 1964, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1601
et seq carried on extensive research, planning,
and design of mass transportation services and
facilities to provide for effective utilization
handicapped. Included in these efforts are the
of mass transportation by the elderly and physically
ongoing research and devleopment of facilities and
services, approval of grants for the purchase of
vans and small buses equipped to meet the needs of
the elderly and handicapped, development of the
"TRANSBUS, publication of Notice of Rulemaking,
and a requirement in grant approvals that the
elderly and handicapped be charged reduced rates
during non-peak hours.
United Handicapped Federation V. Andre, 409 F. Supp. 1297,
1299 (D. Minn. 1976) 7
6
At the time of the district court's opinion several
other suits seeking the same or similar relief had been
brought or were pending in other district courts. See, e.g.,
Webb V. Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority, Civ. No.
C-3-75-67, (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 1976) ; Llovd V. Illinois
Regional Transp. Authority, No. 75-C-1834 (N.D. Ill., filed
Mar. 16, 1976) rev'd, No. 76-1524 (7th Cir., filed Jan. 8,
1977) ; and Snowden V. Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit
Authority, 407 F. Supp. 394 (N.D. Ala. 1975), aff'd, No.
75-3411 (5th Cir., filed Apr. 21, 1977).
7
declares it to be a national policy that:
The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended,
[E]lderly and handicapped persons have the same
right as other persons to utilize mass trans-
portation facilities and services; that special
efforts shall be made in the planning and design
of mass transportation facilities and services SO
that the availability to elderly and handicapped
-3-
Although Judge Alsop found that defendants were in full
compliance with the "special efforts" requirements under
the laws, we note that his decision was rendered prior to
the issuance of UMTA regulations, in part under the authority
of § 504
Judge Alsop's opinion does not discuss whether the
plaintiffs have any standing to bring a private claim for
relief or whether any of the statutes place affirmative
duties on the defendants. We assume the district court felt
it did not have to pass on these issues since, in any event,
it found that defendants had complied with the statutes.
In Lloyd V. Illinois Regional Transp. Authority,
NO. 75-C-1834 (N.D. Ill., filed Mar. 16, 1976), rev'd, No. 76-
1524 (7th Cir., filed Jan. 8, 1977), the district court granted
defendant's motion for summary judgment under a complaint
similar to the one filed here. The Seventh Circuit reversed
finding that $ 504 8 did place affirmative duties on the mass
7 (continued)
persons of mass transportation which they can
effectively utilize will be assured; and that all
Federal programs offering assistance in the field
of mass transportation (including the programs
under this chapter) should contain provisions
implementing this policy.
49 U.S.C. § 1612.
8 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides:
No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in
the United States,
shall, solely by réason
of his handicap, be excluded from the participa-
tion in, be denied the benefits of, or be sub-
jected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
29 U.S.C. § 794.
-4-
public transportation systems in that region, and that plaintiffs
(who were defined as a class of mobility disabled persons in
the northeastern region of Illinois) had standing to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief under § 504 and regulations.
See Lloyd V. Regional Transp. Authority, No. 76-1524 (7th Cir.,
filed Jan. 8, 1977).
Although the postures at the time of appeal of the Lloyd
case and the present one appear different (in Lloyd the
district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state
a claim for relief; here the district court granted summary
judgment on the merits), they are parallel in that all
plaintiffs are denied relief. In one sense, the district
court's action here is more final than in Lloyd since no
further relief can be forthcoming. After reviewing the
Seventh Circuit's reversal in the Lloyd case we find we
must remand to the district court for reconsideration of
defendants' duties under the statutes and administrative
regulations and guidelines.
We adhere to the reasoning of Judge Cummings in his
excellent analysis in the Lloyd appeal, and find that § 504
does create an affirmative duty on the part of these
defendants. We also agree that plaintiffs do have standing
to bring a private cause of action.
Subsequent to the district court's decision, regulations
and accompanying guidelines were promulgated and became
effective May 31, 1976. See 49 C.F.R. 609.1 - 609.25 and
613.204. One regulation provides that the UMTA administrator
-5-
will grant project approvals only if:
(a) The urban transportation planning process
exhibits satisfactory special efforts in planning
public mass transportation facilities and services
that can be utilized by elderly and handicapped
persons; and
(b) The annual element of the transportation
improvement program developed pursuant to 23
CFR 450.118 and submitted after September 30,
1976, contains projects or project elements
designed to benefit elderly and handicapped
persons, specifically including wheelchair users
and those with semi-ambulatory capabilities; and
(c) After September 30, 1977, reasonable
progress has been demonstrated in implementing
previously programmed projects.
49 C.F.R. § 613.204 (emphasis added)
Guidance on the meaning of special efforts in planning is set
forth in 23 C.F.R. Part 450, Subpart A, issued simultaneously
with the above regulations:
The urban transportation planning process must
include special efforts to plan public mass
transportation facilities and service that can
effectively be utilized by elderly and handi-
capped persons. As used in this guidance, the
term "special efforts" refers both to service
- for elderly and handicapped persons in general and
specifically to service for wheelchair users and
semiambulatory persons. With regard to trans-
portation for wheelchair users and others who
cannot negotiate steps, "special efforts" in
planning means genuine, good-faith progress in
planning service for wheelchair users and semi-
ambulatory handicapped persons that is reasonable
by comparison with the service provided to the
general public and that meets a significant fraction
of the actual transportation needs of such persons
within a reasonable time period.
(Emphasis added)
Examples of what affirmative duties will satisfy "special
-6-
efforts" requirements are given in 49 C.F.R. Part 613,
Subpart
B. 9 In addition to these positive examples, proposed
regulations of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department
indicate what recipients of federal assistance may not do.
See 45 C.F.R. $ 84.4. 10
On the basis of the record before the district court,
if it were not for the subsequent promulgation of the adminis-
trative guidelines and regulations, we would agree. with the
district court's result. However, we feel that the denial of
9
One example of a level of effort that will be deemed
to satisfy the "special efforts" requirement is:
Purchase of only wheelchair-accessible new
fixed route equipment until one-half of the fleet
is accessible, or, in the alternative, provision of
a substitute service that would provide comparable
coverage and service levels.
49 C.F.R. Part 613, Subpart B (Appendix). .
10
Under the proposed Health, Education, and Welfare
Department regulations a federal assistance recipient could
not, for example:
Provide a qualified handicapped person with
aid, benefit, or service which is not as effective
as that provided to others; [or]
Otherwise limit a qualified handicapped person
in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage
or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving an aid,
benefit or service.
45 C.F.R. § 84.4 (b) (1) (ii) and (iv).
Moreover § 84.4 (b) (2) would establish that:
A recipient may not provide different or separate aid,
benefits or services to handicapped persons unless such
action is necessary to provide qualified handicapped
persons with aid, benefits, or services which are as
effective as those provided to others.
-7-
relief to the plaintiffs cannot be justified in light of
these recent definitions and guidelines. Although the buses
in question here have been purchased and placed in service,
because of the recent developments the defendants now have the
burden to take affirmative action to conform to the regulations
and guidelines. It is difficult to assess the record and the
11
statutes in any other light.
Under the circumstances we vacate the grant of summary
judgment and remand to the district court for further pro-
ceedings. The district court, upon receiving further evidence,
should reappraise defendants' compliance with the statutes,
regulations and guidelines, and fashion whatever equitable
relief it deems necessary.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
11
On May 19, 1977, Brock Adams, the Secretary of
Transportation, issued a decision mandating the use of a low-
floor, ramped bus, "Transbus," by all local transit authorities
seeking federal assistance for the purchase of standard-size
mass transit buses, after September 30, 1979. In the interim
the present policy on accessibility for the elderly and handi-
capped contained in the statutes, guidelines and regulations
is to continue. Adams stated:
[M] anufacturers must continue to offer optional
wheelchair lifts, and local transit authorities
must either purchase buses with lifts or provide
special services for elderly and handicapped
passengers.
-8-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DISABLED IN ACTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, Inc. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
1319 McKinley Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, Inc.
:
7315 Wisconsin Avenue
Room 301 West
Washington, D.C.
:
AMERICAN COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH
:
DISABILITIES, Inc.
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
:
Room 308
Washington, D.C.
:
DISABLED IN ACTION OF BALTIMORE
:
743 Overbrook Road
:
Baltimore, Maryland
DISABLED IN ACTION OF NEW YORK, LTD.
:
175 Willoughby Street
Brooklyn, New York
:
DISABLED IN ACTION OF NEW JERSEY, Inc.
:
440 Rutherford Avenue
:
Lyndhurst, New Jersey
NATIONAL CAPITOL AREA CHAPTER OF THE
:
NATIONAL PARAPLEGIA FOUNDATION, Inc.
5522 Greystone Street
Washington, D.C.
:
NATIONAL CAUCUS ON THE BLACK AGED
:
1730 M Street, N.W.
Suite 811
Washington, D.C.
:
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF ORGANIZATIONS
:
OF THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED, Inc.
7611 Oakland Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota
:
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS, Inc. :
1511 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
: CLASS ACTION
PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF OLDER
:
PERSONS, Inc.
:
Suite 411
10 South Market Square
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
:
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION
:
OF PENNSYLVANIA
1719 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
:
on their own behalf and on behalf of their
:
members,
Plaintiffs
:
JAY NEUMAN
:
1460 Devereaux Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
AL MARCUS
.
:
1319 Magee Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
JOYCE BROCK
:
5466 Baltimore Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
DEREK BOWEN
:
313 West Manheim Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
HARRY BURNS
:
Mayfair House Apartments
Lincoln Drive and Johnson Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
EMIL SABATINI
:
909 Wynnewood Road
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
SONIA STEIN
:
1303 Hellerman Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
:
on behalf of themselves and all others
:
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
:
vs.
:
-2-
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, JR., Secretary
:
United States Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
:
ROBERT E. PATRICELLI, Administrator,
:
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
400 7th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
:
NORBERT T. TIEMANN, Administrator,
:
Federal Highway Administration
400 7th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
:
Individually and in their official capacities,
:
Defendants
:
COMPLAINT
"Of all inventions, the alphabet and the printing
press excepted, those inventions that abridge
distance have done most for the civilization of
our species."
Thomas Babington Macaulay
"It is hereby declared to be the national policy
that elderly and handicapped persons have the same
right as other persons to utilize mass transportation
services; that special efforts shall be made in the
planning, design, construction, and operation of mass
transportation facilities and services so that the
availability to elderly and handicapped persons of
mass transportation which they can effectively
utilize will be assured; and that all Federal programs
offering assistance in the field of mass transportation
...
effectively implement this policy."
The Federal-Aid Highway Act Amendments of 1974, §
105(a), 23 U.S.C. $ 142 nt.; The Urban Mass Trans-
portation Assistance Act of 1970, § 8, 49 U.S.C. §
1612(a).
"When this policy was first enunciated in my amendment
to the 1970 Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act,
-3-
it was hailed as the emanicipation proclamation for
the handicapped.
"Heretofore, handicapped Americans were relegated
to separate and unequal transit systems--systems that
were very costly not only to the Government, but also
to the individual user. My 1970 amendment sought to
require that design and construction of all new mass
transit systems, equipment, and facilities be totally
accessible to the elderly and handicapped."
Statement of Congressman Biaggi on the floor of the
United States House of Representatives, June 19, 1974,
120 Cong. Rec. 5309.
I. Preliminary Statement
1.
This is an action by mobile disabled and elderly persons and
their organizations for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the
Secretary of Transportation, the Urban Mass Transportation Administrator,
and the Federal Highway Administrator to require that federal financial
assistance be used only to purchase low floor, wide door, ramped buses and
otherwise to assure the availability to elderly and handicapped persons of
public transportation which they can effectively utilize, as the Congress has
repeatedly mandated, in the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as
amended, 49 U.S.C. SS 1602(a)(1) and 1612(a); the Federal-Aid Highway Acts of 1973,
as amended, 23 U.S.C. $ 142 nt.; the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1975, un 315, Pub. L. 93-391; and the Rehabilita-
tion Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
2.
Defendants have completed a major nine-year $27, 000, 000
research and development project known as TRANSBUS to build a new genera-
tion of full-size transit buses designed and equipped to effectively accomodate
mobile disabled and elderly passengers. The TRANSBUS project has produced
a low floor, wide door, ramped bus which has been demonstrated to be safe,
-4-
reliable, attractive to all segments of the public, and capable of improving
public transportation and increasing bus ridership and transit revenues.
3.
The low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS is the only tech-
nologically proven design which will assure mobile disabled and elderly
persons ready access to and effective use of public transportation. Such
an accessible vehicle will not be produced and put into operation unless
defendants require TRANSBUS as the standard bus design for public transit
operating agencies purchasing buses with federal financial assistance.
4.
Instead of requiring the use of federal financial assistance to
purchase only the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS, defendants
have adopted policies, promulgated regulations, and engaged in practices
which perpetuate major physical and structural barriers in the design of
transit equipment, which exclude mobile disabled and elderly people from
effective utilization of public transportation, which preclude the production of
an accessible, full-size bus, and which confine mobile disabled and elderly
people to prohibitively expensive, segregated transportation facilities.
5.
The allegations of this Complaint are set forth as follows:
Page No.
Jurisdiction
7
Venue
7
Parties
8
Organizational Plaintiffs
8
Individual Plaintiffs
16
Defendants
25
Class Action Allegations
26
-5-
Page No.
Statement of the Claim
32
Federal Public Mass Transportation Assistance
32
Programs
The Duties of Defendants
34
The Technological Possibilities
39
The Requirements of the Market
51
The Failures of Defendants
55
Bases for Relief
64
Relief
66
-6-
II. Jurisdiction
6.
This being an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to
compel officers of an agency of the United States to perform duties owed to
plaintiffs, arising under the laws and the Constitution of the United States
including Acts of Congress regulating commerce and providing for the protec-
tion of civil rights, the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to
Title 28, U.S.C. SS 1361, 1331, 1337 and 1343(4). The matter in controversy
exceeds $10, 000, exclusive of interests and costs. Relief from agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, from agency action which is
arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, and from agency action which
is short of statutory right or contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege,
or immunity is authorized by Title 5, U.S.C. 55 701-706. Declaratory relief
is authorized by Title 28, U.S.C. $$ 2201 and 2202.
7.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law; they have suffered
and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury from the actions
and inactions of defendants here complained of and therefore seek equitable
relief.
ш. Venue
8.
This being an action against officers of the United States
and of an agency thereof acting in their official capacities, with plaintiffs
residing in this judicial district, venue properly lies in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. g
1391 (e).
-7-
IV. Parties
Organizational Plaintiffs
9.
DISABLED IN ACTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, Inc. is a non-
profit corporation founded in 1973. Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania has
a membership of over 200 persons, which includes both physically disabled
and able bodied individuals. A significant number of the organization's
physically disabled members reside in Philadelphia within two blocks of a
bus stop and cannot obtain such basic necessities as education, employment,
and medical care because buses and other forms of federally funded public
transportation are inaccessible to them. Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania
has among its purposes the improvement of the physical and social conditions
and personal well being of disabled persons through the eradication of
environmental and attitudinal barriers which keep the disabled out of the
mainstream of society. Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania has established a
speakers bureau and standing committees on transportation, housing, and
employment to represent the interests of disabled citizens. The programs,
services, and financial condition of Disabled in Action, as an organization,
are adversely affected by lack of accessible public transportation. The organiza-
tion suffers direct and concrete injury in the following particulars:
(a)
Programs are curtailed, meetings are cancelled,
and membership lost.
(b)
Organizational funds are expended on costly private
transport of officers and members for meetings and
other official business.
(c)
Disabled in Action is impeded in representation of
its views and interests before public agencies such
as the Delaware Regional Planning Commission, the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Human Relations
Commission.
-8-
10.
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, Inc. is a non-profit
corporation founded in 1946 and chartered by the United States Congress, 85
Stat. 317. Paralyzed Veterans of America has 29 chapters throughout the
country, and 10, 200 members who are spinal cord injured veterans of the
United States Armed Services in World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam.
Its members are mobile in wheelchairs. Eighty-seven percent of paralyzed
veterans in this country are unemployed. Among the purposes of the Paralyzed
Veterans of America is the elimination of environmental barriers which
restrict the ability of spinal cord injured persons to participate in occupations,
and to engage in other activities available to all Americans. A significant
number of the members of Paralyzed Veterans of America reside in urban
areas and are denied ready access to and effective us of buses and other forms
of federally financed public transportation, and are thus precluded from
obtaining housing, education and training, employment, and recreation.
The programs, services, and financial condition of Paralyzed Veterans of
America as an organization are adversely affected by lack of accessible public
transportation. The organization suffers direct and concrete injury in the
following particulars:
(a)
Sports and recreation programs are curtailed, meetings
cancelled, and membership lost.
(b)
Quadplegic veterans who cannot drive cannot be hired,
even though a bus stops directly in front of the organiza-
tion's accessible offices in Washington, D.C.
(c)
Organizational funds are expended for rental of private
vehicles for members and other disabled veterans.
Furthermore, the organization is impeded in its performance of the charge of
Congress in its charter to pursue claims on behalf of veterans before the Veterans
Administration and other governmental agencies by the absence of accessible
public transportation.
-9-
11.
The AMERICAN COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES,
Inc. is a non-profit corporation founded in 1974, whose membership is
comprised of individuals and thirty three organizations, including National
Association of the Deaf, American Council for the Blind, and National
Paraplegia Foundation, which represent two million disabled persons
throughout the United States. Both the individual members and the members
of its constituent organizations do not have ready access to buses and other
forms of federally financed mass transportation. The American Coalition
of Citizens with Disabilities has among its purposes the promotion of the civil
and human rights of all people with physical or mental disabilities and the
elimination of discriminatory practices against disabled persons in education,
employment, housing, public accomodations and transportation. Accordingly,
the Coalition has a direct and concrete interest in the elimination of
transportation barriers which preclude its members from obtaining housing,
education, and employment, and enjoying the recreational, cultural, and
social activities of their communities. The programs, services and financial
condition of the American Coalition are adversely affected by the lack of
accessible buses and other forms of mass transportation. The Coalition suffers
direct and concrete injury in the following particulars:
(a)
Programs and activities are curtailed, meetings
cancelled and membership lost.
(b)
Volunteers who are disabled and do not drive cannot
be recruited for programs. Volunteers who are
disabled are essential to the Coalition's survival,
it being an organization governed, staffed,and
operated by disabled persons themselves.
(c)
Organizational funds are expended for rental of vans
and other private vehicles to transport officers, members,
staff, and volunteers.
-10-
12.
DISABLED IN ACTION OF BALTIMORE,
DISABLED IN
ACTION OF NEW YORK, LTD., and DISABLED IN ACTION OF NEW JERSEY,
Inc. are associations of physically disabled people and non-disabled people
with a total membership of 470 (200, 150, and 120 respectively) persons who
reside in urban areas and do not have access to buses or other forms of
federally funded mass transportation. The three Disabled in Action organiza-
tions share among their purposes the elimination of discriminatory practices
against disabled persons in education, employment, housing, public accomoda-
tion, and transportation Accordingly, plaintiff organizations have a direct and
concrete interest as organizations in the removal of transportation barriers
which preclude its members from obtaining housing, education, and employ-
ment, petitioning local, state and federal governments on individual claims and
matters affecting the physically disabled, and enjoying the recreational,
cultural, and social activities of Baltimore, New York, and New Jersey. The
programs, services and financial condition of the three Disabled in Action
associations are all abversely affected by lack of accessible buses and other
forms of mass transportation. The organizations suffer direct and concrete
injury in the following particulars:
(a)
Programs are curtailed, meetings cancelled, and
membership lost.
(b)
Organizational funds are expended for taxi, rental
of vehicles and other private transportation for
members.
(c)
The organizations are impeded in representing
organizational interests in city council hearings, state
legislative meetings and other public forums.
-11-
13.
NATIONAL CAPITOL AREA CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL
PARAPLEGIA FOUNDATION, Inc. is a non-profit corporation founded in
1965 with a membership of 155, primarily paraplegic and quadriplegic persons
who reside in the metropolitan Washington D.C. 'area and who do not have
ready access to buses and other forms of federally funded mass transportation.
It has among its purposes the removal of architectural, housing, and transporta-
tion barriers to the handicapped; increasing employment opportunities for
the handicapped; and improving and expanding rehabilitation and treatment of
persons suffering spinal cord injuries. Accordingly, plaintiff has a direct
and concrete interest as an organization in the elimination of transportation
barriers which preclude its members from obtaining housing, education,
and training, employment, and enjoying the recreational, cultural, and social
activities of the Washington D.C. area. The programs, services, and
financial condition of the National Capitol Area Chapter of the National
Paraplegia Foundation are adversely affected by lack of accessible buses and
other forms of federally funded mass transportation and the organization suffers
direct and concrete injury in the following particulars:
(a)
Educational programs and conferences for
public officials, medical and allied health pro-
fessionals, and general public are curtailed;
meetings are cancelled; and membership is
lost.
(b)
Presentation of expert testimony to federal
and local governmental bodies concerning
paraplegia is impeded.
14.
The NATIONAL CAUCUS ON THE BLACK AGED is an unincor-
porated association founded in 1970 with a membership of over 1000 elderly
persons many of whom reside in urban areas and are dependent on buses and
-12-
other forms of federally funded public transportation to meet essential needs.
The National Caucus on the Black Aged has among its purposes to identify and
remedy discriminatory conditions affecting the social and economic well being
of aged and elderly persons, especially blacks and other minorities.
Accordingly, the National Caucus on the Black Aged has a direct and concrete
interest in the improvement of public transportation services and the elimina-
tion of transportation barriers which preclude its members from securing
health care and other basic necessities of life, and enjoying the recreational,
social, and cultural activities of their communities. The programs, services,
and financial condition of the National Caucus on Black Aged are adversely
affected by the lack of accessible buses and other forms of federally funded
mass transportation and suffers direct and concrete injury in the following
particulars:
(a)
Programs are curtailed, meetings cancelled,
and membership lost.
(b)
Organizational funds are expended for taxi
fare for volunteers who cannot effectively use
public transit.
15.
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF ORGANIZATIONS OF THE PHYSI-
CALLY HANDICAPPED, Inc. (COPH) is a national coalition of the physically
handicapped and their organizations, founded in 1958. Its forty eight member
organizations represent over 80, 000 individual members in forty nine states.
The disabled persons in the coalition's member-organizations do not have
ready access to buses and other forms of federally financed mass transportation.
The National Congress of Organizations of the Physically Handicapped has
among its purposes promoting employment opportunities, legislation, equal
-13-
rights, social activity and rehabilitation of physically handicapped persons.
Accordingly, COPH has a direct and concrete interest in the elimination of
transportation barriers which preclude its members from obtaining housing,
education, training and employment, and enjoying the recreational, cultural,
and social activities of their communities. The programs, services, and
financial condition of COPH and its member-organizations are adversely
affected by the lack of accessible buses and other forms of mass transportation.
They suffer direct and concrete injury in the following particulars:
(a)
Programs and services are curtailed, meetings
cancelled and membership lost.
(b)
Organizational funds are expended for taxis,
vans and other private transportation for
members and staff who are denied the use of
public transportation.
(c)
Staff and volunteers who are disabled and do not
drive cannot be recruited for programs and
activities.
(d)
Representation of organizational views and
interests at various public hearings and meetings
is impeded and ability to petition public agencies
for redress of grievances is forestalled.
16.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS, Inc. is a non-
profit corporation founded in 1961 to advance the health and social welfare
of elderly persons. It has a membership of 3, 500 clubs representing 3, 500, 000
individuals, the great majority of whom are retired persons. Many members
are disabled, or in poor health, live on low fixed incomes in urban areas and
rely exclusively on public transportation to reach essential services including
medical care. PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF OLDER PERSONS (PAOP), Inc.,
a non-profit corporation founded in 1969 with a statewide membership of 30, 000
-14-
elderly persons,is an independent affiliate of the National Council of Senior
Citizens. Both the National Council of Senior Citizens and the Pennsylvania
Association of Older Persons have a direct and concrete interest in improvement
of mass transportation and elimination of transportation barriers which
preclude their members from obtaining housing, health care and other
services and enjoying the cultural, recreational, and social activities of their
communities. The programs, services, and financial condition of the National
Council for Senior Citizens and its affiliates and clubs are adversely affected
by the lack of accessible buses and other forms of mass transportation
by limitation of activities, loss of members and other injuries similar to
those suffered by other organizational plaintiffs.
17.
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA
is a non-profit corporation founded in 1952. It has twenty two affiliates and two
service committees, serving over 6, 000 persons and representing 10, 000
persons with cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities. Persons served
by United Cerebral Palsy affiliates do not have ready access to buses or other
forms of federally funded public mass transportation and depend upon the
affiliates for transportation. United Cerebral Palsy Association has among its
purposes to promote the general welfare of persons with cerebral palsy and
developmental disabilities, to assist in the establishment of centers in
Pennsylvania for the educational, social,and physical betterment of individuals
with cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities, and to eliminate
environmental barriers which exclude persons with cerebral palsy from
education, employment and other activities available to all Pennsylvanians.
The programs, services, and financial condition of United Cerebral Palsy
Association of Pennsylvania and its affiliates are adversely affected by lack of
-15-
accessible buses and other forms of mass transportation. The Association
and its affiliates have devoted a great proportion of their funds and resources
to provide transportation for persons who cannot effectively use public
transportation to participate in its workshops, clinics, educational and social
programs. In recent years the financial burden of purchasing and maintaining
vans, other specialized vehicles and otherwise paying for private transportation
has threatened the survival of many United Cerebral Palsy affiliates. For
some affiliates the cost of private transportation exceeds 23% of program costs.
United Cerebral Palsy Association suffers direct and concrete injury from lack
of accessible public transportation in the following particulars:
(a)
Its programs and services are curtailed. In
recent weeks in Philadelphia alone, nine persons
lost their jobs at a UCP vocational workshop when
funds for transportation ran out. Five other persons
cannot come to the workshop because there is no more
room in the van.
(b)
Its meetings are cancelled and membership lost.
Social, recreational activities have been cancelled
due to lack of funds to continue to pay taxi fare for
participants.
(c)
Organizational funds are depleted from expenditures
for costly specialized transportation services
rather than to provide more and better services
to adults and children with cerebral palsy.
Individual Plaintiffs
18.
JAY NEUMAN,age 28, has cerebral palsy and hence limited use
of his arms and legs. He is, however, fully mobile with an electric wheelchair.
He lives at 1460 Devereaux Avenue in the northeast section of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, within a block of a SEPTA bus stop.
19.
Mr. Neuman is denied the use of public transportation because
-16-
the design of mass transit vehicles excludes people who otherwise enjoy
independent mobility but cannot negotiate steps.
20.
Mr. Neuman graduated from Philadelphia Community College
and had enrolled as a part-time journalism student at Temple University.
The Pennsylvania Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation paid taxi-cab expenses
for Mr. Neuman to commute to and from school, but would not do so once
he found employment. Cab-fare from his home to downtown where most
journalism jobs are located is $25 roundtrip. Moreover, often Mr. Neuman
had to wait as much as two hours for a cab to arrive at his door, and often
the cab driver would refuse to accept him as a passenger because the driver
did not want the obligation of lifting him into and out of his cab. The prospect
of being unable to afford to travel to work or to travel to work reliably
caused Mr. Neuman to withdraw from Temple University.
21.
Within the constraints of his $110 a month Supplemental Security
Income, which will support only one taxi cab trip a week, Mr. Neuman is
presently seeking employment. He is preparing, for example, to take a federal
civil service examination, but job opportunities are severely limited because
of inaccessible transportation.
22.
Mr. Neuman is an active member, vice-president-elect, and
chairman of the Transportation Committee of Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania,
an organization devoted to securing legislative and other redress for disabled
citizens. Mr. Neuman represents Disabled in Action on the Citizens
Transportation Committee of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission, SEPTA's Advisory Committee on the Elderly and Handicapped,
and the Coalition for Equal Public Transportation Services. On June 11, 1976,
-17-
The Philadelphia Inquirer published a letter of Mr. Neuman's in the lead position
on the editorial page, under the headline "For disabled, SEPTA's always closed."
Recently Mr. Neuman had to attend a meeting of the organization at which
presentation of testimony for public hearings was to be planned. Mr. Neuman
could not afford another taxi cab ride that month SO he travelled to the bus stop
at Frankford and Pratt Streets where, with the consent of the driver, two
passengers offered to lift him on to the No. 5 bus. While lifting him in his
wheelchair one of the passengers lost his grip, the electric wheelchair fell to the
ground, and Mr. Neuman himself was saved from injury only by the timely
assistance of a third passenger.
23.
Mr. Neuman is an avid sports fan. The municipal Veterans
Stadium, where Philadelphia's major league teams play, is by operation of
the applicable codes prohibiting barriers in public buildings, fully accessible.
But without accessible transportation, Mr. Neuman cannot get to the stadium nor
can he otherwise freely visit with friends and associates.
24.
Availability of the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS to
Mr. Neuman would make possible economic independence, the choice of
rewarding work, the opportunity more effectively to participate in and to
influence public decision, and the enjoyment of recreational and social oppor-
tunities.
25.
AL MARCUS, age 58, has severe rheumatoid arthritis and
osteoarthritis with the consequence, among others, that his hip joints are locked.
He is, however, fully mobile with crutches. Mr. Marcus resides at 1319
Magee Avenue, Northeast Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where the S-26 bus goes
right past his front door.
-18-
26.
Mr. Marcus is excluded from use of public transportation
because he cannot negotiate the level change in SEPTA buses.
27.
Prior to developing arthritis 35 years ago, Mr. Marcus was
an automobile mechanic. When his disability prevented his continued employ-
ment as a mechanic he learned electronics. Inaccessible transportation
prevented employment outside his home, and from 1955 to 1965 he worked as
an electrical wireman on a sub-contract basis. When the contract phased
out he was obliged to take odd jobs which could be performed at his home.
These jobs offer low and undependable income.
28.
Mr. Marcus must rely on his wife for transportation. Mrs.
Marcus works during the day in order to provide family income and as a
result Mr. Marcus is confined to his home until she returns.
29.
Accessible bus transportation would enable Mr. Marcus to
increase his mobility and seek steady employment and be independently mobile
to visit friends, attend recreational activities and go shopping. The only
obstacle between Mr. Marcus and these ordinary activities is the absence
of accessible public transportation.
30.
When the TRANSBUS prototype was demonstrated in Philadelphia
on December 16, 1974 Mr. Marcus boarded a bus for the first time in over
30 years and was given new hope of living a more productive life.
31.
Availability of the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS
to Mr. Marcus would make possible employment in an occupation he is
trained and qualified to perform and the opportunity to enjoy the recreational,
social and cultural activities of the city.
-19-
32.
JOYCE BROCK, age 25, has cerebral palsy, affecting the use
of her arms and legs. She maneuvers with crutches or wheelchair depending
upon the distance she must travel. Ms. Brock cannot climb steps, nor is she
able to drive a car because of poor eyesight. Ms. Brock resides at 5466
Baltimore Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is within two blocks of
public transportation.
33.
Ms. Brock graduated from Pennsylvania State University in
1974 and enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work.
Inaccessibility of public transportation to travel to school and fieldwork
placement necessitated withdrawal from graduate school.
34.
After long and intensive search for employment, the only job
Ms. Brock was able to obtain was temporary, part-time employment as a
tutor at Philadelphia Community College. Her cab fares to her job amounted
to $100 a month, a prohibitive amount given a monthly salary of $162.
Ms. Brock is currently unemployed and subsists on a $135 a month Supplementary
Security Income payment out of which she pays for private transportation to
twice weekly physical therapy treatments.
35.
Although she has been able to locate numerous employment
opportunities, lack of accessible transportation prevents her form interviewing
for positions and accepting permanent employment.
36.
Ms. Brock is denied ready access to and use of public
transportation because mass transit vehicles exclude persons who enjoy inde-
pendent mobility but cannot negotiate steps.
37.
The result of this exclusion is to deny Ms. Brock opportunity for
-20-
employment, economic independence, and the varied opportunities of cultural
and other recreational resources available to and enjoyed by her friends and
neighbors who are able to travel on public transportation.
38.
Availability of the TRANSBUS vehicle to Ms. Brock would make
possible opportunities for employment and enjoyment of recreational and social
opportunities available to others.
39.
DEREK BOWEN, age 25, is a quadriplegic as a result of an
injury received playing football and has limited use of his arms and hands. He
is mobile with an electric wheelchair. He resides at 313 West Manheim Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is within one block of a bus stop.
40.
From 1970 to 1973 Mr. Bowen attended Philadelphia Community
College. In 1975 he graduated from Temple University with a bachelor's
degree in Therapeutic Recreation. Mr. Bowen does not drive In order to
attend both schools, he bought and maintained a van specially equipped with a
portable ramp and relied on his father and brothers to transport him from home
to his classes each day.
41.
Currently, Mr. Bowen is employed part-time at Carousel House,
a city recreation center for physically and mentally disabled persons. Carousel
House is located a considerable distance from his home, but within one block of
a SEPTA bus stop. Mr. Bowen is driven to work in his van at a cost three times.
that for using public transportation.
42.
Mr. Bowen feels trapped in his own home. He is a sports fan but
cannot attend events at the fully accessible Veterans Stadium and Spectrum without
depending upon others for transport. He would also like to frequent the restaurants
-21-
and the stores at the barrier free Cedarbrook Mall which is near his home and
is serviced by public bus transportation.
43.
Mr. Bowen is denied ready access to and use of public
transportation because the design of mass transit vehicles exclude persons
who otherwise enjoy independent mobility but cannot negoitate steps. The
result of this exclusion is to cause Mr. Bowen excessive expense for
transportation, excessive dependence on others for transportation, and denial
of opportunities for independent enjoyment of the cultural and other recreational
resources available to and enjoyed by others.
44.
Availability of the TRANSBUS vehicle to Mr. Bowen would make
possible personal independence and would allow him to be his own man.
45.
HARRY BURNS, age 33, suffered brain damage at birth causing
spasticity in his right leg and arm, and later developed multiple sclerosis. Mr.
Burns walks with a cane. He resides with his wife at the Mayfair House
Apartments at Lincoln Drive and Johnson Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
which is located within 1 block of public transportation.
46.
Mr. Burns is employed as a psychologist at Hahnemann Mental
Health Center in Center City Philadelphia. He is also attending classes for
his Ph. D. in Psychology at Temple University. Because of transportation
barriers, Mr. Burns' wife drives him to work everyday before she goes to work.
Mr. Burns' must go to work an hour before his colleagues and must be picked up
an hour earlier. This arrangement frequently results in problems scheduling
appointments.
-22-
47.
Mr. Burns must use public transportation in connection with
his employment. He does so only with extreme difficulty because he cannot
readily negotiate the steps onto and off of buses. Climbing steps causes
excessive strain on Mr. Burns' muscles creating aches in his joints and his
back causing him to significantly limit his use of public transportation.
48.
At times Mr. Burns finds it impossible to board some of the
high sprung SEPTA buses and on a number of occasions has been exposed
to injury when boarding or riding buses. The most tragic experience took
place some years ago on a winter day in Pittsburgh, when Mr. Burns attempting
to climb the first high step of a bus which did not pull up to the curb, fell and
suffered a fracture to his left shoulder. Because Mr. Burns requires full
use of his left arm to propel himself by use of his cane, the fracture rendered
him immobile for three months.
49.
Mr. Burns is not only denied the opportunity to maintain a normal
work schedule but also must expose himself to daily hazards because mass
transit vehicles impose serious access barriers to handicapped persons
otherwise independently mobile.
50.
Availability of TRANSBUS vehicles would enable Mr. Burns to
maintain a normal work schedule independent of his wife's employment demands
and eliminate the hazards resulting from the steps in current mass transit
vehicles.
51.
EMIL SABATINI is seventy four years old. He has a heart
condition induced by a coronary attack. His doctor advised that he avoid steps
that are high, minimize step climbing in general, and climb slowly when he
does use steps. Mr. Sabatini lives at 909 Wynnewood Road, in west
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, within two blocks from a SEPTA bus route.
-23-
52.
Since his retirement as a steel worker Mr. Sabatini has sought
to maintain as active a life as possible and not to sit idly at home. He does
voluntary work with the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens and goes by SEPTA
to Garden State Racetrack in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Mr. Sabatini does not
own a car and can only travel by public transportation.
53.
The current standard 34 inch floor bus with one 14 inch step
and two 10 inch steps inhibits Mr. Sabatini's use of public transit and his move-
ment about town and presents significant hazards to his health. The availability
of a low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS would enable him to get around
more often and without risk to his health and to otherwise live a freer and fuller
life.
54.
SONIA STEIN is seventy one years old. She has arthritis which
causes her to have difficulty negotiating high steps. She lives at 1303 Hellerman
Street in the near northeast section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania a few blocks
away from a SEPTA bus stop.
55.
On Wednesday, June 9, 1976, Mrs. Stein set out to visit her
husband in the hospital at Albert Einstein Medical Center, Northern Division.
She went to the bus stop at Magee and Frontenac Streets carrying some fruit
for her husband. The bus stopped, but as soon as she got her feet up on the
first step her knees seemed to lock and she could not move. The bus driver
said, "Lady, hurry up. People have to get off. " With the assistance of other
passengers she made it to the seat nearest the door and with their continued
assistance she got off the bus at 13th and Tabor Road, a block from the
Hospital, in pain and tears. Mrs. Stein was cared for in the emergency room
at the hospital, did not get to visit her husband, and returned home by taxi cab
which cost her $7. 00.
-24-
56.
Mrs. Stein has never driven a car; her husband cannot drive
anymore because he is blind, having only peripheral vision. She is thus
entirely dependent upon public transportation.
57.
The availability of a low floor, wide door, ramped bus would
enable Mrs. Stein to travel public transit comfortably, safely, and without
embarassment.
Defendants
58.
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, JR., is the Secretary of the United
States Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. DOT").
In his capacity as Secretary, he is responsible for the administration of the
several capital grant and planning programs, and research, development, and
demonstration projects under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as
amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and the Federal-Aid Highway Acts, 23
U.S.C. § 101, et seq., which provide financial assistance to state and local
public agencies for the development of public mass transportation services
and the acquisition, construction, and improvement of mass transportation
vehicles and facilities.
59.
ROBERT E. PATRICELLI is the Administrator of the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "UMTA"), an
agency of the United States Department of Transportation. In his capacity as
Administrator, he is responsible for the administration of research, development
and demonstration projects and the regulation of capital grant and planning
programs for public mass transportation under the Urban Mass Transportation
Act of 1964, as amended, 49 U.S.C. $ 1601 et seq., and the Federal-Aid Highway
-25-
Acts, 23 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including the processing and approval of
applications for federal financial assistance to acquire, construct, and improve
transit vehicles and facilities. As such, he is empowered to establish require-
ments for state and local agencies in the planning and implementation of public
mass transportation services, and to issue standards for transit equipment
purchased with federal assistance.
60.
NORBERT T. TIEMANN is the Administrator of the Federal
Highway Administration (hereinafter referred to as "FHA"), an agency of the
United States Department of Transportation. In his capacity as Administrator,
he is responsible for the regulation and administration of capital grant and
planning programs providing federal financial assistance to state and local
agencies for public mass transportation under the Federal-Aid Highway Acts,
23 U.S. C= § 101, et seq. As such, he is empowered to establish requirements
for state and local agencies in the planning and implementation of public mass
transportation services, and to issue standards for transit equipment purchased
with federal financial assistance.
V. Class Action Allegations
61.
Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23 (b)(1) and (b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the class of all mobile
disabled and elderly persons who are denied ready access to and effective use
of federally financed public mass transportation by reason of physical and
structural barriers in the design of transit equipment which render such
persons transportation handicapped, and who would be able to effectively utilize
public mass transportation if the functional capacities of mobile disabled
and elderly persons were included as a basis for standards for the design and
-26-
performance of buses, other transit vehicles and facilities.
62.
Twenty million Americans are aged 65 or over, and over thirteen
million Americans are disabled. With increased longevity, improved
rehabilitation methods, the increased availability of medical care, and the
pattern of post-war birth rates, the numbers of mobile disabled and elderly
persons are expected to increase dramatically in the years ahead.
63.
The majority of these citizens reside in urban areas within
two blocks of a bus or other mode of federally funded public mass transportation:
live on low, fixed incomes; do not operate an automobile; and are dependent
on public mass transportation to work, to shop, to obtain medical services,
and to participate in cultural, recreational, and social activities.
64.
The class of mobile disabled and elderly persons consists of
persons whose functional capacities for mobility, flexibility, coordination,
communication, and perception are affected by the aging process, illness,
injury, congential dysfunction, or other temporary or permanent conditions
including: arthritis, heart condition, cerebral palsy, blindness, paraplegia,
quadriplegia and other spinal cord injuries, cystic fibrosis, multiple
schlerosis, muscular dystrophy, muscolo-skeletal disorders, respiratory
or pulmonary dysfunction, developmental disabilities, and neurological
disorders including stroke and epilepsy.
65.
The most formidable barriers imposed on the class of mobile
disabled and elderly persons in the use of federally financed public mass
transportation involve designs for entry to and exit from buses and other transit
-27-
vehicles and facilities that require a change in level. For instance, current
design buses have a floor height above the road of about thirty-four (34)
inches, requiring passengers to negotiate a first step into the bus of fourteen
(14) inches plus climb two interior steps having ten (10) inch risers. Similarly,
in order to gain access to other transit facilities which operate at grade or
which require passage through a station or terminal, riders must climb steep
steps or long stairways. Other barriers which handicap the class of mobile
disabled and elderly in the use of public transportation include narrow
entranceways and passageways, inadequate audio and visual information systems,
and excessive vehicle vibration and jerkiness.
66.
Of the estimated population of 26. 5 million mobile disabled and
elderly persons in the United States, approximately 13.3 million people, or
50% of the population, cannot climb or use currently designed stairways or
move through entranceways, or experience substantial difficulty in doing SO.
U.S. DOT, UMTA, Transportation Systems Center, The Handicapped and
Elderly Market for Urban Mass Transit 9, 14 (October 1973).
67.
Denial of accessible public mass transportation to mobile
disabled and elderly persons results in the following harms to the members of
the class:
I
(a)
deprivation of travel at the same fixed cost,
to the same locations, and for the same
purposes as is afforded to other members
of the public;
(b)
confinement to segregated, specialized
transportation facilities and to private carriers
which are prohibitively expensive and
-28-
which are limited in scope of service
as compared to public mass transportation;
(c)
increased burden in obtaining employment and
education, and meeting other essential needs,
and consequent dependence on public subsidies;
(d)
loss of opportunities to take part in cultural
and social and community activities, yielding
isolation and despair; and
(e)
loss of opportunities to associate, assemble,
and to petition government for redress of
grievances.
68.
The impact of denial of accessible public mass transportation
on members of the class in terms of employment alone is significant. Although
86% of the disabled people of labor force age (17-65) have the ability to work,
the labor force participation rate for disabled adults is only 44%, compared to
65% for the general population. U.S. DOT, Transportation Systems Center,
An Inflationary Impact Statement of the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-
tration's Proposed Elderly and Handicapped Regulation 40-43 (March 4, 1976)
(hereinafter referred to as "Impact Statement II"). For an estimated 13%
of the disabled population inaccessible public transportation is the major
factor in their unemployment. ABT Associates, Transportation Needs of
the Handicapped, 23-24 (U.S. DOT, Office of Economics and Systems Analysis,
Contract No. T8 - 304, August 1969).
69.
The employment of disabled adults resulting from accessible
public mass transportation would significantly increase their standard of
living and produce a substantial net economic benefit. The average annual
net income for employed disabled adults is $8, 000 (1976 price levels),
more than double the estimated average combined payment of $3,000 per
year in federal and state disability and welfare subsidies received by the
-29-
unemployed disabled individual. U.S. DOT, Impact Statement II 52-55.
In addition, the reduction of governmental income support payments and
generation of federal and state income taxes resulting from the disabled
adults finding jobs would create a net economic benefit of $300 million to
$500 million for every 100, 000 disabled individuals who join the ranks of the
employed. U.S. DOT, Transportation System Center, An Inflationary Impact
Statement of a Program of Transportation Services to Elderly and Handicapped
Persons, 82-83 (January 16, 1976) (hereinafter referred to as "Impact
Statement I''); Impact Statement II, 56-57.
70. The class is so numerous that joinder of all the members is
impractical. There are substarti al questions of law and fact common to the
entire class. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the
claims of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class. The defendants have acted and refused to act
on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate
final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
71. The questions of law and fact common to the entire class and to
the claims of the representative plaintiffs include but are not limited to:
(a)
Whether defendants have violated their duty under
the Urban Mass Transportation and Federal-Aid
Highway Acts, 49 U.S.C. $ $ 1602 (a)(1)(B),
1612 (a); 23 U.S. C. 142 nt., to assure accessible
public mass transportation which mobile disabled
and elderly persons can effectively utilize by
failing to require that federal financial assistance
be used only to purchase the low floor, wide door,
ramped TRANSBUS;
-30-
(b)
Whether defendants' failure to require that
federal financial assistance be used to purchase
only the low floor, wide door, ramped, TRANSBUS,
and otherwise to assure the availability of public
mass transportation which elderly and handicapped
persons can effectively utilize, excludes mobile dis-
abled and elderly persons from participation in,
denies them the benefits of, and subjects them to
discrimination under programs and activities receiving
federal public mass transportation assistance in
violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 28 U.S.C.
§ 794 and Executive Order 11914, 41 Fed. Reg. 17871
(April 29, 1976);
(c)
Whether by failing to require that federal financial
assistance be used only to purchase the improved,
low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS, defendants
have violated and continue to violate their duty to
improve public mass transportation under the Urban
Mass Transportation and Federal-Aid Highway Acts,
49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. and 23 U.S.C. SS 103 (e)(4),
134(a), and 142(a) and (c);
(d)
Whether having developed at a cost of $27 million, a
bus which satisfies the Congressional mandates to assure
accessible public mass transportation and to improve
public mass transportation, defendants have acted
arbitrarily and capriciously, have abused their dis-
cretion, and have unlawfully withheld and unreasonably
delayed the implementation of the full statutory rights
of mobile disabled and elderly persons to public mass
transportation which they can effectively utilize, by
failing to require that federal financial assistance be
used only to purchase the low floor, wide door,
ramped TRANSBUS; and
(e)
Whether defendants by failing to require that federal
financial assistance be used only to purchase the
low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS, have
violated the rights of mobile disabled and elderly
persons to travel, to freely associate, to petition
the government for redress of grievances, and not
to be subjected to invidious and arbitrary classifications
and exclusion from benefits extended to all other
persons by governmental action as guaranteed by the
Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause,
and the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution
to the United States.
-31-
VI. Statement of the Claim
FEDERAL PUBLIC MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
72.
In 1964, the Congress enacted the first permanent financial
assistance program for public transportation. Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964, 49 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. It was Congress' finding that public transit
systems in major cities across the country were failing, ridership was decreasing,
and the industry did not have sufficient revenues to finance necessary improve-
ments. The transit industry required federal intervention and support if it
was to attract riders from other modes of transportation and to contribute to
the welfare and vitality of urban areas. 49 U.S.C. § 1601.
73.
The Urban Mass Transportation Act established a capital grant
program to assist public transit authorities in the purchase and financing of
new buses and other equipment and facilities, 49 U.S. C. § 1602, and a federal
research and development program to develop technology for improving public
transportation services, 49 U.S.C. § 1605. The purpose was that research and
development be conducted so that the capital assistance program would support
the purchase of improved equipment.
74.
Congress' commitment to the maintenance and improvement of
public transportation led in 1970 to the expansion of the spending authorization
from $150 million annually to over a billion dollars annually under the Urban
Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-453; to further
expansion of this spending authorization to over $1 billion annually under the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-87, The National Mass
Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-504; and to the creation
of additional federal mass transit assistance programs, including programs
expending federal highway funds for buses and other mass transit equipment and
-32-
facilities, 23 U.S.C. 88 103 (e)(4), 142 (a)(2) and (c), and a formula grant
program for capital and operating expenses, 49 U.S.C. 020 1604.
75.
These federal public transportation assistance programs currently
finance 80% of the costs for the acquisition, construction, and improvement
of transit equipment operated by public transit agencies, except for one
provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, 23 U.S.C. 8 142(a)(2) and
(c), which finances 70% of the costs. Defendants have made grants totaling
nearly $5 billion to public transit operating agencies under the federal public
mass transportation assistance programs and are authorized to expend an
additional $9 billion for public transportation through 1981.
76.
The principal mode of public transportation supported by these
federal financial assistance programs is bus service. There are currently
50, 000 transit buses in revenue operation. Buses comprise 80% of the
rolling stock used in providing public transportation. Buses transport
approximately 75% of the people who use public transportation. American
Public Transit Association, Transit Fact Book, Tables 6 and 12 (1975). From
42% to 52% of the people living in urban areas, exclusive of suburbs, have
public transportation available within two blocks of their residence. U.S.
DOT, Impact Statement I, II-27.
77.
Federal public mass transportation assistance programs have
financed the acquisition of nearly 20, 000 transit buses, replacing approximately
40% of the bus fleets used in providing public transportation. Defendants will
approve federal financial assistance for the purchase of 4, 000 to 7, 000 full-
size transit buses by public transit authorities in each of the next several
years. U.S. DOT, Impact Statement II, 15.
-33-
THE DUTIES OF THE DEFENDANTS
The Mandate to Assure Accessibility
78. For six years, defendants have been under a continuing and oft
repeated mandate from the Congress of the United States to assure accessible
mass transportation which all mobile disabled and elderly people can effectively
utilize.
79.
In the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970, Pub.
L. 91-453, 84 Stat. 962 (October 15, 1970), the first multi-billion dollar federal
mass transportation assistance act authorizing defendants to make over $3.1
billion in grants and loans to States and localities for the acquisition, construction,
and improvement of mass transportation equipment and facilities, the Congress
declared and directed, in a section entitled "Planning and Design of Mass
Transportation Facilities to Meet Special Needs of the Elderly and Handicapped",
that:
i.
"elderly and handicapped persons have the same right
as other persons to utilize mass transportation facilities
and services";
ii.
"special efforts shall be made in the planning and design
of mass transportation facilities and services so that the
availability to elderly and handicapped persons of mass
transportation which they can effectively utilize will be
assured"; and
iii.
"all Federal programs offering assistance in the field of
mass transportation (including the programs under this
chapter) should contain provisions implementing this policy."
49 U.S.C. Section 1612(a).
80.
In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-87, 87 Stat.
255 (August 13, 1973), whereby defendants were first authorized to make grants
-34-
to States and localities out of the Highway Trust Fund for the acquisition,
construction, and improvement of mass transportation equipment and facilities,
and wherein the spending authorization under the Urban Mass Transportation
Act was increased by another $3 billion, the Congress directed, in a section
entitled "Bus and Other Project Standards", that:
"The Secretary of Transportation shall assure that
projects receiving Federal financial assistance
under [ the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 ] shall
be planned and designed so that mass transportation
facilities and services can effectively be utilized by
elderly and handicapped persons who, by reason of
illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or
other permanent or temporary incapacity or
disability are unable without special efforts or special
planning or design to utilize such facilities and services
as effectively as persons not so affected." Section
165(b), Pub. L. 93-87.
81.
In the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 1975, Pub. L. 93-391, 88 Stat. 789 (August 28, 1974),
the Congress directed that:
"None of the funds provided under this Act shall be
available for the purchase of passenger rail or subway
cars, for the purchase of motor buses or for the
construction of related facilities unless such cars,
buses and facilities are designed to meet the mass
transportation needs of the elderly and the handicapped."
Section 315, Pub. L. 93-391.
82.
In the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, Pub.
L. 93-503, 88 Stat. 1566 (November 26, 1974), authorizing defendants to make an
additional $8 billion in federal grants and loans to States and localities for mass
transportation programs and projects, the Congress amended the Urban Mass
Transportation Act to direct:
"nor shall any grant or loan funds be used to support
-35-
procurements utilizing exclusionary or discriminatory
specifications. " 49 U.S.C. us 1602 (a)(1)(B).
83.
In the Federal-Aid Highway Act Amendments of 1974, Pub. L.
94-643, 88 Stat. 2281 (January 4, 1975), in a section entitled "Transportation
for Elderly and Handicapped Persons", the Congress reiterated the requirements
of the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 and of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1973 and again declared and directed that:
i.
"elderly and handicapped persons have the same
right as other persons to utilize mass transportation
facilities and services";
ii.
"special efforts shall be made in the planning, design,
construction, and operation of mass transportation
facilities and services so.that the availability of mass
transportation that they can effectively utilize will be
assured";
iii.
"all Federal programs offering assistance for mass
transportation [including programs under the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1973 effectively implement this
policy";
iv.
" [defendants ] shall require that projects receiving
Federal financial assistance under [the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1973 shall be planned, designed,
constructed, and operated to allow effective utilization
by elderly and handicapped persons who, by reason of
illness, injury, age, congential malfunction, or other
permanent or temporary incapacity or disability,
including those who are nonambulatory wheelchair-
bound and those with semiambulatory capabilities,
are unable without special facilities or special planning
or design to utilize such facilities and services
effectively": and
v.
" [ defendants ] shall not approve any program or project
to which this section applies which does not comply with
the provisions of this subsection requiring access to
public mass transportation facilities, equipment, and
services for elderly or handicapped persons. 11 23
U.S.C. Section 142 note.
84.
In the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 357
-36-
(September 26, 1973) in a section entitled "Nondiscrimination Under Federal
Grants", in exactly the language of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Congress directed:
"No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the
United States
...
shall, solely by reason of his handicap,
be excluded from the participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
29 U.S.C. § 794.
85.
As more fully set out below in paragraphs 122 through 142,
defendants have acted wrongfully and illegally in failing to act to carry out the
repeated Congressional mandate to assure accessible mass transportation
which all mobile elderly and handicapped persons can effectively utilize.
The Mandate to Improve Mass Transportation
86.
The pervasive substantive duty imposed by the Congress upon
defendants in the Urban Mass Transportation Act, and in the mass transit
provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, is the duty to improve urban mass
transportation. The duty to improve mass transportation is articulated in the
purpose clauses of the Acts ("to assist in the development of improved mass
transportation facilities, equipment, techniques, and methods ...
", 49 U.S.C.
§ 1601 (b)(1); "to encourage the development, improvement and use of public
mass transportation systems operating motor vehicles", 23 U.S.C. § 142(a)); and
again in each of the provisions of the Acts governing the granting of federal
financial assistance (e.g., "to make grants [for] the acquisition, construction,
reconstruction and improvement of facilities and equipment", 49 U.S.C. § 1602
(a)(1)), the administration of planning requirements (e.g., "to make grants for
...
-37-
activities preliminary and in preparation for the construction, acquisition, or
improved operation of mass transportation systems, facilities, and equipment",
49 U.S.C. $ 1607(a)), and the promulgation of regulations ("The Secretary shall
issue such regulations as he deems necessary, including requirements for
improving the efficiency of transit services", 49 U.S.C. § 1604 (d)(2)).
87.
In addition, the Congress, in the Urban Mass Transportation
Act, 49 U.S.C. un 1605, authorized the Secretary:
"to undertake research, development and demonstration
projects in all phases of urban mass transportation
(including the development, testing and demonstration
of new facilities, equipment, techniques, and methods)
which he determines will assist in ... the improvement
of mass transportation service
"
88.
Defendants undertook, and have successfully completed, a
nine year $27 million research and development project (called the TRANSBUS
Project and described more fully below at paragraphs 90 through 111 ), to develop
a new generation of buses which would increase bus ridership and revenues,
which would improve safety, comfort, convenience, environmental acceptability,
and maintenance, and which would eliminate transportation barriers to the mobile
disabled and elderly.
89.
As more fully set out below in paragraphs 122 through 142,
defendants have acted wrongfully and illegally in failing to require that federal
public mass transportation assistance be spent only to purchase the improved
TRANSBUS.
- 38-
THE TECHNOLOGICAL POSSIBILITIES
90.
Although defendants Secretary of Transportation and Urban
Mass Transportation Administrator during the period November 1974 through
March 1976, defended ten lawsuits 1 which sought to enjoin local transit
operators to purchase full-size accessible buses, on the ground that such
vehicles were technologically infeasible and were not produced by any
manufacturer in the United States, in April 1976 defendant Patricelli admitted
to Congress and to the public that as a consequence of the TRANSBUS research
and development project a new generation of full-size buses can be produced
which incorporates technology assuring access to mobile disabled and
elderly persons.
91.
On April 5, 1976, before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped
of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, at oversight hearings
on the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S.C. § 794, defendant Patricelli acknowledged that " the
1
Bohlke v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, Civ.
No. 73362 (Super. Ct., Marin County, Calif., filed November 19, 1974);
Abilities Unlimited, Inc. V. Villegas, Civ. No. 75-0001 (D. Hawaii, filed
January 2, 1975); Might V. Briscoe, Civ. No. A-15-CA-31 (W.D. Tex.,
filed March 3, 1975); Webb V. Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority,
Civ. No. C-3-75-67 (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 1976); Snowden V. Birmingham-
Jefferson County Transit Authority, 407 F. Supp. 394 (N.D. Ala., 1975);
appeal docketed, No. 75-3411, 5th Cir., June 26, 1975; Llovd V. Illinois
Regional Transportation Authority, Civ. No. 75C-1834 (N.D. III., March
16, 1976); Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America V. Coleman, Civ. No.
57114 (E.D.- Mich., filed June 16, 1975); Martin V. Seattle-King County
Metropolitan Transit Commission, Civ. No. 795806 (Super. Ct., King
County, Wash., Nov. 25, 1975); Bartels V. Biernat, 405 F. Supp. 1012
(W.D. Wisc., 1975); United Handicapped Federation V. Andre, Civ. No.
1/75 CIV 627 (D. Minn., filed Dec. 9, 1975).
Defendants Secretary of Transportation and Urban Mass Transportation
Administrator were named as defendants or appeared in each of these suits.
-39-
TRANSBUS program has produced prototypes of wheelchair-accessible
full-size buses which have a variety of design improvements of particular
benefit to handicapped individuals", including a low floor, wide door, and
a ramp. Defendants Patricelli further acknowledged that 11 ... the new bus
designs that are about to come on the market could offer that technology".
92.
On April 14, 1976, in a notice of public hearing on "Policies
Regarding Urban Transit Bus Design and Performance Specifications", 41
Fed. Reg. 15735, defendant Patricelli again acknowledged:
"The UMTA TRANSBUS research and development
program, undertaken with the participation of bus
operators and suppliers, has produced a number of
design and performance improvements which could be
incorporated into specifications for ordering full-
size (35-40 foot) transit buses."
93.
Simultaneously with the April 14, 1976 announcement, defendants
made publicly available the technical specifications for TRANSBUS vehicles
(U.S. DOT, UMTA, Transbus Procurement Requirements, Part II. Technical
Specifications (April 1976) and for the first time released the final reports
on the TRANSBUS project including: (1) U.S. DOT, UMTA, Analysis of Low
Floors for Transit Buses (January 1976); (2) U.S.DOT, UMTA, Architectural
(Size) Steps for Transit Buses, Executive Summary (March 1976); (3) Simpson &
Curtin, Transbus Public Testing and Evaluation Program, Final Report
(U.S. DOT, UMTA, January 1976); and (4) Booz-Allen Applied Research and
Simpson & Curtin, Impact of Transbus on United States Transit Systems (U.S.
DOT, UMTA Transbus Document TR 75-002, no date).
94.
The TRANSBUS project was undertaken by defendants in 1967
to take the largest possible single step forward in bus technology and design
-40-
within the existing state of the art. An intensive panel study by the National
Academy of Engineering, in which all major elements of the transit industry
participated, documented the characteristics needed for future improved
buses and articulated design, development and testing strategies. Defendants
have expended $27 million on the project to achieve the following specific
objectives:
i.
increase bus ridership for reduced urban congestion
and increase revenue to transit operators;
ii.
improve safety to passengers, pedestrians and
vehicles;
iii.
improve environmental acceptability;
iv.
improve maintenance and servicing; and
V.
eliminate transportation barriers to the mobile disabled
and elderly and young.
Over the course of nine years, the TRANSBUS project designed, developed,
tested and evaluated nine prototype buses. Three prototype TRANSBUS
vehicles were produced by each of the American bus manufacturers, American
General Corporation, General Motors Corporation, and Rohr Industries;
and underwent extensive engineering tests by the bus manufacturers and
independent automotive authorities, including performance tests, endurance
tests, energy absorbing bumper component tests, and seat component crash
tests. The TRANSBUS vehicles were also placed in regular service operation
in four cities (Kansas City, Miami, New York, and Seattle); publicly demonstrated
across the country, and subjected to development, performance and acceptance
tests.
95.
The final reports on the TRANSBUS research and development
-41-
project released in April 1976, reveal that the project has been successful
on all counts; it has achieved its technological objectives; and specifications
for an improved, accessible, attractive, and cost-effective bus have been
developed which can now be put into production.
96.
The TRANSBUS project has established that it is technologically
feasible to produce a bus with:
(a)
a low floor (17 to 22 inches) and a suspension system
that reduces the floor height of the bus to seven (7)
inches above the curb;
(b)
a single seven (7) inch step in the bus;
(c)
a ramp which can be rapidly extended from the bus
to provide "level" boarding;
(d)
a forty-four (44) inch wide door; and
(e)
open space in the vestibule and front areas of the bus
to provide maneuvering and parking room for passengers
in wheelchairs.
These features are described in U.S. DOT, UMTA, Provisions for the Elderly
and Handicapped in the Design of Transbus, (1973), attached hereto as Exhibit 1
and incorporated herein.
97.
As the Final Reports on the TRANSBUS project show, the low
floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS makes technologically possible very
significant improvements in mass transit, as follows.
Boarding and Alighting
98.
All persons including mobile disabled and elderly persons who
cannot use the current standard bus readily or at all, can board, ride and
alight the TRANSBUS with ease, safety, comfort, and convenience, to wit:
-42-
(a)
"The low floor and wide front door on Transbus
dramatically improve boarding and alighting. This
has been quantified in extensive human factors
testing with elderly participants. The average
speed of boarding and alighting for these individuals,
ages 55 to 84, was 50 percent faster on Transbus
than on a standard current production bus, used as
a testing baseline. Transbus survey participants
indicated that the ease of getting on and off a Transbus
was the particular feature that they valued most in
comparison to current buses. 11 Booz-Allen Applied
Research and Simpson & Curtin, Impact of Transbus
on United States Transit Systems 31 (U.S. DOT, UMTA,
TRANSBUS Document TR 75-002) (undated but
released April 14, 1976) (hereinafter cited as "Impact
Report").
(b)
"Boarding time: halved from 3 to 1.5 seconds per
passenger for expeditious ingress and egress by
increasing door width from 27 to 40 inches and
reducing the height of the bus floor from 28 inches
to only 11 inches above curb height." A Comparison
of Transbus with Current Transit Buses, prepared
by Booz-Allen Applied Research and published as
Appendix I in Stanford Research Institute, Transbus
Report 32 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Experimen-
tal Technologies Incentives Program, March 1976).
(c)
Interior design of the Transbus is based upon extensive
human factors testing and incorporates improvements
designed for the elderly in seats, assists, padding and
lighting. Impact Report 28, Table 10.
(d)
"Providing access to individuals in a wheelchair
currently requires complex lift designs which restricts
the use of the entrance by other passengers
While TRANSBUS can be built with a lift, the low
floor design also makes a simple ramp
feasible.
A ramp can be used by all passengers. It can be
rapidly deployed. The Transbus, equipped with a
ramp, does not inhibit ambulatory passengers."
Impact Report 28.
(e)
"A ramp(in contrast to a lift) entry to transit buses
appears to be desirable for wheelchair access. There
are several reasons: it can be deployed much faster;
wheelchairs can board much faster: once deployed
able bodied passengers can use it to advantage: it is
better suited to emergency exit. To design a ramp
for a high floor bus does not appear feasible whereas
it is feasible for a low-floor bus.' U.S. DOT, UMTA,
Architectural (Size) Steps for Transit Buses, Executive
Summary (March 1976).
-43-
(f)
"Improvement for the elderly will be significant
only on the low floor Transbus design.' Impact
Report 57.
(g)
"[ F]eatures for the handicapped
can only be
achieved on a low floor, wide door Transbus at a
reasonable additional cost and without introducing
significant operational problems." Impact Report
57.
99.
In these findings, the TRANSBUS project confirms the
expectations of the 1967-68 panel study of the National Academy of Engineering
that '[a] lower floor level may be the most desirable means for improving
ease of entrance and exit" and fulfills the Academy's injunction that "[a]
bus should not only be easy and comfortable to use but should be one that
can be used readily and without embarrassment by the physically and
economically handicapped, the aged, the pregnant woman, the businessman,
and the young adult." National Academy of Engineering, Design and Performance
Criteria for Improved Nonrail Urban Mass Transit Vehicles and Related
Urban Transportation Systems 55, 32 (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Contract No. 75, May 1968).
Quality of Ride
100.
The comfort of the ride is substantially improved by TRANSBUS
for all passengers including the mobile disabled and elderly:
"[R] ide quality as perceived by the passenger is
affected by all aspects of the interior environment,
such as temperature, drafts, noise, lighting, as
well as vibration. In engineering terms, ride
quality is defined as a function of the accelerations
felt by the passenger, both vertical and lateral. In
extensive tests, the ride quality of Transbus has
been shown to approach that of passenger cars. This
improvement in ride quality results from the low
center of gravity, the independent front suspension
-44-
and the tandem independent rear suspension
....
[Transbus is ] markedly superior to the current produc-
tion in these [ above mentioned ] areas. 11 Impact Report
30-31.
Noise
101.
"Interior noise on Transbus will be 3 to 4 Dba below
...
current buses for equivalent seat positions and vehicle operating modes.
Exterior noise will be reduced by about 4 Dba." Impact Report 29. This
is a noise level reduction of approximately 70%. Simpson & Curtin,
Transbus Public Testing and Evaluation Program: Final Report II-2, Table
2 (January 1976).
Safety
102.
Passenger, traffic and pedestrian accidents, and insurance
costs as well, will be substantially reduced by TRANSBUS:
(a)
"Boarding/alighting accidents [will be ] reduced by
20 percent due to low floor and assists built into doors".
Impact Report 24.
(b)
"Door-related accidents [ will be ] reduced by 20
percent 11 Impact Report 24.
(c)
"On-board accident claims [ will be ] reduced 35
percent." Impact Report 24.
(d)
" [Exterior ] features
should reduce claims
costs for traffic accidents by about 25 percent."
Impact Report 23-24.
(e)
[ Pledestrian accident costs are estimated to fall
by 15 percent for Transbus." Impact Report 26.
(f)
"Total safety and insurance costs could drop by as
much as 20 percent with the greatest reduction in
passenger accidents being achieved on the Transbus."
Impact Report 20.
-45-
Trip-Time
103.
The trip time reductions of the TRANSBUS will support
improved schedule adherence and service dependability and increased
driver productivity:
(a)
[T]ransbus show significant increases in
trip speed over the current bus. Transbus is
[still] faster overall, because it possesses a
wide front door and a low floor to reduce time
at stops
Transbus with its low floor and
wide doors again is faster in
stop-and-go,
low -speed service. " Impact Report 13.
(b)
"The potential for trip time reductions of up to 10
percent exists, depending on the type of route.
If current routes are not rescheduled, this should
result in an immediate improvement in schedule
adherence. Improved bus characteristics offer
the potential for increased driver productivity
and/or route coverage. 11 Impact Report 55.
(c)
"Since Transbus offers superior operating speed
for express/suburban service, it has the intrinsic
ability to capture even larger segments of the
choice market, because trip time savings of 10
percent on long express runs are perceivable by some
patrons. " Impact Report 17.
(d)
"Improved schedule adherence
will be the result
of the introduction of Transbus in all sizes of systems.
[s] chedule adherence is the most difficult to achieve
in large systems, particularly in arterial service.
Increased trip speed may be used to improve dependa-
bility for tightly scheduled runs by holding running
times constant, or by reducing running times to
account for better speed and reallocating these minutes
to recovery time, which serves as a buffer for
schedule distrubances. Dependability is a prime
attribute affecting the modal choice decision. 11 Impact
Report 15.
(e)
"Efficient rescheduling, taking full advantage of
Transbus [trip speed and entry and exit time ] charac-
teristics, could lead to a 4 to 5 percent increase in
revenue miles-per-driver's-wage-dollar. Because
rescheduling to improve driver productivity and to
-46-
reduce bus requirements can only be achieved
under certain conditions (for instance, on a route
with a 5-minute headway, reduction of round trip
time from 60 to 55 minutes would save a bus), this
impact is excluded from the economic impact analysis."
Impact Report 16.
(g)
"[ Another ] potential impact of higher trip speed is
the potential for extension of existing routes at no
extra driver cost. " Impact Report 16.
Maintenance, Repair and Operating Costs
104.
Maintenance, repair and operating costs will not be unfavorably
affected by TRANSBUS:
(a)
"On balance, the long-term maintenance and repair
labor requirements should remain constant on a
unit basis, but work loads will shift
[T]he
requirements for new support equipment and skills
will be sufficiently low that introduction of the new
bus design
will not present major capital
investment requirements or training problems for
the transit industry. Impact Report 54.
(b)
"An increase of 1.4 cents/mile is projected for
Transbus or about a 1 percent increase in total
operating costs. [But 1 no benefits were assumed
for the new design bus
in the area of driver
productivity. This was done, despite the fact that a
4 to 10 percent increase in trip speed is projected
for these new vehicles. Note that even a 4 percent
improvement in driver productivity would result in
an operating cost savings of 2.4 cents/mile."
Impact Report 50, 48-49.
Increased Ridership
105.
The TRANSBUS will increase the ridership of mass transit
significantly and thereby reduce urban automobile congestion, raise new
operating revenues, and contribute to local support for additional transit
programs and funding:
-47-
(a)
"An analysis of historical evidence from other new
bus design introductions, operational factors by route
and system size, and the responses to 10, 000
surveys during the Transbus public demonstrations,
indicates that ridership increases of up to 10% are
possible with Transbus
These would have
a significant impact on revenue. " Impact Report 57.
(b)
"[R] easonable patronage impact ranges for the proto-
type bus systems (large, medium and small
),
if Transbuses were to completely replace the current
35-foot and 40-foot buses in the fleet
are:
5 to 8 percent average ridership increase for
large properties
6 to 9 percent average ridership increase for
medium properties
7 to 10 percent average ridership increase for
small properties. II Impact Report 41.
(c)
"Transbus, with the low floor, will have the greatest
potential for achieving a lasting impact on the public,
based upon the bus features selected as 'most
important' by 11, 000 riders and potential riders
during the four city demonstrations of the Transbus
prototypes. " Impact Report 59.
(d)
[As] to the effect of the low floor and wide door :
When the public was asked to rate 30 features of
Transbus versus the current bus, the features which
consistently rated highest involved the ease of
boarding and alighting. In this area Transbus is
superior
The survey of 11, 000 people in
four Transbus demonstration cities indicates that
these inherent features of Transbus will help to
maintain the new image after cosmetic appeal
mellows. 11 Impact Report 29.
Net Cost-Benefits
106.
Increased revenues at the fare-box - of the low-floor, wide-
door, ramped TRANSBUS just from the increased ridership by handicapped
people (and not counting people who are mobile with wheelchairs, crutches
or walkers) will range between $23 million and $65 million annually.
-48-
U.S. DOT, Transportation Systems Center, An Inflationary Impact Statement
of UMTA's Proposed Elderly and Handicapped Regulations 59 (March 4, 1976)
(hereinafter cited as "Inflationary Impact Statement II"). Thus, in addition
to the increased general ridership forecast by Booz-Allen and set forth
above at paragraph 105
, this increased handicapped ridership
"would increase the total transit passenger revenues
collected nationwide by 1-1/2 to 4 percent. Alternatively
stated, with operating deficits on the order of 40 percent
of passenger revenues, operating deficits could be
reduced by 4 to 10 percent if handicapped ridership is
induced. 11 Ibid.
107.
Furthermore, as to wheelchair users, "incorporating [ a
low-floor and a ramp ] into the fleets [ of fixed route bus systems ] would
generally be the most cost-effective means of meeting the transportation
needs of wheelchair users who live within accessible distances of bus stops."
U.S. DOT, Transportation Systems Center, An Inflationary Impact Statement
of A Program of Transportation Services to Elderly and Handicapped Persons
36 (February 11, 1976) (hereinafter cited as "Inflationary Impact Statement I'').
Defendants estimate it would cost as much as $362 million annually to provide
segregated, specialized service to disabled and elderly people who are
mobile with wheelchairs, crutches or walkers, compared to an annual cost
of $76 million to $123 million to replace and operate the entire national fleet
of buses with the accessible low-floor, wide-door, ramped TRANSBUS.
Inflationary Impact Statement II, 19-23, 32-33.
108.
The economic benefits of the low-floor, wide-door, ramped
TRANSBUS have been fully quantified by defendants only for handicapped
users and only in terms of tax and income support benefits from employment.
-49-
Even with the economic benefits to elderly users and to the general public,
excluded altogether from defendants' calculation, the net cost-benefit ratio is
highly favorable. The estimated total net capital and operating cost for
a national fleet of low floor, wide. door, ramped TRANSBUSES is $76 million to
$123 million annually. The benefits from employment of the handicapped alone,
measured solely in additional tax revenues and in diminished public income
support payments, is $300 million to $500 million. The net cost-benefit ratio,
accounting only for these benefits from the employment of handicapped people,
thus is at least 2:1 and may range as high as 7:1. Inflationary Impact Statement
II, 19-23, 50-57, Table 4.1.
109. There are in addition substantial benefits to all of the handicapped
and elderly from the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS which are
not quantifiable:
"[M]ost of the benefits to handicapped and elderly persons
receiving publi C transit services for the first time are
expected to be of a non-economic nature. For instance,
there would be social benefits resulting from enabling handi-
capped persons equal opportunity to work, study, and
participate in recreational activities. Other social benefits
would include the reduced burden of aid on the friends and
relatives of the handicapped, the increased contribution to
community activities of many talented and well educated
handicapped persons, and the reduction of the often debilitating
and productivity-inhibiting emotional burdens of physical
[ handicaps ] on the entire community.
"The psychological benefits to elderly and handicapped persons
of increased mobility are difficult to monetarize. The
opportunity for increased mobility, if utilized, would increase
the amount, and variety of social contacts, and these contacts
are likely to improve an elderly or handicapped person's
performance in his major roles and to enhance his self-image.
"The number of handicapped persons who would use public
transit for the first time as a result of [Transbus ], provides
a proxy for the social and psychological benefits of the program.
The number of individuals who would use public transit for the
-50-
first time is estimated as 1, 408, 000 to 1, 525, 000 by 1980. "
Inflationary Impact Statement II, 50-52.
110.
In summary of the possibilities of TRANSBUS, the Booz-Allen
Impact Report 58-59 concludes:
"[T]he potential benefits of Transbus over ...
current
production buses are rider-oriented. This offers the
potential for patronage improvements and greater support
from local political organizations responsible for transit
funding. Specific benefits are related to passenger safety,
accomodation of the elderly [ and the mobile disabled]
,
and service dependability. 11
Defendants' Executive Summary of the Final TRANSBUS reports, U.S. DOT,
UMTA, Analysis of Low Floors for Transit Buses ( Jan. 1976) is attached
hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein.
111.
Unless defendants require--as it is their duty to require--that
federal financial assistance be used to purchase the low floor, wide door,
ramped TRANSBUS, the aforesaid possibilities of TRANSBUS to assure
accessible transportation for the elderly and handicapped and to improve mass
transit will not be realized.
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MARKET
112.
The low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS is not produced
by any manufacturer in the United States because defendants, contrary to
their duty under the law, have not required that federal financial assistance
be used only to purchase the TRANSBUS. The low-floor, wide-door, ramped
TRANSBUS will not be produced by any manufacturer in the United States until
and unless defendants, as is their duty under the law, require that federal
financial assistance be used only to purchase the TRANSBUS.
-51-
113.
For more than thirty years the average annual market for
full-size transit buses has been approximately 3500 buses. The projected
annual market for the next several years is 5000 to 7000 buses. Historically
this market has supported only one type of bus and because of limited market
size and the large investment necessary for product development and retooling,
it is capable of supporting only one. Since 1958, the single bus model on the
market has been a 34-inch high floor, 27-inch wide door bus.
114.
Since the enactment of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964, federal financial assistance has paid 66% to 80% of the capital costs of
all of the 1400 to 5000 buses purchased by transit operators annually: 80%
of the capital costs since 1973 (except for a portion of bus purchases aided under
the Federal-Aid Highway Act, for which federal financial assistance has
paid 70% of the capital cost); 66% of the capital costs between 1965 and 1972.
For twelve years federal financial assistance has supported the purchase of
the single bus on the market, the 34-inch high floor, 27-inch wide door model.
115.
Since 1925 the full-size transit bus industry has become
ologopolistic, with dominant technological leadership exercised by General
Motors Corporation. In addition, declining revenues for transit operators
in the 1960's and 1970's and public takeover of private transit operations, leading
to bidding and price-competition requirements, have inhibited the marketing
of innovative buses.
116.
Precisely because, as Congress recognized in the Urban Mass
Transportation Act, 49 U.S. SS 1601, 1605, there was insufficient product
competition in the transit bus industry to bring into production up to date bus
designs, defendants initiated the TRANSBUS project. Stanford Research
-52-
Institute, Transbus Report 5-6 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Experimental
Technologies Incentives Program, March 1976).
117.
Each of the three companies in the industry, American General
Corporation, General Motors Corporation, and Rohr Industries, developed,
manufactured, and tested three Transbus prototypes, on contract from the
TRANSBUS project.
118.
No one of the three is both committed to and able to produce
the TRANSBUS. General Motors has invested in another high floor bus which
it intends to put on the market in 1977; it will not produce a low floor, wide
door, ramped TRANSBUS unless defendants require transit operators to
use federal financial assistance only to purchase such a bus. Although Rohr
Industries and American General are ready, willing and able to produce the
low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS (and Rohr Industries estimates
it could bring TRANSBUS off the production line by July 1, 1979), they
cannot make the retooling and component investment unless transit operators
are required to buy the bus.
119.
Thus the market, and the decision to produce TRANSBUS or
not, is controlled by defendants. If defendants default on their duties,
defined by Congress and set out above at paragraphs 78 through 89
,
the market, and the decision, is controlled by the ologopolistic and uncertain
industry which will not adopt the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS.
120.
The afordsaid market constraints have defeated the efforts of
at least two transit operators, the Southern California Rapid Transit District
and the Seattle-King County Metropolitan Transit Commission, to purchase
-53-
accessible buses and thus to improve their transit services and to open them
to all mobile persons irrespective of age or handicap; to wit:
(a)
On October 23, 1974, the Southern California Rapid
Transit District (hereinafter "RTD") resolved to
purchase 200 accessible buses.
(b)
On December 18, 1974 RTD sent specifications for a
low floor bus, essentially the TRANSBUS design, to
UMTA for approval.
(c)
On March 31, 1975 UMTA approved the specifications
but required a bidders' conference.
(d)
On April 14, 1975 RTD convened a bidders' conference
attended by all bus manufacturers. General Motors
announced it would bid only on its high floor bus and
would not discuss anything else. American General
stated that the low floor and other features were "not
beyond engineering capability" but that it could not
"retool existing equipment to (such a) great extent"
until and unless UMTA decided "what the ultimate
specification is going to be"; the problem is "marketing
and
direction from the federal government".
Rohr Industries said the same. RTD, Transcript of
Discussions With Bus Manufacturers Regarding the
Furnishing of Buses Equipped to Handle the Elderly
and Handicapped.
(e)
Twelve days later, on April 26, 1975, RTD authorized
the call for bids on 200 accessible buses.
(f)
On July 25, 1975, UMTA approved finally the specifica-
tions for bid.
(g)
On July 18, 1975, specifications were sent to the
manufacturers for bid.
(h)
In July and August, Rohr Industries and American
General requested delay in opening bids and requested
changes in the specifications.
(i)
In December, 1975 bid opening was further delayed to
seek a buyer's consortium among other transit operators
to purchase TRANSBUS; the effort was not successful.
(j)
On April 6, 1976, General Motors informed RTD it
would not bid on the accessible bus.
(k)
April 20, 1976 was bid opening day. No bids were
received.
-54-
The efforts of Seattle-King County Metropolitan Transit Commission to
purchase 250 accessible buses were frustrated in the same fashion.
121.
Unless and until defendants execute the mandates of the Congress,
set out above at paragraphs 78 through 89 , and require that all buses pur-
chased with federal financial assistance be accessible to mobile disabled and
elderly persons, the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS will not be
produced by any manufacturer in the United States or placed on the market,
or on the street.
THE FAILURES OF DEFENDANTS
122.
Instead of acting to assure accessible mass transportation
for the mobile disabled and elderly by requiring that federal financial
assistance be used only to purchase the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS,
defendants have:
(a)
Misconstrued the Congressional mandates to
require only special efforts rather than the
assurance of mass transportation which elderly
and handicapped persons can effectively utilize;
(b)
Abdicated their responsibility to assure accessible
mass transportation and instead seek to shift
responsibility from themselves to local transit
operators, and have promulgated regulations
which merely exhort and do not direct the actions
of local authorities to assure accessibility;
(c)
Encouraged specialized transportation services as
a substitute for universally accessible fixed route
vehicles rather than as accessible feeder systems
to supplement the fixed route system; and
(d)
Abandoned the TRANSBUS.
Since 1970 when the Congress first enacted its oft répeated mandate
-55-
to assure accessibility defendants have misconstrued their mandate as merely
requiring special efforts rather than the assurance of accessible mass
transportation, as follows:
Special Efforts Rather than Assurance of Access
123.
The first regulations pursuant to the Congress' mandates
were promulgated by defendants on September 17, 1975. These regulations,
governing the urban transportation planning process generally, referred to
accessibility in only one subparagraph and required no assurance of accessi-
bility but only that:
"The urban transportation planning process shall
include special efforts to plan public mass transportation
facilities and services that can be effectively utilized by
elderly and handicapped persons." Title 23 C.F.R.
§ 450.120 (a)(5); 40 Fed. Reg. 42978 (1975).
124.
The first regulations on capital grant projects purporting
to discharge the Congress' mandates were promulgated on April 30, 1976.
These regulations require no assurance of accessibility and in their relevant
entirety provide only that:
"The Urban Mass Transportation Administrator
will grant project approvals
only if:
(a) The urban transportation planning process
exhibits satsifactory special efforts in planning
public mass transportation facilities and services
that can be utilized by elderly and handicapped
persons; and (b) The annual element of the trans-
portation improvement program developed pursuant
to 23 C.F.R.-450.118 : and submitted after September
30, 1976, contains projects or project elemants designed
to benefit elderly and handicapped persons, specifically
including wheelchair users and those with semi-
ambulatory capabilities; and (c) After September 30,
1977, reasonable progress has been demonstrated in
implementing previously programmed projects. "
Title +9, C.F.R. 3 613.204, 41 Fed. Reg. 18234 (1976).
-56-
125. In the only other official response to the Congress' mandates,
the 1972 U.S. DOT, UMTA, External Operating Manual, defendants did not
require even "special efforts, " but only "reasonable efforts":
"[I]n the planning and design of mass transportation
facilities and equipment, reasonable efforts should be
made to insure that the elderly and handicapped will be
able to effectively use the facilities. A description
of these efforts must be included in the final application."
External Operating Manual ПВ-14 (August 1972).
126. Furthermore, defendants have misinterpreted the reach of
Congress' mandate, as encompassing only those elderly and handicapped
persons who already normally use mass transit rather than all mobile disabled
and elderly people:
"[W]e interpret $ 165(b) as requiring that mass transit
facilities and services funded under the affected
provisions must incorporate features which will
facilitate the use of those facilities and services by a
particular group of the elderly and handicapped. The
group which is of concern is those persons who
normally utilize and can be expected to utilize mass
transit facilities and services but, due to age or physical
disability, cannot do so 'as effectively as' persons without
those characteristics
Such persons include, for
example, those with poor eyesight, but not the blind; those
who are lame, but not those confined to wheelchairs.
Opinion of UMTA's Chief Counsel to UMTA's Director,
Program Development (April 18, 1974).
Defendants' Abdication to Undirected Local Efforts
127. Even the requirement of special efforts has been passed on by
defendants to local transit operators, without any regulations which bind or
direct local transit operators.
128. The 1972 External Operating Manual does not direct or bind:
-57-
"UMTA has no blanket capital equipment policy on the
elderly and handicapped, preferring to influence grant
recipients through the individual efforts of the. repre-
sentatives
UMTA's current external manual
states that
reasonable efforts should be made to
insure that the elderly and handicapped will be able to
effectively use the facilities
The general state-
ment has not been followed up with any guideline or
manual defining 'reasonable efforts' or suggesting the
limits of UMTA acceptability. Unlike the UMTA
procedure for 13(c) labor clearances, there is no way
for special interest groups of federal agencies to
influence each UMTA grant in the areas of special
user needs. Thus those interested in UMTA's response
on the subject have no basic reference point for UMTA
program policy, and UMTA staff are left largely to carry
out the law as they see fit, balancing feasibility with
benefits, and generally having to deal with the industry's
reluctance to accept costly steps with uncertain payoffs.
Part of the pressure on UMTA stems from the lack of any
explicit description of how UMTA carries out section 16(a)
in its capital program.
[ L]ittle in the way of service
change is exacted directly in return for UMTA capital grants. "
Memorandum of UMTA's Director of Program Development
to UMTA's Associate Administrator for Program Planning
4 (July 18, 1974).
129.
Neither the September 17, 1975 nor the April 30, 1976 regulations
of defendants bind or direct. The 1975 regulations require "special efforts"
without more. Although an Appendix accompanying the 1976 regulations and
entitled, "Advisory Information on the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-
tration's Requirements on Programing for Elderly and Handicapped Persons, "
contain three hortatory illustrations of a level of effort that will "satisfy"
the requirements, defendants explicitly eschew any intention to set regulatory
standards for local transit operators, saying in the Appendix:
(a)
"UMTA will not specify a program design to
meet the special efforts requirement";
(b)
"The examples
are illustrative
They are not regulatory standards or minimums,
neither do they exhaust all valid approaches.'
Title 49, C.F.R. UND 613.204, Apprendix; 41 Fed.
Reg. 18234 (1976).
-58-
Substitution of Separate Specialized Systems
130. There is a proper and necessary place for vans, small-size
buses, taxi-fleets and so on in an accessible transit system, namely as
feeder services linked to accessible fixed routes. Defendants have not
required accessible feeder services, however, for the very good reason
that such services would feed fixed routes which defendants have not required
to be accessible. Instead defendants have encouraged and promoted such
services as a substitute for accessible fixed routes.
131. Instead of requiring that all vehicles used on fixed transit
routes be made accessible by the purchase of the proven and cost-efficient
low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS, defendants have encouraged and
promoted costly, segregated specialized transportation systems for mobile
disabled and elderly people. As defendant Patricelli testified on April 5,
1976 before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the United States Senate
Labor and Public Welfare Committee:
"Through our Transbus program, important research and
demonstrations on wheelchair access to full size buses have
already been conducted; however, we are not seeking to
encourage transit properties to so equip the regular fixed
route transit fleet as opposed to developing special services
with special vehicles."
132. Defendants' encouragement and promotion of segregated
specialized transit services has not produced any significant improvement of
transportation services which mobile disabled and elderly people can use,
both because of the high cost of such systems and their unfavorable cost-benefit
ratios and because defendants in this regard are pushing with a string--they
have little power or authority to regulate van, small-bus or taxi operators directly
or to regulate them indirectly by conditions on grants of financial assistance:
-59-
"UMTA has no continuing and well developed relationship
with taxi, jitney and other paratransit operators, thus
UMTA has had little influence on their effective integration
with public transportation services, let alone their service
to special groups like the elderly. Consequently, it is not
clear how UMTA would alter the current state of para-
transit, even with a clear strategy in hand.
"UMTA currently encourages better integration of transit,
taxi, and jitney, but has no leverage to effectively carry
it out to test the idea that such integration can improve
services." Memorandum of UMTA's Director of Program
Development to UMTA's Associate Administrator for Program
Planning, 7 (July 18, 1974).
133. Thus defendants seek to influence what they cannot influence
but fail to influence what they can, and must, influence.
Abandonment of Transbus
134. Defendants at a cost of $27 million have developed a bus which
is accessible to the mobile disabled and elderly and improved to the fullest
extent possible within the state of the art, the low floor, wide door, ramped
TRANSBUS. Defendants have repeatedly announced their intention, whenever
the TRANSBUS project was completed, to require that federal financial
assistance be used only to purchase that bus. Nonetheless defendants have
delayed, failed and refused to so require and continue to approve and to expend
federal funds to finance the purchase of inaccessible buses.
135. Since the beginning of the TRANSBUS project defendants have
repeatedly announced their intention when the project was completed to require
that federal financial assistance be used only to purchase the TRANSBUS. On
January 8, 1975, for example, defendants issued a statement entitled "Policy
For Introducing Transbus Into Nationwide Service" wherein defendants said:
-60-
"To conclude the present Transbus R & D program,
UMTA will develop a performance specification for
forty-foot urban transit buses which will assure minimum
performance and characteristics with respect to safety,
elderly and handicapped accessibility, low maintenance,
high-performance and economical operations. The per-
formance specifications will be a composite of the acceptable
aspects of the three prototype buses developed under the
R & D program
"The composite performance specification will be made
available after the Transbus tests have been completed,
but work on developing these specifications will begin
now, concurrent with the completion of the testing and
evaluation, which, is now scheduled for August 1975.
This composite performance specification will allow
any manufacturer to use its own styling, body construc-
tion, and manufacturing techniques in competing for the
market. Except in special circumstances, grantees will
be expected to use this performance specification when
purchasing buses with Federal assistance."
On February 26, 1975, defendants published proposed regulations entitled
"Handicapped and Elderly Services", 40 Fed. Reg. 8314, 8315, wherein they
said:
"The completion of Transbus prototype testing is
currently scheduled for August 1975; the performance
specification will be developed concurrently, and the
first of the new buses should be in revenue service by
late 1977 or early 1978. The UMTA decision to proceed
with a performance specification rather than a detailed
design specification has accelerated significantly the
anticipated availability of the Transbus."
In affidavits in ten lawsuits defended by UMTA between November 1974 and
March 1976 against claims for accessible transit, defendant Urban Mass
Transportation Administrator, or his predecessor, said:
"[ A]s part of the program of research, development and
demonstration projects above referred to, UMTA is
carrying on a major project known as "TRANSBUS, at
an estimated total cost of $27, 000, 000 designed to develop
a new generation of buses for general use in urban mass
transportation service in the United States, pursuant to
-61-
which three prototype standard size diesel transit buses,
each designed and equipped to accomodate passengers con-
fined to wheelchairs, have been developed and built, and
are presently being demonstrated and tested in actual
revenue service in four major cities (Miami, New York,
Kansas City (Mo.) and Seattle) to determine their safety,
reliability, economy and acceptability and attractiveness
to all segments of the public, including the elderly and the
physically handicapped, as a result of which it is anticipated
that UMTA will develop and promulgate by regulation a
standard specification for use by its grantees in transit
bus procurement which will provide to elderly and physically
handicapped persons mass transportation service which they
can effectively use." Affidavit of Frank C. Herringer, Urban
Mass Transportation Administrator, April 15, 1975, Might v.
Briscoe, Civ. No. A-15-CA-31 (W.D. Tex. filed March 13,
1975).
136. Defendants did not promulgate a regulation requiring that
federal financial assistance be used only to purchase the low floor, wide door,
ramped TRANSBUS, not in August, 1975, nor at any time since. Instead,
defendants have delayed performance on their promise, refused to promulgate
such regulations, and finally abandoned TRANSBUS, as follows.
137. In December 1975 defendants had completed draft Transbus
Procurement Requirements, including performance specifications for the
TRANSBUS, but did not promulgate them.
138. In January, 1976, defendants had prepared a draft "Policy
Statement on Grants for Acquisition of Transit Buses, " which included the
statement "UMTA affirms its intention to require the use of this performance
specification and procurement package by grantees purchasing transit buses
with UMTA financial assistance, except where special circumstances justify
an exception, " but did not promulgate it.
139. On April 14, 1976. defendants released final Transbus Procurement
Requirements, including performance specifications for the TRANSBUS, but
-62-
did not promulgate them. Instead defendants issued notice of a public hearing
for May 5, 1976, on the question whether to mandate or encourage the use of
TRANSBUS performance specifications for all new transit buses and announced
that a decision would be furnished on or before June 14, 1976. 41 Fed. Reg.
15735.
140. On April 30, 1976, defendants promulgated final regulations
entitled, "Urban Transportation Programming for Elderly and Handicapped
Persons," 41 Fed. Reg. 18234, which ignored the TRANSBUS performance
specifications and otherwise failed to require a low floor, wide door, or a
ramp.
141. Defendants failed to furnish their decision on mandating TRANSBUS
performance specifications by June 14, 1976, the appointed date or since.
142. Defendants have failed and continue to fail, in derogation of
their duties under the several Acts of Congress, to require that federal financial
assistance be used only to purchase the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS.
-63-
VII. The Bases for Relief
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF ACCESSIBILITY MANDATE OF THE URBAN
MASS TRANSPORTATION AND FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACTS
143. By failing to require that federal financial assistance be used
only to purchase the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS and otherwise
by failing to assure the availability to elderly and handicapped persons of
mass transportation which they can effectively utilize, defendants have violated
and continue to violate the Urban Mass Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. $$
1602 (a)(1)(B) and 1612(a) and the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. $ 142
note. In addition, defendants have violated the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1975, un 315, Pub. L. 93-391, 88
Stat. 789 (August 28, 1974).
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION
ACT OF 1973
144. By failing to require that federal financial assistance be used
only to purchase the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS and by
otherwise failing to assure the availability of mass transportation which the
mobile disabled and elderly can effectively use, defendants have excluded
handicapped individuals from participation in, have denied them the benefits
of, and have subjected them to discrimination under the federally assisted
urban mass transit and federal aid highway programs and thus have violated
and continue to violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
s 794 and Executive Order 11914, 41 Fed. Reg. 17871 (April 29, 1976).
-64-
COUNT III: VIOLATION OF THE MANDATE OF THE URBAN MASS
TRANSPORTATION AND FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACTS TO
IMPROVE MASS TRANSPORTATION
145. By failing to require that federal financial assistance be used
only to purchase the improved, efficient, effective, safe, convenient, and
accessible low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS, defendants have violated
and continue to violate the Urban Mass Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 8 1601,
et seq. and the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. §§ 103(e)(4), 134(a),
142(a) and (c).
COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF DUTY TO EXERCISE SOUND DISCRETION
AND NOT TO WITHHOLD, UNREASONABLY DELAY OR
CURTAIL STATUTORY RIGHTS
146. Having developed at a cost of $27 million, a bus which satisfies
the Congressional mandates to assure accessible public mass transportation
and to improve public mass transportation, defendants, by failing to require
that federal financial assistance be used only to purchase the low floor, wide
door, ramped TRANSBUS and otherwise by failing to assure the availability
to elderly and handicapped persons of mass transportation which they can
effectively utilize, have acted arbitrarily and capriciously, have abused
their discretion, and have unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed the
implementation of the full statutory rights of the mobile disabled and elderly
thus making proper and necessary relief under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
COUNT V:
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
147. By failing to require that federal financial assistance be used
only to purchase the low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS and otherwise
-65-
by failing to assure the availability to elderly and handicapped persons of
mass transportation which they can effectively utilize, defendants have violated
the rights of mobile disabled and elderly persons to travel, freely to associate,
to petition the government for redress of grievances, and not to be subjected
to invidious and arbitrary classification and exclusion from the benefits
extended to all other persons by governmental action and thus have violated
and continue to violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of
the United States, the Commerce Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities
Clause.
VIII. Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs mobile disabled and elderly persons and their
organizations respectfully request that this Court:
1.
Declare the duty of defendants under the statutes and Constitution
of the United States, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants,
to require that federal financial assistance be expended only to purchase the
low floor, wide door, ramped TRANSBUS;
2.
Declare the duty of defendants under the statutes and Constitution
of the United States, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants,
to take such other action as is necessary to assure the availability to elderly
and handicapped persons of public mass transportation which they can effectively
utilize;
3.
Award plaintiffs the costs of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412.
-00-
4.
Grant such other relief as may be necessary and proper.
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA
By:
s/James J. Raggio
James J. Raggio
s/Frank Laski
Frank Laski
s/Elias Cohen
Elias Cohen
s/Thomas K. Gilhool
Thomas K. Gilhool
Suite 1600, 1315 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 735-7200
Counsel for Plaintiffs
-67-
EXHIBIT 1
United States Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Ad-
ministration, Provision for the Elderly and Handicapped in the Design of
Transbus
PROVISIONS FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
IN THE DESIGN OF TRANSBUS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION
Booz-Allen Applied Research
Transbus, Prime Contractor
PROVISIONS FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
IN THE DESIGN OF TRANSBUS
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Transportation is sponsoring a competitive program to develop a
new 40 foot transit bus that will set the standard for urban transportation for years to
come. This new vehicle. named, TRANSBUS will contain the first basic changes made in
urban transit buses in more than fifteen years. At present three bus manufacturers: AM
General Corporation. General Motors Truck and Coach Division and Rohr Industries are
building their versions of the new TRANSBUS, under subcontract from Booz, Allen
Applied Research. Booz, Allen, the prime contractor, will be responsible for recom-
mending the design that is destined to become the next generation transit bus.
In setting the objectives for the TRANSBUS program, the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Administration of the Department of Transportation has chosen vehicle designs
which emphasize improved service for all people. TRANSBUS will move its passengers
faster. It will travei faster between stops and will have a top speed nearly 20% higher than
current buses. TRANSBUS will also have wider doors and a floor only half as high as that
on current buses. These features will allow riders to beard and leave the bus more
quickly. The achievement of a floor.height only one and one half feet above the street is a
major breakthrough in transit bus technology.
TRANSBUS will be a safer bus. The entire design is based on a scientific analysis of
transit bus safety. TRANSBUS will have energy absorbing bumpers, break-proof
windows. resilient seat backs, other soft interior surfaces, and scientifically designed
safety handholds.
TRANSBUS will be quieter, cleaner, and more comfortable. Seats will be wider and
there will be more knee room. The rear of the bus, once cramped at best, will be
transformed into a U-shaped lounge-like area. The fume and draft free interiors will be
kept at uniform comfortable temperatures in summer and winter by advanced
air-conditioning and heating systems. Seated passengers will look out of panoramic, tinted
windows and will have a smooth ride equivalent to that of a luxury automobile, thanks to
a new wheel suspension system.
TRANSBUS models will be displayed throughout the United States. In 1974
prototype TRANSBUS vehicles will be rolling on the streets of a few selected cities to
help evaluate which of the three competing prototype designs best fits the needs of uroan
areas.
-2-
FEATURES TO REMOVE TRAVEL BARRIER TO THE
ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
A particularly challenging objective of the TRANSBUS program is the removal of
physical travel barriers to the elderly and handicapped. New design concepts will be
tested on TRANSBUS to provide access to the bus system for an individual in a
wheelchair. The final versions of each of the three TRANSBUS prototype designs will
feature a different approach to this design problem.
On the following pages, a brief description of each manufacturer's approach to the
problem of providing access to an individual in a wheeichair is presented along with an
artist's concept of the particular manufacturer's bus in operation.
-3-
AM GENERAL CORPORATION
The AM General concept for the removal of travel barriers provides a level, wide
entry to the bus floor. The concept involves a flat ramp built into the bus which bridges
the gap between the bus and a curbside platform. The AM General TRANSBUS has a
special feature built into the suspension system which allows the driver to adjust the
height of the bus floor to any point between 17 inches and 20 inches off the ground.
Level access to the bus is provided by a curbside platform. But because of the low
floor design of the AM General TRANSBUS, the curbside platform is only slightly higher
above the sidewalk than 1 standard curb is above the street.
As shown in the accompanying drawing of the AM General TRANSBUS the required
platform can be constructed so that it is accessible to all people and provides 3 bus shelter
which is equipped with information displays and various amenities for waiting passengers.
Such a total passenger waiting/boarding system would provide safety, security and
convenience for all bus patrons.
Transit operators and local officials throughout the country recognize the need for
new amenities such as shelters if people are to be attracted back to mass transit. The AM
General concept could make boarding a bus as simple as moving through a 40 inch wide
door.
-4-
METRO
ENTRY
CURRSIDE PLATFORM
AM GENERAL TRANSBUS
GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK AND COACH DIVISION
The General Motors concept for the removal of travel barriers provides 2 lift 11 the
37 inch wide front door. When not in use the lift is stored under the front step of the bus.
The General Motors concept operates as follows. The bus pulls up to the stop and the
special suspension system allows the driver to lower the bus and tilt it toward the
boarding passengers. As the doors open, the front step projects out from the bus and
lowers to the curb or group : is required. After the individual in 3 wheelchair has rolled
on to the enlarged lower step. the curbside edge and two levers on the platform pivot
upward to provide a secure restraint for the wheelchair and the step is raised to the bus
floor level. When the individual in 2 wheelchair is in the bus, the step lowers back to its
rest position and retracts. The door then closes and the bus can get underway.
The lower floor and wide door of the General Motors TRANSBUS make this
concept practical for the first time. While current buses have a narrow entry door with
two steps up, the General Motors TRANSBUS has a single wide boarding platform from
which passengers step up to the bus floor. This wide platform/lower step combination
becomes the wheetchair lift, as required.
The General Motors concept does,not require any special curbside equipment and
can be employed at all current bus stops.
-6-
SPECIAL LIFT
GENERAL MOTORS TRANSBUS
ROHR INDUSTRIES
The Rohr design has the lowest floor height of any version of the TRANSBUS. In
normal operation, the floor of the bus is only 17 inches above the street. At bus stops the
suspension system allows the driver to lower the floor to 13 inches above the street level
which is only 7 inches above a standard curt: AS the front door opens, a ramp projects
out from under the bus floor and lowers to the curb. Because the ramp need only rise
7 inches its total length is only 4 feet. The ramp comes from the top of the step inside the
bus and the ramp projects less than 3 feet out from the side of the bus.
The Rohr TRANSBUS needs no curbside facilities and can service all existing bus
stops. If a curb is not present at the stop, the ramp angle becomes steeper than that
specified for architectural design standards, but is typical of many ramps currently in
place in public facilities.
A scale model of the Rohr TRANSDUS was displayed at the meeting of the
President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped in Washington, D.C., May 2,
3, and 4, 1973.
-8-
4 FCOT RAMP
ROHR INDUSTRIES TRANSBUS
EXHIBIT 2
United States Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation
Administration, Analysis of Low Floors For Transit Buses, Executive
Summary (January 1976)
ANALYSIS OF LOW FLOORS
FOR TRANSIT BUSES
A Summary
Prepared by UNTA Research Staff
January 1976
Executive Summary
Under a Federally supported project the National Academy of Engineering
(NAE) studied the characteristics needed for improved buses in the future.*
Representatives from varied segments of industry and society including
the major bus manufacturers and bus operators participated in this project
so the results represent a blend of authoratative considerations, findings.
and opinions. A major conclusion was that buses, in the future. should
have low floors. which would a) improve productivity by speeding the on-off
flow of passengers and b) reduce physical barriers to the elderly and infirm.
The Transbus specifications nave drawn heavily the recommendations
from
the NAE study including the low floor feature.
In response to the request-for-proposals to design *** fabricate prototype
Transbuses both high floor and low floor designs were submitted by manu-
Facturing firms. These were evaluated by a team of experts and subsequently
reviewed by the then Undersecretary and UMTA Administrator. The decision
was to pursue the low floor designs.
During the testing of the Transbuses in four US cities reactions from 11.000
transit bus riders were documented. Of the thirty major bus features in-
vestigated the greatest positive response was in favor of the low floor.
it is known that many serious passenger accidents occur in the vestibule
and stairwell and the low floor results in substantial improvement in
these areas. It is estimated that. in comparison to high floor buses,
boarding and alighting accidents will be reduced twenty percent.
Proving ground tests of the low floor Transbus prototypes show 1 marked
improvement in handeling, high speed maneuvering and resistance to tip over
actributable largely to the lower center of gravity. This will show even-
cually as an improvement in safety.
A namp (in contrast to a lift) entry to transit buses appears to be de-
sirable for wheelchair access. There are several reasons; it can be deployed
much faster: wheelchairs can board much faster; once deployed able bodied
assengers can use it to advantage; it is better suited to amergency exit.
To design a ramp for a high floor bus does not appear feasible whereas is
is feasible for a low floor bus.
It is estimated that a modern high floor bus (interim bus' will cost more
to produce than the current production "new look" bus by 5.5 percent and a
modern low floor bus would cost 12.5 percent more. Modern production
methods may reduce these figures. Operating costs for modern high versus
low floor buses are estimated to be $1.34 versus $1.36 cents per mile out
this difference probably lies within the accuracy of the estimate and is
not considered = be of significance.
"Design and Performance Criteria for Improved Non-rail Urban Mass Transit
Vehicles and Related Urban Transportation Systems" National Guideway of
Engineering May 1968.
- 2 -
Some bus operators have expressed concerns over the Transbus design. These
largely boil down to a) ground clearance problems which have been resolved
in the production model specifications and b) equipment packaging and
fabrication techniques exhibited in the prototype Transbus vehicles which
did not compair favorably to production model "new look" buses. This is
not an unusual condition for prototype vehicles. It is expected that all
vital problems in this category would be corrected in a production model
and its normal evolution.
Disabled In Action of Pennsylvania, Inc.
1319 McKINLEY STREET / PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19111 / (215) SH 8-6808
SHIPPING
FOR
Release Date: 11:00 AM
Tuesday, July 27, 1976
PRESS RELEASE
A national coalition of 12 organizations of the disabled and elderly
denounced today's decision by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
abandon the low-floor TRANSBUS as a "boon to General Motors and disaster
for the elderly and disabled, and all mass transit riders. "
The 12 organizations joined together last month to file suit on behalf of
their 5.5 million members to force DOT to require all new buses to have
low floors.
At public hearings held on May 5, 1976, General Motors and certain
transit agencies were the only opponents of TRANSBUS. Included among
those testifying in favor of going forward with the production of TRANSBUS
were the other two major bus manufacturers, Rohr Industries and AM General,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Seattle-King County Transit Authority,
American Council of the Blind, Southern California Rapid Transit District,
American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, the Architectural and Trans-
portation Barriers Compliance Board, Disabled In Action and the Office for
Handicapped Individuals of DHEW.
In denouncing today's ruling, Sieglinde A. Shapiro, President of Disabled
In Action of Pennsylvania, the lead plaintiff organization, recalled Secretary
of Transportation, William T. Coleman's remarks of last week when he announced
$340 million in Federal mass transportation grants to 7 cities. These grants
include monies for the purchase of 464 new buses. Mr. Coleman said that
"the city that is not accessible cannot serve its people. The city that lacks
mobility is a poor host - a harsh landlord. "
With today's ruling DOT has effectively denied millions of disabled and
elderly Americans ready access to public mass transportation and has deprived
them of their right to be full contributing members of society. By taking
this action, DOT has ignored its own studies and reports prepared over the
past 9 years as part of the $27 million TRANSBUS program. These reports
conclude that a low-floor bus design is technologically feasible and
econonmically beneficial.
The final TRANSBUS reports released in April by DOT find that the lower
floor height would:
1) make mass transportation readily accessible to 26 million
elderly and disabled individuals;
2) cut boarding time in half for all passengers;
3) reduce noise and vibration by 70%, resulting in ride quality
approaching that of the automobile; and
4) attract more riders and increase operating revenues for
hard pressed transit agencies by up to 10%, or $70 million
a year.
The DOT studies also show that the low-floor TRANSBUS would result in
huge economic benefits by removing the major barrier to employment for
the disabled. Increased tax revenues and decreased support payments
could total as much as 7 times the cost of replacing high floor buses with
the low-floor TRANSBUS. The studies further conclude that the low-floor
TRANSBUS is a more cost effective means of providing disabled and elderly
individuals transportation than alternative, specialized transit services.
-2-
Anticipating concerns expressed by transit operators about the prototype
TRANSBUS vehicles, the DOT Executive Summary of the final TRANSBUS
report found these concerns "not an unusual condition for prototype vehicles"
and "that all vital problems in this category would be corrected in a production
model and its normal evolution. 11 In addition, the reports indicated that the
maintenance and repair requirements would remain constant; accident costs
would be reduced by up to 20%; and trip time would be reduced resulting in
improved scheduling and service dependability.
The optional wheelchair lift packages required by DOT for new buses are
not an adequate substitute for low-floor accessibility. The DOT studies show
that it would be almost as expensive to equip and maintain buses with lifts as
to build buses with lower floors. These studies also indicate that a bus with
a lift device would not benefit nearly as many disabled and elderly individuals
as would the low-floor TRANSBUS. The millions of individuals with arthritis,
heart conditions, respiratory or pulmonary dysfunctions, and neurological
disorders, including stroke, would benefit only from a low-floor, ramped bus.
Six times since 1970 Congress has directed DOT to insure that all federally
aided mass transportation is accessible to the disabled and elderly. The 12
organizations that filed suit last month to enforce the Congressional mandate are:
Disabled In Action of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Baltimore,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities,
National Capitol Area Chapter of the National Paraplegia Foundation, National
Caucus on the Black Aged, Congress of Organizations of the Physically Handicapped,
National Council of Senior Citizens, Pennsylvania Association of Older
Persons, and United Cerebral Palsy Association of Pennsylvania.
-3-
Copies of the complaint which detail the findings and conclusions of DOT
on the low-floor TRANSBUS; Congress' mandate on insuring the disabled and
elderly equal access to public transportation; and the harms suffered by the
elderly and disabled due to the lack of accessible mass transportation can
be obtained from:
Debby Yager, Public Relations Director, Litigation Committee,
Disabled In Action of Pennsylvania, (215) 732-3129 or
(215) 735-7200 or (215) 748 - 6808.
or
Hank Beasley, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Barrier Free Design
Director, (301) 652-2135
Copies of pictures of the low-floor TRANSBUS can be obtained from the
same sources.
CONTACT: Jay Neuman
(215) 831-9329
(215) 748-6808
-4- -
Make buses accessible to
handicapped, aged, suit asks
BY JOSEPH WHITAKER
able to get on the bus in the first place."
© 1976, Los Angeles Times-
According to Shapiro, more than 14
Washington Post News Service
million of the nation's 26 million elderly
Washington - A national coalition of
and handicapped citizens are adversely
disabled and elderly persons filed a law-
affected by the design of mass-transit
suit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia
vehicles.
which would require all new buses in
Since 1974, 10 suits have been filed in
mass transportation to be easily accessi-
cities across the nation demanding that
ble to handicapped and elderly persons.
mass transportation be made more
If the class action suit is successful,
accessible to the handicapped. In Wash-
conventional buses with 34-inch-high
ington a suit filed last year against the
floors and doors 27 inches wide would be
Metro subway caused the courts to forbid
Bush Library Photocopy Preservation
replaced by buses with floors 17 inches
the opening of a subway station because
off the ground, 44-inch-wide doors and
it does not have an elevator for
ramps that would reach to the sidewalk
wheelchair-bound passengers.
to accommodate people in wheelchairs or
The defendant in Thursday's suit are
on crutches.
the U.S. Department of Transportation
"Ten years ago court action made it
possible for blacks to sit anywhere on the
and Secretary William T. Coleman Jr.,
bus," said Sieglinde A. Shapiro, president
the Federal Highway Administration and
of Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania,
its administrator, Norbert T. Tiemann,
Inc., the lead plaintiff in the case.
and the Urban Mass Transportation
"We're not asking for any special place
Administration and Robert E. Patricelli,
to sit," she added, "We just want to be
administrator of the agency.
this week was parti
preparing the Israeli pub
for territorial concessions,
Allon said, adding that, "we
here
Sa
cannot reach a peace settle-
sions with Ford an
ment without CO cessions."
Secretary of State Henry
Israel has already offered
singer. Sadat agreed with
their assessment that a step-
to
withdraw
from
from
the
by-step approach offered the
me
deis desert oilfields passes in and exchange for best prospect. But they did
Spec
an Egyptian to efrain lot out going to Geneva
States
from war, but Egypt rejected in case those concessions that
it would
the terms.
Egypt or Israel might be will-
Egyptian
Allon said he would not ad-
ing to offer did not go far
Israel to ag
vise Kissinger to renew his enough to make another in-
forces to
strategic M
Suit by Handicapped
passes.
In March t
forts collapse
cided that
Could Shut Down
sions, secure
were not SW
justify giving
and the pass
Chicago Mass Transit
The Israel
turn the oil
length of th
Chicago (UPI) - A quadraplegic and a senior citizen
concessions
suffering from emphysema filed a suit in U.S. District Court
This was re
today that could shut down both the Chicago Transit Author-
which insis
ity (CTA) and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA).
length of the
The suit, filed on behalf of all disabled citizens, seeks an
mum condit
injunction against the RTA and the CTA to prohibit the
In recent
collection or dispersal of public funds - federal, state and
officials hav
local - until equal public transportation facilities are pro-
by reports
vided for the handicapped.
were willin
The suit also seeks a court order to force the CTA and
al flexibilit
RTA to comply with provisions of the federal Urban Mass
Specifica
Transportation Act which says that the elderly and handicap-
cated that
ped have the same rights to transportation as other citizens
sought an
and calls for "special efforts" to be made to ensure the
as long as
Bush Library Photocopy Preservation
availability of mass transportation to such persons.
would now
The suit was filed by two DePaul University law students
five year
- George Wolfe, a quadraplegic, and Janet Wolfe, who is in
The E
her 60s and suffers from emphysema.
March ne
The suit charges that mobility is required for persons to
an indefin
exercise their constitutional rights, including the rights to
that they
free association, free speech, redress of grievances and equal
sign a sta
accord in
employment.
supersede
The basis is that if you haven't got transportation, you
In addit
can't get to work, you can't go to court to seek redress of
extend the
grievances, you can't do much of anything," said Jeanne
Nations bu
Sullivan, a member of the executive committee of the Chica-
year perio
go chapter of the National Association of Social Workers,
ods renew
which is supporting the suit.
intervals.
The suit was filed with the cooperation and support of the
Israelis th
National Center for Law and the Handicapped, Notre Dame
Egyptians
University and the Chicago Advocates for the Handicapped.
mally not
accord for
Recall of Polluting
If Sada
to ease h
conceival
work out
175 Cars Considered
duration
cials sai
reasonably
OF
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTATION
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
NEWS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY
UMTA 75-80
July 22, 1975
Phone: (202) 426-4043
The U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama handed
down a landmark decision on June 24 when it granted a motion
for summary judgement by the Department of Transportation's
Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and dismissed
a suit which sought to prohibit UMTA from funding transit buses
that do not accommodate wheelchair-bound persons.
The suit, brought by Birmingham-area resident Jane Snowden,
also sought to prohibit the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit
Authority (BJCTA) from procuring such buses. Snowden claimed
that BJCTA and UMTA were violating Section 16 (a) of the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilita-
tion Act of 1973, and the "due process" and "equal protection"
clauses of the Constitution of the United States.
In granting UMTA's motion for summary judgement and
dismissing the case, Judge J. Foy Guin, Jr. noted that standard
size transit buses designed and equipped to accommodate wheel-
chairs are not commercially available from any manufacturer.
He also said it would gravely injure the general public, without
in any way helping the plaintiff and others similarly situated,
if procurement of transit buses were halted by court order until
specially equipped buses could be designed, developed and
produced.
Judge Guin ruled as a matter of law that the statutes
relied on by the plaintiff do not require that all Federally
funded buses be wheelchair-accessible.
Seven similar cases are pending in other State and
Federal courts. UMTA's Office of the Chief Counsel is hopeful
they will follow the Snowden decision or withhold action until
an appeal filed with the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is
decided.
- O -
For further information contact the UMTA Office of Public
Affairs at (202) 426-4043.