Flash-Storms, FlexTrans, and the Freedom to Ride: The Movement for Greater Public Transit Accessibility in Utah

It was about five o'clock on a warm September evening in Salt Lake City, 1985.1 An estimated thirty to fifty people waited on the corner of Main Street and 100 South. They were scared. People like them had been met with physical force and even arrested for doing the same thing they were about to do. They watched for buses full of end-of-workday commuters to approach.2 Eventually, someone made the call: “OK, let's roll!” The group, half of whom were using wheelchairs, did just that. They rolled their chairs into the intersection, blocking the way of seven scheduled bus routes.3 Visible forms of social action, like street demonstrations, have a long legacy in the disability-rights movement. Sociologists Sharon Barnartt and Richard Scotch have referred to such actions as “contentious politics,” which they define as “collective behavior that demands changes by the use of non-institutionalized forms of political action against elites, opponents, or the state.”4 One of the most familiar examples of contentious politics in disability-rights history is the San Francisco HEW (or 504) Sit-In of 1977. Between sixty and one hundred fifty people remained in the San Francisco office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) for twenty-five days in order to secure the creation of regulations for Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. The act was passed in order to protect Americans with disabilities from discrimination by any organization that was receiving federal funding, but its impact was limited without specific regulations. As a direct result of the demonstrations in San Francisco and other, smaller sit-ins happening simultaneously, the regulations were written, signed, and enforced.5One of those regulations stipulated that all government-funded infrastructure, including public transportation, become accessible. The additions to Section 504 required a phased plan to reach a certain percentage of public buses equipped with lifts in the following years.6 In Utah, federally funded transportation was overseen by Utah Transit Authority (UTA). At the time that 504 regulations were signed into law in 1977, only 5 of the 320 buses owned by UTA were equipped with wheelchair lifts. Those buses ran on lightly trafficked streets in Ogden, but drivers were instructed to tell passengers that the lifts were inoperable rather than use them and delay the schedule.7UTA found the federal requirement to equip all its buses with lifts unreasonable. They argued that it would not be cost efficient and that taxpayer money would be better used to provide separate services for the few people with disabilities who needed public transit.8 Instead of buying lift-equipped buses, UTA put a paratransit program in place. The agency gave funding to nonprofits that already owned accessible buses and contracted with them to pick people up at their homes if they called and requested a ride two days in advance. Eventually, a federal judge agreed that compliance with the new 504 regulations could be determined locally and that paratransit was an acceptable alternative to installing lifts on every single bus.9 In 1983, a committee consisting of representatives from different disability-rights groups as well as from UTA was formed to analyze the “dial-a-ride” program. The group determined that the paratransit system was “valuable but inadequate.”10 They argued that it was unfairly expensive for individuals and that its closure on weekends and evenings made it largely unhelpful. People spoke out against the alienation of disabled people inherent in the system.11 They maintained the position that all buses owned by UTA should be retrofitted with lifts.12For the next year, related demands for accessibility were continuously made to UTA, including reduced wait times, reserved seats at the front of the bus, and stop announcements. No tangible changes were made, however; cost was always cited as an issue. Activists noted that UTA was prioritizing other projects, like ski buses and the expansion of I-15, both of which required innovative and extensive budgeting. Despite letter writing, meeting attendance, and other diplomatic approaches, the disability community was going largely unheard.13Traditional means for demanding change exhausted, organizers turned to contentious politics.14 In the words of protester Barbara Toomer: “We are in a corner. When there is no way out, you fight.”15 Starting in September 1985, a few of the same protesters who would participate in the street blockage staged informal “crawl-ons.” UTA drivers had been instructed to at least stop if someone was at the bus stop. If that person could board the bus on their own, the driver could not refuse them a ride.16 Activists would wait at the bus stop and inform the driver that they would be “crawling on,” because of the absence of wheelchair lifts. Some had people with them to lift them out of their chairs and onto the bus.17 Others were alone and would crawl up the stairs. If they could not lift themselves into a bus seat, they would sit on the floor.18 There was also an organized crawl-on event on September 10, 1985. About twenty people met at a bus stop downtown and all crawled onto a bus, accompanied by cheers. They rode for a block before crawling off. They repeated the protest on a different bus several minutes later.19The crawl-ons yielded no results. Neither had press conferences nor a protest at a national conference for bus executives. UTA refused to meet movement leaders. Further, efforts to form coalitions with other organizations had failed because of disagreements about direct action compared to traditional political avenues for change.20 Organizers once again turned to contentious politics. Crawl-ons slowed buses down, but future action would stop them entirely.Disability-rights activists from Denver were invited to Salt Lake in 1985 to train movement leaders for the upcoming protest. These organizers had successfully convinced the Denver Transit Authority to fit every single one of its buses with lifts by forming a blockade to immobilize buses during rush hour. One such strike lasted two entire days.21 One Utah activist remembered that protesters from Denver were considered the “cutting edge as far as direct confrontation went.”22 The successful actions in Denver had been led by an organization that was at that time called American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT), which had a branch in Salt Lake. The founder of SLC ADAPT, Barbara Toomer, was also on the board of the Independent Living (IL) center, so the two organizations often worked in conjunction. ADAPTers and IL folks planned a protest for the same weekend that a national conference was being held by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in downtown Salt Lake City.23The buses stopped in front of the blockade. The protesters had blocked three of the four lanes on Main Street, stopping traffic in both directions. Participant Glenn Bailey remembers that he was “pretty terrified with the blocking of the buses. . . . I was sure somebody was gonna get flattened. . . . You had to get tight up to the front and back so that they couldn't maneuver. . . . That was pretty wild.”24 Commuters started to disembark to find another way home. They high-fived the protestors and threw “victory signs” their way. The press arrived and conducted interviews.25 Mark Smith, who was the director of IL Salt Lake and had been to every UTA board meeting since accepting that position, told them that he had no intention of moving his wheelchair away from the bus until John Pingree, general manager of UTA, agreed to meet with the organizers.26 After about twenty minutes, the Salt Lake Tribune reported, Pingree “readily agreed” to do so, though he offered a statement that the protest was “selfish” and that it would have “no effect at all” on plans moving forward.27The meeting with Pingree was held the very next day, September 20, 1985. It was emotional and rowdy. Over jeers and catcalls, Pingree explained that UTA was working on a new paratransit system. The protesters asked that UTA postpone the board's vote on the new system so that they could give their input. Pingree said that a postponement would be considered. As to whether or not the demand that all new buses purchased be equipped with lifts would also receive consideration, Pingree's response was “Absolutely not.”28After debate at the UTA board meeting held the following week, it was decided that the vote would not be postponed, though a public hearing was scheduled as a concession.29 The new plan—called FlexTrans, or “flexible transportation service”—was unanimously approved by UTA board members.FlexTrans combined existing ideas and infrastructure. With one to two hours’ notice, someone who had registered their disability with UTA could call for curbside pickup. The curbside vans would take people to a central location on State Street, from which UTA would run its limited fleet of lift-equipped buses. The general opinion of those within the disability community was that FlexTrans was a good start. They reminded UTA officials that they wanted their input consistently heard moving forward.30Sixty people attended October's public hearing. Most of their comments on FlexTrans were about cost to the individual: a ride on FlexTrans would cost two to three dollars, compared to the twenty-five cents it cost to ride UTA's main buses. People again spoke in favor of eventually reaching universal lift-accessibility on all UTA buses.31UTA ultimately agreed to charge equal fares on FlexTrans. Other details of the new program were approved without revision. A fleet of fifteen “low-rider” vans, each with capacity for six seats and seven wheelchairs, was purchased. Drivers were given sensitivity training and would be required to assist wheelchair users on and off the bus.32 FlexTrans was officially inaugurated on July 5, 1988, with a ribbon-cutting ceremony; the ribbon was cut by Kathy Garcia, Ms. Wheelchair Utah, who also made a speech encouraging people to use the new system.33 Demands for a universally accessible UTA bus fleet continued to be expressed; otherwise, FlexTrans was largely considered successful. The most frequently published complaint against the new system was that people were being denied service due to a high volume of requests.34The protest on September 19, 1985, lasted a mere twenty minutes. Mark Smith remembered, These are just flash spots, these are just flash storms, these are just something that starts the ball rolling. And really though it looks big, and it looks super, there really is nothing at all. I was surprised that we had this major event; we stopped the buses; people got off the buses. . . . The media was there; . . . we did our interviews, and people were gone. It was like 5:30, quarter to six, and I'm sitting alone there . . . where we had the strike thinking “Wow, it's all gone.”35But that twenty-minute flash storm had an immediate impact. After almost a decade of work, it was a twenty-minute event that convinced John Pingree to meet with organizers. Because of that meeting, FlexTrans was approved with fares equal to UTA's main buses. Within only a few months of its inauguration, ridership had increased significantly. In addition to its immediate impact, the 1985 protest changed cultural structures in Salt Lake City in the long term. The event increased the visibility of people with disabilities as a community with power and agency, rather than individuals to be acted upon.Many historians have written about the development of “disability culture,” including belief systems and collective consciousness.36 Developing collective consciousness has been traditionally difficult for the disability community. Because of the history of seclusion, it wasn't until the 1960s that social communities of people with disabilities began to form.37 Further, disability is a widely encompassing term that includes people with a variety of life experiences. It is for these reasons that earliest disability-rights activism was divided into groups according to impairment.According to Barnartt and Scotch, collective consciousness includes the delineation of group boundaries but also the growth of an understanding that the problems one has to deal with arise from unfair treatment and not from personal failings.38 The events surrounding the September 1985 protests created opportunities for people with disabilities to organize and unify with each other and with a national movement. These opportunities contributed to group formation and helped people with disabilities develop collective consciousness. As a result, incidents that may have been considered personal misfortunes started to be labeled as discrimination.For example, in the early 2000s, UTA made plans to increase its fares due to rising gas prices. Fares for main buses would increase by fifteen cents, while already-more-expensive paratransit fares would increase by twenty-five cents. UTA claimed that there was a differential because it cost more to operate FlexTrans than the main lines. At a public hearing, Barbara Toomer, founder of SLC ADAPT, reminded those present that FlexTrans service had been reduced over the years while the cost to individual riders had continued to increase. Other speakers offered suggestions for making FlexTrans more cost-effective rather than changing fares. Paratransit fares had already risen in years prior, and Toomer argued that that rate hike would come at the cost of those who could least afford it.39 People did speak of how the decision would make things more difficult for individuals, but the rhetoric was more often that the decision was unfair toward the disability community as a group.In addition to aiding in group formation, the September protests resulted in heightened visibility for that group in several ways. First, by making main UTA services somewhat more accessible to those with disabilities, the protest made the community more literally visible in public spaces. Many historians have argued that selecting public transportation accessibility as the primary objective of the disability-rights movement at that time was strategic. One advocate said that “the availability of reliable, affordable, accessible mass transit . . . can mean the difference ‘between living in a community and being imprisoned there.’”40 In other words, having access to transportation meant that members of the disability community, more likely to be unable to operate or afford a car, had better access to such basic community spaces as schools, health care, and grocery stores and were less confined to their own or caretakers’ homes. By 1989, less than a year after its inauguration, FlexTrans was serving approximately three hundred riders per day.41 Between 1999 and 2000, paratransit ridership increased about 25 percent.42 In addition to that tangible independence, greater access to mass transit was symbolic of the freedom of choice and participation in the public sphere.Disability was also made more noticeable through changes to infrastructure. When riders complained that UTA was not complying with federal requirements to make buses accessible to the blind, drivers started audibly calling out each bus stop. Riders had also complained about drivers being hostile. There had been several reported instances of drivers speaking disrespectfully to wheelchair users or lying and telling them that the lifts were inoperable. UTA's response was swift, addressing the issue with drivers one-on-one and installing signs on each bus that read, “We don't want anyone to be late, but we will leave no one behind” and “Everyone has the right to ride the bus.”43 Whether or not someone with visible disabilities was on the bus, these actions would have made disability a more apparent reality to all passengers.The protest of 1985 also served to improve visibility by providing better access to the decision-making processes and of example, Kathy was for the new position of FlexTrans to with the disability community to receive The of UTA also to have changed to be more in favor of participation from the disability community. is in the creation of called In the earliest for accessibility was as a In which train to that had wheelchair rather than were was as with including on and stop announcements. With an from calling 504 requirements representatives speaking on the accessibility of repeated made to them by disability-rights activists years disabled UTA is the only way for them to to or to the grocery the system is reliable, efficient and accessible for was not the only for UTA to its to provide accessible service for people with John Pingree made an immediate statement receiving that drivers were toward people using wheelchairs, “We to train drivers to be more There were also instances of people in the political on UTA's efforts toward an to and a wheelchair such a in things like . . . Utah is one of the leaders in disabilities That may be because so in other the for such was of a to accessibility or the in UTA's did to increase the visibility of the disability community as in Salt Lake Whether it was successful for being called out on buses, public of or successful efforts to block an it is that in the years following the protest in 1985, the disability community had a that would be in UTA decision is to that these there are several reasons that a full to accessibility and on the of UTA be First, there is that UTA continued to over in of and as a FlexTrans required that UTA's fleet of accessible buses be from to Salt Lake buses had been in before the Salt Lake protests of September 1985. had increased during the but after the protest in Salt Lake City, UTA representatives at a public hearing in that the buses would be because there was demand in Salt Lake. was but the same by activists in Salt Lake to the UTA did not by the riders were in about the but with smaller than Salt Lake and no protest history to use as they were In addition to being FlexTrans had for different of Within a year of its FlexTrans was at full to the that people were being denied for of on the buses. people used FlexTrans until they were in order to more for wheelchair to a from UTA, the federal had that people who were unable to board a bus have an accessible to this would result in federal funding being Because there was not a federal to provide accessible transportation for UTA decided to service to the rather than to wheelchair the system was considered because of The paratransit increase from the public but was passed in UTA a that only of a certain were on UTA buses. In the words of John of these have a UTA will less people with in order to every FlexTrans had to receive a physical from In the director of FlexTrans, has both a and an Because cost was It required written from a that there had been changes to a If someone was not to be they had to wait three years before was not only it also the of structures that those with disabilities a of as to and by of a full to universal accessibility is also in UTA's response to the of the Americans with in once that public buses be UTA did not as it did in the but made about this decision are almost to the made about the 504 regulations. UTA, and people in the that lifts were the most cost-effective They it would the efforts of FlexTrans. on compliance a John manager of UTA, we the way to provide transportation for the disabled is through . . . The is if we put wheelchair lifts on all our buses, we can afford to operate to universally accessible communities is something to to The disability-rights community often that accessibility the entire Most will become disabled at as they making disability a Neither UTA nor the general public more to the of universal accessibility following the 1985 but did and disability more visible in public that Salt Lake City can in the of that