6 ms·

A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public

A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too. Why then, go through the effort? Because they should be integrated into society like all others. I firmly believe public transportation has benefits beyond efficiency. Something about a billionaire on the 6 train next to a restaurant worker and a wheelchair-bound piano tuner[1] strikes me as poetic and noble. Whatever the costs. [1] Headed to my place.

ffggvv 6y ago
yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers. i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending
- silviogutierrez 6y ago
  Believe me, I'm very fiscally skeptical with government spending. Moreover, public transportation costs in the US are outrageous. Each elevator in the tens of millions for an NYC subway station. It's a racket and unacceptably corrupt. But we can tackle both problems, and should. Even with hyper efficient spending, there's an external benefit that is hard to measure and value beyond the cold, hard cash needed for the infrastructure vs government-paid private rides. I've been laterally involved in frivolous ADA lawsuits for websites before, so I also understand how even noble goals can become corrupted.
- crondung 6y ago
  To him, that money comes from 'government' not your payckeck. This is the kind of person who like many doesn't care -he pays almost no taxes, and votes for other people's hard-earned salary to be given to him. It's one if the issues with democracy - 2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner. These are also the kind of people who think people have a right to free housing, so anyone who worked, saved for 20 years, and bought a house, now owes them free lodging. This is why people vote for gop eggheads. Because while those corrupt men steal their money, it's a lot less than the entitled masses try to steal.
- mft_ 6y ago
  Well, not based on one person, but sometimes making uneconomic decisions based on human decency? That’s the society I’d rather live in. I mean, if numbers are all that matter, I’m fairly sure someone could come up with a model to deprioritise and disenfranchise almost anyone - the disabled, the elderly, the retired...
  - yzmtf2008 6y ago
    Is forcing wheelchair users to use subway human decency to you? We're talking about a situation where it's cheaper to let them use taxi service, and it's a better experience. My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...
    - ffggvv 6y ago
      yeah the proposal from the original comment also seems more designed to “teach” the billionaire by making him sit next to a disabled person instead of helping the wheelchair bound person. all out of some sort of sense of justice
    - mft_ 6y ago
      That’s not the situation. In the absence of Uber/Lyft (they being positive for disabled mobility) there appears to be no choice: it’s bad slow disabled-specific transport vs... nothing. And the argument was to not do things for disabled people that were uneconomic. So yes, I’d like to give disabled users the option of using all public transport, if they choose. (Having lived in London, many underground stations are actually pretty good - and certainly not below ‘human decency’.) But I’d also like that disabled people have other options, including reasonably-priced taxis.
mumblemumble 6y ago
I 100% agree, for that reason and more. But I also don't know that I see accessible public transit as being a something to set against accessible point-to-point transportation. One needs both. For the same reasons that everyone needs both.
nickff 6y ago
What about the wheelchair users? What do they prefer? If it were both cheaper and best for the users (as I believe it would be) to pay for private rides, I would support that wholeheartedly. If one option were cheaper, and the other is preferred, it would seem that you'd have to engage in some type of cost-benefit analysis. I don't see why able-bodied people should impose their view of 'social integration' on minorities at great cost, without additional justification.
- silviogutierrez 6y ago
  You have a good point. But I think taken to the extreme: who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms? In this hypothetical: we're assuming the facilities are good enough that the experience for the disabled is within reasonable parity. On the other hand, if it means having to go 40 blocks uptown, just to find an elevator then head back downtown, the system is inadequate and my narrative doesn't hold.
  - nickff 6y ago
    If wheelchair users prefer to take private rides, and it's cheaper than adapting public transit to their needs, I really don't see why we need to worry about this kind of issue. Most people view mass transit as generally undesirable, so they're okay with 'missing out' on it, and I don't think the disabled population is large enough to significantly contribute to urban congestion. I suppose that mass transit ridership will appear less diverse, but I'd rather not force people to use public transit just to make it more diverse. Don't get me wrong; I'd love for everyone to be able to do everything, but trying to make everything work for everyone all the time can get Procrustean.
    - axaxs 6y ago
      Just a question - why build public transport at all if it's undesirable? That just pushes everyone who can afford NOT to take it out, which leads to pollution, but worse, the effect that the populace using the public transportation are probably seen by others as 'more undesirable', leading to a snowball effect of people not using it until it's fully subsidized and terrible. That's what basically happened to busses in my old city. Even the less well off people would tell you not to ride one because it's full of crazies/homeless/beggars/etc. We're like, worse off than if they'd never have built it at all. If we're serious about modernizing and reducing our carbon footprint, we should provide reliable, safe, comfortable transportation that people want to take. Not relegate it as a public service for the needy. (though the both can work together)
lflux 6y ago
In Sweden if you're disabled, the government will pay for taxis for you. There's limits on how often et c and they don't come as fast as a normal taxi booking and you can only bring one other person with you, but it's a great option for when public transit doesn't cut it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
samatman 6y ago
Well, I don't have a wheelchair-bound piano tuner handy to ask, so I'll have to model this person based on other wheelchair users I've been acquainted with over the years. So let's ask this imaginary person: Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go, or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus, feeling the stress of inconveniencing others with the ramp, and having to wheel yourself the rest of the distance to your destination? That's if the bus arrives on time, which it won't. But keep in mind! silviogutierrez will feel better about themself if you take the bus! "poetic and noble" were the exact words.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  > Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus At least in Toronto, the para-transit fares are the same as the regular transit system fares. Sometimes they send you a taxi, but other times they send around a mini-bus that operates like an UberPool and may not save you any time. Even if a Lyft/Uber would be cheaper, if the gov is subsidizing it, they’ll pay for the lowest priority to save 3 cents.
- silviogutierrez 6y ago
  I think that's somewhat uncharitable of a take. But fundamentally, I agree with you. See my other comment. In this ideal, the experience for the wheelchair-bound is comparable to others. Not the current embarrassment we have in New York, for example.
  - samatman 6y ago
    I'll grant you my take was a bit over-the-top. The thing is, there are a few reasons why the able-bodied tend to prefer the experience of a ride-hailing app over public transit. - it comes to where you are, and drops you off exactly where you're going - you get a ride when you're ready to go, and not whenever the transit is running - higher chances of getting rides at weird hours - no risk of interacting with aggressive panhandlers, people high on drugs, the mentally ill, or people with bad personal hygiene Public transit has significant advantages, as well: biggest among them, it avoids the tragedy of the commons, particularly road congestion and carbon emissions. It has salubrious effects on urban planning. Places with good public transit are nice places to live. What I want to point out is that, every one of the advantages for the able-bodied are significantly exaggerated for wheelchair users. I don't think it's possible to offer a comparable experience, due to the very nature of the disability. So if it's more expensive to offer the less desirable option, well, we shouldn't do that. More expensive public transit means picking from the following buckets: less transit, more expensive tickets, less pay for workers, starving other municipal programs, or kicking the problem down the road with municipal debt. None of those are great; they can be worth it for a better experience (replacing old worn-down cars for example), but not for a worse one.
vkou 6y ago
> A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too. 1. Accessibility doesn't just benefit wheel-chair bound people. Accessibility benefits just about anyone who has temporary difficulty walking, is carrying heavy or bulky things, is out with children, is not fully sober, etc, etc, etc. 2. NYC may indeed be a special case, because of the poor design of existing subway stations, and the difficulty of rebuilding them in the middle of Manhattan. I don't think this sort of thing would generalize to other locales.
- silviogutierrez 6y ago
  I firmly agree on #1. In fact, my piano tuner is not wheelchair-bound and that was a white lie. My apologies. He was born blind. #2: Normally I would strongly disagree. It's a NYC trope to say our subway is in shambles because pick one of: the city is old, the city is dense, the subway runs 24/7, and so on. And yet Paris, London, and other ancient subways run better and make cheaper and faster improvements. But looking around, it seems like accessibility is very poor for London and Paris too. So you're right. They all have this in common. In fact, NYC may even be ahead[1] However, going on a real tangent here, with the crazy amounts of money we spend or even with quantitative easing[2], I feel like we could try novel concepts like shutting down entire city blocks for months at a time and compensate everyone involved. Yes, crazy prices, but who knows? [1] https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-paris-metro-map-looks-if-youre-wheelchair-1153 https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-paris-metro-map-lo... [2] Instead of propping up bonds and equities, prop up infrastructure?
oconnor663 6y ago
There are many different ways to be disabled. Some people get around in wheelchairs and will be fine wherever there are elevators. Other people (including all of us as we get older) need personal assistance door-to-door. There's a spectrum of inclusion, and I don't think "whatever the cost" acknowledges that.
jedberg 6y ago
Elsewhere in the thread someone with a wheelchair bound sister mentioned that she doesn't like taking public transit because she gets harassed and gawked at for her disability. Also, accessible transit benefits everyone with a stroller, as well as the elderly and anyone else with a temporary injury.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ffggvv 6y ago

yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers. i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending

silviogutierrez 6y ago
Believe me, I'm very fiscally skeptical with government spending. Moreover, public transportation costs in the US are outrageous. Each elevator in the tens of millions for an NYC subway station. It's a racket and unacceptably corrupt. But we can tackle both problems, and should. Even with hyper efficient spending, there's an external benefit that is hard to measure and value beyond the cold, hard cash needed for the infrastructure vs government-paid private rides. I've been laterally involved in frivolous ADA lawsuits for websites before, so I also understand how even noble goals can become corrupted.
crondung 6y ago
To him, that money comes from 'government' not your payckeck. This is the kind of person who like many doesn't care -he pays almost no taxes, and votes for other people's hard-earned salary to be given to him. It's one if the issues with democracy - 2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner. These are also the kind of people who think people have a right to free housing, so anyone who worked, saved for 20 years, and bought a house, now owes them free lodging. This is why people vote for gop eggheads. Because while those corrupt men steal their money, it's a lot less than the entitled masses try to steal.
mft_ 6y ago
Well, not based on one person, but sometimes making uneconomic decisions based on human decency? That’s the society I’d rather live in. I mean, if numbers are all that matter, I’m fairly sure someone could come up with a model to deprioritise and disenfranchise almost anyone - the disabled, the elderly, the retired...
- yzmtf2008 6y ago
  Is forcing wheelchair users to use subway human decency to you? We're talking about a situation where it's cheaper to let them use taxi service, and it's a better experience. My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...
  - ffggvv 6y ago
    yeah the proposal from the original comment also seems more designed to “teach” the billionaire by making him sit next to a disabled person instead of helping the wheelchair bound person. all out of some sort of sense of justice
  - mft_ 6y ago
    That’s not the situation. In the absence of Uber/Lyft (they being positive for disabled mobility) there appears to be no choice: it’s bad slow disabled-specific transport vs... nothing. And the argument was to not do things for disabled people that were uneconomic. So yes, I’d like to give disabled users the option of using all public transport, if they choose. (Having lived in London, many underground stations are actually pretty good - and certainly not below ‘human decency’.) But I’d also like that disabled people have other options, including reasonably-priced taxis.

mumblemumble 6y ago

I 100% agree, for that reason and more. But I also don't know that I see accessible public transit as being a something to set against accessible point-to-point transportation. One needs both. For the same reasons that everyone needs both.

nickff 6y ago

What about the wheelchair users? What do they prefer? If it were both cheaper and best for the users (as I believe it would be) to pay for private rides, I would support that wholeheartedly. If one option were cheaper, and the other is preferred, it would seem that you'd have to engage in some type of cost-benefit analysis. I don't see why able-bodied people should impose their view of 'social integration' on minorities at great cost, without additional justification.

silviogutierrez 6y ago
You have a good point. But I think taken to the extreme: who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms? In this hypothetical: we're assuming the facilities are good enough that the experience for the disabled is within reasonable parity. On the other hand, if it means having to go 40 blocks uptown, just to find an elevator then head back downtown, the system is inadequate and my narrative doesn't hold.
- nickff 6y ago
  If wheelchair users prefer to take private rides, and it's cheaper than adapting public transit to their needs, I really don't see why we need to worry about this kind of issue. Most people view mass transit as generally undesirable, so they're okay with 'missing out' on it, and I don't think the disabled population is large enough to significantly contribute to urban congestion. I suppose that mass transit ridership will appear less diverse, but I'd rather not force people to use public transit just to make it more diverse. Don't get me wrong; I'd love for everyone to be able to do everything, but trying to make everything work for everyone all the time can get Procrustean.
  - axaxs 6y ago
    Just a question - why build public transport at all if it's undesirable? That just pushes everyone who can afford NOT to take it out, which leads to pollution, but worse, the effect that the populace using the public transportation are probably seen by others as 'more undesirable', leading to a snowball effect of people not using it until it's fully subsidized and terrible. That's what basically happened to busses in my old city. Even the less well off people would tell you not to ride one because it's full of crazies/homeless/beggars/etc. We're like, worse off than if they'd never have built it at all. If we're serious about modernizing and reducing our carbon footprint, we should provide reliable, safe, comfortable transportation that people want to take. Not relegate it as a public service for the needy. (though the both can work together)

lflux 6y ago

In Sweden if you're disabled, the government will pay for taxis for you. There's limits on how often et c and they don't come as fast as a normal taxi booking and you can only bring one other person with you, but it's a great option for when public transit doesn't cut it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

samatman 6y ago

Well, I don't have a wheelchair-bound piano tuner handy to ask, so I'll have to model this person based on other wheelchair users I've been acquainted with over the years. So let's ask this imaginary person: Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go, or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus, feeling the stress of inconveniencing others with the ramp, and having to wheel yourself the rest of the distance to your destination? That's if the bus arrives on time, which it won't. But keep in mind! silviogutierrez will feel better about themself if you take the bus! "poetic and noble" were the exact words.

Scoundreller 6y ago
> Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus At least in Toronto, the para-transit fares are the same as the regular transit system fares. Sometimes they send you a taxi, but other times they send around a mini-bus that operates like an UberPool and may not save you any time. Even if a Lyft/Uber would be cheaper, if the gov is subsidizing it, they’ll pay for the lowest priority to save 3 cents.
silviogutierrez 6y ago
I think that's somewhat uncharitable of a take. But fundamentally, I agree with you. See my other comment. In this ideal, the experience for the wheelchair-bound is comparable to others. Not the current embarrassment we have in New York, for example.
- samatman 6y ago
  I'll grant you my take was a bit over-the-top. The thing is, there are a few reasons why the able-bodied tend to prefer the experience of a ride-hailing app over public transit. - it comes to where you are, and drops you off exactly where you're going - you get a ride when you're ready to go, and not whenever the transit is running - higher chances of getting rides at weird hours - no risk of interacting with aggressive panhandlers, people high on drugs, the mentally ill, or people with bad personal hygiene Public transit has significant advantages, as well: biggest among them, it avoids the tragedy of the commons, particularly road congestion and carbon emissions. It has salubrious effects on urban planning. Places with good public transit are nice places to live. What I want to point out is that, every one of the advantages for the able-bodied are significantly exaggerated for wheelchair users. I don't think it's possible to offer a comparable experience, due to the very nature of the disability. So if it's more expensive to offer the less desirable option, well, we shouldn't do that. More expensive public transit means picking from the following buckets: less transit, more expensive tickets, less pay for workers, starving other municipal programs, or kicking the problem down the road with municipal debt. None of those are great; they can be worth it for a better experience (replacing old worn-down cars for example), but not for a worse one.

vkou 6y ago

> A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too. 1. Accessibility doesn't just benefit wheel-chair bound people. Accessibility benefits just about anyone who has temporary difficulty walking, is carrying heavy or bulky things, is out with children, is not fully sober, etc, etc, etc. 2. NYC may indeed be a special case, because of the poor design of existing subway stations, and the difficulty of rebuilding them in the middle of Manhattan. I don't think this sort of thing would generalize to other locales.

silviogutierrez 6y ago
I firmly agree on #1. In fact, my piano tuner is not wheelchair-bound and that was a white lie. My apologies. He was born blind. #2: Normally I would strongly disagree. It's a NYC trope to say our subway is in shambles because pick one of: the city is old, the city is dense, the subway runs 24/7, and so on. And yet Paris, London, and other ancient subways run better and make cheaper and faster improvements. But looking around, it seems like accessibility is very poor for London and Paris too. So you're right. They all have this in common. In fact, NYC may even be ahead[1] However, going on a real tangent here, with the crazy amounts of money we spend or even with quantitative easing[2], I feel like we could try novel concepts like shutting down entire city blocks for months at a time and compensate everyone involved. Yes, crazy prices, but who knows? [1] https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-paris-metro-map-looks-if-youre-wheelchair-1153 https://www.citymetric.com/transport/what-paris-metro-map-lo... [2] Instead of propping up bonds and equities, prop up infrastructure?

oconnor663 6y ago

There are many different ways to be disabled. Some people get around in wheelchairs and will be fine wherever there are elevators. Other people (including all of us as we get older) need personal assistance door-to-door. There's a spectrum of inclusion, and I don't think "whatever the cost" acknowledges that.

jedberg 6y ago

Elsewhere in the thread someone with a wheelchair bound sister mentioned that she doesn't like taking public transit because she gets harassed and gawked at for her disability. Also, accessible transit benefits everyone with a stroller, as well as the elderly and anyone else with a temporary injury.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]