Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #1 Posted May 25, 2011 "Advocates for the disabled won a decisive round on Tuesday in court against the city, when a federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the Taxi and Limousine Commission to make all city taxi cabs wheelchair accessible. NY1's Transit reporter Tina Redwine filed the following report. Advocates for the disabled were rejoicing Tuesday after a federal judge refused to dismiss their lawsuit against the Taxi and Limousine Commission to make all taxi cabs wheelchair accessible." Read more: http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/139708/judge-allows-disabled-activists--lawsuit-for-taxi-access Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share #2 Posted May 25, 2011 This is great news. Disabled New Yorkers have needs just like other New Yorkers and they pay taxes just like the rest of us and there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to get around. Bloomberg should be ashamed of himself and so should the the Taxi and Limousine Commission. :mad: :tdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted May 25, 2011 Share #3 Posted May 25, 2011 I agree this is good, but why was this not factored into the new Nissan cabs?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
553 Bridgeton Posted May 25, 2011 Share #4 Posted May 25, 2011 Well what the hell is Paratransit service for? I dont want to sound harsh but imo taxis should not have to transport disabled peeps. There are services for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #5 Posted May 25, 2011 You know how slow those buses are? These people want to hail a cab like everyone else can. You can't tell them that, because you are in wheelchair you can't ride a Taxi. I still wished the Karsan V1 was picked, because it was wheelchair/handicapped accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #6 Posted May 25, 2011 I agree this is good, but why was this not factored into the new Nissan cabs?? Most likely cost concerns. The city in all its cheapness probably didn't want to spend the extra money and figured "they'll use para-transit." You know how slow those buses are? These people want to hail a cab like everyone else can. You can't tell them that, because you are in wheelchair you can't ride a Taxi. I still wished the Karsan V1 was picked, because it was wheelchair/handicapped accessible. I also liked Karsan much better than Nissan. Btw, if half of this board had its way, the disabled would be restricted to para-transit and there would be no wheelchair lifts on the buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted May 25, 2011 Share #7 Posted May 25, 2011 Oh well, there goes Access-A-Ride and all those small companies that were designed for the disabled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted May 25, 2011 Well what the hell is Paratransit service for? I dont want to sound harsh but imo taxis should not have to transport disabled peeps. There are services for that. The thing is that those services were cancelled for many who had it. Most likely cost concerns. The city in all its cheapness probably didn't want to spend the extra money and figured "they'll use para-transit." Legally, the city isn't required to have cabs that are wheelchair accessible. They claim that they have a version of the Nissan that will be wheelchair accessible, BUT no one has to buy them, so that means everyone can wiggle right out of getting them, which most would probably do. Oh well, there goes Access-A-Ride and all those small companies that were designed for the disabled Blame the . They're the ones who slashed Access-A-Ride services to the elderly and disabled drastically. I also liked Karsan much better than Nissan. Btw, if half of this board had its way, the disabled would be restricted to para-transit and there would be no wheelchair lifts on the buses. I preferred Karsan also, plus the taxis would be built right in Brooklyn allowing us to finally manufacture something here in NYC instead of relying on friggin' tourism. Regarding your second comment, I can't understand for the life of me why people are so opposed to others being able to get around just because they are disabled? They are human beings with needs and the only difference between them and us is that they have a disability. Aside from their disability, they pay taxes just like we do, go to work and have families and lead the same lives that we do, so why should we be represented and given services while they aren't? Quite frankly any of us can be in their situation. All it takes is an accident of some sort, but folks seem to forget that. It is discrimination at its finest, but because our society has been allowed to treat folks with disabilities as not equal, many are allowed to get away with it. Substitute skin colour for a disability and it just as serious of an issue as racism and just as wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #9 Posted May 25, 2011 Actually the Nissan will not come in as wheelchair accessible. The Nissan could be retrofitted to be wheelchair accessible, but doing that would drastically alter the body of the van which would make it make it more expensive, so most taxi drivers won't pick to make their cab accessible, and thus it would be against the laws of the ADA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #10 Posted May 25, 2011 Legally, the city isn't required to have cabs that are wheelchair accessible. They claim that they have a version of the Nissan that will be wheelchair accessible, BUT no one has to buy them, so that means everyone can wiggle right out of getting them, which most would probably do. Pretty much. I figured the city would take the position "If the law doesn't mandate us to do it then it wont happen." And of course the other wheelchair version is more money that the city refuses to spend. I would like to see the process go back to rebidding. Blame the . They're the ones who slashed Access-A-Ride services to the elderly and disabled drastically. Yea, doesn't Access-A-Ride now take you to the closest subway station? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted May 25, 2011 Pretty much. I figured the city would take the position "If the law doesn't mandate us to do it then it wont happen." And of course the other wheelchair version is more money that the city refuses to spend. I would like to see the process go back to rebidding. Yea, doesn't Access-A-Ride now take you to the closest subway station? I agree. I was also annoyed at how defensive Bloomberg has come. How is it that Nissan suddenly won the bid when Karsan was the favourite? I think some shady crappola is going on. :mad: Regarding your second comment, yes, many folks who relied on Access-A-Ride are now forced to take the bus or subway, or if they do have access to the service, they may not be dropped off at their destination but rather at a bus stop which will then take them the rest of the way. I think that is really pathetic. The can do better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #12 Posted May 25, 2011 So what? Most subway stations aren't even ADA accessible either. As I have mentioned the should focus on making the entire subway system ADA accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTARegional Bus Posted May 25, 2011 Share #13 Posted May 25, 2011 opps wrong thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted May 25, 2011 So what? Most subway stations aren't even ADA accessible either. As I have mentioned the should focus on making the entire subway system ADA accessible. What it shows is really how few options disabled folks have in terms of transit in the largest city in the U.S. Really a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted May 25, 2011 Share #15 Posted May 25, 2011 So what? Most subway stations aren't even ADA accessible either. As I have mentioned the should focus on making the entire subway system ADA accessible. Do realize that the system is quite old and they're trying to retrofit as much as possible with all the station remodeling they've been doing since the late 80s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted May 25, 2011 Share #16 Posted May 25, 2011 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted May 25, 2011 Do realize that the system is quite old and they're trying to retrofit as much as possible with all the station remodeling they've been doing since the late 80s No they're not. They're redoing many stations and not making them ADA accessible, which makes absolutely no sense. The rehabbed stations I can understand, but they are basically doing many of the Brighton Line stations from scratch and they are not putting in any ADA options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #18 Posted May 25, 2011 Most likely cost concerns. The city in all its cheapness probably didn't want to spend the extra money and figured "they'll use para-transit." I also liked Karsan much better than Nissan. Btw, if half of this board had its way, the disabled would be restricted to para-transit and there would be no wheelchair lifts on the buses. But wouldn't paratransit be more expensive? The MTA has to spend millions subsidizing paratransit (I remember reading something that said that their paratransit budget was close to $1 billion). Accessable cabs are a one time deal, and they require zero subsidies (since the disabled person will be paying the full taxi fare) Blame the . They're the ones who slashed Access-A-Ride services to the elderly and disabled drastically. That would give them an excuse to cut it more (which is why I think it should be done). If somebody chooses to pay the full fare rather than relying on subsidies, that is better for everybody: Both them and the taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted May 25, 2011 Share #19 Posted May 25, 2011 No they're not. They're redoing many stations and not making them ADA accessible, which makes absolutely no sense. The rehabbed stations I can understand, but they are basically doing many of the Brighton Line stations from scratch and they are not putting in any ADA options. Not every station can be made ADA accessible. In many places it just can't be done... like the Brighton Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share #20 Posted May 25, 2011 Not every station can be made ADA accessible. In many places it just can't be done... like the Brighton Line. Doesn't make sense to me. They basically took down those stations entirely on that line like Ave J, Ave M and so forth and they can't find a way to make them ADA accessible? More like it's too costly, not that it isn't possible. That would give them an excuse to cut it more (which is why I think it should be done). If somebody chooses to pay the full fare rather than relying on subsidies, that is better for everybody: Both them and the taxpayers. We are talking about two different things here and I don't see how one is related to the other. If Paratransit folks could afford taxis then they would take them. They rely on Paratransit because they can't afford taxis, so cutting Paratransit because disabled people have access to taxis makes no sense. Some folks who are disabled can ride taxis and can get in them and if they can afford them, then they take them. We're talking about accessibility here, not affordability. Access-A-Ride is a combination of the two, hence why as you said it is heavily subsidized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #21 Posted May 25, 2011 Money should not be spent on ADA work, or adding this or fixing that; it should be spent on fixing them, the disabled. better medical treatments. sythetic limbs for amputees that function just as well or even better than the orginals. that is true equallity, making them like the rest of us. fixing the problem. we won't need to worry about wheelchair acess if people never needed wheelchairs. We could also find ways to prevent people from needing wheelchairs in the first place. Hell, Im sure in a perfect world we could find a cure for all of mans ailments from paralysis to athletes foot. But sadly, we don't live in that world where we can throw money at research and cerebral palsy/multiple sclerosis/LGS/amputees and the problem would be fixed in less than twenty years. Since the passing of the ADA in 1990, tell me one life debilitating ailment that has been cured or "fixed" that would otherwise render someone in a wheelchair? But wouldn't paratransit be more expensive? The MTA has to spend millions subsidizing paratransit (I remember reading something that said that their paratransit budget was close to $1 billion). Accessable cabs are a one time deal, and they require zero subsidies (since the disabled person will be paying the full taxi fare) Whatever the excuse is (regardless of its relation to Access-A-Ride), we're getting (more) taxicabs that aren't ADA accessible when we had the option to get cabs that had wheelchair lifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted May 25, 2011 Share #22 Posted May 25, 2011 Doesn't make sense to me. They basically took down those stations entirely on that line like Ave J, Ave M and so forth and they can't find a way to make them ADA accessible? More like it's too costly, not that it isn't possible. It wasn't a matter of cost, the platforms could not be made wider since they have to be a certian distance away from the property line of the near by homes. Also, most of the stations can't have elevators since there is no room for them. If you can't have an elevator, why make them ADA accessible since they can't get in or out of the station there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted May 25, 2011 Share #23 Posted May 25, 2011 We are talking about two different things here and I don't see how one is related to the other. If Paratransit folks could afford taxis then they would take them. They rely on Paratransit because they can't afford taxis, so cutting Paratransit because disabled people have access to taxis makes no sense. Some folks who are disabled can ride taxis and can get in them and if they can afford them, then they take them. We're talking about accessibility here, not affordability. Access-A-Ride is a combination of the two, hence why as you said it is heavily subsidized. He also fails to realize that a lot of people who are truly disabled are on fixed incomes who may not be able to afford full fare (Yes, 2.25 isn't a lot, but it is when you have to spend $90 a month on transport and your total cheque is $400 or $500 a month). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share #24 Posted May 25, 2011 It wasn't a matter of cost, the platforms could not be made wider since they have to be a certian distance away from the property line of the near by homes. Also, most of the stations can't have elevators since there is no room for them. If you can't have an elevator, why make them ADA accessible since they can't get in or out of the station there? I thought that was part of the reason that they were rebuilding them was to address that because those stations do have very narrow platforms. Oh well, terrible building all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted May 25, 2011 Share #25 Posted May 25, 2011 I thought that was part of the reason that they were rebuilding them was to address that because those stations do have very narrow platforms. Oh well, terrible building all around. I don't think any were made wider, they did remove "no clearence" areas that existed between the platfrom edge and some of the stair ways. Plus, if I lived near a station there, there is no way in hell I would give up some of my property so that the station could be made larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.