New York City’s Subway System Violates Local and Federal Laws, Disability Groups Say

[Union Tpke]

This is great news. I hope that they win the lawsuit against the MTA. It is discriminatory not to at least have a majority of stations that are ADA-accessible. 24% is inexcusable. They should have been/should be building elevators when they close stations done for repairs, such as the Smith-9th closure, the New Lots line closures, the Liberty El closures, the Culver Line closures, and the current Sea Beach Line

New York City’s Subway System Violates Local and Federal Laws, Disability Groups Say

By ELI ROSENBERG

APRIL 25, 2017

 

 

An elevated subway station in Brooklyn. More than 75 percent of New York’s subway stations are not accessible to disabled people, a lawsuit says. 

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority discriminates against people with disabilities because of its widespread lack of elevators and electric lifts in the subway system, rendering it significantly more inaccessible than other cities with large public transportation systems, according to two lawsuits filed on Tuesday.

The plaintiffs, a group of disability organizations and disabled residents who brought the lawsuits as a class action in state and federal court, say that the city’s subway system is one of the least accessible public transportation systems in the United States, with the lowest accessibility rate — 24 percent — among the country’s 10 largest transit systems.

More than 75 percent of the city’s 472 subway stations do not have elevators, lifts or other methods that make them accessible for people who use wheelchairs, mobility devices or are otherwise unable to use stairs. Of the approximately 112 stations that are designated as wheelchair-accessible, only 100 currently offer working elevator service for passengers traveling in different directions, the lawsuits charge.

The lack of elevator service in the city’s subway system has been a longstanding problem. Michelle A. Caiola, the litigation director for Disability Rights Advocates, which is representing the plaintiffs, said the legal challenge comes after many futile attempts to achieve a resolution with the transit agency.“We’ve talked to the M.T.A. on multiple occasions,” she said. “There is not any interest in any long-term plan to address the inaccessibility.”

The state lawsuit, which focuses on a lack of elevators in the system, argues that the transit agency violates the city’s human rights law, whose aim is to “eliminate and prevent discrimination from playing any role in actions relating to employment, public accommodations and housing and other real estate, and to take other actions against prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, discrimination and bias-related violence or harassment.”

The federal lawsuit says that the transit agency’s failure to maintain operable elevators violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discriminating against people with disabilities in public facilities.

While relatively newer transit systems in Washington and San Francisco are completely accessible, even older subway systems have significantly higher rates of accessibility: Boston’s rate is 74 percent, Philadelphia’s 68 percent and Chicago’s 67 percent, according to the court complaint.

New York City’s sprawling subway system never closes, and it has the highest number of stations of any city in the world. Beth DeFalco, an agency spokeswoman, said that the agency could not comment on litigation but that it was “committed to serving the needs of disabled customers.”

She said the agency was spending more than $1 billion to bring 25 more stations into compliance with the federal disabilities act and an additional $334 million to replace existing elevators and escalators in the coming years. The authority believes it would cost about $10 billion to bring the remainder of the system in line with the federal law.

Christopher A. Pangilinan, 34, a program director at a transportation foundation in Manhattan’s financial district who uses a wheelchair and is one of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuits, commutes every day on the subway from his home in Downtown Brooklyn.

A lack of lifts affects both his work and personal life. He takes a different subway line uptown after work in order to catch another line back to Brooklyn to reach a station with an elevator for southbound commuters. He said he regularly cancels social engagements if he finds there is no viable way to travel to a station with a working elevator. And he has counted more than 200 elevator failures in the last two and a half years — about one for every eight trips he takes, he said.

“This is a city that truly I do feel disabled in,” Mr. Pangilinan said. “If everything was working 100 percent, and had elevators, my disability would be transparent. It wouldn’t limit me. But because of the lack of elevators, my disability really comes to the forefront in terms of what activities I can engage in, in the city. It’s tough psychologically to be reminded of that.”

The authority said that its elevators and escalators are not available 100 percent of the time because they have to be shut down periodically for maintenance.

The state lawsuit lists many local landmarks that require longer trips for people needing elevator access, including Columbia University’s main campus, Hunter College, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Brooklyn Hospital Center, Citi Field, the New York Stock Exchange, the Museum of Natural History, the Brooklyn Museum and Brooklyn Bridge Park.

The lawsuits do not demand financial remedies, but instead seek better procedures to deal with elevator maintenance and a long-term plan to increase accessibility, Ms. Caiola said.

Disability Rights Advocates recently filed another lawsuit against New York State and the conservancy that runs the Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island, charging that some of the park’s features exclude disabled people. In 2013, it was one of a handful of groups that reached a settlement with the city to ensure that half of the city’s yellow cab fleet would eventually become wheelchair accessible.

 

[Deucey]

Never understood why it's so difficult for to move faster at installing elevators and ramps until I saw how slow it is at fixing broken escalators and elevators

 

At the least, all the underground stations that only have one set of stairs between the street and the platform should have elevators put in (ie the local stations on the train between Dyckman and South Ferry) since those are the easiest to accommodate since only one per platform is required since it's "down one level and here's Fare Control and the tracks".

[P3F]

I believe the  said that the reason for not building an elevator at Smith-9th Streets was that the line's structure would not be able to support one.

[Bosco]

I believe the  said that the reason for not building an elevator at Smith-9th Streets was that the line's structure would not be able to support one.

 

 

There is a 'loophole' that allows the MTA to preempt making a renovated station ADA-compliant if it weren't feasible, either financially, logistically, or both.  That said, it is not a defense for the lack of accessibility in the subway.

 

Since improving accessibility would fall under the jurisdiction of the MTA, would it be possible for the gov't to subsidize some of the costs?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

They should be allowed to take money they spend on artwork and use it for ADA upgrades. Artwork is nice but isn't a must.

[bobtehpanda]

They should be allowed to take money they spend on artwork and use it for ADA upgrades. Artwork is nice but isn't a must.

 

Last I checked, the MTA quoted $10M as the price of a single elevator at the outdoor LIRR station in Elmhurst. Being chintzy on the tiles isn't going to help the fact that MTA has poor spending habits.

[Fresh Pond]

The ADA specifies NEW stations, vehicles, and public waiting areas built after the law took effect in 1990 has to be accessible to everyone. Since most of the system was built long before that, they're legally exempt.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but there's many stations where it would be difficult, or even impossible.

[Wallyhorse]

The ADA specifies NEW stations, vehicles, and public waiting areas built after the law took effect in 1990 has to be accessible to everyone. Since most of the system was built long before that, they're legally exempt.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but there's many stations where it would be difficult, or even impossible.

That's something a lot of people, including those who filed this lawsuit, seem not to realize.

 

Many of the stations in this system (especially the original ones on the IRT that are over 110 years old) were built at a time where accommodating the disabled was not even really thought of since attitudes were much different then.  Should elevators be built wherever possible to accommodate the disabled?  Sure, but some stations were not built where they could be easily accommodated because no one back then thought of things like the ADA (which again has only been around since 1990) and other factors.  

[Gotham Bus Co.]

They should be allowed to take money they spend on artwork and use it for ADA upgrades. Artwork is nice but isn't a must.

 

Wanna go change the state "1%-for-art" law?

[danielhg121]

Unfortunately, I do agree with this article. Most of the system is not ADA accessible. While it will be impossible to retrofit all stations with elevators, it certainly shouldn't be an excuse to try and explore the option. Elevators cost a lot of money to build and maintain at the same time, so its a balance we have to maintain.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Last I checked, the MTA quoted $10M as the price of a single elevator at the outdoor LIRR station in Elmhurst. Being chintzy on the tiles isn't going to help the fact that MTA has poor spending habits.

That's precisely the point.  The money should be going where it is needed. Artwork is not needed to move people from point A to point B.  Now if they had more cash flow, then sure why not spend some money on artwork, but they redid several train stations in Brooklyn, and they're all clean and minimal. I see nothing wrong with that.  What passengers care about overall is cleanliness of stations, accessibility of stations and their train arriving promptly.  People generally are in too much of a hurry to actually take in the artwork anyway, so what's the point?

 

The ADA specifies NEW stations, vehicles, and public waiting areas built after the law took effect in 1990 has to be accessible to everyone. Since most of the system was built long before that, they're legally exempt.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but there's many stations where it would be difficult, or even impossible.

And it's this very thing that's allowed them to continue with a business as usual approach. I think it's shameful that 75% of their stations are inaccessible in 2017 for people with disabilities, especially considering that they've been rehabbing quite a few stations over the last few years.  They have one the lowest rankings out of the big transit systems in the country.  That's a problem.  Their spending is not in line with what is needed.  I hope these folks win and the judge should find some way to hold them accountable to upgrade the network.  We'll be facing yet another fare hike likely in the next two years and outside some internet and a few countdown clocks, there hasn't been that much progress on most of the lines. Stations that were redone in some cases are already showing serious wear and still aren't ADA accessible.  Just crazy. 

 

Wanna go change the state "1%-for-art" law?

Yes.  I've said this before.  I've traveled extensively, and if you look at other rail networks, the stations themselves are pretty bland.  What good is artwork when people can't get around? If the is facing such a financial crunch, they don't need to spending $1 billion per station and spending lavishly on artwork to boot.  

 

 

Never understood why it's so difficult for   to move faster at installing elevators and ramps until I saw how slow it is at fixing broken escalators and elevators

 

At the least, all the underground stations that only have one set of stairs between the street and the platform should have elevators put in (ie the local stations on the   train between Dyckman and South Ferry) since those are the easiest to accommodate since only one per platform is required since it's "down one level and here's Fare Control and the tracks".

What's more appalling to me is they claim that they can't install elevators because of this and that, but then they turn around and cut bus service like it's no tomorrow, so how are disabled people supposed to get around with limited options?  They made this very argument down in South Brooklyn.  The elderly and disabled can take the subway, but where are elevators or escalators? They're aren't any.  It took the threat of a lawsuit for them to restore certain bus lines.  Ridiculous.  

[bobtehpanda]

That's precisely the point.  The money should be going where it is needed. Artwork is not needed to move people from point A to point B.  Now if they had more cash flow, then sure why not spend some money on artwork, but they redid several train stations in Brooklyn, and they're all clean and minimal. I see nothing wrong with that.  What passengers care about overall is cleanliness of stations, accessibility of stations and their train arriving promptly.  People generally are in too much of a hurry to actually take in the artwork anyway, so what's the point?

 

Tiling is not that expensive relative to the rest of the project. I highly doubt that cheaping on the art would save enough for even a single elevator.

 

To put in context how expensive $10M for a two-level outdoor elevator is, even larger commercial elevators cost about $100,000.

[Jdog14]

 

 

And it's this very thing that's allowed them to continue with a business as usual approach. I think it's shameful that 75% of their stations are inaccessible in 2017 for people with disabilities, especially considering that they've been rehabbing quite a few stations over the last few years.  They have one the lowest rankings out of the big transit systems in the country.  That's a problem.  Their spending is not in line with what is needed.  I hope these folks win and the judge should find some way to hold them accountable to upgrade the network.  We'll be facing yet another fare hike likely in the next two years and outside some internet and a few countdown clocks, there hasn't been that much progress on most of the lines. Stations that were redone in some cases are already showing serious wear and still aren't ADA accessible.  Just crazy. 

 

 

 

Some stations there may be room for an elevator and it may be negligence on TA's part, however many stations aren't structurally ready for an elevator. In some cases it will require putting in one under a building, in the middle of the street or the platform isn't wide enough.

 

One station that comes to mind that would be very difficult is the L platform at Broadway Junction due to the height.

[Porter]

Artists should provide subway art for free if they want it there.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Tiling is not that expensive relative to the rest of the project. I highly doubt that cheaping on the art would save enough for even a single elevator.

 

To put in context how expensive $10M for a two-level outdoor elevator is, even larger commercial elevators cost about $100,000.

My question is the mandatory 1% is 1% of what?

[bobtehpanda]

My question is the mandatory 1% is 1% of what?

 

If we were to strip out the 1%, that would mean that for every 99 stations we'd fund a new station renovation.

 

If you told me that we were funding 99 station renovations every five years I'd have a bridge to sell you. Even the 'enhanced station initiative' is looking to do 30 in five years. It's penny wise and pound foolish.

[QM1to6Ave]

The MTA should either have put all disability accommodation money towards making a top notch paratransit system, or towards retrofitting all stations. Instead we have a half-assed system of crummy paratransit and patchwork accessability in stations.

[Around the Horn]

Hot take alert:

Artists should provide subway art for free if they want it there.

It costs way much more than an artist can afford to take their work and convert it to tiles, then install them.

 

My question is the mandatory 1% is 1% of what?

1% of the total project cost. SAS had $40 million to play with because the whole thing cost $4 billion.

rtist's work and covert it to tiles, even if they wanted to cover the costs...

That's precisely the point.  The money should be going where it is needed. Artwork is not needed to move people from point A to point B.  Now if they had more cash flow, then sure why not spend some money on artwork, but they redid several train stations in Brooklyn, and they're all clean and minimal.

All those train stations have some sort of artwork, either ironwork or stained glass.

[LTA1992]

Hot take alert:

It costs way much more than an artist can afford to take their work and convert it to tiles, then install them.

 

1% of the total project cost. SAS had $40 million to play with because the whole thing cost $4 billion.

rtist's work and covert it to tiles, even if they wanted to cover the costs...

All those train stations have some sort of artwork, either ironwork or stained glass.

And said artwork reflects the neighborhoods they serve. My favorite being the artwork at Bay 50th Street as it is pretty much the coastline around Gravesend Bay.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1% of the total project cost. SAS had $40 million to play with because the whole thing cost $4 billion.

rtist's work and covert it to tiles, even if they wanted to cover the costs...

All those train stations have some sort of artwork, either ironwork or stained glass.

-Yeah but clearly scaled back.  The platforms are pretty standard.

 

-$40 million in artwork is absurd.  

[bobtehpanda]

-Yeah but clearly scaled back.  The platforms are pretty standard.

 

-$40 million in artwork is absurd.  

 

I mean, if you want change, it's actually a state law.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I mean, if you want change, it's actually a state law.

Yeah I know.  Have said it before that it should be changed.  When the state can afford to fully fund the , THEN we should be wasting money on art work.  That $40 million could go for bus service improvements.  

[BreeddekalbL]

what ever became of thea "lockbox" law?

[bobtehpanda]

what ever became of thea "lockbox" law?

 

I believe it was pocket vetoed (by not signing it, Cuomo essentially just left the bill to die)

[BreeddekalbL]

I believe it was pocket vetoed (by not signing it, Cuomo essentially just left the bill to die)

 

and has he given a bloody explanation on why he vetoed it?