Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Eric B

Accessibility rule being rescinded?

Recommended Posts

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ride-subway-article-1.3852057

Quote

Monday morning in Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Shlomo Hagler’s courtroom, lawyers for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Transit Authority and the City of New York will argue that the MTA/TA (the state-run operator of the subway) and the city (the owner of the subway) do not have to make the system accessible to people who use wheelchairs.

While Hagler and the courts will sort out the legal obligation, the moral obligation — and the moral failing — of the TA and the city are clear cut: Over many years, they have done an atrocious job enabling the estimated 100,000 New Yorkers who use wheelchairs to ride public transit.

(So because they've not made it accessible enough, it's like why bother?)

I say then, they should take the opportunity to ease the requirements that every little work they do on anything must be accompanied by a full reconfiguration to accommodate wheelchairs. This is likely a big part of what held up the long awaited Bleecker-BwayLaf uptown, and Jay-Lawrence transfers, and probably also holding up the Times Sq.-6th Avenue passage promised to 1 Bryant Park business tenants. There's already elevators on both ends of it, but apparently some rule had said you can't do any work without adding [more] accessibility.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the agency winning this case in the long run. Even if they win in this court, I guarantee you the decision will be appealed by proponents of the disabled. It's quite sad that not only are the city and state taking their sweet time to convert the stations to full accessibility status, time and again, they try to circumvent the rules in order to avoid adding elevators or other accessible access points.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing they're trying to undo past rulings & agreements/consent decrees requiring providing disabled access by invoking a grandfather clause inserted in the ADA.

Problem with this is a) federal monies require ADA compliance and b) when you're regarded as a crap organization and trying to win a PR battle to change that, stuff like this doesn't help.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 7:21 AM, Eric B said:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ride-subway-article-1.3852057

(So because they've not made it accessible enough, it's like why bother?)

I say then, they should take the opportunity to ease the requirements that every little work they do on anything must be accompanied by a full reconfiguration to accommodate wheelchairs. This is likely a big part of what held up the long awaited Bleecker-BwayLaf uptown, and Jay-Lawrence transfers, and probably also holding up the Times Sq.-6th Avenue passage promised to 1 Bryant Park business tenants. There's already elevators on both ends of it, but apparently some rule had said you can't do any work without adding [more] accessibility.

 

On 3/5/2018 at 11:55 AM, Deucey said:

I'm guessing they're trying to undo past rulings & agreements/consent decrees requiring providing disabled access by invoking a grandfather clause inserted in the ADA.

Problem with this is a) federal monies require ADA compliance and b) when you're regarded as a crap organization and trying to win a PR battle to change that, stuff like this doesn't help.

"Some rule" being the federal law establishing accessibility as a civil rights issue.

The grandfather clause only works for cases where something new is being added and accessibility would make up over 20% of total project cost, of which a new transfer almost certainly wouldn't.

Otherwise, under federal law when you do a renovation, especially one that involves building completely new things, you have to make it accessible. And that usually just means you have to provide some accessible way to get to the platforms from the street; not every entrance must be an accessible one.

 

Keep in mind that New York is basically the only system that has not at least looked at a plan to convert to 100%. Systems that are older and just as large, both here and internationally, have done a much better job of charting a path to 100% accessible. And don't give me crap about engineering difficulties; New York's subways have all been built as cut-and-cover under large roads.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

"Some rule" being the federal law establishing accessibility as a civil rights issue.

The grandfather clause only works for cases where something new is being added and accessibility would make up over 20% of total project cost, of which a new transfer almost certainly wouldn't.

Otherwise, under federal law when you do a renovation, especially one that involves building completely new things, you have to make it accessible. And that usually just means you have to provide some accessible way to get to the platforms from the street; not every entrance must be an accessible one.

 

Keep in mind that New York is basically the only system that has not at least looked at a plan to convert to 100%. Systems that are older and just as large, both here and internationally, have done a much better job of charting a path to 100% accessible. And don't give me crap about engineering difficulties; New York's subways have all been built as cut-and-cover under large roads.

Not referring to the ADA; I'm referring to possible lawsuit settlements, consent decrees, etc, with stakeholders (like Straphangers) where (MTA) agreed to comply with the law in certain ways not in the ADA or agreed to perform a duty within a timeframe or date with those stakeholders - civil agreements that can be thrown out as a special interest and not as a mandate from the ADA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for now, the federal govt. is still enforcing this:

 

http://abc7ny.com/traffic/mta-and-nycta-sued-over-disabled-access-at-bronx-subway-station/3212310/

 

Since the MTA wanted to pull it off without the elevator, they probably would have not bothered fixing the station, or put it off indefinitely if they followed the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.