Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
But this puts us into perverse situations. Like, say we don't have money for a station (perhaps centre street in the beltline if it's at grade). A low floor train could just stop there. That's it. And yeah, maybe people in wheelchair couldn't get on and off. So instead of having a stop that able-bodied people can use, we get no stop, because having the train stop would be "discrimination". That's silly and against net public benefit. It's BS. I don't care if it's the law. The law can be wrong and need revision.
Like here's a case out of BC where I find the outcome unfair. A four unit strata has build a hillside tram for a disabled senior, costing $130K ($35K each charged to the other owners). Like, instead, how about a disabled senior doesn't actually need to live on top of a hill? I agree that we need accessible places, but do all places need to be accessible? My apartment isn't accessible. If it no longer suited my needs, perhaps I should just find a place that is. |
Sure, but we're not talking about you finding another place to live because your apartment in particular isn't accessible. We're talking about foregoing accommodations for physically-disabled users to access
public transit. If there's anywhere we ought to spend the money to accommodate such users, it's for public transit. Like, c'mon dude: we're talking about pouring extra-tall curbs so that entering a train car is level. It's not that expensive. The Green Line isn't getting pared back because the budget would be blown pouring some extra-tall curbs.