Quote:
Originally Posted by timun
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.
|
Right but we were also talking about street cars with ramps. Like, if a ramp is good enough to get a person onto an elevated platform, why is it a "non-starter" for a ramp to get a person onto a vehicle? Why can't disabled people be assisted onto a vehicle? Does it really have to be "without assistance"?
I'm not saying no accomodation. I'm saying reasonable accommodation that passes net benefit tests (or at least comes close - coverage routes on transit don't pass net benefit tests either). I'm not objecting to higher platforms. I'm objecting to the idea that accessibility features should have immunity from cost-benefit analysis, and that projects that can't accommodate them should not proceed.