MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Ramps do not meet accessibility standards and are a non starter.

You seem like you work with this stuff, and I'm interested to learn more if so. How do the criteria work? I assume like anything I just asked a question with a complex answer, but what are the basics?

If it's an angled ramp, no good because wheelchairs can roll unintentionally and hurt someone? Lack of hand rails? Other things?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It made for an incredible movie moment, but I'm not sure how applicable it is to public policy. I get what you are going for, but the tyranny of the majority isn't exactly great either.

Tyranny of the majority is often more about intentional harm than any kind of net social benefit. But the logic behind section 1 of the Charter and the Oakes Test is well founded.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by timun

No person shall

(a) deny to any person or class of persons any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public, or

(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public,

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.

(Alberta Human Rights Act, section 4)



Reducing a person's accessibility to public transit because we did a cost-benefit analysis and decided "it's not worth the money" is precisely why we have this in the Human Rights Act...

to the point of undue hardship.

Although, to be fair, undue hardship due to costs is a tough hill to climb, specifically for the government

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

You seem like you work with this stuff, and I'm interested to learn more if so. How do the criteria work? I assume like anything I just asked a question with a complex answer, but what are the basics?

If it's an angled ramp, no good because wheelchairs can roll unintentionally and hurt someone? Lack of hand rails? Other things?

at it's simplest, I can sum it up with: "needs a gentle slope." The rest is about figuring out details / layout of that slope.

A more immersive exercise is to borrow a wheelchair and try travelling from Sunridge Mall (rundle LRT) to city Hall

in the meantime, here are some ramp design failures
https://www.rollaramp.co.uk/infuriat...chair-ramps-2/

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

There's some line where providing an alternative accommodation is better value for everyone involved.

Eg: if the Green line cost $1B without accessibility and $20B with accessibility then you should build it without and use the money to run a parallel handi-bus system that's free and goes everywhere in perpetuity.

Now, I'm not saying that's the price difference (I doubt it would be that high) but if the disabled can get better service in a cheaper way that doesn't seem like discrimination to me.

Sure, but the delta is almost never going to be that high, especially when building something from scratch. Retrofitting a really old building is where the costs vs expected use can be eye-watering.

It's not just people with obvious mobility challenges. A parent with a stroller. Better yet a parent with one kid in a stroller and another kid on their feet. Or the spry 75 year old pulling her grocery cart thing.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't have a concrete answer, but I accept that there are tradeoffs between individual rights and collective benefits. I am quoting Vulcan philosophy as the counterpoint to individual rights that are detrimental to society.

Let's just say that the trolley problem is not a problem at all. Flip the switch. To not do so is akin to murdering four people.

What if those four people are disabled and their lives are obviously worth less than the rest of us, though?

[para transit fellow]

The funny part about transit accessibility is that it is not just about People with disabilities.

When the transit industry created the low floor accessible bus, the goal was to create a vehicle that facilitate travel for a greater portion of the population. While the easily imagined target ridership was someone using a wheelchair, the transit industry had to wrestle with an influx of of unprecedented scenarios.

With only two wheelchair positions in a standard low floor bus, transit agencies suddenly were dealing with strollers competing for the wheelchair spot. Elderly people towing their two wheel grocery cart also used the accessible features. The person on crutches after a motor vehicle accident, the stroke surviveor with a cane, the fellow with the electric scooter, plus bicycles, carts, Christmas trees, sheets of plywood and a whole bunch other new uses of the bus... all because the level access was so much easier than the stairs.

The mistake is to believe that transit accessibility is for a small segment of the population. It ends up making it easier for many people.

if you don't believe that accessibility works for a larger segment of our population, take a notice how many use the wheelchair accessible stall for family bathroom break or notice how many use the ramp at the mall instead of the stairs

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Sure, but the delta is almost never going to be that high, especially when building something from scratch. Retrofitting a really old building is where the costs vs expected use can be eye-watering.

It's not just people with obvious mobility challenges. A parent with a stroller. Better yet a parent with one kid in a stroller and another kid on their feet. Or the spry 75 year old pulling her grocery cart thing.

AARRRGGHH!! it took me 20 minutes to try to say the same thing... only to find that you made it simpler!

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What is the limit on that statement?

Pretty sure it’s us in this thread that get to decide.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's not just people with obvious mobility challenges. A parent with a stroller. Better yet a parent with one kid in a stroller and another kid on their feet. Or the spry 75 year old pulling her grocery cart thing.

A friend of mine (able-bodied 30-something woman) once told me how she was completely oblivious to how inaccessible so many Calgary businesses were until she had to navigate them with a baby stroller.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

in the meantime, here are some ramp design failures
https://www.rollaramp.co.uk/infuriat...chair-ramps-2/

Some of those are closer to climbing walls!

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Ok, I'm totally with you now. Basically a "platform" needs be nothing more than a glorified higher sidewalk with a sign post. We are in agreement, I'm slow.

Citizens of some countries jaws would drop at our stations. A lot of places they just jump out into the ditch when the train slows down.

We don’t need to go that far to basic need however. Let’s at least keep the level platform, a sign and some lights. If we raise taxes again let’s upgrade em all to have trash cans and benches.

[timun]

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.

[SebC]

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.

[GGG]

100m long stations, 2m wide elevated area and what an extra 30cm of elevation?? To go from curb level to train level? So are we arguing about 60 m^3 of concrete here per station.

Say $400 per m^3 x a 2.5x install factor so $1000 /m^3. So 60k extra per side.

I think we are talking about less than a million a station here. It’s likely not worthwhile having this discussion as accessibility is probably less than 10 million dollars on a 5 billion dollar project

Accessibility on new projects is never meaningfully expensive if worked into the constraints of the original design. It’s very expensive to cludge on as you are building it and even more expensive to accommodate bad design in the future.

[Muta]

Partially right, GGG. As an example, there's accessibility improvements happening all over Ontario right now across public and private sector buildings (as part of the province's push for AODA compliance) and honestly, these generally are not really expensive renos. Ramps, tactile warning strips, visual wayfinding, universal washrooms, acoustic systems... these are light modifications to an existing facility that never usually exceed more than a couple mil in reno costs at most (for large facilities). Obviously, good practice is to incorporate accessible design features into the facility right from the start, but there's a metric ton of existing facilities across Canada that require modification as is.

[timun]

Originally Posted by GGG

100m long stations, 2m wide elevated area and what an extra 30cm of elevation?? To go from curb level to train level? So are we arguing about 60 m^3 of concrete here per station.

Say $400 per m^3 x a 2.5x install factor so $1000 /m^3. So 60k extra per side.

I think we are talking about less than a million a station here. It’s likely not worthwhile having this discussion as accessibility is probably less than 10 million dollars on a 5 billion dollar project

We're not even talking that, we're really just talking extra fill to build the grade up. And we're not talking an extra 30 cm of elevation, we're talking 15ish cm. So not 60 m³ more concrete in your example: we're really talking about an extra 30 m³ of crushed stone. That's maybe 60 tonnes worth of fill, worth... a couple grand? It's such a small add it's preposterously insignificant to the overall budget of a new transit platform.

[topfiverecords]

We're not even talking that, we're now talking about a streetcar loop.

[powderjunkie]

With our current vehicle culture it would definitely be awesome to step down into an active travel lane.

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

You also need to include overall efficiency of operation in this analysis. Extra time spent boarding and de-boarding is time spent not travelling. Which affects predictability which affects service quality.

How about winter? Are you stepping down onto slush, water, ice, or dry pavement? Or..."There wasn't a pothole here yesterday!" Gotta factor the cost of a few broken wrists into your analysis.

It would be the fringest of fringe situations where it would make any sense to forego accessibility. You re-prioritize coverage (ie. fewer stops/stations) long before it gets to that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

How about each train has a pair of white-gloved strong men to help lift people in and out?