Anything to get rid of those disgusting Access-a-Ride vans. How much have the particulate matter that their diesel engines spew canceled out the emissions reductions of the regular Transit bus fleet? It’s amazing that no advocacy group has taken this on like they did with the Dump Dirty Diesel campaign.

“I see people getting on these Access-A-Ride vans all the time that look like they don’t need it, which is unfair to some seniors on the subway/bus system who tough it out.”

Wait until you see what happens with the cab rides.

It’s no different from the non-handicapped who park in the handicapped spaces, forcing the actual handicapped to walk farther.

This doesn’t appear to be correct math: 150,000/400*$2M = $750M. So if everyone was enrolled, they’d save 750$Million, more than the current cost of the program. I know there are some assumptions built in, but still

Hay, hay, be nice. There might be abuse in the access-a-ride program, but you can not always tell who is disabled by watching them get in or out of a van.

Excellent initiative and thanks for picking this up Ben. The good news is that it works and has been working for decades in well more than one hundred European cities. Great for our older citizens and others with mobility limitations and greet too for the taxi industry, who in many places find up to half of their total income coming from their role in providing these much needed public services. It is rare that we come up with something that everyone learns to love, and since it’s so absolutely the case no reason to wait for laboratory proof to extend it as wide as the city dares.

IF anyone is interested I will be pleased to put them into contact with the people who know most about the details.

We’ll have to wait and see if the savings on and benefits to the legitimately disabled are outweighed by a surge of abusers.

This isn’t Europe, unfortuantely. The collective good, particularly the collective future, is seen as something to be exploited here in this era. People are beating the system to death.

“I see people getting on these Access-A-Ride vans all the time that look like they don’t need it, which is unfair to some seniors on the subway/bus system who tough it out.”

Really now. Fact is that the MTA’s standards for Access-A-Ride are pretty tough–and have recently been toughened in an attempt to eliminate some riders and save money. \

I can assure you that very few people, if they had a choice, would want to use Access-A-Ride, which has a notoriously (and legally documented) poor service record and requires making appointments a day or more in advance, leaving a wide window for pick-ups and taking often lengthy rides (because it is a shared service) for short distances. Beyond that, punitive measures are in place if you miss an appointment–often the subject of dispute.

Unlike the rest of us, who can hop into a cab, ride the subway or pedal off to wherever we want to go whenever we want.

As another commenter notes, you can’t always tell who is disabled by looking at them. Beyond that, please remember that we all are a second away from a permanent disability if we are hit by a car or over time contract a disease like multiple sclerosis and one day find we can no longer walk easily or at all.

By the way, if you are interested in being among the few people to ever think about these issues systematically, you might want to read a series of a dozen or so posts I put up in August 2007, starting with “Equity and Eligibility.”

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield?page=28

A series of background posts with data precedes. The main upshot is that most goverment spending in the U.S. does not go to services or benefits that are universal (like the subway or sidewalk), but rather to services and benefits with eligibility restricted based on age (Social Security, Medicare), means (welfare, Medicaid for non-seniors), and need (such as the Access A Ride vans.

Each of these is analyzed. Then I move on to the actual way public benefits are often distributed, in a series of snarkier posts.

J:Lai,

If I’m not mistaken, the MTA is required under federal antidiscrimination law to provide people with disabilities with a reasonable alternative to mass transit. So Access-a-Ride reflects our societal commitment to treat disabled people equally and fairly, not special political deal cut by a minority with outsized influence.

BicyclesOnly is correct; this is a federal requirement that I believe is part of the Americans With Disabilities Act. We really should be able to supply adequate transit service to those who need Access-A-Ride AND adequate bus and subway service. Really is a question of how we want to spend our money.

Access-A-Ride would exist even if every subway station were accessible, which of course they are not, because the law requires transit systems to offer transit services to people who cannot ride subways or buses because their disability prevents them from doing so. (By the way, some people have conditional eligibility for Access-A-Ride based on certain conditions, like whether the temperature is 90 degrees or over or under a certain temperature; I mention this because, by enforcing this standard, the MTA is hoping to reduce or at least stem the growth of Access-A-Ride use.)

That doesn’t mean that more accessible stations (and it’s not just the stations that are the problem, it’s the trains themselves–ever tried to bridge the gap between the platform and the train itself in a wheelchair?) and a more complete bus service wouldn’t help.

Beyond that, every yellow taxi should be ADA-compliant — only a couple hundred are now — a move the Bloomberg administration has resisted fiercely. (Even Giuliani’s TLC commissioner supported a fully accessible taxi fleet, though she was thwarted by the industry.)

“Interesting to see how quickly “able-ism” crops up here among supporters of active transportation.”

Would you consider it “ableism” if I were to say that door to door service is premium service if provided by taxi/car service, and there ought to be a (but means tested) premium price attached to it?

Otherwise, you are setting up a situation in which every senior who finds it more difficult to walk (how much more difficult, who is to say?) is entitled to unlimited taxi rides for the cost of a crowded subway ride. Not too many would choose the subway ride. Somehow seniors got by without this before.

Any gatekeeper to such a service would face an impossible task, and be pressured by the political system to let the connected in and (in turn in years like this) slam the door shut on those who are actually more handicapped.

“That’s why the federal government required the service, not just in New York City but across the land.”

Is it actually the case that everyone in the country who can find someone to certify them as disabled is automatically entitled to a door to door ride for the cost of a transit trip?

How about in places where there is no transit agency, only private motor vehicles? Are the auto and oil companies required to pay for a cab?

None was offered to my grandmother when she moved “up the line” to northern Westchester County for a few years before she died, after selling her house in Yonkers. She paid more for a cab ride to the doctor than for the doctor himself.

“(4) Undue financial burden limitation

The regulations issued under this section shall provide that, if the public entity is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the provision of paratransit and other special transportation services otherwise required under this section would impose an undue financial burden on the public entity, the public entity, notwithstanding any other provision of this section (other than paragraph (5)), shall only be required to provide such services to the extent that providing such services would not impose such a burden.”

Well, that’s an interesting provision. The 2014 estimate according to the latest budget is $658 million for paratransit out of $5.3 billion for all of New York City transit. It is currently $381 million out of $4.6 billion.

Providing such services will certainly become an undue burden at this rate. Will providing cabs make it better or worse? I guess we’ll find out.

Riffing off Eric’s well-taken point that efficiency is improved by maximizing the number of paratransit clients shifted from access-a-ride to taxicabs, the shift would bring benefits for all road users, including cyclists.

In my opinion, despite some “bad apples,” most taxicab drivers are better and safer drivers than the average run-of-the mill motorist. Their livelihood depends on their license and they can’t afford crashes and tickets. A large plurality of them, perhaps a majority, keep with the 30 MPH limit and drive defensively. Yes, they can be maddening in their fare-cruising habits and failure to signal, but if you keep an eye on the pedestrian behavior, the cabbie behavior in response to it is pretty predictable. As for the cabbies who drive aggressively, it has always been a bit easier to hold them accountable because there is often an automatic witness–the passenger–and the license number is shorter and easier to memorize, and more prominently displayed. And now that the cabbies are under the microscope of GPS surveillance, there is the prospect of obtaining electronic data regarding speed, direction and perhaps even positioning at the time of crash that would become available as evidence in a lawsuit. I say this as a cyclist who has had five collisions with motor vehicles, and three times it was cabs.

The benefits and possibilities (at least in Manhattan south of 96th Street) of a material increase in the yellow cab fleet are apparent:

(1) The portion of the cabbies who are slow and cautious are themselves relatively calm traffic, and have a calming effect on the traffic behind them.

(2) If Commissioner Yassky selects a new design of NYC cab with sliding doors, an increase in the fleet will reduce the chance of getting doored.

(3) The mere replacement of the current access-a-ride fleet with its extension mirrors and (in my experience) unprofessional and bike-lane-parking drivers would be a big safety improvement (yes, cabs block bike lanes, too, but they won’t sit there for half an hour waiting to make a rendezvous with a passenger like access-a-ride vans.)

(4) Because the fleet is under strict regulation the city can force a transition to hybrid and electric fleets, reducing the amount of toxic exhaust cyclists breathe. In my experience, access-a-ride vans often have dirtier exhaust than cabs.

(5) One conceivable safety feature that could be introduced–and certainly a controversial one, though still worth considering–would be equipping the fleet with constantly running video cameras trained on the surrounding traffic. This would result in a record of the circumstances of most crashes in areas with cabs. The insurance companies would embrace this as it would reduce uncertainty regarding fault and make it easier to limit liability to only those cases in which their insured was at fault, hence facilitating settlements and reducing litigation costs. And of course NYPD and the terror hawks would love all the surveillance, far beyond what they hoped to get from the congestion pricing camera cordon.

(6) If the fleet is equipped for wheelchair transport, then it will be able to accomodate bikes as cargo as well, adding an option for cyclists in extreme breakdown and one-way travel scenarios.

(7) An increased fleet also means it’s easier for non-disabled people to get cabs, and they’ll spend less time standing in the middle of the street with their outstretched arms in cyclists’ right-of-way.

(8) If a system for disabled people to summon yellow cabs wirelessly by radio to specific locations is added, you may find more cabs outside Manhattan below 96th, spreading these benefits to the rest of the city.

The introduction of taxi cabs will not alleviate the need for Access-A-Ride vans. The AAR vans are in use to transport passengers who utilize wheelchairs in addition to the ambulatory. This program will not eliminate the need for vans but rather the need for sedans (which use unleaded fuel, not diesel) due to the fact that the sedans cannot transport those who use wheelchairs.