Disability Perspective: Double-Decker Bus Ignores City Policy to Go Beyond A.D.

[Guest guest]

Disability Perspective: Double-Decker Bus Ignores City Policy to " Go

Beyond A.D.A. "

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Disability_Perspective_Double_Dec

ker_Bus_Ignores_City_Policy_to_Go_Beyond_A_D_A__5211.html

by Bob Planthold

Lots of flurry and publicity about SF MTA last week on two topics:

(1) the double-decker bus experiment, and (2) MTA's so-called " blue

ribbon " funding panel. What's lost in that publicity are major

problems in the thinking and the actions by MTA that are dismissive

of the concerns, input, suggestions, and needs of people with

disabilities and seniors.

This is partly due to neglect by the larger media to actually

inquire directly from the disability communities about what we

think, as opposed to taking the word of these " grand poobahs " of SF

politics about what seniors and people with disabilities supposedly

think. When our views don't get out to the larger public, then

people UNfamiliar with and UNauthorized by the disability

communities suddenly get the media spotlight to speak FOR us but

WITHOUT us.

As to the double-decker bus, let all readers know that MTA has set

up a special testing of the double-decker us for THIS Monday, 17

Dec., from 2 to 3 pm in front of their offices at 1 South Van Ness.

ALL are invited, whether curious readers, inquisitive media, or even

city officials who finally may be realizing MTA is treating them

like mushrooms -- keeping them in the dark and feeding them _____.

The Mayor had media notified of HIS special testing of the double-

decker bus in front of City Hall; the media got notice of the

broader testing schedule for various routes over the next few weeks.

But, has the media been notified of this SEPARATE, special testing

for people with disabilities and seniors? MTA's media people were

publicly asked to do so late last week, but didn't respond then.

Speaking of " separate " , is this a case of " separate but equal " ? That

MTA can say they provided an opportunity to hear the views of our

dual constituencies, but in a way that ONLY staff hear?

Is MTA unwilling to have the media hear from those who might not be

so adulatory -- because MTA knows WE can't enjoy the top deck view

benefits?

Why are seniors and the disabled segregated from the media events

the Mayor has and from the special testing that MTA employees-- on

PAID time-- had this past Tuesday, 11 Dec.?

This is similar to the late '90s opening of the South Beach surface

segment of the light-rail system, where various public officials

frequently mentioned how the stops were fully accessible, but kept

the MUNI Access Advisory Committee from speaking at the ceremonies

and out of the ceremonial first ride.

MTA gets a special but semi-sequestered opportunity to hear of

problems and then " spin " a response that soothes and insulates those

in power from hearing reality.

In the late '90s, a test of a different double-decker bus was forced

on MUNI by City Hall. At that time, the MUNI Access Advisory

Committee raised substantial concerns about this type of vehicle. I

even went so far as to put in writing suggestions about what might

be a " reasonable accommodation " to the lack of top-deck views for

those who can't climb up there--by suggesting that cameras mounted

up top broadcast those views down to the bottom. MUNI never

responded, but those concerns were on file within the Access Service

Office of MUNI.

Somehow, all that prior testing and suggestions from seniors and

people with disabilities seems to have escaped the notice of the

current MTA management.

Worse, MTA is now taking the same type of approach to accommodating

people with disabilities that young children often take with regard

to practices -- such as washing hands, taking a bath, or brushing

teeth --that are good for them and for others around them.

Young children will beg and plead: DO I HAVE to? Do I REALLY have

to? Can't I, just this ONCE, get away without doing it? That child-

like petulant behavior is what characterizes MTA's response so far.

MTA points out that federal law does NOT require that the top deck

of a transit bus be accessible. Maybe so, though that could be

subject to the " reasonable accommodation " provisions of the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

MTA, to its discredit, blithely ignores that it is long-standing

city policy, reiterated by our current mayor at various times and

forums over the past few years, to " go beyond the A.D.A. " wherever

possible. Certainly installing cameras up top to broadcast those

views down to the bottom deck can be an example of following city

policy to " go beyond the A.D.A. " But, MTA won't even say this might

be considered.

Let's now address the substantial SAFETY concerns that MTA staff,

the Mayor, and the laudatory stories about these double-decker

busses all have missed.

Many people with disabilities and seniors can only use the bottom

deck; yet, the bottom deck's fixed seats are ONLY in the rear. E

EVERYONE enters though the front to pay our fare or show our pass.

Seniors and some mobility-impaired also EXIT through the front, so

as to be able to use the height-lowering " kneeler " capacity only

available through the front door. That means our two vulnerable

constituencies have to pass halfway through the bus before we get a

guaranteed seat.

We also then often pass halfway back through the bus to exit.

The amount of time it takes for some seniors and for some mobility-

impaired to get to the back certainly is a factor in " dwell /

boarding & alighting " time. There is a long-standing and well-

documented history within MUNI complaint files and the MAAC meeting

minutes of concerns about seniors and some mobility-impaired not

having enough time to get to one of the FRONT seats in the current

MUNI busses.

SO, what will MTA do about schedules when seniors and some mobility-

impaired have this longer distance to travel [ TWICE ] to and from

the BACK seats of a double-decker bus? Then, what sort of

difficulties will our two constituencies have in getting any of

these few bottom-deck seats, when these bottom-deck seats are

already-occupied? And, with such a distance between the operator and

the bottom deck fixed seats, how much can and will the operator be

able to both see and then assist, especially when under pressure to

keep to schedule?

MTA has set up a media push to curry favor with the larger public

and some self-styled visionaries while segregating and thwarting

people with disabilities and seniors.

Now, as to the 2nd concern, about the MTA " blue ribbon " funding

panel and some suggestions it has considered for increasing MUNI

revenues. We read that ONE member talked of likely opposition from

the disability and senior communities to raising the discount fare

for our two constituencies. What readers don't read is that

neither that member nor the chair have attended recent meetings of

the MUNI Access Advisory Committee. In fact, when the MUNI Access

Advisory Committee recently revisited the long-stalled issue of BART

and MUNI / MTA finally including seniors and people with

disabilities in honoring our respective Fast Passes for BART rides

within San Francisco, one suggestion to pay for the increased costs

to MTA was the possibility of slightly RAISING the monthly rates for

discounted passes. The members and attendees did NOT take umbrage

nor reject such a possibility out-of-hand. SO, the " blue-ribbon "

panel member spoke out of impressions and not fact; nor did any of

the other so-called " blue ribbon " panelists correct or dispute that

contention.

Which then raises questions about how " blue-ribbon " are these

panelists, if they are that unfamiliar with the financing aspects of

two transit-intensive constituencies.

Here's an hypothetical scenario to help make the point about the

UNreliability of the judgment of this panel. How much credibility

would there be attributed to a MALE physician and a MALE social

worker and a MALE nurse who hired a MALE receptionist and MALE

medical assistants and then jointly started and operated a WOMEN's

clinic? So, why does this so-called " blue-ribbon " panel -- and also

reporting media -- ascribe any credibility to their statements about

people with disabilities?

Through obliviousness and negligence --and possibly even Bush-Cheney-

like distortions about law, policy, and fact -- seniors and people

with disabilities are ignored, thwarted, and undercut by City Hall,

MTA management, the TEP process, and mainstream media.