This post reviews the comments submitted thus far in response to the US Department of Transportation Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation. Only one comment, thus far, from Julie Withers, discusses anything about the accessibility of autonomous vehicles (AVs). All of the comments summarized below are brief, sometimes briefer than my mix of summary and remarks.
Reading these comments is a privilege. People write in with private thoughts, ones not captured in a polling booth or in polished statements of advocacy organizations, about how government policy matters very personally to them. Even, and, sometimes especially, the comments that are clearly from individuals unfamiliar with government agencies and how they operate are the most moving. Somehow these people have discovered a relevant agency notice and they are sharing with the seemingly anonymous bureaucratic-sphere their unvarnished thoughts.
Comment from John Brown
Comment does not address the strategic plan; it remarks on a particular transit service in Texas.
Mr. Temple says in his comment that he has been in a wheelchair for 27 years, after being injured in the first Gulf War. He has suggestions for how to better retrofit vehicles so that people with particular physical disabilities can use them. "Basically I’m asking to help. I understand the limitations people in wheelchairs have. I understand what is needed for the very wide rang of injuries. I have understanding of the different lifts and their limitations as well. I have been exposed to all the new and old techniques used in Accessibility. The wildest one was a friend of mine who had barely any use of his arms and drove by joystick. It’s amazing what the US can do when we put our minds to it."
Despite the name given, this is not a completely offensive comment and not violently threatening. What the comment does convey beyond anger is frustration with federal efforts to expand accessibility.
"'Quarterly webinars" as the "innovative" solution to fix the problem is a joke. We know the answers of how to build safe, accessible roadways for a wide range of users - use your powers to properly define and demand them from DOTs.
Repeat: I cannot call myself an outdoor cat when I
refuse to go out in the snow.
While USDOT employees sit at their desks or telework from kitchen tables, it is helpful for them to remember that accessibility is a real-life issue for many people, and that the lack of access is extremely unfair and frustrating, creating a huge barrier to living a normal life. But what the angry commenter does not realize is that the authority of the USDOT to affect change is limited to the powers that Congress has granted. So now I have spent more words than Florida person used.
When someone starts discussing the mechanics and implications of local matching fund requirements, this is someone who might know how the federal administrative sausage is made, but then the commenter proceeds to call for a requirement that states supply matching local funds for "sidewalks, cross walks, safe to school routes etc along State and Federal Roadways." Mr. Hager's state, Indiana, is remiss in this regard, he states. However, this comment does not discuss accessibility or the USDOT draft strategic plan.
Also, it would be up to the state, rather than the federal government, to decide whether the state will contribute those matching funds. My advice is to start talking to your state legislators and get others to do so as well.
This brief comment focuses on the lack of requirements or even discussion in the USDOT draft strategic plan regarding service animals. The comment requests additional regulation to ensure that regulation fully enables this type of accessibility aide to provide assistance to those who need it. The commenter is concerned with those who "fake" their animals as service animals.
Off topic: People with disabilities and older adults are the foundation, sometimes the only ridership, of many, many small transit systems that barely provide what one in a major city would consider transit - sometimes only demand-response and not even a fixed-route service. Those transit or non-profit services often require reservations at least a day in advance. To be a person with a disability in small city, small town, or rural America is to be a second-class citizen.
Back to comment: This comment makes design suggestions for accessible AVs that come out of the lived experience of a customer who happens to have a disability and is longing for an alternative in accessible vehicle design that existed 40 to 50 years ago, she maintains. The lingering sad sentiment of this comment stays with me because it shows how desperate it is to be someone whose preferences are ignored in the marketplace. "The car seat should extend closer to the door for easier transfer for a person who cannot stand. The height of the car seat should be approximately 21" from the ground up. Having to lift body weight either up or down can be difficult. Thank you for paying attention to these issues."
No comments:
Post a Comment