I'm taking a trip to New Haven today for one of Advanced Bionics' "Discover the Future of Hearing" seminars. Should be fun.

Yesterday, though, was not so fun. I've known since I moved here about two years ago that the Charles/MGH stop across from Mass General Hospital was inaccessible. When it was announced that they were rebuilding it - and that accessibility would be a key feature, obviously I was excited, particularly when I realized that this would make it easy to get to MEEI for the therapy I'll need after I get my implant.

The initial opening was February 17th, although they'll be doing cosmetic work until April. Call me a cynic if you must, but I figured I should check on the station before I committed myself to using it. So about a week ago, I hopped the T one stop to Charles/MGH - can you guess where this is going?

The platform is several inches above the floor of the subway car. Essentially a small curb, I suspect it could be jumped by many manual wheelchair users, but it's impassable if you're in a powered one. Color me unsurprised. So yesterday, I called the Office of Transportation Accessibility (OTA) and the general T customer service line. Both offices were amazed to hear that the station was inaccessible. The person in the latter office even said, "but ... that was the accessibility project, right? Isn't it supposed to be accessible?" No shit.

Here's the best bit. I decided to double check, and went to the station; no surprises here, it was still kaput, so I rerouted to the OTA, figuring I'd speak to a supervisor in person. When I got there, Ron told me that they had indeed been involved with the planning, and he wasn't sure where the ball got dropped. I get the impression they haven't figured out that there's three phases where they need to be involved: one, they need to consult on the design phase, pointing out places where things could go wrong. Two, they need to sign off on the design before it gets sent out to the construction firm. And three, they need to inspect the finished product before it is accepted as complete and before it is reopened to the public. I'm not sure Ron grasped that point.

Instead of a station that is actually accessible, like many of the MBTA's other stations (or D.C.'s Metro system, or ...), Charles/MGH will be outfitted with bridge planks. Anytime a wheelchair user wants to take a trip that terminates there, they will seek out the customer service agent at their point of origin and have them call ahead to make sure an agent is there to put out the bridge plank. I suspect numerous things will go wrong here - forgetful (or uncooperative) agents, lost or missing bridge planks, etc. And in the meantime, the website still has this station marked as being fully accessible, another problem that Ron didn't seem to understand.

Entering WIBNI territory here, I'd love to see an amendment to the ADA that prohibited "Oops, we screwed up. Maybe next time" as an excuse for this sort of thing. Someone - whether the MBTA, the architects, or the construction firm - screwed up on this (as well as other recent changes made in the name of accessibility) and should take responsibility for correcting their mistake, just as they would with any other violation of building codes.

I think being woken up by your roommate and shouting semi-incoherently for several minutes that you're surfing the web on "that thing" and pointing at your alarm clock may be the very definition of sleep deprivation.

[Warning: train of thought ahead.]

New project: how to get my scooter to supply power to a USB port. My ipod in particular - its battery dies a lot (partly because its 3-4 years old, and partly because I don't remember to charge it) I realized that I spend a lot of time sitting right on top of a big-ass car battery, and an idea sparked (Yes, puns are the lowest form of humor. Except bilingual puns, those are worse.).

So I ride an Amigo RT. It has 2 12-volt batteries wired in series for a total of 24 volts - although I should borrow a voltmeter and check this. According to the information at atbatt.com, each battery (and thus, the whole pack) supplies around 18 amps - give or take a bit depending on the specific brand, age, etc. (Note: I will be revising this as I do more research. My knowledge of circuits is pathetic for an EECS major, even if I haven't taken any EE classes yet, and I need to fix that.) USB power is 5 volts, with a range of .1-.55 amps. So that's if I tap directly into the battery. I should check, though, if I can tap into the headlights, that opens up some interesting options (reducing the no-load drain, tucking the port inside a casing, etc).

Firewire would be easier, as it takes a broader range of voltages (14-30? Can that be right? Closer to 24, anyway, than USB), but then it will only work with my ipod - not with my cellphone, and not with any future devices I might have. And assuming most wheelchairs use similar power supplies, I should be able to move this from chair to chair when I upgrade, so future-proofing would be nice. Plus, USB is just cooler.

I think my next step is to call Amigo and get some more detailed specs.

My Roommate is Awesome

Me: "You know, I've figured something out. You keep doing that 'went right over your head' gesture, and that's why you're going bald so early."

Him: "Yes, well, most things I say go over someone's head. And everything goes over your head, shorty."

Me: "That's okay. I'm allowed to let these things over my head - I have a doctor's note."

Then I said something about "learning by osmosis". Given that he was once thinking about being a chemistry major, I should've known better; instead, I wound up with a tennis ball thrown at my head (which happens surprisingly often).

I've been added to Blue's blogroll. Neat - I hadn't intended for this blog to have so much about disability on it, but I'd noticed recently that that was where it was going.

And nice timing, too, as I have a question about the ADA that maybe now someone will stumble across and be able to answer.

I'm in the process of talking to my university about their compliance with the ADA in new construction and large renovation projects. One of the statements that I keep hearing is that power operated doors aren't required by the ADA. True enough, as it goes - there is no mention (as far as I've found) of these in the ADA itself or in the ADAAG. There are requirements for automatic or power-assist doors that are included (namely, that it cant take more than 15 pounds of force to stop the door from moving), but I'm more interested in what requires them to be present. However, there *are* requirements for doors - the width of the door itself, clearances around the door for maneuvering, and the force needed to open the door.

So, from a hypothetical standpoint, is an automatic door considered a workaround? That is, if the design of a building "requires" a heavier door (supposedly for external doors in some places, or for security or fire doors), and so the door isn't up to code, is making it automatic or button-operated considered a way of bringing it into compliance? I'm hoping that someone can confirm for me that this is the case; it will make it a lot easier for me to argue that it isn't just a given subset of doors ("external doors") that needs to be outfitted with automatic operators, but rather, any door that has a certain amount of resistance.

Please leave a comment if you can confirm this one way or another - bonus points if you can cite an official publication or precedence here.