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.
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.
posted by ismith at 9:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home