I went to the MBTA meeting yesterday on the accessibility report prepared for them by TranSystems. The report has been in the works since 2005, so it quite notable. And the MBTA was smart enough to take advantage of some of the low-hanging fruit and correct a few problems that were 'revealed' (or at least, documented) in the course of the study. The meeting had four parts: the TranSystems presentation on the MBTA's paratransit system; their report on fixed-route systems (i.e., bus, subway, and commuter rail); and a section each on the MBTA's response to their recommendations on paratransit and fixed route systems. Each section was also followed by a questions and comments period, so you can imagine it took a while - well worth the time, though.
Both parts of the report by TranSystems were fascinating. Granted, a lot of this is stuff I knew, either from my own experiences, from talking to other people with disabilities, or by going to the public meetings that lead to this report. But there were nuggets of gold here and there. I learned a lot about the history - for example, the massive improvements I've seen in paratransit (not enough, but still not nearly as bad as it once was) since I arrived in Boston? Well, as it turns out, the MBTA was switching to a whole new system of dispatching, scheduling, and routing. No wonder things were so bad - I arrived during a transition period!
Bob Rizzo's presentation on what the MBTA plans to do to respond to TranSystems' recommendations was also pretty good. A lot of the suggestions - and responses - seemed fairly common sense, but sometimes it takes a formal report to get these issues communicated effectively, or to demonstrate just how serious the issue is. I thought he came off as sincere - as prepared to change the service to make it work better for riders as well as the MBTA.
The presentation on the fixed-ride action plan was a different story. The two individuals presenting committed that cardinal sin of reading from a prepared statement (and one that could've been written - it didnt't show any signs of having been written as a speech). So of course, they read too quickly to really be understood. The interpreter, who had otherwise been fantastic, wasn't able to keep up at all, and not because of any speed issue in transferring between languages - they just had that list-reading rhythm that makes your eyes glaze over. Eventually, after a valiant effort, she and I and the other Deaf individual there had a brief side conversation acknowledging that we all knew what was going on, and that she should just loosely paraphrase what was being said.
This wasn't hard - the two individuals' pattern was essentially:
Person 1: "TranSystems recommends that the MBTA solve problem X by doing Y."
Person 2: "The MBTA is doing Y."
No clues as to whether "Y" was a new program, or one started during the study, or if the MBTA felt that they were already adequately meeting the goals laid out, thank you very much, so the report didn't mean anything. The question section wasn't much better. I raised a question about an issue that had sort of tangentially been mentioned in their 30-point list, but only as a problem on commuter rail - no mention of the main subway lines. Specifically - what's up with the bridge planks? They've been placed at some stations where it's considered to expensive to retrofit to remove the gap, but many employees don't know how to use them, or are unwilling to do so; in some cases, the bridge planks are missing, or placed in out of the way locations (like in an elevator). The same question had previously been raised by another person at the meeting after the TranSystems presentation, when they acknowledged that it had made it into the detailed report, if not into the presentation, and that they'd let the MBTA address the issue. I had hoped that this would mean the individuals presenting later could use their 60 minutes of lead time to come up with something. "So the bridge planks," I said, "which are already a sort of inelegant solution, aren't there. When they are, issues of training prevent them from being used." The only answer I got was: "more bridge planks are coming. More training is coming." No word on when; no word on whether there's a plan in place, or a discussion happening internally, or what stage it's at or who's involved. It doesn't do any good to tell me you have a plan if you won't say what it is!
Rather than end on an angry note, I want to mention one more thing that happened that made me happy. The meeting was scheduled to go on about an hour past the planned time, and various delays meant that it went about 30 minutes past that. The paratransit program tends to be a bit firm about cancelling if you're not going to show up, so I - and probably others there - called the automated line during a break in the meeting and cancelled my ride, figuring I'd have to find another way home. At the end of that break was the MBTA's presentation on their plan to improve paratransit. Bob Rizzo, before he began, noted the scheduling issue, and told us that anyone who had a ride scheduled that afternoon to leave the building didn't need to worry - that he would keep their dispatch apprised of the meeting's ultimate ending time, and that he'd make sure our ride was there when we got out, and indeed they were. For me, that went a long way towards demonstrating that although there are problems with the paratransit program, there are at least real people behind it. People who get it, even if they're at the disadvantage of not actually being users of the program themselves, and who are sincere about making it better.
Both parts of the report by TranSystems were fascinating. Granted, a lot of this is stuff I knew, either from my own experiences, from talking to other people with disabilities, or by going to the public meetings that lead to this report. But there were nuggets of gold here and there. I learned a lot about the history - for example, the massive improvements I've seen in paratransit (not enough, but still not nearly as bad as it once was) since I arrived in Boston? Well, as it turns out, the MBTA was switching to a whole new system of dispatching, scheduling, and routing. No wonder things were so bad - I arrived during a transition period!
Bob Rizzo's presentation on what the MBTA plans to do to respond to TranSystems' recommendations was also pretty good. A lot of the suggestions - and responses - seemed fairly common sense, but sometimes it takes a formal report to get these issues communicated effectively, or to demonstrate just how serious the issue is. I thought he came off as sincere - as prepared to change the service to make it work better for riders as well as the MBTA.
The presentation on the fixed-ride action plan was a different story. The two individuals presenting committed that cardinal sin of reading from a prepared statement (and one that could've been written - it didnt't show any signs of having been written as a speech). So of course, they read too quickly to really be understood. The interpreter, who had otherwise been fantastic, wasn't able to keep up at all, and not because of any speed issue in transferring between languages - they just had that list-reading rhythm that makes your eyes glaze over. Eventually, after a valiant effort, she and I and the other Deaf individual there had a brief side conversation acknowledging that we all knew what was going on, and that she should just loosely paraphrase what was being said.
This wasn't hard - the two individuals' pattern was essentially:
Person 1: "TranSystems recommends that the MBTA solve problem X by doing Y."
Person 2: "The MBTA is doing Y."
No clues as to whether "Y" was a new program, or one started during the study, or if the MBTA felt that they were already adequately meeting the goals laid out, thank you very much, so the report didn't mean anything. The question section wasn't much better. I raised a question about an issue that had sort of tangentially been mentioned in their 30-point list, but only as a problem on commuter rail - no mention of the main subway lines. Specifically - what's up with the bridge planks? They've been placed at some stations where it's considered to expensive to retrofit to remove the gap, but many employees don't know how to use them, or are unwilling to do so; in some cases, the bridge planks are missing, or placed in out of the way locations (like in an elevator). The same question had previously been raised by another person at the meeting after the TranSystems presentation, when they acknowledged that it had made it into the detailed report, if not into the presentation, and that they'd let the MBTA address the issue. I had hoped that this would mean the individuals presenting later could use their 60 minutes of lead time to come up with something. "So the bridge planks," I said, "which are already a sort of inelegant solution, aren't there. When they are, issues of training prevent them from being used." The only answer I got was: "more bridge planks are coming. More training is coming." No word on when; no word on whether there's a plan in place, or a discussion happening internally, or what stage it's at or who's involved. It doesn't do any good to tell me you have a plan if you won't say what it is!
Rather than end on an angry note, I want to mention one more thing that happened that made me happy. The meeting was scheduled to go on about an hour past the planned time, and various delays meant that it went about 30 minutes past that. The paratransit program tends to be a bit firm about cancelling if you're not going to show up, so I - and probably others there - called the automated line during a break in the meeting and cancelled my ride, figuring I'd have to find another way home. At the end of that break was the MBTA's presentation on their plan to improve paratransit. Bob Rizzo, before he began, noted the scheduling issue, and told us that anyone who had a ride scheduled that afternoon to leave the building didn't need to worry - that he would keep their dispatch apprised of the meeting's ultimate ending time, and that he'd make sure our ride was there when we got out, and indeed they were. For me, that went a long way towards demonstrating that although there are problems with the paratransit program, there are at least real people behind it. People who get it, even if they're at the disadvantage of not actually being users of the program themselves, and who are sincere about making it better.
posted by ismith at 1:34 AM
0 comments
