Dear Editor,
Though the Supes., the MTA bd. of dirs. and various staff to each all ignored the e-mail I sent last week about the possible problems for seniors and people with disabilities from not proceeding with maintaining the original levels of increases for parking fees and fines, there is still a chance for the Finance Committee to prevent the likely damage to these two legally-protected classes and attendant civil rights lawsuit stemming from this reduction in MUNI funding.
Since MUNI was able on Tuesday, 31 May, to amend their fare package by changing the single-trip fares for seniors, the disabled, and youth, so the Bd. of Supes. should also consider amending or rescinding the action taken on 24 May to reduce the increases in parking fees and fines.
Frankly, MUNI showed at its 31 May Special Mtg. that they HADN’T done a thorough analysis of how the proposed route cutbacks and service reductions would affect these two legally-protected classes.
Here’s a simplified analysis and scenario to show you what has been overlooked, such that negligence can easily be a claim.
With longer intervals between busses, then the 2 wheelchair securements and the 6 front side-facing seats reserved for the seniors and people with disabilities will more often be filled for longer times–leaving stranded any third wheelchair user and also more seniors.
What also hasn’t been studied is whether / how much this may cause such stranded seniors and people with disabilities to apply for the more extensive paratransit because they can’t stand or wait in the rain as long as it takes to eventually get onto a MUNI bus. Since paratransit costs approx. $17 to $19 a trip, allowing the service cutbacks to go ahead may be pennywise and pound-foolish–again when put it the context of $$ available from the higher-recommended levels of parking fees and fines but reduced.
When viewed in the context of currently-available funds [ the amt. reduced from the previously higher levels of parking fines and fees ], then these reductions that leave a wheelchair user or senior out in the rain at night for one hour can raise the question of neglect of and bias against these protected classes and in favor of those who are NOT transit-dependent, i.e., car-drivers.
While emotionally you Supes. may reject this, the very fact so many Supes. their aides, MTA Dirs., and MTA management get around primarily–if not solely–by car allows for the plausible claim of favoring people like yourselves [ car-drivers ] and ignoring people unlike yourselves [ the transit-dependent seniors and disabled].
You Supervisors should make this decision on principle and not on politics, on fairness and not on favoritism. You have a chance to re-capture money you gave away last week to car-drivers.
Failure to do so will only increase the cynicism about City Hall deals and ignoring of long-stanidng city policy of “transit-first”, as well as generate momentum towards another civil rightsd lawsuit by the disabled against ST. The very fact so many such have been favorably decided or settled in favor of the disabled plaintiffs ought to be indication enough of the city’s overall weak position on truly treating the disabled favorably and with appropriate available resources.
Bob Planthold
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link:rshaw@beyondchron.org
or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
415-771-1287 (fax)
