I completely agree. Public access to transport can be such a joke that it forces disabled people who shouldn’t be driving to be driving, like the case here with Corsiglia. They didn’t have a choice so they committed murder in order to find existence beyond being jailed in their own home. A real-life Shakespearean tragedy.

Continuing to push for disabled parking at places where parking in the first place doesn’t make sense encourages driving and discourages public transport. It’s actually harmful to ask for disabled parking because it takes away from the greater disabled group and places the general public at risk.

All that said, there are situations where it’s OK to demand disabled parking. When a public project clearly is going to include a parking structure, demand disabled parking in high quantities. Demand at-grade and wide zones at these spaces. Demand escalators and elevators. Fight for equal access. I would be there on your side.

PS: Thanks for engaging and listening. This is a topic that often doesn’t get the attention it deserves and typically devolves into some kind of public virtue signalling. The devil is in the details.

You cannot dive and yet in the very first picture of the station in the OP’s article is a passenger loading and unloading zone at the gates. How could this train station’s design prioritization unduly harm your own disability since they picked a design where you could be dropped off at the entrance? I’m actually curious here because I can drive and I would be harmed (no parking for me) yet I’m willing to let it go in favor of things like front-gate drop-off zones for public and private loading.

You’re absolutely right that different people do have different needs but priority must be given on every project. Not including disabled parking is a choice that does not unduly harm disabled people. Including disabled parking can harm disabled people. Let me explain.

Prioritizing private car infrastructure necessarily means de-prioritizing non-car infrastructure, like these loading zones. Maybe they can shrink the loading zone a bit and get a parking spot or two in, but would that be enough for those who can drive? Maybe they can put the parking in the back, but that’s not every disabled friendly either. A parking structure could address some of that, but where’s that money coming from? Remember, there’s a limited budget and limited land availability. What’s being taken away for that disabled parking?

Prioritization of parking appears harmless on the surface but manifests in unusual ways, which is precisely why I chose “San Bruno Man With Seizure Disorder Found Guilty In Double Fatal Car Crash” as a case-in-point. The disabled man in question, Rodney Corsiglia, felt forced to drive despite multiple doctor interventions and the DMV revoking his license.

Dr. Austin told Corsiglia he should not be driving because his seizures were not controlled and he did not have full awareness of them. Corsiglia had difficulty accepting the recommendation and wanted to drive because he lived alone, felt he needed a car for transportation, and had a new truck even though he did not have a driver’s license.

– People v. Corsiglia, A145944 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2017)

Being a local in the area, I fully understand Corsiglia’s argument and he has a point. There are no protected bike lanes, the sidewalks are a mess, there’s exactly one bus every hour that’s daytime only to the train station across the street from where the collision occurred. There’s no way he can reasonably function without a car, which is good because the train station where he murdered two people does have disabled parking. And that’s the issue: San Bruno prioritizes disabled drivers while excluding every other disabled member. It’s a decision the city, county, and state can and often makes. It’s also a decision that killed.

Pushing the “what about the disabled people” is exactly how cars get prioritized above people’s needs, disabled and abled alike. It’s counter-intuitive but pushing disabled parking and induces parking demand which, even in totally unreasonable circumstances, pushes disabled people to drive even when they shouldn’t need to.

Like blind people? Or those who cannot afford a mobility van because a 10 year old used one is priced at $35k? Perhaps you mean those who suffer from seizures?

Let’s focus our limited budget into personal vehicle infrastructure that certainly wouldn’t force these suffering people to drive. It works, bro. Trust me.

This is a good, and quite common, question regarding congestion pricing. The fact of the matter is those with less means often cannot afford a car. It’s usually not their car if they’re driving into a city (e.g. a work truck).

But let’s say we have low-income people who do have a car and need to drive for whatever reason. There’s programs for that. Two of them.

• If you’re a low-income car owner, you get reduced congestion pricing. It’s 50% off the normal fare. They can drive in and pay less than affluent drivers.
• If you’re low-income, you would qualify for the Fair Fares program. It too is 50% off for subways and busses. That prices trips to well below the cost of fueling a car into NYC.

Congestion pricing is also funneling money into metro services, meaning the affluent drivers are actually making low-income access to transportation cheaper while also improving reliability and service levels to those riding transit.

Low-income residents stand to win the most with congestion pricing. Personally, I would focus more on how to better help businesses with legitimate car needs, like dog groomers, mobile mechanics, delivery workers, etc. For example, zero fare for businesses licenses at nighttime periods (to encourage shifting delivery schedules). Programs like that could help small business, which in turn helps boost the income of low-income employees.