By Robert McCartney, Metro columnist for
The Washington Post:
Here's an ethical question that the Metro board will be answering soon: How many hundreds of blind people or wheelchair users are we willing to strand in their homes to save several million dollars by eliminating van services for the disabled?
Aren't you glad YOU don't have to answer that one?
When the economy sours, those who are needy and vulnerable suffer most. That sad truth is on display as Metro considers shrinking its MetroAccess paratransit service. It operates the white vans that provide door-to-door transportation for people physically unable to use regular subway or bus service.
MetroAccess is costly. But it is crucial in allowing disabled people in the Washington region to enjoy something closer to a normal quality of life.
William Lee Jr., 64, who has used a wheelchair since birth because of cerebral palsy, is a potential victim of the cutbacks. He lives in Bowie and depends on MetroAccess for virtually all of his travels.
One proposal that Metro is considering would end such service in Lee's community on nights and weekends. He wouldn't be able to visit friends, see a movie or shop at nearby Wal-Mart and Target stores.
"I am independent now, [but] it would be impossible for me to go anywhere," Lee said. Taxis in his area can't handle a wheelchair, he said, and he "can't afford an accessible vehicle."
Given that Metro needs to save money, and lots of it, I think MetroAccess should pitch in. Regular Metrorail and bus users will almost certainly be paying higher fares, and paratransit riders should do the same.
I also support proposals to tighten eligibility for MetroAccess. Some people are abusing it, using the vans for convenience when they could use regular rail or bus service.
A combination of higher fares and stricter eligibility could achieve most of the $10 million in savings that Metro would like to obtain from MetroAccess.
That said, I think the cuts to paratransit service should stop there. Metro should preserve the trips where and when they exist.
That means the transit agency should kill proposals that would eliminate MetroAccess service beyond what's required by federal law. Those particular steps threaten rides used by well more than 1,200 disabled riders last year.
Keeping them would require finding $2.4 million to $4.6 million in savings elsewhere in the budget. That's a challenge, but it's less than 3 percent of the total deficit.
Here's my thinking: The region made a kind of promise to the disabled in the early 1990s when it committed to provide such transportation throughout Metro's service area. Many disabled people made lifestyle decisions based on that pledge -- where to live, which jobs to take.
We shouldn't renege. This year is the 20th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. We should protect the progress we've achieved in integrating the disabled into society.
"It's always that people with disabilities are considered expendable. That's how our society is and continues to be, ADA or no ADA. We're seeing it happen in D.C.," said Mary Johnson, author of two books on the disability rights movement.
Johnson, who lives in Louisville, said we need to battle the assumption that people with disabilities must accept a lesser life in every regard.
"The problem is that people think if you have a disability, then you can't expect as much. You can't expect to live your life the same as people like us," Johnson said.
Moreover, society benefits if the disabled can work and pay taxes, or go shopping and spend money. We all save on welfare costs.
"Why not keep a system that was established so people with disabilities could start getting out, getting jobs and living lives like anybody else?" said Doris Ray, director of advocacy and outreach for the Endependence Center of Northern Virginia, a disability resource group based in Arlington County.
Sailesh Panchang, 47, of Centreville said that without MetroAccess, he wouldn't be able to get to his job with a software company in Reston. He's blind, and he can't navigate the mile-long walk in Reston from a park-and-ride bus station to his office. There are no sidewalks and few pedestrians to help him.
"I can discipline myself and try not to get lost, but you never know," Panchang said. He and his wife selected their home five years ago, even though it was more expensive than others, because of MetroAccess service.
Transportation for the disabled "is a civil rights thing," Panchang said. "Public transit has to be accessible to everyone. It's not a luxury."
One possible compromise is to scale back MetroAccess routes over time but compensate by increasing jurisdictions' paratransit services. That would mean counties or cities would pay to take passengers to a Metrorail station or bus stop.
Also, more disabled people would be able to use regular transit services if local jurisdictions updated more bus stops to make them accessible and if the elevators at Metro stations broke down less often.
I don't care how we do it. I do know that a wealthy community such as ours shouldn't push some of our less advantaged members back into the margins of society just a few years after we invited them to join the mainstream.
By Robert McCartney, Metro columnist for The Washington Post: