Saturday,
September 4, 2015
To whom it may concern:
First,
I would like to express my satisfaction with and gratitude for Para- Transpo.
Despite its problems, I am a very satisfied customer. I recognize and
appreciate everything every member of the team does to get me where I need to
go, and I can honestly say that it is my favourite thing about living in
Ottawa. Notwithstanding my praises, I am writing to express concerns in the
matter of proposed changes to transit service delivery. There seems to be much
confusion and rumour regarding what proposed changes are being considered and
the extent to which this may or may not affect regular users. I was grateful to
have the opportunity to fill out the customer survey, thanks to the
accessibility measures that its designers provided; and it appears as though
management is considering a variety of options. I, therefore, being a satisfied
customer of goodwill, invite the reader of this letter to consider the
following in any just deliberation about changes to the service.
I
am a person with quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy. This means that, among other
things, I use a power-wheelchair and have difficulty navigating around the
city, owing to an impaired sense of direction. Though I am physically able to
take conventional transit (weather permitting), I choose not to because I am
unable to secure my wheelchair with the safety belt independently, and bus
drivers refused to help me with this task owing to time constraints. Were I to
take the bus, therefore, it would not only be dangerous for me, it would also
be dangerous for other passengers. In fact, one of the reasons I stopped taking
conventional transit is that gravitational force propelled me across the bus
several times, even though in all other respects I am properly positioned.
I
moved to Ottawa and have stayed here, against the betterment of my career, on
account of is its undeniable accessibility. Though there is much work to be
done, Ottawa is a world leader. Alternate forms of transportation are an
essential part of that leadership role. I am 25 years old, and I use transit
like any other 25-year-old would, regardless of ability. I visit friends; I go
to bars; I work, I volunteer; I go to appointments; I attend religious services;
and, most importantly for me, I attend school and participate in
extracurricular activities. In short, as for anyone else, access to
transportation is a crucial tool for the achievement of actualized personhood
and participation in society as an equal citizen before the law. Indeed, the
reason we have alternate forms of transportation is because courageous persons
refused to accept inequality in the provision of public service. And this story
is analogous to the example of Rosa Parks, who realized that discrimination in
transit directed against African-Americans was not acceptable. Though ability
equality requires more effort, in the sense of conscientious governmental
action, it is no less laudable or legally mandated. The courts have
consistently maintained a commitment to substantive equality in the area of
disability rights; and this means that justice should outweigh costs to redress
systemic inequality. Second-class citizenship on transportation should not be
permitted, even in times of economic hardship. If society were to do this, we
would run the risk of trivializing fundamental democratic principles for
transitory monetary benefit.
It
is because of my commitment to such values that I am currently pursuing a doctorate,
after which I desire to attend law school. To do this effectively I usually
reserve a day in advance. It is not always possible to anticipate when I will
have to travel to campus in order to attend a meeting and/or execute many of
the other functions incumbent upon me as a teaching assistant and the
researcher. Hence, any extension of the booking practice from its current form
would severely impact my ability to do my job. It would also constitute a
disproportionate burden anathema to the original intention of paratransit,
which was the emancipation of the disabled.
While
I recognize that the service has grown and many people have difficulty
accessing it; and I also recognize that I am just one person, my story is not
wholly unique. It is no doubt important to prioritize medical appointments, and
I recognize that every one of my desired leisure activities may not be
accommodated for the sake of others. But surely a meaningful life such as I
want to live, and, with hard work, am entitled to live, encompasses more than
medical appointments. I am not a person defined by his physical challenges
alone. I have goals which I need help to achieve. If liberalism promises me
something to the effect of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then
five-day in-advance bookings or an overly stringent hierarchy of priority could
impede this considerably. It is difficult enough to get a booking as it is,
even when one has the privilege of calling at seven a.m. A system of advance
bookings will likely make it impossible for anyone who requires a small measure
of flexibility in scheduling to use the service, which already requires
considerable patience and affability of clients in the face of unpredictability
In
a just society there would be greater money for alternate transit;
unfortunately, we do not live there. Granting this fact, instead of changing
booking policy, there should be greater restrictions placed on those eligible
for paratransit, greater efforts to make conventional transit more accessible
and an assessment of wages for drivers. It’s not a stretch of imagination to
infer that the greater power of the driver’s union has meant the decline in
unionized labour being employed by the city. My opinions are liable to
accusations of self-interest. Here are, therefore, four reasons why I believe
that they are philosophically defensible. In truth, I have no other choice but
to take alternate transit, both because of neglectful snow removal practices
and refusal of assistance on the part of conventional transit bus drivers.
Conversely, some, though not most, riders may have a choice. Second, I am still
in the prime of life, and, as such, I bear other responsibilities and
aspirations. Many other users have had the enjoyment of regular transit and a regular
life for decades, whereas this is my reality now and will continue to be in the
future. Third, greater restrictions on alternate transit of whatever sort will
inevitably lead to greater difficulty finding and keeping fruitful employment.
We should be moving toward the goal of further participation, but what I hear
of proposed changes will only mark a further retreat from that goal. Fourth, it
is unjust to make either the disabled or the elderly bear the brunt of economic
austerity or union politics. We bear enough social injustice as is: our lives
do not require any more difficulties. Why should the disabled and the elderly
experience these hardships, with ever-increasing transit expansion? There is no
equity in that state of affairs.
Doubtless,
many will say that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few, but such
utilitarian arguments are far less palatable when one is a member of the few
asked to sacrifice his hard-won, and I hope someday to demonstrate by my
betterment of society, properly exercised independence, liberty and equality
before the law. As the reader deliberates about change in this sensitive topic,
I humbly ask her/him to consider my story and arguments. Every time persons
have sacrificed justice for expediency, they have been remembered with sadness
and derision. The legacy of disabled people has been one of injustice with
constant setbacks, in which able-bodied people and persons with disabilities
alike have become apathetic to inequality. I hope my reader as he/she
deliberates will be on the side of justice rather than apathy. Justice is
everyone’s hope for the best life possible. Regardless of ability, it is
everyone’s due. Booking restrictions of too stringent a kind are unjust; ergo,
management should not pursue them, instead seeking other avenues for
economizing service
Sincerely,
Connor Steele
