Ongoing complexity and irony of having the federal government sue a corporation that it mostly owns and whose operating losses and capital investments it mostly funds for not doing work that that corporation couldn't do because of decisions made in DOT budget requests and Congressional budget votes.
I also wonder about a dilemma over which Americans with Disabilities to focus on: Consider that people who can't drive (impaired vision, seizure disorders, some kinds of impaired use of hands and arms, etc.) but who can climb stairs would be better off with more transit and Amtrak service even if it weren't accessible to wheelchair users and other people who can't climb stairs. These transit users would be hurt if the higher cost of high platforms, low-floor vehicles etc meant that new lines/stations didn't get opened or old ones got closed down. Ideally, we'd come up with the money to have a really widespread, frequent train and transit system that was completely accessible, but when resources are limited something has to give. The article seems to be about existing stations where a lift or mini-high would satisfy the ADA regulations, but there are also new stations and new routes to think about. Don't the regs require new stations to have level boarding to all cars, instead of just one or a few mini-highs or lifts? That requirement really could prevent new lines from being built, which would hurt a substantial number of people with disabilities (and people without) and not help anyone. But when I try to lay out this dilemma, I feel like I'm awfully close to dismissing the concerns of people with disabilities (in which category I don't fit), which is not what I mean to do.
