[Colorado-Talk] Access on Demand Recommendations/Upcoming Meeting

Tue Jan 7 05:20:17 UTC 2025

Hello,

Is anyone in charge of the Blind access on demand movement? Is there a central and unified plan of attack?

Does anyone know how many rides AOD is counting per month. I think it is very important to bombard our responses with factual shared data. For instance 45,000 trips times $16.50 the average AOD price is $742,500. I can’t remember if this is what RTD said rides per month is. Anyways, if AOD charges accessiride fare of $4.50 then RTD would actually be receiving $202, 500 for every 45,000 rides. That would make RTD cost down t $505,000. 

Now, some consumers would pay only $2.25 per Access-a-ride trip. And, this goes back to my original question about who is in charge and are we using facts to our advantage?

I know this is a hot button issue in the disability community. Furthermore, I know there is a small divide in the NFB of a few Blind people who think the vast majority of Blind people should only take public transit or pay out of pocket to get to places safely and reliably. This is not a good stance for holding public resources accountable for equitable allocation of resources to people in the community who do not fit in circumstances of the majority.

One of the articles mentioned that AOD is disproportionately used by the Blind. Why are we not championing that? I am constantly in shock that I live in Littleton and there are still so many citizens who have never talked to a Blind person even here in Littleton. AOD gives us access to the entire area and not just places super close to a bus stop. Unfortunately, Blind people are more likely to just stay home than other disabilities. Orientation is specific to each person. That makes it accommodations for orientation more difficult than some other physical accommodations. Orientation is a major reason why coach style buses without shox are are high stress for some Blind people especially those of us with concomitant impairments. Again, why is Blind people finally having a service that allows Blind people to be part of the community to be unfair to everyone who is not Blind? 

This is not about a dollar for dollar trade of money. This is about laws and government money that citizens have the right to hold fund-receivers accountable. It is also not about whether one or ten Blind people do not need paratransit. I know a Blind person has climbed Mt. Everest. It is not relevant to my day-to-day life. This is about the large number of disabled persons who need safe and reliable transportation at a reasonable cost in order to be able to participate as a full citizens with jobs, families, friends, hobbies, athletics,etc.

Overall, I think we need to advocate strongly to keep AOD rides at 60 per month. We get 120 paratransit rides per month. Why not keep half of those rides for AOD. Really, id there is going to be a fare for AOD equal to paratransit, then AOD rides should increase rather than decrease. Especially, if AOD averages $16.50 and paratransit averages $60-$80 per ride. 

Jenny Holcomb

From: Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Claudia Folska, PhD via Colorado-Talk
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 7:00 PM
To: NFB of Colorado Discussion List <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Claudia Folska, PhD <cfolska at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Colorado-Talk] Access on Demand Recommendations/Upcoming Meeting

Dear friends,

Tim is absolutely correct, we need to come out and force and protest. First of all, let’s be clear that general manager Deborah Johnson said clearly that they would not cut the service. Clearly she did not say they would add additional service, but there were no plans to cut service. We should all take a hard look at this. There are 15 board members and seven of them are new. Take it upon yourself to find out who your board member is and call them, email them, and show up to the board meetings and the committee meetings as often as you possibly can. Keep in mind, emails, emails, emails. Call the Denver Post call the Colorado son and any other publication you can think of. In fact, call disability law, Colorado. 

Kind regards,

Claudia

On Nov 25, 2024, at 3:23 PM, Tim Keenan via Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

Wow! I was expecting a reduction in trips per month, but 30 isn’t even enough for someone who works five days a week to go back and forth to work. Hopefully, we’ll have some additional allies on the new Board. I just think their entire philosophy around equity and AOD being a premium service is nonsensical. If it’s a premium service as they say, then it should be governed by a different set of rules than their standard service, and RTD staff, particularly Fred, seem totally unwilling to concede this.

Clearly, we still have some work to do.

Thanks for the update.

-Tim

From: Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Nate Trela via Colorado-Talk
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 4:00 PM
To: colorado-talk at nfbnet.org
Cc: Nate Trela <ntrela at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Colorado-Talk] Access on Demand Recommendations/Upcoming Meeting

The good news is the process is slowing down. The meeting this week was actually postponed to next Tuesday. They are going to spend at least the next couple months looking at the proposal, considering alternatives, and taking more feedback. They do expect now to vote on something in February. Maybe March.

The bad news is the first proposal is ugly. 30 rides, no multi-stop, limited to traditional Access a Ride hours and area and a $4.50 base fare. As a token gesture, coverage would go up to $30 after the initial fare, and you could get a reduced fare of $2.25 if you qualify for RTD's Live program. They say it will save about a half million dollars a month. Basically cutting the price tag for the program in half.  

It is important to remember that when the peer review came back, they literally said they were gonna start from a position they could negotiate away from based on feedback from users. They repeated this at the operations committee meeting. And several board members at that meeting were displeased and had a wealth of questions about the proposed cuts. If this is what ends up being an active, then I would suspect that we didn’t show up and continue making the case. We’ve got a 2 to 3 month sprint here to change some minds.

from my iPhone

On Nov 25, 2024, at 3:46 PM, Tim Keenan via Colorado-Talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org <mailto:colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> > wrote:

Hi, all,

I just started working at Amazon, so I’ve been super busy over here, but as far as I know, RTD staff should have released their recommendations for Access on Demand by now for presentation and possibly adoption at the RTD Board meeting tomorrow. Does anyone know if this is the case? If I can squeeze it in, I’m planning on giving more public comment at tomorrow’s meeting, especially since restricting AOD to ¾ a mile from a bus stop or to fewer hours will basically make this job untenable for me. Is anyone else planning to comment?

Has anyone actually read these recommendations? Can you give us the bad news? Because I think, barring some sort of miracle, the Board will probably adopt whatever staff came up with.

Thanks for any info!

Cheers,

Tim

_______________________________________________
Colorado-Talk mailing list
Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org <mailto:Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org> 
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Colorado-Talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/ntrela%40gmail.com
List archives can be found at <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>

_______________________________________________
Colorado-Talk mailing list
Colorado-Talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Colorado-Talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/cfolska%40yahoo.com
List archives can be found at <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250106/9f8e836b/attachment.htm>