100% Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (Taxis)

Online comments: 7

• Cecil DeMill

  Uber’s and Lyfts are exempted. Therefore the case for making all taxis accessible is both discriminatory, financially untenable and will lead to expensive and stupid lawsuits which the City is already paying for. Another nail in the finances of the City.

  Comment added September 11, 2024 10:46am

• Sarah Burke

  Considering the value of a taxi medallion is still underwater this seems to be counter intuitive to a goal of bringing down everyday costs in the city. Would Uber and Lyft also be “required” to have 100% accessible? Likely not as they are personal vehicles- That in and of itself is discriminatory – and will be a huge expense for the medallion owners; which would end up being pushed onto the New Yorkers who ride them.
  Perhaps a better solution would be to give a tax break or incentive to those who DO have an accessible vehicle?
  Maybe our officials should not be focused on making more restrictions and penalties without any way of enforcing or collecting these – and instead give incentives or benefits to those that do.

  Comment added September 11, 2024 12:20pm

• Rishab kumar

  This mandate for all NYC taxis to be wheelchair-accessible seems short-sighted and unfair. With a limited number of WAV vehicles already available, requiring every taxi to be accessible will drastically reduce the overall supply. Additionally, it’s inconsistent that Uber and Lyft aren’t subject to the same requirement. This could incentivize more people to use ride-share services, further straining the already limited supply of yellow taxis. Before implementing this rule, it would be prudent to conduct a public poll to gauge public opinion. This would ensure that the decision aligns with the needs and preferences of New Yorkers. Furthermore, the lack of electric wheelchair-accessible vehicles in the market raises concerns about the rule’s potential impact on environmental goals.

  Comment added September 14, 2024 3:26pm

• Molly

  This isn’t fair, especially to those who can’t work often due to medical conditions. Not everyone can afford a new vehicle, especially a $50,000+ SUV plus a ramp. Just because taxi workers make a certain salary every year doesn’t mean they are rich, some workers have big families that they have to support, some have medical bills, etc. And making it a necessity to have to buy a vehicle within such a short amount of time is unfair and can put a financial burden on those who can’t afford it. My bf’s dad has been a taxi driver for 25+ years, and within the past 7 years he has only picked up 3-5 people who have a wheelchair. For those who need a Wheelchair taxi, there are other options like Uber and Lyft. They say there aren’t enough wheelchair vehicles, yet I can get one within 5 minutes using Uber or Lyft, there is enough accessibility so why put the burden on taxi drivers? In my opinion, I would say 30% of taxis should be WAV, and if they really want more, they can offer to help pay for the vehicle which would persuade medallion owners to switch to a WAV since the money is coming out of their own pockets.

  Comment added September 14, 2024 7:32pm

• Karen Myers

  Why do you keep hurting the Medallion owners over and over again. If the Medallion owners had a union or they had access to the attorneys that Uber has access to, I would think maybe some of the unfair things that have been pushed upon them over the years would be stopped. I personally know an 88 year Medallion owner who had to buy a WAV vehicle. This man walks with a cane himself and I think this is Elder abuse. If a Medallion owner has served the public for over 20 years and they are over the age of 65 they should have the option to not be WAV. Make the new Medallion owners and younger owners be WAV, they are younger, stronger and able to handle this burden. Many of the Medallion owners who have WAV vehicles never get WAV jobs, why do we need so may to be WAV then? Stopping Medallion Vehicle extensions is also unfair, why did so many owners get 2 extensions, and now the ones that need their chance at a vehicle extension to help them financially recover are going to be told you can’t get even get one, even if you are under water and in major debt. Maybe the TLC and the City of New York should make sure there is an affordable and reliable WAV vehicle for the Medallion owners to buy, before you enforce this New TLC Rule. How about working on getting the Medallions in TLC Storage back on the road so we have most of the 13,587 in service again. Some of the owners walked away from their Medallions and placed them in storage and have no intention of ever coming back, why not take these Medallions legally and sell them, why not force the NCUA/Fieldpoint/Marblegate to foreclose on the idle Medallions and get them back in service. UBER was allowed to come into this industry and basically hurt everyone, Radio Bases,Medallion owners, insurance companies, and even their own partner/drivers by taking so much of their fares. The time has come that you need UBER to follow the rules, to be accountable, and to stop hurting the TLC Industry. Enough is enough already.

  Comment added September 18, 2024 10:56am

• MichaelMic

  ZennoDroid mimics the work of a human in Android. It is powered by MEmu emulator.

  You perform some activities in Android emulator, and the app records them to the project.
  You can edit it, add new steps or logic.
  When you launch the project, ZennoDroid will do everything for you!

  Powerful technologies to bring your ideas into fruition.

  – Full Android automation via MEmu
  – Multi-threading
  – Device parameters emulation
  – Integration with 35 services
  – User emulation system
  – Virtual machines management

  Comment added October 6, 2024 7:10am

• Raj

  NYC Yellow Taxis

  The proposition to require all NYC yellow taxis to be wheelchair accessible is a well-intentioned endeavor aimed at improving the mobility of individuals with disabilities. However, implementing such a mandate presents several challenges that warrant careful consideration.

  One of the most significant concerns is the substantial financial burden it would impose on taxi owners. Converting existing vehicles to accommodate wheelchairs involves costly modifications, such as installing ramps, widening doorways, and securing wheelchair anchoring points. These expenses could lead to higher fares for passengers or force some drivers out of business, ultimately reducing the overall availability of taxis.

  Furthermore, wheelchair-accessible taxis are often larger and less maneuverable than standard models, which could hinder their efficiency in city traffic. This might result in longer wait times for passengers, especially during peak hours. Moreover, the increased size of these vehicles could limit their ability to access narrow streets or crowded areas, further restricting their operational capabilities.

  While the intention behind the mandate is to promote inclusivity and equal access, it could inadvertently discriminate against passengers who do not require wheelchair accessibility. For example, individuals who use canes or walkers might find themselves waiting longer for a taxi, as wheelchair-accessible vehicles may be in high demand. Additionally, the larger size of these taxis could make it more difficult for some passengers, such as the elderly or those with limited mobility, to enter and exit.

  To address these challenges, a more balanced approach might involve expanding the fleet of wheelchair-accessible taxis, improving the efficiency and reliability of existing accessible taxi services, and implementing measures to reduce wait times for all passengers, regardless of their mobility needs. By carefully considering these factors, it is possible to develop a policy that promotes accessibility without sacrificing the overall quality and availability of taxi services in NYC.

  Comment added October 6, 2024 12:32pm