Dear Editor:
I have a question for the people criticizing the accessibility issues during the Q2Q trial run:
Would you prefer it had been delayed another year, or two, or perhaps not done at all?
It’s a sincere question, from an able-bodied person trying to understand the outrage I’ve seen on this topic.
I just finished reading the Aug. 9 “Unpleasant Truth About Ableism” opinion piece. I can appreciate that people are disappointed about the accessibility issues of the Q2Q in its current form. I would be too if in the same situation. Would I be outraged? I can only speculate. And my opinion on how I’d react is irrelevant.
I do, however, think it’s fair to say that comparing this to discrimination against women, LGBTQ or other marginalized people is apples to oranges. We’re talking about logistic issues here: not ignorance, not prejudice.
The aforementioned article’s question “Is this even a fair test” has merit. I’d argue it’s an accurate enough test to show whether or not the demand is there. Is it a fair test of the feasibility of long-term, fully accessible operation? Of course not. Shouldn’t the question of demand be answered before investing in resolving the next set of challenges?
Regarding the statement that sensitivity to accessibility should have been considered right from the get-go, I think it’s obvious it was. Considered, not resolved. This is important to factor into the critique.
I’m thankful that the city has managed to get this operational, albeit flawed.
I’m thankful we’ve started the conversation on how to improve it. Now let’s keep the conversation constructive and collaborative and spare everyone the outrage and hyperbole.
Devon Cody, New Westminster
