Status: I don't have much to give in the way of answers. I try asking useful questions.
How do we efficiently determine the optimal amount of resources to allocate for accessibility purposes in public spending/business requirements?
What proportion of the general population is [blind|deaf|wheelchair bound|highly allergic to common additive], and are we currently doing an appropriate amount of accommodation for those things relative to the costs of doing so?
A city I've lived near has several large pedestrian bridges crossing a few major streets, some or most of them near schools. I'm sure these provide some utility in convenience and safety but I question the efficiency of their cost, particularly because they were built with huge switchback ramps rather than stairs, increasing the required amount of land+material significantly. Now, while a ramp is accessible to both those walking as well as bicycles and wheelchairs and in most cases provides a better service, is that sufficient to justify the increased cost of a ramp vs stairs? While a completely objective decision cannot be easily made here because different utility functions give variable valuations, there are some variables we can meaningfully quantify to inform our subjective evaluation of the situation. Prior to something like this being built, the city planners (hopefully) made some considerations such as: What proportion of those in the area near the road are likely to use a bridge if one is made? Of those, how many are likely to use bicycles on it or need wheelchair accessibility? Did they assign a dollar value for how much they are willing to spend for how large of a proportion of the population they'd be covering? If not, I have a sinking suspicion (Estimation P>(0.50)) that the difference between the initial + maintenance (cost of bridge with ramp - cost of bridge with stairs) is greater than the (cost of providing para-transit for every wheelchair-bound person who is likely to need the bridge in its expected use-time[1])[2].
Then again, anything touching bureaucracy is plausibly more expensive than my intuition first expects, and maybe the ramp-bridge actually is cheaper. My prior for the primary decision making factor being a utilitarian breakdown at least this good[3] is a lot lower than the prior that it was motivated by the desire to signal how thoughtful and magnanimous the City Leaders are, and how much they care about accessibility, 'screw the costs'!
In this same vein, perhaps laws and policies about accessibility are more concerned about making a public display of commitment to accessibility than they are about using the funds to solve the ostensible problem. If the goal is to signal visible goodness and be seen as a pro-social government/company/organization who 'cares about people' (and will be more likely to accommodate other things), then a more cost-effective targeted solution is not useful if it's not comparably noticeable.[4] Perhaps one of my gripes is the perverse incentive to "Become visibly pro-<good thing>" does not align perfectly with the ostensible goal of "help disadvantaged individuals access things as efficiently as possible". Not that incentives typically align perfectly. I might have unrealistic standards.
My primary question is: How much does this generalize? Is it common for general accessibility infrastructure to be used in scenarios where targeted measures would be more efficient? I don't claim to any more expertise than my limited anecdotal observations and tentative conjectures, I'm hoping to see thoughts from those with more experience and different perspectives in this area.
I acknowledge this is oversimplifying the problem of comparing those two approaches in several ways. (maybe the people using wheelchairs really don't like having to fill out a form for free transportation. I know I wouldn't.)
Status:
I don't have much to give in the way of answers. I try asking useful questions.
How do we efficiently determine the optimal amount of resources to allocate for accessibility purposes in public spending/business requirements?
What proportion of the general population is [blind|deaf|wheelchair bound|highly allergic to common additive], and are we currently doing an appropriate amount of accommodation for those things relative to the costs of doing so?
A city I've lived near has several large pedestrian bridges crossing a few major streets, some or most of them near schools. I'm sure these provide some utility in convenience and safety but I question the efficiency of their cost, particularly because they were built with huge switchback ramps rather than stairs, increasing the required amount of land+material significantly.
Now, while a ramp is accessible to both those walking as well as bicycles and wheelchairs and in most cases provides a better service, is that sufficient to justify the increased cost of a ramp vs stairs?
While a completely objective decision cannot be easily made here because different utility functions give variable valuations, there are some variables we can meaningfully quantify to inform our subjective evaluation of the situation.
Prior to something like this being built, the city planners (hopefully) made some considerations such as:
What proportion of those in the area near the road are likely to use a bridge if one is made?
Of those, how many are likely to use bicycles on it or need wheelchair accessibility?
Did they assign a dollar value for how much they are willing to spend for how large of a proportion of the population they'd be covering? If not, I have a sinking suspicion (Estimation P>(0.50)) that the difference between the initial + maintenance (cost of bridge with ramp - cost of bridge with stairs) is greater than the (cost of providing para-transit for every wheelchair-bound person who is likely to need the bridge in its expected use-time[1])[2].
Then again, anything touching bureaucracy is plausibly more expensive than my intuition first expects, and maybe the ramp-bridge actually is cheaper.
My prior for the primary decision making factor being a utilitarian breakdown at least this good[3] is a lot lower than the prior that it was motivated by the desire to signal how thoughtful and magnanimous the City Leaders are, and how much they care about accessibility, 'screw the costs'!
In this same vein, perhaps laws and policies about accessibility are more concerned about making a public display of commitment to accessibility than they are about using the funds to solve the ostensible problem. If the goal is to signal visible goodness and be seen as a pro-social government/company/organization who 'cares about people' (and will be more likely to accommodate other things), then a more cost-effective targeted solution is not useful if it's not comparably noticeable.[4]
Perhaps one of my gripes is the perverse incentive to "Become visibly pro-<good thing>" does not align perfectly with the ostensible goal of "help disadvantaged individuals access things as efficiently as possible". Not that incentives typically align perfectly. I might have unrealistic standards.
My primary question is: How much does this generalize? Is it common for general accessibility infrastructure to be used in scenarios where targeted measures would be more efficient?
I don't claim to any more expertise than my limited anecdotal observations and tentative conjectures, I'm hoping to see thoughts from those with more experience and different perspectives in this area.
Assuming a minimal-bureaucracy system for giving out passes for transit to wheelchair-bound residents.
I acknowledge this is oversimplifying the problem of comparing those two approaches in several ways. (maybe the people using wheelchairs really don't like having to fill out a form for free transportation. I know I wouldn't.)
I.E. thrown together in ten minutes
Holy garden path sentence Batman
Sorry