metrooooo: where do you see the writer being peeved for able-bodied people using elevators? She's peeved because able bodied riders, who could use escalators, are crowding her out of the elevators she needs to get around.

I don't doubt her story. Once I was standing on a train, as no seats were left. A blind woman boarded with her dog. Did anyone offer a seat? No. Did people know she was blind? Yes--one man PETTED HER DOG.

Shameful.

Because the ADA requires that, on public transportation, certain seats be made available to seniors and people with disabilities. (49 CFR 37.167.) Nothing, I've been told my my blind colleagues, is more annoying than not being able to sit because some non-disabled rider is being a jerk.

I've commuted with the author too many times to count. She's being considerably kinder about the frequency with which this occurs than I - an able-bodied woman - would be.

(Hi, Omari! I think I went to law school with you.)

Metro just needs to install one elevator for every potential rider. A million or so elevators at each station would probably cover it. Also, full-time technician for each elevator would probably reduce downtime to zero, as long as Metro employees were deprived of all leave and made to work 24 hour shifts 7 days a week. Does that sound like a reasonable solution that would allow us to avoid being caring citizens?

While I empathize with you, I think you should also consider the people who aren't "obviously" disabled. Like my friend who gets nauseous on really long escalators (like Dupont) and the elevator helps her. Or my older friend who doesn't feel stable on escalators because of arthritis in her hands and the elevators are easier to hold on to.

I think all of it is first-come, first-served. And even able-bodied people like myself have been screwed by metro!

Handicap people have a resentful jealous anger against the able-bodied. No matter how much they are accomodated they will always be angry at us. I'm not saying that they souldn't be accomodated, it's just something to keep in mind.

By the way, annoyances in the crowded metro system are not exclusive to the handicapped.

Thank you, Ted, for some perspective here.

I'm beginning to think that the only reason someone would write an opinionist column is if they have a mean masochistic streak. Seriously, it seems like the vocal readers on dcist take opinionist as an opportunity to dump their own sh*t on those courageous enought to write something.

Kelly, I never thought much about how frustrating elevator rudeness must be to someone who has to rely on them for basic transport. Thanks for opening my eyes.

"And every time I ride the elevator, am trapped in a long line at the doors, or see someone jauntily step off a lift I give a glare at the thoughtlessness of their actions."

While I readily agree that many of the comments above are pretty awful, I still don't understand this sentance. What is wrong with taking the elevator if there is no priority passenger waiting? Is it wrong to sit in the Handicap priority seat on an empty train or bus? That seems too much to me. So while I endorse the righteous anger at someone who takes a spot on an elevator from a waiting priority passenger, I still don't see why I should endorse righteous anger at someone who doesn't take a spot away from a priority passenger.

Also, I plead ignorance on why a blind person should be granted a handicap seat. In fact a good friend of mine once got chewed out by a blind woman to whom he offered his seat, basically arguing that he was insulting her by thinking she needed the seat. While one ungrateful woman is not enough of a reason to stop offering a seat, I still don't see how their disability affects their ability to stand. Is it because they are more likely to get knocked over by people exiting or entering the train? I'll always give up a seat to a blind person, but I'm still curious whether that is totally justified.

It is fine and good to suggest that the general public be more polite and considerate not only in their metro use, but in general. And peices like this do help to do just that. However, effectiveness of peices like this is often low. I suggest you pettition Metro to ensure at least two elevators per station, which is reasonable. For the cost that metro has to pay in shuttles, starting to add more elevators may end up being cost effective.

Another option would be that each metro station has a regular elevator, and then a "secret elevator". The secret elevator would not really be a secret, but it would generally be offlimits. (And the above ground entrace wouldn't be prominent, thus the "secret" bit.) In times when the other one or two elevators were down, it would manned by a metro employee and only used by those who have no option of using the escalator. That way generally the elevators are free, but there is a viable backup for those truly in need. This could serious cut down on shuttle costs, and the employee slot who drove the shuttle will now be a slot for manning the elevator in these situations.

In order for all things to be fair and equal, the metro should allow equal outcomes for equal pay, not simply equal access. It is a comittment we have made in this country, to make life function for all law abiding systems in a relatively equal way. We should stick to that committment.

I have no idea what it's like to be in a wheelchair and compelled to make all of these extra accomodations, planning, etc., to get around that.

However, I have to think that making aggressive "look at me" announcements to lines of people, and/or glaring at completely innocent people who happened to use the elevator before you, is not a helpful, graceful, polite, or effective means of dealing with the situation.

"I rush to defend the needs of others in my situation, "... are these people really in need of your visible and public crusading? Or are you doing it for some other reason?

If I spend 4 extra hours at the station, hauling hose packs and tools up and down stairs, dragging people down hallways, lifting stretchers "with the legs people," and I decide to use the Metro elevator on the way up, and I get a glare or lecture from you, I'm going to reciprocate in kind, and/or we'll both come away angry. (feel free to replace my situation with that of shepherding a tired, hot, family through the zoo, being lost and unfamiliar with a city where you don't even know that people don't usually use the elevator, etc.)

Alternately, though it can be truly difficult, we could both try and exercise a little grace in the situation - though it's far and away the most tempting option, fighting fire with fire does not work w/r/t lack of empathy and general jerkdom. It just sets more things on fire. (and hey, maybe you have done, and you're "out". In which case I sympathize, but you've got to get back in that game.)

I'm not going to take up space in an elevator from some lady in a wheelchair who has already probably dealt with enough Metro BS today. Similarly, I wouldn't expect anyone to subject me to a shaming little piece of street theater because they're in a line for the elevator...

Folks in a wheelchair waiting,a nd folks without a wheel chair waiting - you don't know what the situation is of everyone else in line. You just don't, so you have to refer to general principles. I have found truly and throughout my life that courtesy begets courtesy, and the way through any situation that doesn't involve you turning into someone you (and everyone else) wouldn't like or want to meet today is the most efficient way.

seems like it all comes down to one thing:

people who can't use the escalators-- do they have priority ahead of people who CAN use the escalators to get on a metro elevator, or not? i.e. the argument that the line is a line, and nobody waiting for the elevator deserves special accomodation, cause everybody will get to ride it in the end. or the alternative that the elevator is more "for" those unable to use the escalators, and so they should ride first. I dunno.

if I'm feeling lazy, damn right I go for the elevator. usually there's nobody else waiting to get on. but if there were, and the choice were between me taking that elevator or a wheelchair/elderly/blind/whatever, I'd yield my spot. some people aren't as nice.

I take my bike on metro and as such you basically have to follow the same circuitous path that those in wheelchairs have to take. Find the outside elevator and ride that down to the mezz level, go through the turnstiles and then another elevator ride down to the train. It takes forever, so I can sympathize with Kelly's situation.

I don't say anything when the elevator is filled with able-bodied lazies and I have to wait for another, but when I see people fill the elevator and leave someone in a wheelchair or with a stroller, I put my hand in the door and tell them that they need to get off. Why? Because they can use the escalator and others can not. There's even an announcement before the elevator starts that says something to the effect of "Please give priorotity to those in need." You, who are simply too lazy to ride up moving stairs, are not in need.

Paul - "People in wheelchairs should have to wait for the elevator like everyone else. Get in line and wait the extra two minutes."

Really, are you kidding me???? If people in wheelchairs could use metro "like everyone else" then I'd agree. But they can't. Try moving around Metro in an wheelchair for one day and then tell me if you feel the same way you heartless and inconsiderate robot.

tigerfancutie - "Is the writer willing to pay more in taxes, so that I may stop paying the portion of mine that goes to elevator maintenance in exchange for not being able to use them?"

Are you willing to pay more in taxes so that Kelly may stop paying the portion of hers that goes to ESCALATOR maintenance in exchange for not being able to use them?

Really, there's a whole circle in Hell for people who leave someone in a wheelchair waiting for an elevator when an escalator is steps away.

the elevators weren't put in for able bodied people who had a bad day or for strollers - they were put in for people who can't stand - so if you have horrible arthritis, vertigo or are in a chair they of course you should use the elevators with Kelly - but what she is opinionating on aren't those people

if a person can stand in an elevator they can stand on an escalator - people in wheelchairs can't stand on an escalator

and why is someone who had chemo doing taking metor home? i pick up my neighbor in a car and drive her home so she doesn't have to deal with cabs or strangers

she aslo mentioned she doesn't want to be a raving bitch - but when she is already going to be late or have to take an alternative route because of an elevator down issue - should she really have to kow tow to ignorant self absorbed tourists who think folding up a stroller on metro and carrying their tot in their arms is not an option - it isn't disney land.

and for the person in a chair who think that wheelchairs belong on the escalator are you shit house crazy? not every one in a chair has full use of their arms and if you loose your grip for whatever reason do you think the people beneath you want a 300lb chair falling on them?

i use the elevators when i have a bad day or when they are there - but i will think differently from now on - until metro can get their act together and have regularly running elevators or two in each station i will stand on the escalator

washcycle - when I am being an able bodied lazy and am planning on taking the elevator and I see you with you bike I take the escalator.

thank you for being the uber commuter and not wasting fossil fuels

Actually, the sign idea is not a bad one.

I love signs when the purpose is to have some neutral third party authoritatively say something that would be awkward for someone to do for themselves in person...I know they already make an announcement, have some signage, but maybe something entirely plan English like:

"Be the nice one. Leave room for those in wheelchairs, with strollers, or bikes - in that order."

As for riding the escalator backwards by clutching the handrail - damn, dude. You're a braver person than I. But aren't you worried you're going to at some point cash in the people below you on something like the Dupont Circle escalator? (like, say, a spider lands on your arm or some jerk bumps into you running down on their way to a meeting?)

Finally, as for folding up a stroller and carrying the tot in their arms not being an option, and being called ignorant and self-absorbed if you don't do so, well...have kids first, then throw stones.

as for have a kid and then throw a stone

why don't you ride in a chair for one day and deal with sidwalks you can't walk down and have to back track to a ramp; cars that block ramps; no option to even walk up a flight of stairs when broken; having to go 3 miles out of your way and then wait for a shuttle bus to get home after a hard day of work; telling people to move off ramps because they aren't paying attention to others around them; only crossing the street with the light because you can't jay walk and then tell me how hard it is deal with a stroller

There are some harsh comments here, but let me say one thing. Accessibility concerns are based on providing the capability for handicapped persons to do the daily things that we take for granted, ie get around town, commute, etc. Having handicapped seats on metro cars allows people who can't stand to be able to ride the trains. Sitting in those seats takes away their ability to do that. Standing in line at an elevator does not take away anyone's ability to access the metrorail system - it can cause a time delay. While this is an inconvenience, I don't think you can hold the same standard to people to give up their spots. Many would, because they are polite and realize that some people have it harder than they do, but I don't think it should be a moral obligation. A line is a line, and whether thats at metro, at the grocery store, at mcdonald's, etc., I don't see a moral differentiation.

I think there is some underlying sentiment that since we all pay for the myriad of accessibility features that are required (sometimes) to be built into public transportation, office buildings, and so on, we are all entitled to use them. Fair use is up to the policymakers who govern our cities and states, but when no explicit guidance is posted it's a matter of courtesey, not of obligation. If there is in fact a message on the elevators (I never take the elevator) saying to give priority to disabled persons, then I may disagree with the policy but would be compelled to obey, and it happens to be the courteous thing as well.

I don't mind strollers per se, but there are clearly a class of "stroller people" who are utterly self-absorbed. They give all strollers a bad name; and they are one of the big reasons that I hate going to malls.

anassa kata, Kelly, and thanks for writing this. We attended the same college and watching the school adjust to accomodate you raised my consciousness about disability issues. Moving from Chicago where the trains are nearly completely inaccessible, I can really appreciate how the Metro helps make DC a more inclusive place to live.

One subtler point that I heard you making that is worth repeating is about the cultural effect of having able-bodied people feel that it's OK or their right to take the elevators. As has been discussed here many times, the DC Metro has a strong culture, most visibly in its escalator standing etiquette. We on DCist generally have very, very harsh words for people who flout our little unwritten rule, however innocently. I read this post as trying to create a similarly strong cultural habit discouraging elevator use except when truly necessary, and I support that and throw my weight behind it as a currently able-bodied person.

I find the arguments about invisible disabilities like chemo recovery or vertigo disingenuous. How many ppl making such arguments are speaking from a position of knowledge of such conditions, and how many are using the existence of such conditions as a defense for their own laziness? Undoubtedly there are some "normal"-looking elevator riders who have some impairment. But I will bet a transhare card or three that that demographic is FAR outnumbered by able-bodied people who consider it their right as taxpayers (or whatever) to ride a Metro elevator if they feel like it. Kelly argues that this use causes her harm because it's against the design of the elevators (causing them to break more frequently). That has the ring of truth to me, they sure do not seem designed for heavy traffic but for occasional use. Does anyone know for sure, though?

One specific response. TigerFanCutie, you asked "Does your disability necessitate you getting places faster than the average person?" Are YOU blind, perhaps? A disability like Kelly's IMPAIRS her getting places in the same time-frame as the average person, and often getting places at all, and that's before she even GETS to the Metro. Yes. Her disability "necessitates" that you give her precedence to the elevators, because if you do not she is not equal to you in her ability to do things like get to work on time. Does it have the force of law? Who cares: what would YOU want if YOU were in a wheelchair?

Techne, I am not blind, but thank you for inquiring about my condition. My overall concern here is when people start divvying up public services into "yours" and "mine." For the record, I don't take the elevators. I walk up the escalators to get exercise. So I am rankled when someone in a wheelchair suggests that I am worthy of scorn on the one or two days per month that they may see me taking the elevator because I was late for work and the elevator happened to arrive as I was walking by, or the morning after I injured my foot on my evening run. You of course make an excellent point about the moment that Kelly is at the elevator being only one part of a much larger and no doubt more annoying commute from home to wherever. I'm happy to concede that point in hindsight. Thank you for making it so respectfully.

I am at a loss. My disability necessitates my using a cane in my right hand so I must stand left on escalators which is a no-no. I'm not (yet) in a chair so the elevators are off-limits. No matter which I choose I will potentially piss someone off all because I want to get around like everyone else does.

The elevators have signs in them reminding passengers that they are for those with disabilities and/or strollers.

I recently sprained my ankle and had to deal with the Metro on crutches. I couldn't ride the escalators because I couldn't fit, with my crutches, on the step comfortably. I would inevitably be nudged by someone walking quickly up the escalator. That made my ankle hurt incredibly more so I decided that I had the right to use the elevator.

On one of my first days on crutches, the elevator filled up with almost all able-bodied people. There may have been that one person with vertigo or that one person coming home from chemo, but for the most part, they were all perfectly healthy, able-bodied people who weren't going to be further injured if they rode the escalator. I was so angry that people would seriously look at me on crutches and hit the "close door" button without a second thought.

I cannot understand why people feel the need to use an elevator when they are perfectly able to use the escalator; if they want to do so, fine--be lazy. But to get into an elevator at the expense of someone who cannot use the escalator? That's beyond rude. That's inhuman.

To the woman who directed the blind woman to the seat... For the record, that wasn't my dog who caused such disruption. I don't think that your asking that handlers have control of their guide dogs is an unreasonable expectation. I believe that the blind woman hollering,"I need a seat," was rude and inconsiderit. When I get on a train I will say, "Excuse me, could you direct me to a seat?" and am polite enough to thank the person who does this. Thanks for considering other people's needs.