Jfk, a much more “important” station on the red and CR lines, forces you to walk up a few stories into the station and then back down to the platforms, and ppl get along fine there.
Be that as it may, that's not really an argument in favor of Lechmere's born inadequacies. My takeaway from that example is that JFK/UMass
should have escalators, and I can only assume that it doesn't for cost and/or space reasons. That we have a bunch of inadequate stations doesn't mean that we should build (or quietly accept)
new stations with similar inadequacies; we're at least fortunate that the ADA didn't let them say "some stations have no elevators, so the GLX doesn't need them either". It's obviously not a perfect comparison, but Texasian is right about accessibility being about more than one thing (i.e. elevators), especially given that elevators and escalators have significantly different speed and capacities.
It's not the end of the world by any means, but when we're talking about a project this significant and this expensive, I'm having a hard time believing that
escalators could ever be the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to cost-control. Much like the faregates' removal, it seems like they cut anything that wasn't
absolutely required, which is both depressing and annoying, because there's a difference between overly-opulent, wasteful things and elements that add cost but provide useful benefits. (If that proposition requires further testing, I propose we remove the escalators from Porter for a demonstration to Baker-types as to what things are and aren't extravagances in a transit station.)
