amny.com⁠46%

Op-Ed | Accessibility takes priority for the MTA ⁠77%

By Rachel Cohen⁠84%

8/8/2026, 5:00:56 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Optimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 1,229 faulty-reasoning hits from 437 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠77% (7,064 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.90% of the article peer group.

The last few years have made clear that accessibility isn’t a side project at the MTA – it’s central to how we think about serving New Yorkers. 
We've opened subway elevators and ramps at a record pace and committed $7.1 billion in the historic 2025-2029 MTA Capital Plan to make even more stations accessible. 
And we've expanded the open stroller bus program to make travel easier for families while ensuring riders with disabilities continue to have the space they need. 
But perhaps nowhere is that commitment more evident than in our Access-A-Ride paratransit service. 
For too long, the system didn't get the attention it deserved. 
That's changed. 
In recent years, we've made Access-A-Ride a priority -- not just within the MTA, but for the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who rely on it every day. 
Four hundred new vans have been added to our fleet, making service more reliable and rides more comfortable. 
We completely rebuilt the online booking experience and mobile app, giving customers a faster, simpler, and more independent way to schedule and track trips. 
And we've distributed nearly 200,000 OMNY cards to Access-A-Ride customers, making it easier to pay for paratransit and make seamless transfers to buses and the increasingly accessible subway system. 
Those investments are paying off. 
In 2025, Access-A-Ride achieved more than 95% on-time performance while carrying more riders than ever before. 
One million trips a month is the new normal, nearly doubling pre-COVID numbers, and customer surveys routinely show that the vast majority of users are satisfied with their last trip. 
Fifty percent say they are “very satisfied.” 
That’s not to say we’re getting complacent. 
We continue to raise the standard for on-time performance, narrowing the window to just 20 minutes. 
Our team is also working to replace the scheduling and dispatch system with a cloud-based platform that can better support the growing demand for paratransit in the years ahead. 
But accessibility at the MTA isn’t about steering riders towards one option over another. 
Our job is to give people the freedom to choose what service works best for them on any given day. 
So, we’re thrilled to see that as paratransit ridership has grown, so has subway and bus ridership among these same customers and Reduced Fare OMNY cardholders. 
The MTA is here to connect New Yorkers to opportunity, and that mission includes everyone. 
I'm proud to be part of a leadership team that has made accessibility a priority and look forward to building on that success. 
Rachel Cohen is Senior Vice President of Paratransit at MTA New York City Transit. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.8%Rachel Cohen: 5.8%amNewYork: 3.0%Confirmation Bias26.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.9%amNewYork: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Rachel Cohen: 4.2%amNewYork: 2.8%Availability Heuristic12.8%This article: 6.9%Rachel Cohen: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Rachel Cohen: 3.2%amNewYork: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias10.8%This article: 5.0%Rachel Cohen: 6.8%amNewYork: 4.7%Framing Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.1%amNewYork: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 22.4%Rachel Cohen: 10.0%amNewYork: 3.9%Optimism Bias22.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Rachel Cohen: 0.4%amNewYork: 5.3%Negativity Bias2.5%This article: 11.2%Rachel Cohen: 8.4%amNewYork: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Rachel Cohen: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.0%In-Group Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.0%Rachel Cohen: 2.1%amNewYork: 2.3%Halo Effect22.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Rachel Cohen: 1.1%amNewYork: 0.8%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 5.3%Rachel Cohen: 0.8%amNewYork: 0.1%Primacy Effect5.3%This article: 1.6%Rachel Cohen: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.3%Rachel Cohen: 7.5%amNewYork: 2.7%Appeal to Authority5.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.6%Rachel Cohen: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.6%Slippery Slope6.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Rachel Cohen: 3.5%amNewYork: 3.2%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.4%Rachel Cohen: 5.7%amNewYork: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion3.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 32.0%Rachel Cohen: 5.1%amNewYork: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.1%amNewYork: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.9%Rachel Cohen: 3.2%amNewYork: 1.9%Anecdotal6.9%This article: 6.6%Rachel Cohen: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman6.6%This article: 9.2%Rachel Cohen: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.5%Rachel Cohen: 2.2%amNewYork: 1.0%Unattributed Quote19.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.1%Rachel Cohen: 7.1%amNewYork: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice23.1%This article: 9.4%Rachel Cohen: 1.1%amNewYork: 1.7%Indoctrination9.4%This article: 5.3%Rachel Cohen: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Cohen: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Rachel Cohen: 1.4%amNewYork: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.7%

437 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.2%attributed speech423writer words
Selected voice

Rachel Cohen

0%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.9 ptsWriter: 23.9%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-20.1 ptsWriter: 20.1%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Rachel Cohen: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.