"The rear ramp solution (which is in use here in Vancouver) is dreadful, and I'd be surprised if many wheelchair users found it preferable. To articulate three major ones:The first: wheelchair users use sidewalks, and the ramp starts on the street. There is a curb between the two. The cab might be able to stop on either side of the street, but it doesn't seem to be particularly accessible from either side (unless NYC has a much larger number of sidewalk cutouts than I'm used to, or the cars carry portable ramps). It's perhaps "accessible" in some sort of checklist fashion, but as a functional vehicle in the city, not so much. I'm trying to restrain my urge to hyperbole here, this is really a stunner to see in a "next generation" public transit vehicle.The second: Seating position. The Nissan: in the middle of the rear of van, over or slightly behind the rear axle (the bounciest, least-comfortable area of any vehicle), behind folded up seats, with an hydraulic ramp that usually forms the floor of the cab (the. floor. of. the. cab.) vertically behind you, not near a window, not near a person. The MV-1: in the front seat. Pretty self-explanatory.The third: agency. The MV-1's restraint system is not shown in the videos, but it seems likely that a wheelchair user could engage most or all their own restraints, with the driver never leaving the vehicle (regulatory & liability concerns aside). Were there six levers to pull in the Nissan, plus the mostly manual-lift ramp?Honest take, trying to restrain the hyperbole: the Nissan has every appearance of being designed to meet a checklist of requirements, not as an integrated solution to help disabled people navigate the city. This is a bad design in Vancouver that's been around for a decade, to see it in a  "next generation" vehicle is somehow simultaneously mind-boggling and totally, depressingly, unsurprisingly, uncreative.Seriously, NYC, do not replicate a mistake you do not need to."