Originally Posted by
OneOffDave
As far as determining the difference between a want and a need, who decides that? Should disabled people only be allowed to travel where there is a pressing need for them to?
I think that there is a genuine question to be asked about how far one goes (and how many resources are devoted) to accommodate a small proportion of the travelling public, and whether there are alternative ways of doing it which would be better all round, even if it means that disabled people can't use a certain mode of transport that able-bodied people can. Put another way, should every mode of transport be made "accessible", whatever the costs and disadvantages to the whole of the travelling public?
I have heard a story that NYC discovered, when legislation came into force in the US, that it would be cheaper to provide every disabled person in NYC with a chauffeur-driven car than to adapt every subway station and bus so that they could be used by disabled people. Was that true or was that urban myth? I don't know, and I don't wave the "political correctness" label around because of its connotations, but it seems to me that the question highlights a question that does need to be asked and thoroughly discussed at every planning point.
I know exactly what WHBM means about the Jubilee Line. A lot of money has been spent making the stations "accessible". But the reality is that these facilities are simply not used by wheelchair users. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a wheelchair user on a Tube train. And I understand why: Frankly, it's a nightmare trying to get on and off a Tube train at most stations if you have any form of leg injury, even if you can still walk. Trying to do it in a wheelchair would be "courageous", in the Sir Humphrey sense.
And so, if the requirement to make everything "accessible" means that there is less public transport all round for everyone, I think some serious questions need asking.