In misc.transport.urban-transit Robert Woolley wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:12:31 -0000, Access Systems
In misc.transport.urban-transit Aidan Stanger wrote:
Access Systems wrote:
why should there be a problem...people in wheelchairs regularly ride NYC
and Tokyo subways at rush hour, what makes the tube any less possible.
The fact that it isn't so heavily subsidized.

Fine, what would you like - accessibility or service cuts?

don't ever ask that question of someone who is getting NO service at all,
you might not like the answer.

what would you prefer some service or no service is the same question if
you ask a person in a wheelchair.

Vehicle replacement (providing trains with wheelchair access) is
relatively easy. Putting access into a deep level mass transit system
is much more easy

???? I don't understand the question

Bob


--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

Access Systems wrote:

In misc.transport.urban-transit Aidan Stanger wrote:
Access Systems wrote:

why should there be a problem...people in wheelchairs regularly ride NYC
and Tokyo subways at rush hour, what makes the tube any less possible.

The fact that it isn't so heavily subsidized.


BS if I ever heard it.

Really? Are you claiming the NYC and Tokyo subways aren't more heavily
subsidized than the Tube? Or that the subsidies don't enable them to
make more stations accessible?

The Tube has been short of funding for a lot longer than the
accessibility issue was something that most people considered important.
It's not just a lack of subsidy that's the problem, it's also the fact
that they weren't allowed to issue bonds. This meant that the
opportunity to make improvements in any area (not just access) has been
very limited, as what little money there is often has to be spent on
keeping the network running!

I'm not saying that London Underground couldn't have done more - they
probably could've done a few things better. But they couldn't've done
*much* more.

Now that the PPP's in place, funding is available (albeit inefficiently)
so things may get better. However, the contract structure is such that
major improvements are unlikely to occur for a while.

Access Systems wrote in message ...
I think you missed the point.The majority of underground LU stations are
deep down bored tunnel. Installing a life means boring a shaft , not simply
cutting a hole in the roof as in NYC.

only a few lines are deep, the rest are fairly shallow, and NYC has their

Only a few lines? Umm , central, northern, piccadilly, victoria, jubilee,
bakerloo, waterloo & city are all deep bored tunnel in central london
with platforms probably at an average of 70 feet down from street level.

right the deep ones, but wheelchairs are not that big

are narrower and the platforms are not level with the train floors in most

narrow platforms are quite common in other cities, and as a few cities
have done raising a short section of the platform to floor height is quite
simple and inexpensive

Not where the platform is curved (as quite a few in london are) as it will foul
the side of the train. This then requires ramps to be built into platforms
(expensive) or trains (nowhere to put them in the smaller trains).


cases. Also on the trains there is nowhere for a wheelchair to go other than
block the doorways causing a safety hazard.

in other words the same place as everyone else.

Actually no , standees can move down the aisles or sit on a seat. The aisles
are too narrow for wheelchairs.

Anything can be done if you have a couple of billion to spare. LU doesn't.

I found a long time ago, that is someone wants to do something they will
find a way, and if they don't want to do it they will find an excuse..

Given that LU doesn't currently even have enough money to maintain its
infrastructure properly I think its fair to say that spending a fortune
on making the tube accessable to a small amount of wheelchair users is
currently somewhere near the bottom of their list of priorities. That might
not be right-on and politically correct and you might not like to hear it but
its a fact. Deal.

B2003

Access Systems writes:

"if you build it we will come"

Do you have any statistics to back that up, say usage statistics for
the Jubilee line between Westminster and Stratford vs the rest of LU?

Access Systems wrote:

LT ceased to exist on 15 July.

right, name change old habit

Errr... no... a change from a single centralised London-wide public
organisation to (essentially) a collection of semi-private companies


The 2017 timetable relates to DDA requirements. Routemasters are

but you were comparing with NYC, NYCTA buses are 100% ADA compliant.

Legislation which, of course, doesn't have any relevance to the UK


Bob

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail
NO MSWord docs in e-mail
Access Systems, engineers NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX
powered* access is a civil right

*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

If you're so obsessed with imposing your beliefs on Usenet and e-mail, how
about using a standard sig separator so those of who don't care don't have
to keep reading your bandwidth-wasting sig

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:28:57 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Access Systems wrote:

LT ceased to exist on 15 July.

right, name change old habit

Errr... no... a change from a single centralised London-wide public
organisation to (essentially) a collection of semi-private companies



LRT focussed only on public transport. TfL in addition has
responsibilities as a highway authority and taxi/minicab regulator.

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"Aidan Stanger" wrote:

Robert Woolley wrote:
With roll-out of the fully accessible fleet in London, there is a
progressive withdrawal of the Mobility Bus network

Are you sure? UIVMM most of the Mobility Bus network is in the outer
suburbs, with long routes that penetrate into estates that regular
routes do not, to provide disabled and elderly people (and anyone else
who wants to use them) a 1 seat ride to the most popular destinations.


You *are* very much mistaken. Robert was quite right - there is a
progressive withdrawal of the Mobility Bus network.

In Autumn 1998, 23 buses were needed to operate the Mobility Bus network.
By Autumn 2003, only 10 buses were needed. Many routes have been
withdrawn - so many, in fact, that the 8xx series of route numbers is no
longer needed (the remaining routes are all numbered in the 9xx series).

Even these figures are a little misleading. Then and now, First Thamesway
need 3 buses for their Mobility Bus routes. In 1998, their network was
fairly typical of this sort of operation - ten routes, each running one or
two days a week, with typically one return journey per day. Now, they only
serve two routes - but each route runs six days a week and has a number of
journeys. The emphasis is much more on plugging gaps in the mainstream
network, rather that providing a specialist service supplementing the
mainstream network (as before) - and it wouldn't seem strange if these two
routes were renumbered to become (albeit rather infrequent) mainstream
routes in their own right. Bearing this in mind, the "true" Mobility Bus
network has declined from 23 buses to just 7 buses over 5 years.



--
MetroGnome
~~~~~~~~~~

(To email me, edit return address)

"Robert Woolley" wrote:

I would challenge MTA's claim that it operates, "This makes New York
City Transit's system the world's largest accessible fleet." [of
accessible buses]"

According to
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...lowfloor.shtml

there are some 5,600 fully accessible buses in service in London,
compared to a quoted figure on MTA's web page at

http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/facts/ffbus.htm

of some 4,400 buses.


Of course, if you wanted to be pedantic, you could argue that London
actually has many *separate* fleets of accessible buses, all of them smaller
than the overall NYC fleet - because almost the entire network is contracted
out to a number of private companies.

But if you wanted to be *really* pedantic, you could argue that New York
also has separate fleets - with those run by the MTA's New York City Transit
Authority being entirely separate from those run by the MTA's Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority!


(Out of interest, does either the MTA's claim or the 4400-bus figure quoted
include the private bus companies running routes under contract to the
City - the ones that the MTA is trying to take over?)



--
MetroGnome
~~~~~~~~~~

(To email me, edit return address)

In misc.transport.urban-transit Stimpy wrote:

The 2017 timetable relates to DDA requirements. Routemasters are

but you were comparing with NYC, NYCTA buses are 100% ADA compliant.

Legislation which, of course, doesn't have any relevance to the UK

DUH!

DDA = London
ADA = NYC

laws as applies to public transit are very similar

Bob

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

Access Systems wrote the following in:


ADA = NYC

Presumably non-Americans with disabilities are considered unimportant.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Another high quality lesson from Robin May:
Your and you're are different words!