Mike Bristow wrote:

In article ,
d wrote:
There are plenty of journeys available already. Has anyone seen someone in
a wheelchair on the tube yet?

There are 66 stations which step-free from street to platform. That
means that there are 66 time 65 (just over 4 thousand) possible
journeys with both ends step-free. Assuming all the interchanges
are step free, of course.

There are 270 stations total. That means that there are 270*269
(or just over 72 thousand) possible journeys on LuL.

That means that around 6% of journeys are possible step-free.


That is perhaps an overly pessimistic view. All a wheelchair user
needs is a bus service to an accessible LUL station. That makes the
step-free network available to a much wider range of users than 6%
would suggest.


If LuL wish to improve things, more power to them: 6% is dreadfully
low. Remember that the design life of S-Stock is probably around
30 years - and a lot can change in that time. In the mean time,
step free adaptations are mostly benifiting those with prams and
luggage; for them, a step free station at one end of the journey
will help as they have the option of strugling up the stairs at the
other end.


Indeed.

Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous Boltar's statement was.

On 05/11/2012 20:09, Anthony Polson wrote:

Mike Bristow wrote:
[snip]
There are 66 stations which step-free from street to platform. That
means that there are 66 time 65 (just over 4 thousand) possible
journeys with both ends step-free. Assuming all the interchanges
are step free, of course.

There are 270 stations total. That means that there are 270*269
(or just over 72 thousand) possible journeys on LuL.

That means that around 6% of journeys are possible step-free.

That is perhaps an overly pessimistic view. All a wheelchair user
needs is a bus service to an accessible LUL station. That makes the
step-free network available to a much wider range of users than 6%
would suggest.


If LuL wish to improve things, more power to them: 6% is dreadfully
low. Remember that the design life of S-Stock is probably around
30 years - and a lot can change in that time. In the mean time,
step free adaptations are mostly benifiting those with prams and
luggage; for them, a step free station at one end of the journey
will help as they have the option of strugling up the stairs at the
other end.

Indeed.

Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous Boltar's statement was.

Though I think Boltar's statement pointed out how ridiculous Boltar's
statement was, but there's no harm in reiterating the point.

In article ,
Anthony Polson wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
[snip math]
That means that around 6% of journeys are possible step-free.


That is perhaps an overly pessimistic view. All a wheelchair user
needs is a bus service to an accessible LUL station. That makes the
step-free network available to a much wider range of users than 6%
would suggest.

This is sort-of true. But at a substantial time penalty.

Pick Leytonstone - Paddington (choosen purely because that's the
journey I'd make when visiting the inlaws). With no access needs,
the journey is 40-45 minutes, if you believe the journey planner.
If you need step-free access to the platform: 1h15-1h20 (again, if
you believe the journey planner).

Roughly double the time.

I've been toying with a FoI request to get a "snapshot" of journeys
made, and then hitting journey planner to see how bad the time
penalty of "just use the bus to join the dots" is, on average, but
I'm too lazy.

Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous Boltar's statement was.

Taking the opposite view to Boltar will see you right 9 times out of
ten, on average...

Cheers,

--
Mike Bristow

Mike Bristow wrote:

In article ,
Anthony Polson wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
[snip math]
That means that around 6% of journeys are possible step-free.


That is perhaps an overly pessimistic view. All a wheelchair user
needs is a bus service to an accessible LUL station. That makes the
step-free network available to a much wider range of users than 6%
would suggest.

This is sort-of true. But at a substantial time penalty.


I doubt that journey time matters quite so much to the average
wheelchair-bound person as it does to the rest of us. Cost is an
important issue and the only realistic alternative to bus-train-bus
would be an expensive taxi journey.