Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
wrote: Er, probably not. I rather doubt that the number of journeys between each possible pair of stations is equal. True, but in the absence of data I approximated. ![]() I really should put in a FoI request to get better data... I would expect the steep-free stations cover most of the busier stations so the percentage of journeys that are possible step-free is much higher than 6%. I think this is not true; look at the Central Line. The accessible stations are Stratford (probably one of the busier stations on the line; but I'd guess Liverpool Street and Bank are as busy), Woodford, Roding Valley, Hainault, and Epping. Two things are noticeable: They're all out east; and most of them are teeny-tiny-overground stations. Looking at Central London, the only station inside the Circle Line that's accessible is Green Park and Bank DLR (is that inside or outside the circle?). Basically, tiney-tiny overground (or nearly overground) stations out in the sticks are much easier and cheaper to make accessable - bung in a couple of short lifts and you're done. The busier central stations are complex, and often deep. underground; this makes them much harder to make step-free as you'd have to put in more lifts and they're much longer. And you have to do it underground. And there's less space on the surface, so you'd need to buy and demolish an expensive building to do much. All in all much more expensive. If you were TfL, and you had some dosh explicitly to improve accessibility, would you make Oxford Circus accessible, or make every station north of Leyton accessible? It wouldn't surprise me if both of those plans would cost the same; and the best thing to do for disabled Londoners is not at all obvious. 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. This paragraph is therefore partly based on a false assumption. An approximation, yes, but I think it's reasonable. -- Mike Bristow |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
... In article , wrote: Er, probably not. I rather doubt that the number of journeys between each possible pair of stations is equal. True, but in the absence of data I approximated. ![]() I really should put in a FoI request to get better data... I would expect the steep-free stations cover most of the busier stations so the percentage of journeys that are possible step-free is much higher than 6%. I think this is not true; look at the Central Line. The accessible stations are Stratford (probably one of the busier stations on the line; but I'd guess Liverpool Street and Bank are as busy), Woodford, Roding Valley, Hainault, and Epping. The other factor is that even if the start and destination are both accessible, most interchange stations are not accessible which limits the options further. Peter Smyth |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why isn't the 2009 stock walk through like the S stock? | London Transport | |||
TfL / NLL / Metronet surface stock / tube stock / Croxley link | London Transport | |||
1938 Stock on Uxbridge 100 and T Stock? | London Transport |