On 2017-02-09 11:31:13 +0000, David Cantrell said:

I sometimes think, though, that given the huge expense of making the bus
and train network wheelchair-friendly (yes, I know other disabilities
exist, and this this also helps other groups) making transport
disabled-accessible might have been better done by just giving
wheelchair users massively subsidised taxi fares. That probably wouldn't
cost any more, and would actually mean that the whole city was opened up
to them instead of just those bits where installing lifts and things
wasn't too difficult.

That has certainly occurred to me. As has just making the deal on cars
better - if I were in a wheelchair and could drive a modified car,
that's what I would do for every journey except the kind of very local
one where I would probably, if able, wheel myself as a substitute for
walking. I wouldn't want to use public transport, as it would be a
massive nuisance. There are comparatively few such people compared
with the general population, and ensuring they have the freedom to
drive and park easily would not be much of an overhead.

As one example, the railway is put off building more stations due to
massive costs of lifts, ramps etc. Why not be allowed to build basic
"passive" stations, provided it does save substantial money not
providing access[1] and provided an accessible taxi on demand to the
nearest accessible station is always provided (at the rail fare that
would have been paid were the station accessible) should any wheelchair
user wish to travel?

I wouldn't argue for a main station to be devoid of lifts, but a
low-demand rural one?

[1] If you were building a two-platform station accessed from a road at
one end with a level crossing, it would for example be stupid not to
just make the end ramps shallower so suitable for a wheelchair, as it'd
cost next to nothing.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.