"Access Systems" wrote:

low floor with ramp is accessible, unless a lot of ramps have been
retrofitted the first couple thousand low floors were delived without the
ramps....will double check with my source in London.

[...]

my check shows that as of Sept approx 3500 of the 5500 LT buses are Low
floor, most of these have a kneeling feature and space on board for
wheelchairs but most do not comply with DDA (UK-ADA) "only the low floor
buses with the double center doors have the power ramps"


Your source is mistaken. The TfL website states (as referenced in a
previous message) that "84% of the total bus fleet of 6,663 [about 5600] is
wheelchair accessible". Not merely "low-floor" - specifically "wheelchair
accessible". Any bus that is low-floor but does not have a wheelchair ramp
is regarded as part of the 16% of the fleet that is *not* wheelchair
accessible.

It is true that the first few hundred low-floor buses in London were not
fitted with wheelchair ramps^. A few have had ramps retrofitted; a few may
remain in London service unmodified. However, the vast majority have been
withdrawn from London service and replaced by newer low-floor buses that
*do* have wheelchair ramps fitted.



It may seem strange that so many low-floor buses entered service without
wheelchair ramps. While with hindsight this clearly was a short-sighted
policy, it did sort of make sense at the time.

Thanks to relatively high ridership, and (by US standards) relatively narrow
roads that require more manoeuvrable (ie shorter) vehicles, many London bus
routes need double-deckers. By about 1996, UK bus technology had progressed
to the stage where low-floor single-deckers were becoming standard, but
low-floor double-deckers (which presented a greater technical challenge)
were still some way off. It was not possible to fit folding-step wheelchair
lifts to standard-floor buses (these lifts are not legal in the UK if
operated (US-style) from the cab - and, as London bus drivers carry cash and
give change, it is not generally considered safe for them to leave the cab
to operate such lifts). Hence, normal double-deck buses could not be made
wheelchair-accessible.

So, at this time there was no concept of a London-wide wheelchair-accessible
bus network. Without such a concept, there was no perceived need for *any*
bus to be wheelchair-accessible (even though this would have been quite
possible for single-deckers). However, low-floor buses *were* considered
desirable, because they offered easier access to the "ambulant disabled" and
those with pushchairs (strollers). Hence, low-floor buses (but without
wheelchair ramps) were specified for most single-deck routes.

A couple of years later, low-floor double-deckers were developed, and the
concept of a wheelchair-accessible London-wide bus network came into vogue.
For the last four years, all new buses for London service (both single-deck
and double-deck, and including the articulated single-deck buses that have
been introduced on a handful of routes since Summer 2002) have been
low-floor and wheelchair-accessible.



^ = I don't have the figures, but I'd be surprised if it was as many as two
thousand. Still, I could be wrong.




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

(To email me, edit return address)

In misc.transport.urban-transit MetroGnome wrote:

"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]"

of some 4,400 buses.

(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?)

those are only the NYCTA buses, the private bus companies are not included
and are not 100% accessible either

Bob





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

(To email me, edit return address)



--
"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

In misc.transport.urban-transit Robin May wrote:
Access Systems wrote the following in:


ADA = NYC

Presumably non-Americans with disabilities are considered unimportant.

no more so than the DDA is only for citizens of the UK.

the laws affect PROPERTIES not passengers.

if you are in NYC (USA) you are covered by ADA
if you are in London (UK) you are covered by DDA

nationality of the individual is not important

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:


In misc.transport.urban-transit Robin May
wrote:
Access Systems wrote the following in:


ADA = NYC

Presumably non-Americans with disabilities are considered
unimportant.

no more so than the DDA is only for citizens of the UK.

So I'd hope. I was making a point about the very silly name.

the laws affect PROPERTIES not passengers.

if you are in NYC (USA) you are covered by ADA
if you are in London (UK) you are covered by DDA

nationality of the individual is not important

Then why call it the "Americans with Disabilities Act"?

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

Robin May may be my name, but Robin is my first name.

"Access Systems" wrote:



NYC TA buses have been 100% ADA compliant for a number of years...

Yes, but how accessible are they overall to the disabled population? Not
just wheelchair users, but also the far more numerous "ambulant disabled"
who can walk with difficulty (most of whom don't consider themselves to be
"disabled enough" to use the lift)? A standard-floor bus with a wheelchair
lift fitted may meet ADA requirements - but it still leaves a *lot* to be
desired as far as disability access is concerned, when compared with a
low-floor bus.

As you note elsewhere in the thread, the private bus lines running routes
under contract to the City (which I understand are marketed as part of the
NYCTA network, and accept MetroCards) are not yet 100% ADA compliant.





also a much higher percentage of the subway (tube) stations are
accessible..

NOT TRUE!

Quite the reverse, in fact - the London Underground has a much higher
percentage of stations accessible than the New York Subway. Look at the MTA
and TfL websites (http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/ada/stations.htm and
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/tubem...s_guide_1.pdf).



I assume that we are talking about step-free access from street to platform
(ie accessibility for wheelchair users). If we consider that a station is
"accessible" if there is step-free access to and from trains running in both
directions, on at least one line serving that station (and count it as "half
a station" if this applies only to trains running in one direction), we
find:

New York Subway - 37 accessible stations, plus 3 accessible in only one
direction, to give a total of 38½ stations out of a possible 468. This is
8.23%.

London Underground - 44 accessible stations, plus 11 accessible in only
one direction, to give a total of 49½ stations out of a possible 275. This
is 18.00%.


If we also consider the MTA's and TfL's "secondary" Metro systems, then New
York is even worse by comparison. Including the Staten Island Railway and
the Docklands Light Railway, we find:

New York - 42½ stations out of a possible 490. This is 8.67%.
London - 81½ stations out of a possible 305. This is 26.72%.



New York seems to have a lot of catching up to do...



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

(To email me, edit return address)




Notes about my figures
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've tried to be as balanced as possible.

I've assumed that the MTA list is completely up-to-date (it includes, for
example, the brand new access at 72nd Street on the IRT, which was not shown
as accessible on the November 2003 system map). I've just taken the
oft-quoted "468 subway stations" figure as correct - this presumably
includes the temporarily-closed stations near Coney Island, and possibly
some arguable cases.

The London access guide is dated 2002, and includes four stations (Kilburn,
Earl's Court, Fulham Broadway, and Hounslow East - shown with the wheelchair
symbol crossed out) where access was then either under construction or
suspended temporarily - I've assumed that wheelchair access has now been
completed/restored (it definitely has been at some of them, but I'm not 100%
sure it has been at all of them). I've also accounted for Heron Quays
having re-opened. In arguable cases (where interchange between lines
involves the use of public streets or walkways), I have considered Shadwell
and Hammersmith to be single stations, but Paddington and Canary Wharf to
each consist of two separate stations.

"Access Systems" wrote:


LT proclaims that their bus fleet will be fully DDA compliant by 2017

2017 is when the fleet *has* to be fully accessible by law.

What they (TfL, as LT's successor) now says is "With the exception of
Routemasters, London Buses expect to reach 100% [wheelchair accessibility]
by 2004/05". This comes from
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...lowfloor.shtml, the page that
was linked to earlier in the thread.

What TfL hasn't yet announced publicly is that Routemasters (the
"traditional" front-engined, open-platform double-deckers that need
conductors) will themselves be withdrawn from the entire network by 2004/05.
This withdrawal programme began a few months ago.



and people with disabilities don't need to travel on heritage routes???

Err, no. Nobody *needs* to travel on a heritage route - at least, not the
sort of heritage route that is apparently being considered for London.

We are *not* talking about heritage routes on the US "historic trolley"
model - where, although old vehicles are used, the service often forms an
integral part of the public transport network. Instead, we are talking
about routes run primarily for leisure rather than transport purposes, where
the ride itself is the main reason for travelling - routes that are
*additional* to the public transport network. They would be somewhat akin
to riverboat services on the River Thames, or San Francisco's cable cars -
routes that in theory can be used just for getting from A to B, but in
practice rarely are.



So far, TfL themselves haven't "officially" announced the Routemaster
withdrawal programme, for fear of a public backlash - they prefer to just
quietly get on with the job and hope that no-one will notice until the
process is almost complete. Hence, it is not clear whether the suggested
"heritage" Routemaster routes will actually happen.




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

(To email me, edit return address)

In misc.transport.urban-transit MetroGnome wrote:
"Access Systems" wrote:
NYC TA buses have been 100% ADA compliant for a number of years...

Yes, but how accessible are they overall to the disabled population? Not

ADA is for all people with disabilities

just wheelchair users, but also the far more numerous "ambulant disabled"
who can walk with difficulty (most of whom don't consider themselves to be
"disabled enough" to use the lift)? A standard-floor bus with a wheelchair

people are permitted to "stand" on the lifts, in fact it is manitory that
they be allow to.

lift fitted may meet ADA requirements - but it still leaves a *lot* to be
desired as far as disability access is concerned, when compared with a
low-floor bus.

I agree the low floor bus is the best thing since sliced bread but a lot
of transit authorities in the USA are resistant. the ADA only requires
access not how it is to be done

As you note elsewhere in the thread, the private bus lines running routes
under contract to the City (which I understand are marketed as part of the
NYCTA network, and accept MetroCards) are not yet 100% ADA compliant.

yes and no, they are not yet ADA compliant because they are running rust
buckets that should have been replaced years ago and is the main reason
for the effort to get them taken over.

also a much higher percentage of the subway (tube) stations are
accessible..

NOT TRUE!

Quite the reverse, in fact - the London Underground has a much higher
percentage of stations accessible than the New York Subway. Look at the MTA
and TfL websites (http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/ada/stations.htm and
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/tubem...s_guide_1.pdf).


Notes about my figures
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

Robin May wrote:

Then why call it the "Americans with Disabilities Act"?

Just another manifestation of the Pax American mentality!

Cheers,

Bill


Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia

JRS: In article ,
seen in news:uk.transport.london, Robin May
om posted at Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:13:28 :-
Access Systems wrote the following in:


ADA = NYC

Presumably non-Americans with disabilities are considered unimportant.


That would be illegal discrimination in favour of non-disabled
Americans; you wrote two words too many in the middle of your sentence.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.