With our current vehicle culture it would definitely be awesome to step down into an active travel lane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Right but we were also talking about street cars with ramps. Like, if a ramp is good enough to get a person onto an elevated platform, why is it a "non-starter" for a ramp to get a person onto a vehicle? Why can't disabled people be assisted onto a vehicle? Does it really have to be "without assistance"?
I'm not saying no accomodation. I'm saying reasonable accommodation that passes net benefit tests (or at least comes close - coverage routes on transit don't pass net benefit tests either). I'm not objecting to higher platforms. I'm objecting to the idea that accessibility features should have immunity from cost-benefit analysis, and that projects that can't accommodate them should not proceed.
|
You also need to include overall efficiency of operation in this analysis. Extra time spent boarding and de-boarding is time spent not travelling. Which affects predictability which affects service quality.
How about winter? Are you stepping down onto slush, water, ice, or dry pavement? Or..."There wasn't a pothole here yesterday!" Gotta factor the cost of a few broken wrists into your analysis.
It would be the fringest of fringe situations where it would make any sense to forego accessibility. You re-prioritize coverage (ie. fewer stops/stations) long before it gets to that.