Full accessibility ensures that public transportation accommodates people with disabilities by providing necessary facilities and services. Proponents argue that it ensures equal access, promotes independence for people with disabilities, and complies with disability rights. Opponents argue that it can be costly to implement and maintain and may require significant modifications to existing systems.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@9MRYBPQ 10mos10MO
No, the cost of adapting every bus and train to suit a tiny minority seems to outweigh the benefits when a subsidising an on-demand, Uber-like service could be done instead
I'm leaning towards irrelevant questioning but I believe public transportation is inclusive enough to people with disabilities
@9RMYM3X8mos8MO
No because private companies will do it anyway as there is a profit incentive and it will speed up the boarding process for disabled travellers
@9QNVR839mos9MO
Yes but only where the building/terrain allows it. Listed buildings etc should be exempt from ugly additions and find other methods of being disabled - friendly such as ramps and more facilities on the ground floor
@9QFZGVM9mos9MO
In an ideal world yes, however many UK transport systems are dated and the money is better spent on new infrastructure
@9QCRB8Y9mos9MO
yes, within reason though. some councils have spent money for only a couple of users. Must undertake studies to determing use
@9Q7XG4H9mos9MO
Yes, of course. It's a no-brainer! Access to public transport for people with disabilities in this country is dire and they don't all have access to their own transport (eg: Motability adapted vehicles).
@9PWDD5L 9mos9MO
It should be encouraged and implemented but as long as all services are accessible even with the assistance of employees but disabled people should be able to use transportation services without too much hindrance
Yes, but only where it is practically possible and isn't economically damaging.
@9MWXF78Conservative 10mos10MO
That depends on the definition of disability. That can mean anything and everything.
@9MV4FB510mos10MO
Only where it is not cost prohibitive to the taxpayer or organisations that may pass those costs on to them
@9PYM9299mos9MO
Only where it is possible to improve existing infrastructure. All new infrastructure should be implemented with this in mind.
@9PJN786 10mos10MO
FULLY accessible to people with ALL types of disabilities is probably impossible to achieve, but it should be the goal
@9P2K86F10mos10MO
Depends on the extent to which systems can be adapted within a reasonable cost, and whether there are already-existing accessible modes nearby
@9NPVSWT10mos10MO
all new infrastructure shoule be required to be accessible, and old infrastructure required to be updated but with exemptions e.g. some old and deep tube stations would be physically or financially extremely challenging to retrofit
No - as much as possible but need to be pragmatic that some rural services wouldnt be viable if this was the case
@9MV3J7210mos10MO
Yes, for new systems, and as far as practicable for existing systems
@9MQRVKTWomen's Equality10mos10MO
Yes where it is possible to do add in to existing infrastructure and all future building should be accessible
@9MP7GQF10mos10MO
Only in a roll out. It shouldn’t stop existing from running until the replacement is available otherwise you risk isolating people.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
