barefoot wrote:Marx wrote:Arh, regarding disabled accessible transport as ‘special needs’ is a cop out
Sorry, you may have misinterpretted.
"Special needs" is PC-talk for "disabled". Focusing on abilities and all that.
Having a "special needs" child and a wife studying postgrad special ed... I get all the jargon.
So... I'm talking about transport options for people with special needs. The disabled. Accessible transport.
It costs more money to provide accessible transport than to ignore the disabled. That's a given. As a civilised society, we need to spend that money.
So... do we get better outcomes by spending the money to incorporate accessibitity into ALL public transport, or do we get better outcomes by saving that money and instead spending it on an alternative system? The cost of ramped access to all railway stations and squatting-suspension buses will pay for a hell of a lot of chauffer-driven door-to-door wheelchair limo services.
Interesting point. The converse is that there's possibly a large number of elderly or other people with limited mobility who need to use the ramps and low-floor buses because they can't get up the stairs or steps to "ordinary ones," but who wouldn't dream of calling up for a "special chauffeur-driven wheelchair limo" and would be back to being stuck at home.
Living around Oakleigh we seem to have a large proportion of elderly residents, I've seen endless numbers of them trip, and a few fall, on the shiny new bright yellow raised bumpy stuff that has been put through the train station underpass as an aid to the sight-impaired. Seems we've mandated putting in shiny yellow bumpy stuff to assist X% and in the process caused a major trip hazard to Y%. I've no idea if X >> Y, although I suspect not.