Jump to content

Talk:Accessibility of transport in London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: That is quite a tour-de-force of an article - well done and well referenced and constructed. To the extend that it can be condensed a little more (and 4-paragraph lede installed), that would even be more helpful for casual readers, but great job. thanks Aszx5000 (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks hugely! I've tried to copy the layout of similar articles in New York, Toronto and Boston, that's why it's concise. Thanks for your feedback! Turini2 (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
London Taxi with wheelchair ramp
London Taxi with wheelchair ramp
Moved to mainspace by Turini2 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Turini2 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Some problems need fixing. TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes and comments as required to the article. I think I'd like to focus on the positive hooks, with this photo instead? Turini2 (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
London bus with wheelchair ramp
I think I found a better hook.
I think that is more interesting as since the TfL bus fleet has been accessible for a while. but since the LU is the oldest metro systems, its partially accessible with only a third. Also with taxis, I assume you're talking about the TfL ones since other services like Uber likely don't have the accessibility scheme in place and use a normal car. I also think something that is not mostly accessible is better and more interesting that those that are fully accessible. For example, a hook stating that the Elizabeth line is fully accessible (even including the old stations) wouldn't be interesting as new(er) systems are expected to be accessible/have step free systems. JuniperChill (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm happy to go with that hook with a minor tweak for "step-free"- yes, I mean "London black taxi", technically Uber is not a taxi (Vehicle for hire). I didn't want to be too negative about accessibility, but the Tube one is balanced. Could use the lead photo - unsure on caption though! Turini2 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply as I was out and about. Anyway, I don't really need to see the point of the photo if we are talking about 1/3rd of LU stations accessible since I cannot think what demonstrates it, plus its very tight for images on DYK because only one image a day (or two images a day in the event of a backlog) for the ~8 hooks. Also @TheNuggeteer:, what do you think of the new hook as you initially reviewed it? JuniperChill (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC):::::I think "only" should be removed, but other than that, it's fine. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All other issues with the article are now resolved (it has a more substantive lead, fixed words etc) Turini2 (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now its time to turn the signal green now that the hook issue has been fixed. I didn't know step-free has a hyphen so I'm fine with that alongside removing the 'only'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London cable car

[edit]

Does the London cable car fall within the ambit of this article? It seems to be accessible - its website says it allows for "most wheelchairs" [1]. It doesn't (explicitly) say anything about assistance dogs - TfL's conditions of carriage don't mention the cable car in its assistance dog section (9.15). The cabins appear to have the usual high-contrast step, but there don't seem to be the audio cues you get on the Underground ("doors closing" etc.). There does seem to be a TfL agent to render help. It would be an interesting addition to note how blind and partially sighted travellers feel about using it. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be honest, the cable car is such a minor part of the transport network that I unconsciously overlooked it. There's no reason it can't be included, thanks for prompting! Turini2 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean accessible?

[edit]

Sorry for both the question and my English, but I don't get it. The article shows accessibility as something binary: each station is either accessible or not. However, when I look at this source (especially its "Key to symbols" on the right), I see 3 step ranges, 3 gap ranges, 2 ramp types, etc. How does all this translate into one binary yes/no? What combinations of step, gap, ramp, etc. are considered accessible? Vcohen (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for your question! The article does touch in this throughout. Accessibility allows everyone to travel through the transport system – the requirements for someone in a wheelchair is going to be different than someone who is partially sighted for example. Accessible isn't just step-free access, ramps, handrails or dropped kerbs – its also about training of staff, audio-visual announcements, quality signage, good lighting etc.
In terms of the source you reference, I concentrate on the tube map, which shows which stations have step-free access. I used a note (and text) to caveat that this is at least "accessible from street to platform level". I do note that where gaps are present, humps or boarding ramps are available. I do not go into the fine detail of vertical/horizontal gaps - because wikipedia is a) not a travel guide b) should not be relied on for advice c) too much detail. Turini2 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. —Kusma (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Accessibility of transport in London/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Turini2 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 13:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


A massive article about an important topic. I'll aim to review this by the weekend. —Kusma (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

  • Lead seems a bit on the short side for such a long article; I might suggest additions later.
  • Background: This is not a GA requirement, but I am wondering whether a little bit more on the history of accessibility in general would help here (what was other people's attitude to disabled people in the 19th century? when did the disability rights movement really take off?)
  • Older people are also much more likely to be disabled – with around a third of Londoners aged 65 and over. Not a huge fan of the dash. Is the third of Londoners also from the 2021 census?
  • Are non-Londoners (visitors/tourists) also in focus for accessibility improvements?
  • History: There is a ton of information here, so much that it gets a bit hard to find the important bits (it is a great chronological description of the trees, but perhaps there could be an overview of the forest?)
  • The Victoria line, completed in 1971, did not consider access for the disabled I guess that is plans or planners for the Victoria line.
  • Just out of curiosity, are there non-US examples of early accessible public transport? (Many mainland European countries are / were equally terrible in inaccessibility).
  • 1980s: the disabled and those with impaired sight or hearing this reads as if "the disabled" are just those with mobility impairments.
  • In 1986, the Greater London Association for Disabled People (GLAD) pushed for "a radical reappraisal" of accessible transport in a report – with over 465,000 Londoners unable to (or find it extremely challenging) to use public transport. the grammar is off here.
  • considered that the ban on wheelchairs on the Underground should be reconsidered I think you should consider "suggested" instead if that matches the source.
  • [[Conditions of Fitness|required]] bit of a MOS:EASTEREGG.
  • 2000s: this section is extremely long. Consider breaking it up further by time or theme.
  • Generally, the History section is strictly chronological and does nothing to highlight what is more important or what is less important.
  • Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council Stephen Greenhalgh: try without MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • 2010s: make 95 per cent of London bus stops accessible what type of access is meant? step free?
  • This section has even more detail and even less of a narrative.
  • the passenger experience for someone with autism, or someone with a visual impairment or someone with mobility issues will be very different. is there anything on accessibility for people with autism? We have a little bit on visual impairment but not a lot.
  • upgrading existing stations (particularly older ones) was challenging isn't this kind of the overall theme of the article?
  • 2020s: works at Twickenham railway station [...] was completed grammar
  • In March 2020, the London Assembly published a report on accessible and inclusive transport this is something like the second or third report we have, usually with the same conclusions and Captain Obvious statements like "more accessible stations would lead to more journeys".
  • I am not sure what the best way to deal with the History section is, but your strictly chronological mix of "works at individual tube stations", "policy discussions", "bus rolling stock", "taxi rules", "individual disability campaign events" just isn't working. Perhaps moving the entire History section into a new Timeline of accessibility of transport in London and just giving a high level summary in this article is the best thing to do.
  • London Underground stations: All stations on the network feature minor accessibility features such as tactile platform strips, audiovisual passenger information, wide ticket gates, clear signage and help points with hearing loops This extremely optimistic statement has a citation to [2], which is about onboard features, not station features. The nearby [3] contradicts the statement by saying "Tactile paving is being fitted across our networks, on platforms and at the top and bottom of stairs. However, until we have this at all stations, please do not assume it is there.".
  • key interchange stations such as King's Cross St Pancras, Victoria and Green Park becoming step-free the "key interchange stations" isn't obviously cited (the rest is clear from the table) and an obvious questions is which major interchanges still have issues.
  • Table header: Underground station gained step-free access maybe better to put "Underground stations becoming step free" or something like that?
  • Would it make sense to include a Tube map here and note that it shows different degrees of access for some stations? (The map itself has accessibility issues too that could be mentioned; it isn't very colourblindness-friendly. Short Google came up with this thing from ten years ago which may lead to further info if the dead links are archived somewhere).
  • London Overground: perhaps mention how London Overground is related to TfL and National Rail.
  • All stations feature minor accessibility features such as audiovisual passenger information, wide ticket gates, clear signage and help points with hearing loops same problem as above: not in source given, and is this really true?
  • Elizabeth line: same points as for Overground. Plus mention again that this is Crossrail?
  • Why does the table have fewer than 41 stations?
  • National Rail: should probably be National Rail stations, especially since "Rolling stock" in the next section is about National Rail and Overground and Elizabeth line? It is a bit confusing how "National Rail" has a subsection called "National Rail".
  • Docklands Light Railway: fully accessible do you mean "step free from street to train" or do you include the access needs of blind or deaf people here? (This occurs in several places and might merit a definition somewhere)
  • DLR/Trams/River boats/Cable car: These sections are very short, do they need to stand alone?
  • Buses: London was one of the first major cities in the world to have a fully accessible bus fleet. can't see any mention of this in the source given.
  • A little more about the Routemasters would be nice here
  • Mobility Buses: It is good that some of the history is mentioned here
  • Taxis: PHVs are also obliged to carry passengers with guide dogs. what are the guide dog rules on the tube/DLR/other transports? I don't think they have been mentioned.
  • Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard: Originally funded by the Greater London Council, the scheme is now run by London Councils. source link is dead and not archived
  • Other assistance: The first paragraph is entirely sourced to TfL's self description; none of this should be stated in wikivoice (it almost reads like advertising and is not obviously neutral). The TfA link that claims to go to "travel mentoring" resolves to this page that does not help.
  • "Baby on board": link is dead.
  • TfL reported that around 130,000 badges were being issued every year. the source given is about 'Please Offer Me a Seat' badges. Neither of the sources show that either of the schemes still exist.
  • work underway to increase the number of toilets on the public transport network nope, the source says that a study about considering this has been delayed.
  • Criticism of TfL is almost wholly confined to the History section; the many challenges still there in the current situation (not just at the tube, but lift issues there are an obvious concern) are not mentioned in the sections about the present, which are not neutral.

Finished reading. The unfocused timeline, dead sources, poor source to text integrity and lack of neutrality make this a fail. Which is sad, because clearly a lot of work has gone into this. —Kusma (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

[edit]

Too many issues found above, not looking further.

General comments and GA criteria

[edit]
  • Prose generally good.
  • Both oversectioned and undersectioned.
  • Ref format ok for GA
  • Reliability of sources is moderate; there are a lot of TfL sources that are usually OK for announcements, but not to comment on the quality of TfL's work.
  • Source to text integrity issues and uncited statements.
  • Broadness: not all aspects of accessibility are equally addressed
  • Focus: there is excessive content on day to day announcements of individual station improvements that makes it hard to see the forest for the trees
  • Did not check image licenses. Choice of images seems OK at first glance.
  • Did not spot check for copyvio.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TfL vs boroughs vs neither

[edit]

I love this article, but I feel like it was written from the point of view of "what does TfL do?"

There was very little coverage of the work of the London boroughs, looking at that table of responsibilities. There was very little coverage of modes of transport that are not quite managed by either the London boroughs or TfL.

I've tried to fill in the gaps, but there's still some work to do. Landpin (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks! It was a real labour of love writing it!
I guess I focused on public transport rather than transport more generally - hence the focus on TfL. Should this article be just about public transport, or all forms of transport accessibility in London? That would be a very long article! If you haven't already, take a look at the Accessibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority article - that's what I have been aiming to match in terms of comprehensiveness! (I couldn't name the article Accessibility of TfL due to the balkanization of public transport here in London!) Turini2 (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Landpin If we're going to cover roads, driving and airports, I can think of a few areas to cover:
  • Inaccessible footbridges over roads, railways etc - severance
  • Planning policies encouraging development in sustainable and accessible locations
  • Other access improvements to / from airports - Heathrow, City and Gatwick are already in the history section, but something for Southend and Luton?
  • TfL / local boroughs doing pedestrianisation schemes
  • Dropped kerbs and other work by local boroughs
Can you think of any more? Turini2 (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accessibility_of_transport_in_London&oldid=1282135730"