Tube station design error - accountability

[alholmes]

The problem with the article that the OP refers to is that it mentions a lifting of a ban in 1993 on disabled people using the underground, citing a Hansard link to a parliamentary debate.

However when you read the Hansard transcript, it states “In October 1993, London Underground announced the dropping of all restrictions on wheelchair users on the system.”

So there was never a ban on disabled people using the underground, as many disabled people don’t require the use of a wheelchair to get around. As other posters have said, disability rights weren’t a thing back in 1913, and there would have been very few disabled people travelling around.

 

[londontransit]

This is a very interesting read! I didn't know it was on Rail Forums and have only just discovered the thread. I have just written a response (and its below - pasted from the post in question):

The discussion (this one on Rail Forums) suggests ‘design error’ is wrong. Not only that, disability wasn’t even a thing in the early years of the 19th Century thus its not even correct to describe it as a design error. These are valid points – however from a disability perspective, what it boils down to is the whole essence of escalators ultimately pandered to ability and not disability. The UERL and the LPTB cheered as lifts were taken out of use and escalators substituted. They, especially the LPTB had regular news columns which extolled the number of lifts being reduced and the vast number of new escalators being installed. ‘Escalators good, lifts bad!’ A bit of 1984 newspeak there even!

Therefore disabled people were restricted (well a ban is how some of us would have seen it) from using the tube. Some say it wasn’t even a ban – but in a sense it was. If one looks at this page one will see the railways (and even LT) had limitations on disabled people using their services – and if anything were to go wrong, well it was the disabled person’s fault. The only way for disabled people to use the tube (or the main line railways) was to sign an indemnity form – which meant any rights were being signed away. Check this under the heading: 1937-1959 – Indemnities for Permission to Travel.

Besides, I’m not the only one who says it was a ban. The comprehensive Wikipedia page on disability accessibility and transport in London too says it was a ban.

 

[Starmill]

If the OP's question is more directed around why aren't there slightly more resources available today, and indeed from 1993 to now, to retrofit more stations then I'd agree. More money should be diverted to speeding up the transition.

Of course, level boarding on Thameslink and Elizabeth line services at some stations has improved matters slightly.

It's especially bad that key interchanges above ground such as Rayners Lane and Finchley Road are still stepped only.

 

[HSTEd]

• ow did disabled people travel on public transport in general?
• why didn't such poor design result in a lawsuit stopping the construction of such new design, forcing the continuation of the old way of using lifts to access stations?

Because the railway company running the system was entitled, at that time, to simply refuse to provide services it deemed uneconomic to provide.

Then, in 1993, as the 1913 design was recognised as a mistake, why didn't the discrimination law force TfL to rebuild all affected stations between 1913 and 1993 by a specified deadline?

Because when the time inevitably ran out loads of stations would close and collapse London's transport system.

 

[SynthD]

Maybe that's true in the deep level, however, sub-surface lines generally have level boarding even on the oldest part of the Metropolitan line, like Euston Square. It is now categorised as Class A step free street to train and is suitable for all wheelchair users.

That may have come with the introduction of the S stock, as they have low floors. The Wikipedia article for the S60/62 doesn’t mention accessibility or anything similar, but others will know more.

I'm now more interested in the life of disabled people back in 1913 compared to the modern era. City commuting already existed but the option of low floor buses didn't exist back then, how did they generally commute to jobs in the City?

They were sometimes seen as shameful, decrepit and incapable of regular jobs. Best kept out of sight, wouldn’t want to scare the regular people. All sorts of opinions we don’t have today.

 

[Magdalia]

Of course that's true if the home is above ground, but a century ago, before mass urbanisation, didn't most people live in houses which were built at the ground level?

Yes, but the front door almost invariably had at least one step. Many Victorian terraces were built with a basement partly below ground level, and the "ground floor" a bit above ground. There would be a short flight of stairs up to the front door and a short flight of stairs down into the basement. There are still plenty of these in London.

I'm now more interested in the life of disabled people back in 1913 compared to the modern era. City commuting already existed but the option of low floor buses didn't exist back then, how did they generally commute to jobs in the City?

They didn't. Only a few people commuted to and from the City and it is unlikely that any of them needed step free access.

If you want to get an idea of what life was like for a rich and privileged disabled person from that era, then I suggest that you read Lady Chatterley's Lover, which is set not long after the First World War.

 

[Mawkie]

Maybe that's true in the deep level, however, sub-surface lines generally have level boarding even on the oldest part of the Metropolitan line, like Euston Square. It is now categorised as Class A step free street to train and is suitable for all wheelchair users.

It's curious you should use this station as the best example - it's only step free in one direction!

 

[Gloster]

Bluntly, it was only with the sudden appearance of large numbers of disabled after The Great War, who had organisations like the British Legion to do a bit of pushing that anything to ameliorate their situation happened, even if wasn’t much. It could be argued that because so many had suffered injury in the war and they came from all walks of life, so most people were likely to know someone and they became ’one of us’, rather than a hidden and unknown group. Until then the disabled were expected to stay at home, at best do a bit of poorly-paid sub-contract work in their room, or wheel, stagger or crawl to some nearby source of menial work. Otherwise they just stayed housebound, cared for by some relative, until they died. A few better off people might be able to pay for help to commute into the centre of London, but they were few in number and didn’t come into the railway’s consideration as the helpers compensated for the disability as far as travelling was concerned.

It wasn’t so much that the disabled were discriminated against, as that they never came into the consideration of the railway when making its arrangements. This merely reflected society‘s attitudes in general: the disabled didn’t matter, but money might help.

 

[The exile]

It wasn’t so much that the disabled were discriminated against, as that they never came into the consideration of the railway when making its arrangements. This merely reflected society‘s attitudes in general: the disabled didn’t matter, but money might help.

Even more than this - the idea that any employer / authority / system should make any kind of adjustment to suit its employees / subordinates / users (whether disabled / female / single parent / carer etc) would have seemed ludicrous. This was after all the era when in most jobs that were open to women, getting married meant leaving employment "because that was what was natural"- although it was probably not in the economic interest of the companies concerned. Obviously adjustments would have occasionally been made on an individual basis - but very much as a paternalistic gesture ("We'll do the right thing by this particular loyal and long-serving individual" rather than as a generalised "its the right thing to do").

 

[Peter Sarf]

Really this thread helps to illuminate how much things have changed over the last 100 years - both accessibility regulations and peoples expectations/aspirations.

I think the OPs post indicates how some have no idea how much "nicer" things are now than even 50 years ago.

It is worth looking back and being able to appreciate how much better things are nowadays.

So I think Accountability is irrelevant. More so design error. The removal of lifts did not make things much worse for mobility impaired people because the lifts often did not get right from street level to the platform.

It is clear that new build lines and stations are much better for the mobility impaired. But legislation does not seem to dictate older infrastructure should be made compliant. I suspect the cost for retrofitting stations not designed for it is just too much.

I wonder if it is better to spend the money on a free/cheap road service for the mobility impaired - then those who need it will not have to suffer the ordeal even able bodied people could do without !.

 

[Belperpete]

Yes, but the front door almost invariably had at least one step. Many Victorian terraces were built with a basement partly below ground level, and the "ground floor" a bit above ground. There would be a short flight of stairs up to the front door and a short flight of stairs down into the basement. There are still plenty of these in London.

Even houses without a basement generally had a door step. It was to keep rain, water, dirt etc from being driven by the wind along the pavement into the house. Likewise why external doorways would have a small lip along the bottom, for the door to seal against.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

I'm now more interested in the life of disabled people back in 1913 compared to the modern era. City commuting already existed but the option of low floor buses didn't exist back then, how did they generally commute to jobs in the City?

What jobs would there have been available for a disabled person to commute to? Remember that there was no obligation on employers to make workplaces accessible, let alone to employ disabled people.

 

[GusB]

I'm now more interested in the life of disabled people back in 1913 compared to the modern era. City commuting already existed but the option of low floor buses didn't exist back then, how did they generally commute to jobs in the City?

They didn't, is the short answer.

You are viewing things through 21st century eyes and that's to be commended, but I'm afraid that there isn't really a nice answer to your question.

Life was much harder back then and there wasn't the same benefits provision that we have now. A family member with a disability was often seen as a burden and also as a source of shame. While some disabled people would have been able to contribute to the family income, many others would have been confined to institutions.

When I began tracing my family history, I was somewhat dismayed when I saw the term "imbecile" used on various documents. Today, such people would be classed as having learning disabilities or mental health problems. The stigma attached to certain conditions still continues to this day.

Both my maternal and paternal grandmothers had sisters who were affected by brain injuries, both caused by car accidents. Strangely enough, both were "Auntie Betty". That's where the similarities end, though; one was incarcerated in a long-term psychiatric hospital and died there, while the other lived with her sister (and outlived her). This was the 1980s and 1990s, by the way.

My mum had bi-polar disorder and was an occasional visitor to the local psychiatric hospital. When visiting, it always struck me that there were certain people who were always there - for some, the hospital was their home.

Perhaps the follow-up question would be, why were non-low-floor buses approved in 1913?

Bus technology in 1913 was fairly primitive and chassis frames were quite high. Even after low-floor technology was available, it needed a legislative push before it was fully adopted.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

As an aside the Paris Metro in the 80s and maybe beyond had priority seats for, among others “mutilees de la guerre)” ie war wounded. (Apologies for the lack of an acute accent).

 

[StephenHunter]

As an aside the Paris Metro in the 80s and maybe beyond had priority seats for, among others “mutilees par la guerre)” ie war wounded. (Apologies for the lack of an acute accent).

Those sorts of injuries varied. The loss of an eye or a hand isn't going to stop you using public transport; also many would have had prostethic limbs instead of needing a wheelchair.

 

[The exile]

As an aside the Paris Metro in the 80s and maybe beyond had priority seats for, among others “mutilees par la guerre)” ie war wounded. (Apologies for the lack of an acute accent).

Would hazard a guess that goes back to 1918 or soon after. Still needed to access stations via steps though.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm now more interested in the life of disabled people back in 1913 compared to the modern era. City commuting already existed but the option of low floor buses didn't exist back then, how did they generally commute to jobs in the City?

They didn’t because they couldn’t.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the OPs post indicates how some have no idea how much "nicer" things are now than even 50 years ago.

Than even 10-15 years ago, if we’re being honest. In the early 2000s my then wife’s sister was a wheelchair user; she could walk short distances but didn’t have the physical strength to walk far. Most buses at the time were still step-entrance buses and the comments we got sometimes when she climbed out of her chair and got on the bus whilst I folded the chair up.

As for retro-fitting lifts into the entire underground system, everything is possible with an unlimited budget. But the cost would be prohibitively expensive and would be a huge construction project with would only really happen with a full station rebuild (e.g. at King’s Cross).

As others have noted, because escalators are on an incline a vertical lift would, in many cases, come to surface quite some distance from the main station entrance- look how far the ‘new’ Angel station entrance is from the old one. Incline lifts would be a solution, as on Crossrail, but would require new shafts to be built in most cases also.

 

[Rescars]

What jobs would there have been available for a disabled person to commute to? Remember that there was no obligation on employers to make workplaces accessible, let alone to employ disabled people.

It was the Disabled Person's (Employment) Act 1944 which introduced the notion of reserved occupations for disabled workers and an employment quota scheme, which required employers with more than 20 staff to employ disabled people.

 

[Western Lord]

Even if people in wheelchairs had been able to use public transport to go to work (or anywhere else) they would have found precious few buildings accessible to them, whether offices, shops, cinemas, theatres. Most had no access for wheelchair users (and no accessible toilets), only in the past fifty years has any consideration been given to this, largely because of legislation rather than a desire to be inclusive.

 

[StephenHunter]

Would hazard a guess that goes back to 1918 or soon after. Still needed to access stations via steps though.

You could do that with a false leg. Douglas Bader even became a fighter ace with two.

Modern replacement limbs are very good.

But injuries would have varied widely. You would have seen a lot of facial injuries due to shrapnel. A missing ear, people wearing face plates to cover the hole in their cheek, major burns in an era before plastic surgery - and even that only goes so far today.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

They didn’t because they couldn’t.

The first head of MI6 had a false leg due to a childhood accident. He had a habit of suddenly stabbing it with a penknife when interviewing potential recruits to see if they would be fazed.

 

[jumble]

If the OP's question is more directed around why aren't there slightly more resources available today, and indeed from 1993 to now, to retrofit more stations then I'd agree. More money should be diverted to speeding up the transition.

Of course, level boarding on Thameslink and Elizabeth line services at some stations has improved matters slightly.

It's especially bad that key interchanges above ground such as Rayners Lane and Finchley Road are still stepped only.

It does seem a little strange that Ickenham was given priority over Rayners Lane considering Rayners is far far busier

 

[The exile]

It does seem a little strange that Ickenham was given priority over Rayners Lane considering Rayners is far far busier

Don’t know the facts here but possibilities are:
A) Ickenham needed other work urgently which the accessibility could be “bolted on” to
B) there are larger medium-term plans for Rayners Lane which would mean the work having to be re-done in a few years’ time
C) there was enough money in the pot for what Ickenham needed but not for what Rayners Lane needs
D) The planning authorities were more cooperative over Ickenham
E) “Someone” is a regular user of Ickenham
F) a combination of the above and other things I’ve not thought of.

 

[Starmill]

From a Google, it seems the TfL website does list Rayners Lane as a "priority" which is currently in study.

 

[Deepgreen]

There never was a ban on disabled people using the Underground; only on wheelchairs. The use of the phrase "design error" to describe the lack of step-free access historically is fatuous. The concept is a modern one and stations were designed according to the standards of the time. A non-story.

 

[StephenHunter]

There never was a ban on disabled people using the Underground; only on wheelchairs. The use of the phrase "design error" to describe the lack of step-free access historically is fatuous. The concept is a modern one and stations were designed according to the standards of the time. A non-story.

Was this ban on wheelchairs system-wide?

 

[Tetchytyke]

There never was a ban on disabled people using the Underground; only on wheelchairs.

Blind and partially sighted people could only use it by signing a disclaimer, which was a de facto ban.

Was this ban on wheelchairs system-wide?

They had restrictions on where they could go and who with- they had to be with a minder and had to give advance notice. Which again became a de facto ban.

The outright ban was just in the deep tubes, the rationale being very similar as to why bikes are banned in the deep tubes today.

 

[londontransit]

The use of the phrase "design error" to describe the lack of step-free access historically is fatuous.

One thing I'm curious about is why a particular work by a disabled person is being described as fatuous when in fact Jago Hazzard brought up much the same thing on his video at basically the same time - and there's loads of comments in there on how restrictive the tube is and how bad accessibility is - and the ban (or whatever people want to call it) is also discussed. His video gets loads of plaudits - certainly he (Jago Hazzard) implied the originality of all these problematic issues had been down to the design of Paddington tube station when it was built in 1913 because 'no one was thinking about how disabled people use the new fancy electric tube.'

The point I am making is it has had a long lasting effect. Its a design that still has a fall-out today. One can basically say the same about for example the Southern's third rail system (or even the tube's four rail system) and how this has limited the potential of those lines today.

 

[edwin_m]

One thing I'm curious about is why a particular work by a disabled person is being described as fatuous when in fact Jago Hazzard brought up much the same thing on his video at basically the same time - and there's loads of comments in there on how restrictive the tube is and how bad accessibility is - and the ban (or whatever people want to call it) is also discussed. His video gets loads of plaudits - certainly he (Jago Hazzard) implied the originality of all these problematic issues had been down to the design of Paddington tube station when it was built in 1913 because 'no one was thinking about how disabled people use the new fancy electric tube.'

The point I am making is it has had a long lasting effect. Its a design that still has a fall-out today. One can basically say the same about for example the Southern's third rail system (or even the tube's four rail system) and how this has limited the potential of those lines today.

All this is true but I don't see how it changes the fact that social norms in the early 20th century didn't include design for accessiblity, whether on the Tube or anywhere else. If we judge the past by today's standards it would fall short in many ways.

One factor I haven't noticed being mentioned is developments in medicine and treatment that make various conditions that would quickly have been fatal in that era survivable today, but with consequences such as being confined to a wheelchair. In Edwardian times I guess there would have been many more people like Bumper Harris with primitive prosthetics due to wartime or industrial injuries, who might have been able to get around independently and even use escalators. But far fewer in wheelchairs, and of course mobility scooters wouldn't exist until many years later.

 

[jumble]

Don’t know the facts here but possibilities are:
A) Ickenham needed other work urgently which the accessibility could be “bolted on” to
B) there are larger medium-term plans for Rayners Lane which would mean the work having to be re-done in a few years’ time
C) there was enough money in the pot for what Ickenham needed but not for what Rayners Lane needs
D) The planning authorities were more cooperative over Ickenham
E) “Someone” is a regular user of Ickenham
F) a combination of the above and other things I’ve not thought of.

On further investigation I have realised that Rayners Lane is Grade 2 listed and Ickenham is not which no doubt makes a huge financial and practical difference

RAYNER'S LANE LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT UNDERGROUND STATION INCLUDING SHOPS AND PLATFORMS (INCLUDING RAYNER'S LANE STATION, ALEXANDRA AVENUE), Non Civil Parish - 1261430 | Historic England

List entry 1261430. Grade II Listed Building: Rayner's Lane London Regional Transport Underground Station Including Shops And Platforms (Including Rayner's Lane Station, Alexandra Avenue). May include summary, reasons for designation and history.

historicengland.org.uk

 

[londontransit]

All this is true but I don't see how it changes the fact that social norms in the early 20th century didn't include design for accessiblity, whether on the Tube or anywhere else. If we judge the past by today's standards it would fall short in many ways.

One factor I haven't noticed being mentioned is developments in medicine and treatment that make various conditions that would quickly have been fatal in that era survivable today, but with consequences such as being confined to a wheelchair. In Edwardian times I guess there would have been many more people like Bumper Harris with primitive prosthetics due to wartime or industrial injuries, who might have been able to get around independently and even use escalators. But far fewer in wheelchairs, and of course mobility scooters wouldn't exist until many years later.

Society is no doubt facilitating many changes in which disabled people are becoming far more prevalent, besides other changes too, and its not being accommodated. Britain WILL get a huge increase in disabled people in the future as a result of those endeavours. How many newly disabled people exist today? There's far far more than anyone realises because the number is currently unquantifiable - and that number is essentially out of sight out of mind, like certain genocides that are occurring, not just in one place, but other places too.

When disabled people are hated, reviled, and seen as outcasts, its a surprise that it takes a war, a thing that indeed that started just after the opening of Paddington tube station, to exponentially the number of crips, invalids, beggars with no legs and one arm and on crutches (just trying to give an idea of what it had been like for these people and how they'll likely be viewed in the future) - and for that reason society alone should have seen things differently.

But even now, society doesn't even seem to understand what is happening. No-one knows the true number of disabled people that exist and that because many of these are new, very recent, and no doubt caused by man's abject hate and aggression, and its apparent love for war and destruction and seeking, inventing, procuring even better ways to kill or maim entire populations. That very insanity - well it will affect transport systems because the number of disabled will exponentially rise - and then people will say why are the transport systems not being improved.

Humanity doesn't seem to have learnt from the past - and its not going to learn the future from today because that will become what everyone calls the past.