Skip to main content

Cost/Benefit Analysis

I notice that a great deal of work is being done to make the London Underground accessible to wheelchair users.

All very laudable, you might think.

The only problem is that the design of most of the Underground makes it essentially impossible to provide step free access from Street to Platform at almost all of the deep line stations. The cost of providing such access is essentially the same cost as building a complete a complete new Underground system. This is a sum of money that is about equal to the total annual GDP of the UK- One Trillion Pounds, probably not counting the economic dislocation that such a massive job would cause.

There are people who think that this money should be spent regardless. Certainly new stations should be built with wheelchair access in mind- as has been the case with the Jubilee line. Where possible, older stations could also be modified. However those who want immediate and complete wheelchair access are demanding a benefit that is out of all proportion to the enormous cost.

It is not just disabled access. In most fields of British politics at the moment, it is pretty clear that adequate cost/benefit analysis is simply not undertaken. Massive over regulation is now required of small businesses that carries a burden way in excess of any conceivable benefits.

Even giving every wheelchair user a gold plated Rolls Royce and chauffeur on call 24 hours a day is a tiny fraction of the cost of rebuilding the Underground. There are far more helpful and realistic options in helping wheelchair users get practically mobile.

There is an urgent need to subject most regulations to a cost benefit analysis- and abolish the ones that do not measure up.


Anonymous said…
Then there is the accepted equivalance between disabled access and wheelchair access. Are they also making Underground stations more accessible for the blind and the deaf?
Anonymous said…
You could of course spend about a hundreth of the amount designing a wheelchair to go down escalators.

Something for London Underground to invest in perhaps?

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo