The Illusion of Accessibility
Adding a ramp to a bus or a lift at a station is often hailed as a victory for inclusion. But this is frequently an illusion of accessibility, a box-ticking exercise that misses the point entirely. True inclusion is not a feature; it's a seamless system.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, mandates a barrier-free environment, but implementation has been patchy. A ramp is useless if the footpath leading to the bus stop is broken or non-existent. A wheelchair-accessible train compartment serves no one if the station platform has a gap that’s impossible to cross. This focus on isolated features over a holistic journey creates a landscape of ‘partial accessibility’ which, for the user, is often the same as no accessibility at all. In India, a vast majority of public buses are not fully accessible, perpetuating a state of immobility for many. The problem is that we've confused the tools of inclusion with the experience of it.
If You Build It, Why Don't They Come?
When inclusive infrastructure goes unused, the easy conclusion is to blame a lack of demand. The reality is far more complex. Low usage is often a symptom of systemic failure, not user indifference. One major reason is the severe lack of awareness and information. How is a visually impaired person to know which bus is approaching if there are no audio announcements? Another significant barrier is the failure of the surrounding environment. Last-mile connectivity is a term often used in logistics, but it's a daily struggle for people with disabilities. If getting to the 'accessible' metro station requires navigating treacherous roads and non-existent footpaths, the service has failed before the journey even begins. Furthermore, a lack of sensitisation among transport staff can turn a potential user away for good; reports of bus conductors being unwilling or unable to operate ramps are common. Low usage, therefore, is not a verdict on the need for inclusion, but a clear sign that the design is incomplete.
The Burden of Usefulness
This brings us back to the headline's provocative claim. Placing the burden of ‘usefulness’ on the marginalised communities who are supposed to benefit is a flawed approach. It’s like building a bridge halfway across a river and blaming people for not swimming the rest of the way. The onus must be on planners, policymakers, and operators to create a system that is not just technically accessible, but also practical, reliable, and dignified. Low ridership should trigger investigation, not abandonment. It should force authorities to ask: Did we consult the community on what they actually need? Is the service affordable? Is it safe? Does it connect to the places people actually need to go? Success stories, like the 'Mo Bus' in Bhubaneswar, often hinge on being responsive to user needs with planned, reliable services and appropriate fares. True equity in transport is about ensuring fair access to resources for everyone, which goes beyond just physical infrastructure.
Inclusion Is More Than a Ramp
Perhaps the biggest mistake is defining inclusion too narrowly. While accessibility for persons with disabilities is a critical and legally mandated starting point, a truly inclusive transport system considers a much wider spectrum of needs. It addresses the safety concerns that deter women from travelling after dark. It ensures affordability for low-income households who bear a disproportionate burden of transport expenses. It creates routes that serve peripheral communities, not just affluent city centres. Projects in cities like Delhi and Ahmedabad have shown that integrating transport with urban planning can boost accessibility and ridership. In this broader sense, a transport system is 'used' by everyone, even those who don't ride it. It's used to create a more equitable city where opportunities like jobs, education, and healthcare are genuinely accessible to all citizens, not just those with the physical and financial means to reach them.
