Application for temporary exemption - Melbourne trams

21st Century Accessibility

This is the text of an exemption application lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by the applicants named below. It represents the applicants' views and is not a Commission document. It is posted on this site to facilitate public comment. Please refer to the Information Sheet for information about how to obtain hard copies.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55

EXEMPTION APPLICATION BY:

PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORPORATION

MET TRAM 1 and MET TRAM 2

(YARRA TRAMS AND SWANSTON TRAMS)

DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT

 

November 1998

Application for exemption from sections 23 and 24 of the Act in so far as they relate to tram/light rail services in Melbourne.

In the context of this application, any reference to the Public Transport Corporation means the PTC and any successor, transmittee, assignee, franchisee, or subcontractor (whether immediate or not) of the whole or part of the business conducted by the PTC.

Similarly, in the context of this application, any reference to Met Tram 1 or Met Tram 2 (Yarra Trams and Swanston Trams) means Met Tram 1 or Met Tram 2 and any successor, transmittee, assignee, franchisee, or subcontractor (whether immediate or not) of the whole or part of the businesses conducted by Met Tram 1 or Met Tram 2.

1.1 PREAMBLE

Compared with all other Australian cities, Melbourne's very extensive tram service network is a unique feature of the public transport system. In all other cities, the primary mode of on-road public transport is bus.

While Adelaide and Sydney do have single light rail/tram routes, these services are minor. In Melbourne, trams carry around 35 per cent of all public transport boardings; in the city centre and city fringe areas trams carry virtually all of the relatively short distance 'distributor' trips that are made. (The dominant role of train services is to carry longer distance commuters into the city and the major role of bus services is to service local and cross-suburban needs.)

Trams are designed to have a long service life and, as a consequence, some of the requirements imposed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) are open to a degree of uncertainty.

This Exemption Application is being submitted to minimise this uncertainty.

Victoria has been a strong supporter of the DDA, both in general and specifically in regard to public transport operations. To confirm its commitments, a DDA Action Plan has recently been lodged with the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), outlining all measures being taken to progressively make Victorian public transport services compliant with the DDA, including the intention to respond to the Draft Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (Draft Standards) by introducing low-floor trams to Melbourne's services when the current trams reach an age of approximately 30-35 years. This is considerably in advance of the maximum achievable service life for a tram, which is at least 40-50 years.

Under normal circumstances, submission of the Action Plan may have been, of itself, sufficient to remove most uncertainty. However, the special circumstances associated with the forthcoming privatisation of the operations of all Victorian public transport services mean that it is appropriate to submit to a formal process by way of this Exemption Application for Victoria's tram fleet replacement proposals. Thus, this Exemption Application is being submitted to confirm Victoria's commitment to the objectives of the DDA, as demonstrated by its intention to bring forward the replacement of trams. It is also intended to gain as much certainty as is possible so that the forthcoming privatisation process is not unduly complicated by the necessarily non-prescriptive nature of the wording in the DDA.

1.2 THE APPLICANTS

1.2.1 Name of applicant and the persons on whose behalf the application is made

This Exemption Application is submitted jointly by:

• the Public Transport Corporation (PTC), as established under the Transport Act 1993
• Met Tram 1 and Met Tram 2, as established under the Rail Corporations (Amendment) Act 1997, and which are now known as Yarra Trams (YT) and Swanston Trams (ST)
• the Department of Infrastructure (DoI), which administers the operation of public transport in Victoria under the provisions of the Transport Act and other legislation
• the Minister for Transport.

In the context of this Application, any reference to the PTC means the PTC and any successor, transmittee, assignee, franchisee, or subcontractor (whether immediate or not) of the whole or part of the business conducted by the PTC. Similarly, in the context of this Application, any reference to Met Tram 1 or Met Tram 2 (YT and ST) means Met Tram 1 or Met Tram 2 and any successor, transmittee, assignee, franchisee, or subcontractor (whether immediate or not) of the whole or part of the businesses conducted by Met Tram 1 or Met Tram 2

The Application is being submitted in the names of the present operators and other parties because the organisational and ownership regime applicable to public transport in Victoria is currently being reformed; this is further discussed in section 1.2.3. Throughout the rest of this application the various parties are referred to as 'the Applicants'.

In the course of consultations conducted prior to submission of this application, especially with the Accessible Transport Consultative Council (a reference group established to provide policy input to the Minister for Transport), it has become clear to the Applicants that users are concerned that the privatisation process does not diminish progress towards accessibility. Inclusion of any successors, transmittees, assignees, franchisees or subcontractors to the current operators, therefore, serves to offer a guarantee to users that incoming operators will be bound to follow the tram fleet improvement program set out in this application. It also serves the dual purpose of providing for understanding of, and commitment to, the intended tram replacement program by incoming operators at the bid stage, while offering them protection against complaints which could otherwise arise in early years, before the proposed fleet replacement program commences.

1.2.2 Exemptions under the DDA

From previous cases (notably re: Women's Legal Service), it is understood that the power to grant exemptions should only be exercised by HREOC to further the objects of the DDA. Therefore, an applicant for an exemption must prove that the public interest in having the objects of the DDA furthered would be met if the exemption were granted.

It is also accepted that evidence demonstrating unjustifiable hardship to the applicant is not sufficient to justify the grant of an exemption, but that evidence showing hardship is a relevant consideration for HREOC to take into account on an application for an exemption.

The Applicants submit that the exemption sought in this Application advances the objects of the DDA and incidentally relieves an unjustifiable hardship that the Applicants would suffer if the exemption were not granted. While the Applicants understand that exemptions can only be sought under the DDA, not the proposed Disability Standards, in seeking to demonstrate this hardship the Applicants have had regard to the assessment criteria relating to unjustifiable hardship which are discussed in sections 33.9 - 33.11 of the Draft Standards. This issue is discussed further in section2.2.2.

In summary, the Applicants are seeking an exemption from complaints which could arise from their failure to replace existing trams with accessible vehicles ahead of a proposed replacement timetable set out in the Application. The Applicants have devised the fleet replacement timetable in consideration of their obligations to provide accessible public transport on the basis that the proposal is, from the point of view of people with a disability, the best viable method for meeting the objects of the DDA and complying with the Draft Standards.

The replacement timetable is not driven by commercial necessity nor is it the lowest cost alternative to achieve compliance. The replacement timetable can only be implemented if full compliance with accessibility requirements (as assessed by the Applicants on the basis of the Draft Standards) is deferred through the grant of this exemption. If the exemption is not granted and the Applicants are obliged to comply sooner, accessibility may be achieved through retro-fitting of trams with hoists or lifts, with the vehicles not then replaced for many years. The Applicants submit that this would represent a less desirable alternative in terms of the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. Therefore, the circumstances of the application are a clear case where better long-term compliance with the objects of the DDA is achieved by the grant of a temporary exemption.

The Application is made in the context of a comprehensive program of removal of barriers to accessibility and the Application details other measures being taken by the Applicants in accordance with the objects of the DDA. The Application also provides details of the hardship which would be suffered by the Applicants if the exemption were not granted.

1.2.3 Operational and ownership arrangements

The major legislation covering public transport operation in Victoria is the Transport Act 1983. The PTC was established under that Act to:

efficiently manage and provide safe and reliable transport services that have due recognition for the needs and interests of the users of those services and the taxpayers of Victoria and that complement the transport services provided by any other person or body under contract with the Secretary (of DOI).

The Rail Corporations Act 1996, and the Rail Corporations (Amendment) Act 1997 are recent pieces of enabling legislation to facilitate reform of the operation of train and tram services in Victoria. Under the provisions of the 1997 Act, YT and ST have been established as distinct and self-contained entities, each with their own staff, vehicles and infrastructure and each providing a defined part of the tram network. Since 1 July 1998, YT and ST have functioned as fully corporatised entities, each with their own Boards and Chief Executives.

As part of the State Government's announced policy intentions for public transport, the PTC has ceased to be an operator and YT and ST are to be sold/franchised in a tender process which is to commence later in 1998 and culminate in new operators being in place during 1999. The new operators will operate under contracts with DOI.

1.3 EXEMPTED ACTIVITY

The Applicants submit this Exemption Application in regard to the provision of tram and light rail services in Melbourne. Specifically the activity for which an exemption is sought is the provision of tram and light rail services to the public of Melbourne with respect to the physical ingress to (boarding) and egress from (alighting) vehicles used by the operator.

In terms of the DDA and the Draft Standards, tram and light rail services in Melbourne are inaccessible because the vehicles can only be boarded via steps ( the relevant Draft Standards are 8.1 - 8.3 and 8.5 - 8.8 concerning boarding and 14.1 -14.3 concerning stairs). This Application does not seek exemption from Standards not related to physical access (refer section 2.2.6 of this Application).

It should also be noted that the width and other layout features of the mid-roadway tram waiting areas known as safety zones have been designed with regard to the current vehicle boarding regime; it is not intended to fundamentally redesign safety zones ahead of the fleet replacement program, so, to that extent, the Application is also intended to cover safety zones. (But it should be noted that the provisions of Draft Standards relating to matters such as signage, information displays and colour contrasting paintwork will be complied with at safety zones in accordance with the expected timelines and are not included in the Application.)

1.4 EXEMPTED DDA PROVISIONS

The exemption is sought from the provisions of section 23 of the DDA, to the extent that the definition of 'premises' in that section covers vehicles and, therefore, encompasses trams and light rail vehicles; and section 24, which refers to the provision of goods and services, and public transport is included within the definition of a service, and which encompasses the transport services themselves and also any ancillary facilities such as safety zones.

1.5 PERIOD OF EXEMPTION

The Applicants seek the exemption for the maximum period of five years allowed by the DDA. As discussed in section 2.2 of this paper, the Applicants assert that a tram fleet replacement program should begin in 2008 and therefore a follow-on to the current exemption could be sought at the time of its expiry (although the Applicants also understand that, if Disability Standards are proclaimed, the process of seeking exemption will be superseded and they would be obliged to rely on a defence of unjustifiable hardship under the provisions of the Disability Standards if a complaint should be lodged).

2.1 MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

The Applicants have formulated the fleet replacement policies which they intend to follow; these replacement policies, as discussed further in section 2.2 of this application, will become part of the business planning documentation issued in support of the forthcoming tender specifications. For commercial reasons, it is imperative that the proposed privatisation process includes the clearest possible statement of the status of the proposed fleet replacement schedule under the DDA. The key facts which have contributed to the development of the proposed tram-fleet-replacement schedule are:

1. Melbourne has a large fleet of trams, comprising 476 vehicles in daily service. This is much larger than in any other Australian capital city, as Adelaide (21 vehicles) and Sydney (seven vehicles) are the only other capital cities with tram services.
2. The Melbourne tram fleet is quite modern, since more than 400 of the vehicles have been commissioned within the past 20 years. Nevertheless, the tram system has a significant historical characteristic, which sets it apart from the public transport system in other cities; this is reinforced by the heritage value associated with the 53 older-style W-class trams, which remain in service and which are more than 40 years old and have the status of being a Melbourne icon.
3. Trams are designed to have long service lives, as confirmed by the results of a recent consultancy study conducted by the international firm Interfleet Technology Ltd, which indicated that Melbourne's modern-style trams (Z, A and B-class) could achieve service lives of at least 40 years. This means decisions about how to achieve accessibility on the tram network are correspondingly more complex than for other public transport vehicles.

2.2 GROUNDS FOR THE EXEMPTION

2.2.1 Commercial nature of new contract arrangements

In seeking to become the new owners of YT or ST, prospective operators will be establishing themselves on a fully commercial footing. In essence, their bid will nominate a rate of required government funding, to which they will add their estimated fare revenue from passengers in order to cover their costs and return a profit.

The Government is entering the transport reform process for a number of reasons, but one key objective is to achieve a lower overall publicly-funded financial contribution via the competitive bidding processes, and the introduction of world-class operating expertise and innovation.

The replacement policy currently formulated does not necessitate any trams being replaced until approximately 2008. This is compatible with the intention to offer an initial seven-year franchise for tram operators (1999-2006) which would not require capital funding to be provided for investment in fleet replacement. Subsequent franchises may be longer, up to 15 years, given that fleet replacement and the associated availability of capital funds would then be required.

2.2.2 Victoria's approach to the DDA

The DDA was passed by Federal Parliament in October 1992 and became operative in March 1993; it is consistent with broader, modern social justice legislation in place in Australia and in many other countries.

The DDA acknowledges that the achievement of immediate and comprehensive compliance with such a far reaching piece of legislation could not reasonably be expected. Primarily for this reason, section 31 of the DDA provides for the formulation and promulgation of Disability Standards, and sections 59-65 cover the development of Action Plans by service providers.

Public transport is one of the areas where Disability Standards are envisaged (other areas include employment, education and accommodation). Once Disability Standards are promulgated, it will become unlawful not to comply with them. The aim of the Disability Standards is to set timelines, with legislative force, for achieving equal access and to provide more definitive benchmarks for what constitutes accessibility and equality.

Draft Standards for accessible public transport have been in the public domain as a discussion paper for several years; a formal Regulation Impact Statement is currently being finalised and it is expected that promulgation will take place by early 1999. The proclaimed Disability Standards are not expected to differ substantially from the current Draft Standards.

 

DOI has recently prepared a comprehensive Action Plan, to be lodged with HREOC. The Action Plan outlines Victoria's approach to meeting its obligations under the DDA and the Draft Standards, and includes commitments to implement a range of measures across the public transport system, including trams, to meet the objects of the DDA and the specific requirements of the Draft Standards.

The Action Plan flows from and summarises the extensive work already done in Victoria to improve accessibility to public transport for people with disabilities; this has included the conduct of comprehensive access audits, the establishment of ongoing consultative mechanisms so that the Minister receives informed advice on accessibility issues, the creation of a specialist unit within DOI and the commencement of programs to remove many barriers to access.

The Applicants regard the Draft Standards as illustrative of the obligations arising under the DDA and have proceeded on the basis that, where the Applicants cannot comply with the Draft Standards (leaving aside issues relating to unjustifiable hardship), they may be in breach of the DDA (again leaving aside a defence of unjustifiable hardship).

In the case of trams, the Draft Standards relating to boarding (Standards 8.1-8.3 and 8.5-8.8) and stairs (Standards 14.1-14.3), which require full compliance to be achieved in 20 years with progressive milestones of 25 per cent, 55 per cent and 90 per cent required after five, 10 and 15 years, are not met by the current trams as steps are the only means of access onto a vehicle, boarding devices such as ramps or lifts are not provided and the geometry and configuration of the steps are not in accordance with required dimensions. It is on this basis that the Applicants are seeking the exemption, as the Action Plan includes reference to an intended fleet replacement rate which is designed to overcome the present breaches but will not conform to the compliance schedule in the Draft Standards. The proposed fleet replacement program is discussed in the following sub-sections.

2.2.3 The Melbourne tram fleet

The total operational fleet of trams comprises a number of different vehicle types, as follows:

 

 

* Note: all trams are rigid-bodied vehicles, except the B-class trams, which are larger capacity, articulated vehicles. 130 of the B-class vehicles were delivered in a program between 1988 and 1994, but two prototypes were delivered earlier, in 1984 and 1985.

All trams are designed to have an extremely strong body shell and repairs/maintenance are undertaken on a modular basis. The Applicants have received advice from Interfleet Technology Ltd that the current good condition of the vehicles and reasonable maintenance costs are such that, in the absence of statutory requirements for access, there is unlikely to be an engineering, safety or commercial reason to begin a fleet replacement program for at least 20 years. The high cost of new trams, approximately $2 million for a rigid vehicle and $3 million for an articulated vehicle, means that significant repair/replacement of individual components will be justified on commercial grounds in preference to purchasing a new vehicle.

Given their long service life, the position of trams in relation to the timelines embodied in the Draft Standards is ambiguous. Explanatory guidelines have been issued with the Draft Standards and, in referring to the timely adoption of the Draft Standards, it is stated:

Public transport is primarily expected to become accessible by replacement or upgrading of conveyances, premises and infrastructure at the end of their service lives. All new items must comply so that non-conforming stock is gradually retired or upgraded.

But the Draft Standards themselves nominate a compliance timetable which indicates that boarding facilities should become accessible, most likely requiring fleet replacement, at the following rate:

 

For buses, which are the primary mode of on-road public transport in other States and Territories, there is no inconsistency between the timelines in the Draft Standards and the intent expressed in the explanatory guidelines, as the vast majority of major bus fleets are replaced within a 20-25 year cycle. For trains, the fleet replacement issue does not arise as the vehicles are built to match the height of platforms anyway, and the Disability Standards will not create the need to replace vehicles.

However, as already stated, the effective maximum service life for Melbourne's trams greatly exceeds 20 years (the W-class trams are already 50 years old on average). Assuming that a life of 40-50 years is achievable for the other trams, this service-life benchmark would result in perhaps 100-150 trams being replaced within 20 years (approximately one-third of the fleet, not the 100 per cent likely to be implied by the Disability Standards).

Clearly, in the case of trams, the intent of the DDA as expressed in the Explanatory Guidelines to the proposed Draft Standards does not match the outcome which would be required if the milestones contained in the Draft Standards were to be literally applied.

The concept of the engineering or design life of a tram can also be considered as an alternative to service life. For trams, this design life is usually adjudged to be 30-35 years, and this is the basis of most design specifications and financial analyses of replacement options, as well as the most common minimum life for a tram quoted in worldwide references. Even on the basis of this life span, the rate of tram replacement would not meet the targets implied by the Draft Standards.

2.2.4 Z, A and B-class trams

There are 423 tram vehicles of the Z, A and B-class types. These vehicles are used to operate the vast majority of the overall tram network. The oldest of the trams was purchased 23 years ago; thus no vehicle requires replacement for many years and, even on the basis of replacement at the end of design life, no vehicle would be replaced for at least another seven years.

The implications of this replacement situation have been analysed in terms of compliance with the DDA and the Draft Standards. A comparison of the replacement rates implied by the Draft Standards and engineering life is as follows.

*Note: Assumes proclamation of Disability Standards in early 1999.

 

Fleet replacement is not necessarily the only method of achieving compliance with the Standards; in the Melbourne circumstances there are two other alternatives. These have been examined and are discussed below.

i) Retro-fitting of trams with wheelchair hoists to achieve compliance and then retention of the trams indefinitely.

The major device to be fitted in a retro-fit program would be a wheelchair lift or hoist, with consequent changes to the tram body and doors and to the interior of the vehicle. (Changes at safety zones and other stops would also be required.) It has been estimated by the consultants Rust PPK that the cost of a retro-fit program would be up to $160,000 per tram or approximately $68 million for the total fleet of 423 vehicles. A retro-fit program could be spread over 20 years as a means of meeting the progressive compliance timelines and the trams, once retro-fitted, would not need to be replaced until at least after a 40 or 50-year service life. As a means of meeting the compliance targets and yet avoiding (or at least substantially deferring) the much higher costs of full fleet replacement, retro-fitting can be seen as an attractive commercial approach.

However, on many other grounds, it is not seen as desirable; it is widely acknowledged that retro-fitting of wheelchair hoists is a poor solution from a customer perspective. Among the reasons for this are:

• hoists do not offer benefits for passengers other than those in wheelchairs (it is estimated that only around 1 per cent of people classified as having a disability would benefit from a wheelchair hoist)
• it is likely that many people in wheelchairs would still be concerned about the extent of the benefit they would derive from a wheelchair hoist retro-fitted to a tram.
• tram boardings via a wheelchair lift would involve substantial disruption to timetables.

Previous consultation with disability reference groups in Melbourne was conducted on this issue during 1996 and at that time the Accessible Transport Consultative Council confirmed, in a letter to the Minister, that retro-fitting is not considered to be the most beneficial option.

This opinion was given in the context of it being apparent from international evidence that a range of low-floor designs for new vehicles are available and would offer more accessibility benefits. As a consequence, the retro-fitting option is not the Applicants' preferred outcome. (Discussion of the process of selecting a particular low-floor design for Melbourne's conditions is in section 2.2.6.)

ii) Use of other modes

Under this option, tram services could be replaced or supplemented by other modes of transport, involving some combination of:

• partial or full replacement of the tram system with low-floor buses to achieve accessibility
• retention of trams but operation of an accessible bus service or an expanded Multi Purpose Taxi scheme as a comprehensive parallel service.

This alternative is considered either unworkable or undesirable, basically on the grounds that it is either:

• outside Victoria's policy to retain trams; or
• outside the intention of the DDA, which is clearly designed to achieve accessibility through policies of inclusion (parallel systems are envisaged by the DDA and the Draft Standards in certain interim circumstances, but not on a systemwide and long-term footing).

Fleet replacement is, therefore, the only remaining feasible option. The Applicants' intention is to commit to replace current trams with low-floor vehicles much in advance of their open-ended service lives, according to a schedule derived from assuming an engineering/design life of 30-35 years and resulting in a reasonable extension beyond the compliance schedule included in the Draft Standards. This will require a commitment to fleet replacement funding of approximately $1 billion, to be incurred as follows:

 

 

*Note: the fleet replacement program would actually begin in 2008 and conclude in approximately 2026.

This replacement program may ultimately be refined to some extent, mainly in order to smooth the delivery schedules of new vehicles. To the extent that the proposed fleet replacement program has been derived with regard to a reasonable extension of time beyond that required by the Draft Standards, the Applicants would also reserve the right to review the proposed fleet replacement schedule if the proclaimed Disability Standards differ substantially from the Draft Standards. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the alternative methods of achieving accessibility, the Applicants assert that the proposed replacement schedule is the best method of advancing the objectives of the DDA and providing a superior standard of service to all passengers.

It would be unreasonable, on both engineering and financial grounds, to expect this replacement schedule to be significantly advanced to meet the timetable in the Draft Standards. In any case, the additional community benefits from a more accelerated replacement rate would not be substantial when the alternative access measures detailed in section 2.2.6 of this application are also taken into account.

The financial penalty of bringing forward the tram replacement program to fit within the 20-year timelines has been estimated by KPMG consultants to have a present value of approximately $400 million (this exercise compared an immediate commencement to a fleet purchase program against the base case of beginning to introduce new trams from 2008, with all comparisons expressed in 1998 dollar values and with the present value calculated from the proposed start of the replacement program in 2008).

The financial penalty of $400 million, equivalent to approximately $45 million a year in present value terms, compares to an annual revenue stream from passenger fares of approximately $82 million, and the magnitude of this differential is such that a future private operator, making decisions only on commercial grounds, would seek to re-examine retro-fitting options, review the method of providing services or dramatically increase fares in preference to implementing the vehicle purchase program (with the required fare adjustment being of the order of 40 per cent and, as such, being unachievable in Melbourne's multi-modal fares system). In all the circumstances, the extension of approximately seven years to achieve full accessibility on trams is claimed to be reasonable.

The tram fleet replacement program would involve the purchase and operation of low-floor trams which, when operated in conjunction with a bridging ramp, will meet all relevant Standards. The full design details of the new trams have not yet been decided as a number of alternative styles are available; this is discussed further in section 2.2.6. In parallel with the intended vehicle purchase program, associated tram-stop infrastructure, including safety zones, would be reviewed and, where necessary, remedied to be compatible with the new vehicles and with the appropriate Disability Standards.

2.2.5 W-class trams

The Applicants own approximately 200 older-style W-class trams, all of which are at least 40 years old. Many of the W-class trams are in storage at depots; over recent years, up to 100 have been required for service, either in regular operating rosters or as reserve vehicles to cover breakdowns. The trams are widely regarded as icons of Melbourne, as demonstrated by their frequent inclusion as features in tourism and other promotional material for the city. The City Circle tram service, operated exclusively by older trams, has recently won a major tourism award and is developed under the oversight of a committee which includes representatives of Tourism Victoria and the Melbourne Convention and Marketing Bureau.

In their 1996 publication, Profile of Travel to Victorian Regions, Tourism Victoria estimated that tourism activity had generated approximately $4.3 billion for the Victorian economy in 1995, and approximately 60 per cent of this occurred in and around Melbourne. The unique appeal of the older trams is one of the key identifiers used to differentiate Melbourne from other potential destinations.

There has been significant National Trust interest in the historical nature of the trams. In December 1997, the Trust's conservation officer was quoted as stating that 'Melbourne would lose some of its identity if the W-class trams were scrapped' (Herald Sun, 13 December 1997). In October 1997, the Chairman of the Trust, Simon Molesworth, wrote to the Minister and emphasised that: 'W-class trams are an important part of Melbourne's heritage assets, enjoyed by both tourists and commuters' and that: 'the National Trust, and indeed the wider community, expects that significant numbers of W-class trams will remain on the streets of Melbourne.' (National Trust letter to the Hon. Robin Cooper, 3 October 1997.) This has led to an agreement by the Minister that 53 will continue in public transport usage for heritage retention.

While it is acknowledged that the trams are not accessible, the requirement for accessibility needs to be balanced against heritage and other issues. To achieve this it is expected that DOI and the new operators will negotiate an overall tram deployment regime such that use of the W-class trams provides for maximum visibility in a tourist/heritage/ city image sense, but that their use in public transport terms is increasingly that of a niche role. It is expected that the W-class vehicles will be mainly deployed on services such as:

• the free City Circle route, which offers tourists and other city visitors a heritage/experience trip around the edges of the Central Activities District
• St Kilda Road trips where there are multiple routes and the overall frequency of trams is such that there will never be a long wait for an alternative vehicle (for example, route 8 to Toorak, which is a relatively short route beyond the St Kilda Road section, and route 16 to St Kilda Beach, which has nearby alternative routes on that part of the route beyond St Kilda Road)
• city shuttle services (for example, Brunswick Street to Spencer Street along Macarthur Street and Collins Street) which are typically provided in the busy middle-of-the-day peak to supplement other trams and where the frequency is again such that a long wait for another tram is never necessary
• route 12, to South Melbourne and St Kilda Beach, where alternative tram routes into the city are close by, and a demand responsive accessible bus service also operates.

It is the Applicants' contention that no decision about the retro-fitting or replacement of W-class trams should be made at this time. This takes account of:

• the reasonableness of the desire to retain some W-class trams in operation for heritage purposes
• the likely feasibility of deploying W-class trams on services where other vehicles are also available (with the ability to review this aspect as further details of fleet deployment are finalised)
• the ability to revisit the retro-fitting option for W-class trams in the future if technical innovations emerge which would allow retro-fitting without damage to the historical value.

All other measures mentioned in the following section of this application will be implemented equivalently for all trams in service, including W-class trams.

2.2.6 Alternative measures and commitments

As well as bringing forward a $978 million program of tram replacement, by replacing vehicles at the end of their design life not their service life, the following interim actions will also be adopted.

a) Other tram accessibility measures

This Exemption Application is being developed in parallel with a comprehensive Action Plan for the entire Victorian public transport network. A number of other accessibility measures relating to trams are committed to in that Action Plan and will be implemented ahead of the proposed fleet replacement.

In particular, a number of on-vehicle measures will be continued, including improvements to such features as stop buttons, pull cords, grab rails, handrails, lighting along tram aisles and destination signs. There will also be thorough maintenance of these features, once they are implemented, and also of the yellow coating on step edges and stanchions, which is already substantially implemented.

b) Bus/Train services

Notwithstanding the tram fleet replacement rate, progress towards the accessibility of Melbourne's public transport network is already substantial and will continue to be in accordance with the objects of the DDA and the Disability Standards, as outlined in the Action Plan already referred to.

In particular, while the network of tram routes is quite extensive, it is not isolated from the rest of Melbourne's suburban public transport services. The metropolitan train system is already largely accessible and bus fleet replacement is to occur at the rate of 80 low-floor vehicles a year. There are many locations on the tram network where the alternative of using a bus/train journey is also available.

The central public transport information service will be equipped to offer advice on these alternatives.

c) Customer Service Employees

The tram network has roving Customer Service Employees on the system; these employees are trained in customer service and provide direct assistance whenever appropriate.

d) Direct assistance by drivers

Melbourne's tram system is now a driver-only system.

Tram drivers are available to provide direct assistance to passengers as reasonably required; new tram drivers undergo customer service training which includes a disability awareness module, and any refresher training for existing drivers will include a similar module.

e) Detailed investigation of vehicle designs

Prior to the current trams reaching the end of their design life, the Applicants will undertake a comprehensive investigation of alternative low-floor vehicle designs and the interactions between different vehicle configurations and infrastructure requirements. It is envisaged that this investigation could involve the digitised simulation of the operation of low-floor trams in Melbourne's conditions to assist in the development of appropriate specifications for the design of new trams, the associated remedial work at safety zones, and all interaction between vehicles and infrastructure. If appropriate to optimise the outcome of this investigation, consideration will be given to the advance acquisition of some pilot low-floor trams to test alternative operating solutions.

This would achieve a number of highly desirable objectives most importantly:

• allowing the comprehensive fleet replacement program to begin early in the second franchise on the basis of the pilot program results
• facilitating the evaluation of several alternative designs to allow informed selection of the best low-floor tram for Melbourne
• demonstrating how a fully low-floor system will eventually operate
• contributing to better identification of the associated infrastructure improvements that are needed, especially at safety zones, and the testing of alternative treatments at such locations.