Disability Resources Centre Inc.

179 High St

Reg. No. A12343Northcote

Victoria 3070

Ph 03 9489 2999

Fax 03 0489 2988

12 January 1999

To: Disability Rights Unit

HREOC

Box 5218

Sydney 1042.

Fax: 02 9284 9611

Submission to Oppose Exemption of

Melbourne Trams from the DDA.

The Disability Resources Centre Inc. is an organisation of people with disabilities with 300 members in Melbourne and throughout Victoria. It has a history of advocating for the rights of people with disabilities since 1982.

This submission is to oppose the application by the Public Transport Corporation, Met Tram 1 and Met Tram 2 (Yarra Trams and Swanston Trams), Department of Infrastructure, and the Minister for Transport, hereafter referred to as the Applicants, to exempt trams from the DDA for an initial five years, and their intention to apply for a second five year exemption.

Our arguments are as follows:

1. All stakeholders were involved in development of the Standards for Disability Transport, including the applicants, and a consensus agreement was reached. The disability sector has already made significant comprpromises agreeing to the 20 year implementation period.

2. The tram network in Melbourne is an integral part of the public transport system. It covers 238 km with significant areas not serviced by the train network. While buses make up this gap in other cities this is not the case in Melbourne. Any plans to delay making trams accessible will continue to deny people with disabilities access to public transport in many suburbs in Melbourne. This will restrict some people in areas such as employment, education, social activities, recreation, and full participation in the community.

3. The applicants do not propose to provide alternative means of transport for people with mobility impairments who are unable to access trams in areas where other accessible public transport is not available.

4. The applicants consider the tram system in isolation. Trams are but a part of the overall multimodal system, for which the Government and the PTC has substantial responsibility (as evidenced by the multimodal ticketing system). Ultimately, it is the Government which will substantially fund any requirement for trams to be made accessible. Melbourne is in the almost unique position in that the rail network is substantially accessible, and buses can be made accessible through vehicle replacement over the timeframe of the standards, with comparatively minimal costs incurred. Costs of making the tram network accessible should be considered in terms of the whole network, not trams in isolation. In setting any precedent for exemption from the DDA, costs for the Melbourne multimodal system should be compared to costs for other capital cities, eg. Sydney.

5. People with mobility handicaps who use public transport but cannot access trams still effectively pay for the use of the tram system. They pay the same full fare, or concession fare if they receive the pension, as those who can access several modes of transport. The multimodal zoned fare structure in Melbourne results in these people receiving up to 31% less value for their travel cost (assuming that 31% of public transport is taken on trams), as well as additional expense and inconvenience of accessing the currently inefficient and unreliable multipurpose taxi system to access the areas served by trams. They also pay taxes and so contribute at the same level as everyone else to subsidies received by the tram system from government revenue. People with disabilities have contributed to the costs of trams for some time. Granting an exemption to the DDA for the tram system will mean that people with mobility handicaps will continue to receive less value for their contribution to the costs of the integrated transport system than others in the community.

6. In their submission the Applicants seek to give assurances that the current trams will be replaced by accessible low floor trams in up to thirty to thirty-five years time. They also seek to give assurances that they will only ask for two five year exemptions. They tell us that their assurances at this time will commit a new generation of politicians and public servants to promises made 35 years in the past. Over the past ten years various Ministers of Transport have promised trams would be made accessible, and up until this eleventh hour bid to gain an exemption, the current Minister had included trams under the twenty year time table set out in the draft Transport Standards. People with disabilities can no longer accept assurances.

Do they have to wait until the current trams become classified icons which cannot e replaced?

7. It would be more cost effective for Victorians to modify existing trams with hoists and extending their service life from 35 years to 50 years. Work on these modifications could begin straight away and could conform to the twenty year time table. Therefore no exemption would be needed.

8. The Applicants have stated that "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." However the Applicants have failed to tell us that when they told the ATCC of their plans to request an exemption most groups represented on the Council heatedly spoke against these exemptions. The DRC is represented on the ATCC, and opposes the exemption. We are unaware of what other Disability Groups they have consulted with and question whether any significant number have agreed to the plan for exemption.

9. It has been stated by the Applicants in their application that the ATCC have endorsed the provision of low floor trams over the retro-fitting of current trams. The ATCC endorsed low floor trams as they believed the Victorian Government had committed themselves to making all public transport accessible within the twenty year time table set out in the draft Transport Standards. If this commitment cannot be met, alternatives now need to be considered.

10. The Applicants submit that retro-fitting trams rather than purchasing low floor trams over thirty to thirty-five years would represent a less desirable alternative in terms of the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. The Applicants have no idea or commitment to, the rights of people with disabilities. Imagine asking another minority group to wait thirty-five before they could use public trams. The DDA has set out a complaints system which allows people with disabilities the right to seek immediate redress where they are prevented from using Goods & Services. The draft Transport Standards will delay this redress by twenty years. Further delaying this redress by up to thirty-five years denies people with disabilities the right to use public trams. This further delay does not promote the rights of people with disabilities.

 

11. The Applicants state "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)." This statement seems to be based on very little research as people with ambulatory disabilities, elderly citizens and parents with prams would be able to use trams if they have hoists with handrails. The Federal Attorney-General’s Regulation Impact Statement on the Draft Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (page 17) quotes ABS(1993) demographic statistics that 10.3 percent of the Australian population experience handicaps which affect their mobility. Easy access to trams would allow this Group of people to continue to travel around their local communities, to the shops and community centres. In Table 3.1 (Clare and Tulpule 1994 p36) of this RIS (page 20) that in year 2041, 13.5 percent of the Australian population will experience handicaps which affect their mobility. How long will we be denied easy access to the tram network?

12. The Applicants statement "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." again seems to based on very little research, how many people in wheelchair have said they did not want retro-fitting of trams? Which Groups were consulted? What did they say?

13. The Applicants statement "tram boardings via a wheelchair lift would involve substantial disruption to timetables." is again based on very little research. At present tram time tables are affected by road conditions, heavy traffic, the numbers of people boarding and/or alighting, accidents etc. Trams will be no different to buses, for which the Applicants have not claimed any exemptions.

14. The Applicants have stated that "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" That "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." Further that "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.

As we can see from the above the Victorian Government still intend to financially support any successful commercial tender bid. Given that the "return of profit" will never be large enough for the commercial franchises to pay for the capital expenditure of fleet replacement, the Government would retain ownership and responsibility of these assets.

The Victorian Government can remove any uncertainly compliance with the DDA may cause Commercial franchises by publicly committing themselves to paying the costs of retro-fitting trams in accordance with the twenty year time table set out in the draft Transport Standards.

15. The Applicants state that "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." These costs are based on retro-fitting hoists to both sides of the tram as when it reaches the end of the line it cannot turn around. However if at the end of the line the trams tracks were extended down a side street or T intersection these trams could turn around and would only need retro-fitting on one side. This would seems to save $34 million however we would have to build T turns at the start and end of each of the 26 tram lines (cost $?). Further if trams could turn around they would not need drivers controls and motors at each end or door openings on both sides. This would result in lower costs to replace these trams at some future time.

16. The Applicants in paragraph 2.2.4 of their application set out the replacement rates of the 423 Z, A and B-class trams according to the DDA Draft Standard and their proposal to replace trams at the end of their design life.

Timeline and target Cumulative number of vehicles

replacement date replaced

Number of years According to Draft According to

Standards design life

After 5 years (25%) 106 nil

After 10 years (55%) 233 62

After 15 years (90%) 381 256

After 20 years (100%) 423 291

After 25 years 423 331

After 30 years 423 423

The difference in these two plans for accessibility is 171 trams in the first ten years, if these trams were retro-fitted with hoists and the applicants introduced low floored trams according to their time table, then compliance would be achieved after 15 years! The cost of this would be $27.36 million over ten years using the Rust PPK formula or $13.5 million if only one side of the tram was fitted with a hoist.

17. We believe that there may be other options available which have not been examined - sale of trams to a system where raised platforms could be provided at stops may be an option in the future. Granting the exemption will result in further options not being rigorously explored.

18. With regard to W Class Trams the applicants claim they are an icon of Melbourne and draw $2.58 billion (60% of $4.3b) of Tourism to the Melbourne area each year. This is a very debatable claim. We would submit that it is the uniqueness of our Tram network that has Tourist potential, not W Class Trams. To Melbourne people and visitors who cannot use them they have been a symbol of segregation and exclusion for the last forty years.

Retaining W Class Trams for their Heritage Tourist value may seem very noble but when they will continue to exclude ten to thirteen percent of the Melbourne population from using them we must re-think our priorities and values. We believe a hoist could be added to these trams while retaining their facades and only making minor modifications inside.

We note that the applicants have stated that the free city circle trams will continue, and that these provide free transport around the city for the general population as well as tourists.. We note that some tourists have impaired mobility, and that there is a need for access in the same way as to other transport.

We also note that the applicants intend to continue to provide an accessible bus servicing areas south of the city. This bus was instigated on closure of the accessible heavy rail lines to St Kilda and Port Melbourne, and many of our members were involved in protests at that time. We do not believe that provision of a segregated bus because of current inaccessibility of light rail and trams should be used to justify continued inaccessibility of public transport in this area.

Conclusion

Members of the DRC do not believe that .the applicants should be granted an exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act. Trams form an integral part of Melbourne’s public transport system, and should not be considered in isolation. People with mobility handicaps have contributed to the costs of public transport for many years through purchase of multimodal tickets and contributing to government revenue, but have not had access to trams. Lower cost options for accessibility within the timeframes of the DDA are possible, and should be explored further. Granting an exemption to the applicants would be against the spirit and the intentions of the DDA and the Transport Standards, would be contrary to the consensus process used to establish the Standards, and may set unfortunate precedents for other transport providers.

Further we submit that a Public Hearing be held in Melbourne to formally receive these submissions and allow for additional ideas and comments.

Finally we are happy that this submission be a public document. We look forward to reading other submissions and presenting our comments to the Public Hearing.

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

Graham Smith

Chairperson