Submission on Melbourne Trams DDA exemption application by Scott Barron

My submission is presented as an interested party to the Disability Access on the Victorian Trams. I work as an Independent Disability Consultant, and as such feel I am more than qualified to present an argument against the Applicants Exemption application. I have systematically reviewed the Exemption Application as well as the Applicants Action Plan. I have provided points of contention and discussion and put forward recommendations as to what I feel is an acceptable alternative. For ease of reading, I have referred my points of contention and discussion to the relevant section on the Applicants Exemption Application and Action Plan

ANALYSIS

THE APPLICANTS EXEMPTION APPLICATION

    1. PREAMBLE

The Applicants have proposed introducing low floor trams when the current trams reach an age of approximately 30 - 35 years. Why should an extension be given, when, in what must be their most important proposal to date they are unable to commit to a definite time frame? Either there is no consensus between the Applicants to what this time frame should be, or they are providing to HREOC and the people the Applicants should be assisting, generalities that are difficult to enforce.

The Applicant should also be made aware the Draft Standards recognise the concept of 'equivalent facilitation' - that is, alternative means of providing equal access to the same public transport service. I propose to the Applicant the use of Step Lifts as a means of providing alternative access to the trams in Victoria. This alternative will comply with the Draft Standards timeframe, as well as being more financially attractive to the Applicant. The latter point assisting with the Applicants claim for unjustifiable hardship.

Given the Applicant is claiming unjustifiable hardship with regard to the Exemption Application, I cannot understand why the representatives of the Public Transport System would be looking to take the trams out of service 10 years short of their maximum achievable life of 45-50 years. I would have assumed this strategy would minimise the return on investment from the trams. I am sure the public of Victoria would be looking for answers as to why the State Representatives for Public Transport are costing the Victorian Public millions of dollars in public transport investment. I should also state my severe doubt as to the State Governments commitment to disability accessibility over the next 30 years. It is my opinion we are seeing stalling tactics, with the problem of disability access being passed onto successive governments.

At the end of the day the concern is that the applicant is making no effort to make the trams fully Disability Accessible until at least 2008, when the fleet replacement program is at this stage due to begin. The Applicant assures us the trams will be fully accessible by 2026. The reality is, the Applicant expects the disabled community of Victoria to wait 27 years for the trams of Melbourne to be made fully accessible.

I find it difficult to believe

will find the Applicants proposal of a 27-year wait for accessibility acceptable. I find it even more suprising the Applicant states the Accessible Transport Consultative Committee has supported the Applicants proposal as the only viable alternative.

It is also worthy of noting at this stage the Accessible Transport Consultative Committee works at the invitation of the Minister for Transport - Mr Cooper, and reports directly to him.

1.2 THE APPLICANTS

1.2.2. Exemptions under the D.D.A.

I note that the Applicants claim "accessibility may be achieved through the retro - fitting of trams with hoists or lifts, with the vehicles not then replaced for many years. The Applicants claim this would represent a less desirable alternative in terms of the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities". The applicants should refer to their own study commissioned through PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd (PPK) in 1996 for Met Tram, a division of the Public Transport Corporation in Victoria. Consultation was with Major Disability Consumer Groups, Councils, VicRoads, the ATTC, and the PTC in order to obtain as broad a coverage of the access and design issues as possible. The topics for discussion were Vehicle Design, Existing Wayside Stop Conditions, Implementation and Other Issues. Design problems likely to be encountered in making A & B Class trams fully accessible were outlined and possible adaptations were described and illustrated. The consultative findings by PPK regarding Vehicle Design were:

As mentioned earlier, the State Government commissioned these findings, with input from Government Departments and Disability Consumer Groups. I am intrigued as to why they have contradicted their own commissioned findings with this application. Has the market changed that much in the 2 years since the commissioned study?

2.2 GROUNDS FOR THE EXEMPTION

2.2.1 Commercial nature of new contract arrangements.

The Applicant states "the Government is entering the transport reform process for a number of reasons…. to achieve a lower overall publicly funded financial contribution via the competitive bidding process, and the introduction of world-class operating expertise and innovation".

Whilst I can appreciate the Applicant wishes to make money out of the privatisation of the Public Transport System, I do not believe the D.D.A. should be compromised in order to achieve this outcome. A fact which the Applicant acknowledges in their exemption, stating that "evidence demonstrating unjustifiable hardship is not sufficient to justify the grant of an exemption".

2.2.2 Victoria's approach to the D.D.A.

The Applicant states the DOI "has recently prepared a comprehensive action plan". The Applicant also states the Action Plan "flows from and summarises the extensive work already done to improve accessibility to public transport for people with disabilities. In this Action Plan the Applicant is stating;

  1. The work is extensive
  2. The work is already done
  3. That the work has improved accessibility to Public Transport
  4. That this improved accessibility is for people with disability.

Further perusal of the Action Plan, more specifically the "Major Access Initiatives Already Implemented" show the following work has been performed on the Trams:

  1. Grab rails/handrails/step edges have had a yellow powder coating applied (still ongoing)
  2. Public transport information
  3. Full access audits
  4. Staff training in disability awareness
  5. Community education

I am at a loss to work out how the above supports the Applicants claim that the work performed is extensive, that the work has drastically improved accessibility to the Trams, and more importantly, how it has drastically improved accessibility for people with disabilities.

Further to the above issue the Applicant states "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…are not met by the current trams as steps are the only means of access onto a vehicle, boarding devices such as lifts and ramps are not provided and the geometry of the steps are not in accordance with the required dimensions. IT IS ON THIS BASIS that the Applicants are seeking an exemption, as the Action Plan…is designed to overcome the present breaches but will not conform to the compliance schedule in the Draft Standards.

If the Applicants had been interested in how to make the Tram system accessible, instead of how not too, they would have discovered with very little effort that the Lifts available in the market place are now more advanced, and further more have been tested in high cycle commercial applications.

The New York buses and Trams in San Diego use the Step Lift (the Folding Step). These lifts are used to replace the existing steps in the existing doorway and fold out to form a wheelchair lift when required and potentially would address the issues expressed in the application. Note that the current designs now accommodate longer wheelchairs such as motorised scooters.

In the International markets RICON are recognised as the largest manufacturer of ramps and lifts, and have developed Step Lifts for most applications. Obviously they would be the best option for product information and further details. KEVREK hold the Agency for the product in Australia, and Capital Special Vehicles hold sub-agency for Victoria.

More investigation by the Applicant would have identified that these products would fully comply with the Draft Standards relating to boarding, and hence would meet with the progressive milestones outlined in the Standard. The Applicant has stated in his application that "this is the basis for their application". If this is the basis for their application I have proven the Applicants argument to be invalid, and this being the case in point, I fail to see how the exemption can be accepted.

      1. Z, A and B-Class trams

The Applicant states the following:

  1. Hoists do not offer benefits for passengers other than those in wheelchairs
  2. 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
  3. Tram boardings via a wheelchair lift would involve substantial disruption to timetables.

It is my contention the Step lifts (the Folding Lift) would open up better tram accessibility to the following individuals in the community;

With regard to the benefits an individual in a wheelchair would get out of finally being able to access transport on one of "Melbourne's Icons", I leave you to answer what appears to be a very simple question. The fact the Applicant finds an answer in the negative probably reflects their apparent contempt and lack of empathy regarding disability accessibility.

The disruption to timetables would be no greater than the disruptions caused by the breakdown of the trams (as outlined in detail regarding the use of W class trams) or indeed, the fluctuations caused by market demand.

Of more concern however is that the Accessible Transport Consultative Committee finds a 27 year delay in getting the Victorian Trams fully Disability Accessible acceptable. Bearing in mind the members of this committee have been invited by the Applicant to represent those who don't have a voice in the political arena, I am sure their constituents would find it distressing to think they can look forward to a 27 year time frame before they have ease of accessibility to all of Melbourne's trams.

      1. W-class trams

The Applicant states "over recent years, up to 100 have been required for service, either in regular operating rosters or as reserve vehicles to cover breakdowns… the unique appeal of the older trams is one of the key identifiers used to differentiate Melbourne from other potential destinations". (I am assuming that there is a potential market here for disabled individuals?).

The Minister for Transport has agreed 53 trams will continue in Public Transport usage for heritage retention as well as general everyday usage by members of the public. As such these trams should not be immune from the D.D.A. The fact is the D.D.A. overrides the National Trust, and as such ensures the W Class trams will be retro-fitted for disability accessibility. As mentioned previously there are now Step Lifts available, which have minimal impact on the body and interior of the tram, and hence their historical value.

      1. Alternative measures and commitments

The Applicant intends to implement other tram accessibility measures, which are committed to in the Action Plan. These are stop buttons, pull cords, grab rails, handrails, lighting along tram aisles and destination signs.

Whilst I congratulate the Applicant on taking these measures, their strategy still does not address fully how they propose to allow full disability access onto their trams within the next 27 years. At this stage the individuals who have accessibility problems with the trams are unable to fully access the trams until the end of the 27-year period. I cannot see how this satisfies D.D.A. requirements. It is also nice to think that if, and when the disability community finally manages to get onto the trams they will have these devices to assistance them.

THE ACTION PLAN

4.2 IDENTIFIED BARRIERS TO ACCESS

4.2.1 Indicative size of the disability market

The Applicant identifies the disability population as being approximately 18.35% or 607,900 Melbournians. They have also noted quite correctly, that as our population ages the overall incidence of disability is expected to increase by 2011 to approximately 750,000

 

 

4.3.4. Multi Purpose Taxi Scheme

The Applicant states in their Action Plan "there are currently more than 180,000 eligible users of the (taxi) scheme in Victoria". Given there is a population of 3.322 million people in Victoria in 1997, this means the Applicants recognised percentage to population of disabled is approximately 6%.

The total number of taxis on the roads in Victoria is 3797, of which approximately 80 are disability accessible. This represents 2% of the taxis on the roads in Victoria as being Disability Accessible. If the Applicant were serious about equal representation in the transport sector we would see at least 227 Disability Accessible Taxis on the road in Victoria to truly represent the 6% of population which is by the Applicants own figures, the Disability Community.

It is interesting to note the N.S.W. Government has been pro-active in the implementation of Disability Accessible taxis for the year 2000. By the time of the Olympics, the percentage of Disability Accessible Taxis in the N.S.W. fleet to Standard Taxis will stand at approximately 12%.

Whilst the Applicant states "this scheme is not considered to be part of the Public Transport network for the purposes of this action plan" we should acknowledge the fact it has been raised in the context of this application, and moreso should be entered as fact, as to the Applicants attitude to Disability to Accessibility Transport in Victoria.

It should be noted the State Government (for whom the Applicant represents) has total control of the number of Disability Accessible Taxis in Victoria through the Taxi controlling body - The Taxi Directorate. It should also be noted at this stage that the Taxi Directorate has had no confirmation of any licenses to be released. It can only be assumed this reflects the Applicants governing body's satisfaction at the number of Disability Accessible Taxis in the Public Sector

Given the facts regarding the accessibility of the Taxis, and the lack of accessibility of the Public Transport System, the question must be asked as to how the Disability Community transports themselves around Victoria, and if indeed they are able to access some form of Disability Accessible Transport. Given this scenario, surely there is a conflict with the principles of the D.D.A.

5.4.6 Tram measures

The Applicant states the ATCC, in its assessment of the Rust PPK study, did not adopt the Rust PPK findings because of the following;

In contradiction to the ATCC's assessment, I contend the following individuals in the community would benefit from the use of a Step Lift:

We are talking about making trams accessible for those who cannot gain access to the trams, as well as making access better for those in the disability community who have difficulty accessing the current trams.

I would be interested to see the population of the above groups, and would imagine they would make up substantially more than the 1% the ATCC submits would only use the Step Lifts.

I also disagree the tram boardings via a wheelchair lift would involve substantial disruption to timetables. As mentioned previously, the disruption to timetables would be no greater than the disruptions caused by the breakdown of the trams (as outlined in detail regarding the use of W class trams), or indeed, even the fluctuations caused by market demand.

I must also raise as a point of contention my concern as to whose charter the ATCC is following. I would have assumed disruption to timetables was a concern to the Applicant, not to the disabled community whom the ATCC is supposed to be representing. I would also have assumed the ATCC's concerns would have been with ensuring the disabled community as a whole, is able to access the Victorian Tram System.

THE ATCC

The ATCC has been used as "the voice of the disabled community" in both the Applicants exemption submission, and The Action Plan. As the ATCC works at the invitation of the Victorian Minister for Transport, perhaps the Applicant will be able to provide us with information regarding this committee. I would be interested in the following information:

I look forward to seeing the above concerns addressed in writing by the Minister or his representatives, for review.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

In my opinion the following measures should be undertaken:

  1. All W class trams should be retrofitted with the Step Lifts.
  2. A compromise on the number of trams to be retrofitted should be proposed. This would entail an agreed number of trams to be retrofitted with Step Lifts, with the remainder to be replaced as low floor trams through natural attrition. The retrofitting would comply with the draft standards. Hence we would be looking to have 25% of trams made accessible by retro-fitting for 2004 (105), 55% of trams made accessible by retro-fitting for 2009 (232 trams) and 90 % made accessible by retro-fitting for 2014 (380 trams). Note that my discussions with interested parties have confirmed the retrofitting of the trams within these time frames is entirely achievable.

This would be a commercially acceptable alternative for the Applicant, whilst bringing forward to the Draft Standards the time frame for making the trams fully Disability Accessible.

 

CONCLUSION

The Applicants argument is flawed, and is based on ill-researched information. Whilst the rhetoric is fine and we hear the Applicant saying the right things, concern must be expressed in their performance to date. Further perusal of the Action Plan, more specifically the "Major Access Initiatives Already Implemented" show that since 1993, the following work has been performed on the Trams:

  1. Grab rails/handrails/step edges have had a yellow powder coating applied
  2. Public transport information
  3. Full access audits
  4. Staff training in disability awareness
  5. Community education

I am at a loss to work out how the above work is extensive, how the work has drastically improved accessibility to the Trams, and how it has drastically improved accessibility for people with disabilities. When we closely examine what has actually been performed since 1993 we see the Applicant has used band-aid solutions for what is a serious problem. These problems being the lack of disability access to the Victorian Trams. The Applicant proposes that they should be granted an exemption until the year 2008. At 2008 we are talking 15 years (from 1993) before the Applicant will even have begun providing total disability access to the trams. By the Draft Standards for 2009, 232 trams should have been made Disability Accessible.

The Applicant has available in the marketplace Lifts, which will enable disability, access to the trams, for the disability community. The cost of retrofitting, by their own calculation, will be $68 million as opposed to the $978 million for total replacement of the fleet. I fail to understand how the Applicant can claim unjustifiable hardship given the almost $910 million in savings made by retrofitting the trams.

The application provides no grounds for granting an exemption. In my opinion the Applicant provides extensive grounds for not granting an exemption. The D.D.A. has been held in contempt by the Applicant, as reflected in their poor performance to date. It is worthy to mention that since 1993 the Applicant has had no concerns with channeling funding into the Melbourne Ring Road, whilst the D.D.A issues with Public Transport have had minimalist attention.

It is my contention the recommendations should be submitted to the Applicant in order to bring the Applicant into line with current Draft Standards.