THE INSTITUTE OF DISABILITY STUDIES

Faculty of Health & Behavioural Sciences,

Burwood Campus, Deakin University

221 Burwood Highway, Burwood,

Victoria, Australia, 3125

14 January 1999

SUBMISSION TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION HEARING OF AN EXEMPTION APPLICATION BY THE VICTORIAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS UNDER THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 SECTION 55 DATED 6 NOVEMBER 1998.

AUTHOR: John Annison, Principal Lecturer, Institute of Disability Studies, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria.

1. The Victorian Public Transport Corporation (PTC) argument.

Reduced to its basics, the Victorian PTC argument for an exemption under the Act appears to be one of doing nothing at all to meet the disability access requirements for its tram services until the year 2008 when some 62 trams out of its fleet of 423 (i.e. 15% of the fleet) would be replaced with fully accessible vehicles. According to the PTC’s own figures in its comparison of the replacement rates implied by the Draft Standards and the engineering life of trams (Point 2.2.3. Of the PTC submission), the very gradual extension of this replacement program would see 60% of its current fleet replaced by 2014; 69% by 2019; 78% by 2024; and the remainder by 2029.

2. The arguments against granting an exemption to the PTC.

2.1. The assumption of no fleet growth.

The PTC argument ignores the very real prospect of an increase in the number of trams servicing Melbourne during the period now-2029. It has been suggested that the existing tram routes to Mont Albert and Burwood East will be extended to Box Hill and Knox respectively, in the not too distant future. Other tram line extensions are also likely. The effect of these route extensions will be to increase the time taken to traverse the tram route and to increase the number of passengers carried. Both these impacts will require the supplementation of the existing tram fleet if timetable frequencies are to be maintained (e.g., a tram every 10 minutes in peak periods). The PTC submission is silent on whether any of these additional trams will be fully accessible to people with mobility difficulties.

2.2. The population profile.

The existing population profile shows an increasing number of people entering the 50+ age group (the so-called ‘post war baby-boomers’ generation). With increasing age it is reasonable to expect that this group will also experience increasing difficulties in mobility due to degenerative disorders such as arthritis, rheumatism and other conditions affecting the limbs and joints. Many of these people will also rely on the old age pension for their income in retirement and therefore the number of pensioners can reasonably be expected to increase over the next 20 to 30 years (i.e., until 2029). These people will form a growing cohort of potential public transport users for whom the existing trams will be difficult, if not impossible, to board or alight from. The modification of existing trams by the fitting of wheelchair hoists will not alleviate their need for access either. In order to maintain their independence and mobility around their community, many of these people will require suitably designed, accessible trams.

In addition to the shifts in population profile, the State Government has pursued a policy of encouraging greater dwelling density and smaller dwellings in the inner and middle regions of the Melbourne metropolitan area. It is these older people as singles or couples with their children independent adults who will take up much of this higher density, smaller sized housing in the inner aspects of Melbourne. As the PTC submission points out; "trams carry around 35 per cent of all public transport boardings (and) in the city centre and city fringe areas trams carry virtually all of the relatively short distance ‘distributor’ trips that are made." Therefore, the role of trams in providing accessible public transport for these ageing pensioner ‘baby-boomers’ will be significant to them and any access difficulties will pose a major impediment to their continuing independence.

2.3. The retro-fitting of trams with hoists or lifts.

The option of retro-fitting hoists or lifts to existing trams is discounted by the PTC on the grounds of it: not being the PTC’s preferred outcome; the advice from disability reference groups that it was not considered the most beneficial option; that it would not meet all access requirements for all people with mobility difficulties; and, cost. There also appears to be an implied threat in the PTC submission that if it was forced to use this option, trams thus adapted would remain in its fleet to the very end of their engineered life and so no fully accessible purpose-designed, new trams would enter the fleet until at least 20 years hence. This uncompromising, all or nothing approach seems to rule out any other solution and is not helpful in demonstrating the PTC’s (claimed) commitment to the implementation of the DDA requirements for accessibility of public transport.

2.4. The question of how we have arrived at this point.

The PTC argument is somewhat disingenuous in failing to acknowledge that the requirement for fully accessible trams is not new in Australia. If the PTC had been sincere in its intentions to make all public transport fully accessible it would have begun introducing fully accessible trams some years ago. The fact that its current fleet has absolutely no trams which are fully accessible, not even the 8 vehicles most recently acquired since 1988, seems to demonstrate its historic unwillingness to acknowledge this important issue, let alone give it serious address. It is therefore suggested that the record of the PTC provides absolutely no reassurance of its bona fides on the issue of access to trams by people who have mobility difficulties. It has done nothing to date and seeks to nothing for as long as possible into the future and this must surely be unacceptable of a major public body exercising stewardship of the city’s public transport system on behalf of all citizens, disabled and non-disabled alike.

2.4. Equity issues

People with a disability are citizens with equal rights and obligations. All pay taxes, either directly, indirectly, or both. These taxes go to provide a plethora of needed public services including public transport. If people with a disability are paying their share of the taxation-funded cost of public transport they should have the benefit of that transport system. If person A has a mobility difficulty which precludes the use of the current tram fleet, then s/he is, in effect, subsidising person B who has no such mobility difficulties and enjoys full use of the tram component of the public transport system. (If either A or B exercise a right of choice not to use the trams, that is their decision however, both should have the same option to use it if they so desire).

Many people with major disabilities share a prevailing common secondary handicap which is poverty. This results from an inability to gain employment either because of: (in rare cases) the nature of the person’s disability; or the reluctance of employers to provide adequate employment opportunities; or the unwillingness of many disability service agencies to surrender their grasp on people with disabilities and actively assist them to obtain employment. It also results from the low level of income available to people depending on disability pensions and associated benefits and the punitive effective taxation rates levied on any additional income earned beyond the pension. This enforced poverty ensures many people with disabilities are totally reliant on public transport for all aspects of their daily life: entertainment, socialising, shopping, work, etc. Therefore, for the PTC to advocate providing no access at all to trams for people with mobility difficulties for another nine years until 2008 and to force them to wait another 20 years until 2029 for full access is an oppressive stance which should not be tolerated. It is a stance which will continue the marginalisation of people who have disabilities from our society and prolong and exacerbate their exclusion unnecessarily. It is not the action of a democratic society in which all are equal in their rights and entitlements.

3. A suggested solution.

In light of the above, I recommend that the Commission reject the PTC’s application and instead:

3.1. In regard to the replacement of the existing tram fleet (excluding the Heritage W Class) with accessible trams:

3.1.1. Require all new trams and all trams substantially repaired following any accident of mishap (e.g., a fire on board) be fully accessible to people with any type of mobility difficulty;

3.1.2. Require that 106 of the current 132, B Class trams be modified to provide platform lift access or similar, suitable for use by all people with mobility difficulties within the next 5 years;

3.1.3. Require that the remaining 26 of the B Class trams be modified to provide platform lift access or similar within ten years

3.1.4. Require the replacement of 101 of the existing 106, Z1 and Z2 Class trams by fully accessible trams within ten years.

3.1.5. Require the replacement of the remaining 5, Z1 and Z2 Class trams, and the replacement of the 115, Z3 Class trams together with 28 of the 70, A Class trams by fully accessible trams within 15 years.

3.1.6. Require the replacement of the remaining 42, A Class trams by fully accessible trams within twenty years.

3.1.7. Require the replacement of the 132, modified B Class trams within 30 years.

3.2. In regard to the Heritage W Class trams the arguments for their historic and tourist value seem valid and therefore they should be permitted to continue to operate but on the proviso that, within 5 years, every third tram at least on the City Circle route will be an accessible tram, and within ten years this will be reduced to every second tram. These accessible trams should not be modified W Class trams but trams of another Class.

3.3. In regard to the quality of service available to people requiring an accessible tram, the Commission should negotiate with the PTC a requirement that accessible trams be evenly distributed over the PTC system and its timetables throughout the phasing-in of the fully-accessible tram fleet.

 

I commend this submission to the Commission’s consideration.

(Signed) John E. Annison