Submission to Oppose Exemption of
Melbourne Trams from the DDA.
I am writing to oppose this application by the Public Transport Corporation, Met Tram 1 and Met Tram 2 (Yarra Trams and Swanston Trams), Department of Infrastructure & 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.
My reasons are as follows;
1. I lodged a DDA complaint with HREOC on 12th December 1997 against inaccessible trams operated by the Applicants. The granting of this exemption will deny me natural justice in having my complaint dealt with.
2. The Applicants have had five and a half years to request this exemption and have not done so.
3. For the last five years People with disabilities working with the Federal and State Ministers of Transport through the Australian Transport Council have developed Australia wide Standards and have reluctantly agreed to a twenty year implementation period. Yet at the last moment the Applicants are applying for a ten year exemption period (5 + 5) in which they will not have to undertake any changes to make trams accessible to people with disabilities.
4. Since horse drawn trams first appeared on Melbourne streets in 1884, people with mobility handicaps have not been able to use this form of Public Transport. With the enactment of the DDA in 1992, people with disabilities believed Public Transport Authorities would being to make trams accessable. However after 6.5 years we are still denied access to the Tram Network which is thirty-five percent of the metro Public Transport system and now it is proposed by the Applicants that they should be given exemptions for ten years (5 + 5) which would extend total accessability for another thirty to thirty-five years.
5. In Melbourne the tram network 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.
6. In this submission the Applicants seeks to give assurances that the current trams will be replaced by accessible low floor trams in 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.
2/-
- 2 -
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. I am unaware of what other Disability Groups they have consulted with and which of them have agreed to they plans for exemptions.
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 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.
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 diabilities.
11. As a person with a severe disability who has not been able to use a tram since 1963, who has represented disabled people through the Disability Resources Centre since 1981, seven years on the Management Committee and nine years as the Co-ordinator; who was twice elected as President of Disabled Peoples’ International (Australia) and who was elected to the World Executive of Disabled Peoples’ International (1994 - 98), I well understand the needs and wants of my friends and colleagues with disabilities and their families. We want accessible transport now not in thirty-five years.
12. 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?
3/-
- 3 -
13. 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?
14. 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.
15. 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 uncertancy 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.
16. 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. Surely a lower cost to replace these trams at some future time.
4/-
- 4 -
17. 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.
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. I 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. However I do believe a hoist could be added to these trams while retaining their facades and only making minor modifications inside.
Conclusion
In conclusion I submit that the Applicants do not need these two x five year exemptions, as stated previously they will only have to retro-fit 171 trams at a maximum cost of $27.36 million over ten years (cheaper option previously suggested) before they introduce low floor trams according to their time table. This would meet the needs of people with disabilities who cannot use trams.
Further I submit that a Public Hearing be held in Melbourne to formally receive these submissions and allow for additional ideas and comments.
Finally I am happy that my submission be a public document. I look forward to reading other submissions and presenting my comments to the Public Hearing.
Yours Sincerely,
Frank Hall-Bentick