The Physical Disability Council of Victoria Incorporated.

P O Box 25 Ascot Vale 3032 Vic

Phone (03) 9370 4871

Fax (03) 9326 2736

E/Mail ahbeale@alphalink.com.au

Dear Commissioner,

We protest most strongly against the Victorian Governmnets application for

an exemption for Melbourne's tram service from sections of the Disability

Discrimination Act 1992

In support of our protest we make the following points.

1. All stakeholders were involved in the development of the Standards,

including Local Government, Federal Attorney General's Department, Public

and Private Transport industry, people with disabilities, and they reached

a consensus agreement on the Draft Standards for Accessible Public

Transport as they are

2. These same Draft Standards have been endorsed on 3 separate occasions by

the Australian Transport Council as a "technically feasible means of

implementing Accessible transport"

3. The Disability Sector are saying that they have already made compromises

in:

Ø A 20 year lead in or implementation period

Ø 1 seat on buses under 33 seat capacity

Ø An unjustifiable hardship clause

Ø Equivalent Access provision

4. Equivalent Access and Unjustifiable Hardship clauses were brought in

precisely for school bus operators and other small operators who were

initially flagged as an exemption from the Draft Standards released in 1995.

5. Standards are Performance Based, so that a school bus operator in a

remote or rural area, that doesn't have a student with a mobility

disability on their route, will not need to comply.

6. Who would lodge a complaint under the DDA against an operator if there

are no students with disabilities in the area anyway? An essential

ingredient of a successful complaint is that there must be an aggrieved

party i.e., a person with a disability who has or is likely to be

discriminated against.

7 If there is a student with a disability on a particular route, the

operator can buy a second hand accessible bus from other operators, or

purchase a lift/hoist for his existing bus. There are a range of examples

of how solutions can and are being found which are not unreasonably

expensive and which are acceptable to all parties.

8. Local school bus operators and schools as well as families, lions club

or other charities can and have been getting together and coming up with

ways to provide a solution to access. This is Equivalent Access.

9. Low floor buses will not operate in country regions, as they are not

suited because of problems with clearance and are designed to not go at

high speeds.

10. Currently, 85% - 90% of production of major bus manufacturers in Europe

are low floor buses and many manufacturers are getting close to the fact

that these will end up being cheaper than current high floor buses.

11. There will always be a need for truck chassis buses and in the country

these can have a hoist fitted to them.

12. Low floor Transport came about from a world wide swing towards a

design which was originally for airport transfers and one which was a more

efficient means of getting people and their luggage moved quickly. It is of

coincidence that this design is very accessible to all.

13. The disability sector should not have to carry the responsibility for

a reduced carrying capacity from the move across to Ultra Low Floor Buses

because this was happening anyway.

14. Reduced carrying capacity? As a result of wheel arches and spaces for

wheelchair(s) some operators have claimed a loss of capacity. This is only

relevant at peak times and the majority of research shows that people with

disabilities, aged people and parents with prams will travel mainly during

off peak times. This more than compensates and is where operators are

trying to increase patronage.

15. Also people with disabilities will not be travelling in the main, in

peak times, so overall carrying capacity will not be affected.

16. Disability Sector and representatives have always stipulated that where

there are wheelchair spaces provided, there should always be flip down

seats for when the space is not required. Sensible design will enable

buses not to lose any seating capacity such as Action buses used in Canberra.

17. The Draft RIS does not address all disability types adequately and

concentrates too heavily on the issue of buses to the exclusion of almost

every other public transport mode.

18· There is overall concern about the premises and assumptions upon which

the costings were made and it was felt that the consultants misrepresented

some official statistical data, used out-dated cost-benefit studies, and

failed to undertake a current international search for material.

19· The Cost implications are currently based on a 20-year implementation

period. We argue that during this 20 year period, there will still be

parts of the transport chain that is not going to be accessible. It will

take almost a generation for people with disabilities to be fully able to

use all public transport. So the full cost benefits cannot be gauged

accurately.

20· The 30 year figures of cost benefits come back to being in the vicinity

of a $1.2billion gain. This information supplied by Peter Vintilla of

Murdoch University and verified and supported by Professor of Economics.

21· The figures given are still based on conservative estimations and

projections

22· There is no need for test runs, there are already 150 accessible buses

running in Adelaide, 130 in Brisbane and similar in other states.

23· Access to Melbourne's extensive Tramway network is a crucial issue for

people with disabilities, without access to trams huge areas of Greater

Melbourne are denied to people with disabilities

24. With Melbourne's one ticket system, people with disabilities have to

pay the same price as everyone else, yet do not have access to a huge area

of covered by trams.

25. In 1988 the metropolitan transport authority stated that it could

provide accessible trams from within the current capital expenditure

budget. So far we have seen none.

Arthur Beale

President

PDCV