Report of Thematic Group 8
The Design and Operation of Accessible
Public Transport Systems
CHAPTER THREE - ORGANISATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 Transport Planning and Integration
It has been stated earlier in this document that transport
systems that are badly planned and are not effectively integrated with
each other are likely to fail their customers. However, it seems to be
one of the most significant areas of neglect within member states.
Adequate planning is the only effective way of ensuring that each mode
of transport is compatible and consistent with the next. This consistency
must be addressed so that an unbroken transport chain is provided where
customers can rely on design standards that meet their needs throughout;
where accurate information is provided at each stage in their preferred
method of communication and where staff are available to assist them so
that an entire journey can be taken without distress, discomfort or delay.
If planning is seen as a total and inclusive initial stage then the
broader picture can be seen and obvious discrepancies in service provision
can be avoided. In far too many cases, the real analysis of users' needs
is only undertaken after the implementation of services, implying that
these are of secondary consideration. For example, food has always been
lifted on to aircraft, whilst passengers have traditionally struggled to
board via steps, and it is only recently that there have been efforts made
to assist them. Aircraft boarding lifts are now being successfully used
in East Norway while self-raising buses in France are being equally successfully
used. This example demonstrates a tendency to add on access services rather
than consider them an integral part of planning, and though attitudes are
changing, other examples can be seen throughout transport systems across
Europe. Often the add on is less effective than this particular example.
There is a misconception that planning of transport systems applies
only to urban areas and rural areas are neglected in the process.
Most European countries have started to introduce competition and deregulation
of parts of their transport systems. Once this is introduced, the ability
to plan a co-ordinated transport system is reduced. There are other effects
too.
Before deregulation, city transport systems could offer a type of 'vertical'
co-ordination; they owned the track and rolling stock for rail, metro systems
and even bus routes. Similarly nationalised bus systems could control all
aspects of route planning, timetabling and vehicle specifications across
a large geographical area ('horizontal co-ordination'). Rules on monopolies
and competition in deregulated markets tend to mitigate against co-ordination
of this sort. In theory, one bus operator is prevented from taking over
the whole market. Bus operators can now buy train franchises, and co-ordinate
the routes and timetables of both buses and trains. This could have beneficial
results in terms of transport accessibility, because interchanges should
be better. It remains to be seen how rules on monopolies will be applied
in these circumstances, but one solution which has already emerged is that
operators will have to 'swap' franchises to prevent a monopolistic situation,
thereby losing the benefits of integration!
There are some examples of excellent planning throughout Europe however,
including that of the computerised taxi service in Lyon. Here, taxis are
booked through a centralised computer booking system, whilst the cars themselves
are positioned by satellite throughout the city. All taxi drivers are trained
in disability awareness and safety. This system is however lacking a cohesive
monitoring and evaluation system that would facilitate the feedback to
assist the development of service levels.
Piraeus in Greece, whose transport systems cater for a large number
of commuters, keep the levels of their services high by operating a policy
of continuous consumer participation, and local consultation. Because organisations
can be sure of who their customers are and what their specific feedback
is, they are able to be certain that the service they provide is geared
to effectively meet their needs.
In many countries, transport policies are implemented locally in each
county or municipality. This creates autonomous and mutually incompatible
systems that will not necessarily adhere to national policy, since the
legislation that would ensure this is often not present. When there is
no such legislation, a transport operator is in some instances under no
obligation to provide fully accessible transport.
Often there is a duty to consult, without specific direction about who
to consult with, and absolutely no measures to ensure that the advice offered
as a result of the consultation process is used. In many of the member
states, a fully accessible transport system currently relies on the commitment
of either the municipality or the transport companies themselves. The implication
then is that measures to provide accessible transport are acts of good
will, or choice, and that all perceived improvements are positive. Clearly
passengers with restricted mobility have the same right to travel safely
and in comfort as other customers, and the implied benevolence of current
practice is nothing less than insulting. Consumer involvement as an integral
part of any consultation process is discussed more fully in section 3.7.
What this all means is that situations arise within the same locality
where two transport systems can be introduced or modified, supposedly using
the same recommendations or guidance but with totally different results,
so that design standards and information systems differ and the criteria
for eligibility for concessionary fares will often be localised as well.
In addition, there are some modes of transport which are incompatible
with their own stops or interchanges. For example, there are many bus companies
which have introduced low floor buses, and indeed in many countries there
has been a recent provision of government subsidy to make purchase of the
vehicles possible. However, in a significant number of the member states,
there has been no accompanying commitment to provide safe and appropriate
stops so that the buses can be used in the way in which they were intended
i.e. with step free access. See section 2.7 for further details of this.
Poor planning needlessly wastes valuable resources.Where a system is
introduced with poor access, ultimately it will need to be replaced or
modified. Until it has been, it will be under-used by potential passengers
who are unable to use it with any degree of comfort and safety. Income
will therefore take longer to recover, and it will take longer before effective
adaptations become affordable. However, in situations where systems have
been introduced that need to be adapted, research shows that revenue spent
on access is likely to be quickly recovered and it makes no sense for operators
to delay the process.
Organisational gaps cause breaks in the chain, making travel more difficult
for everyone, and virtually impossible for a passenger with restricted
mobility. Situations where a passenger begins a journey in one locality
where the transport system is accessible, and arrives at their destination
only to find an entirely new organisational structure including different
levels of information services are all too common. This is particularly
true of inter-country travel, where passengers have the added difficulty
of trying to plan their journey using another language.
In the meantime, this gap in provision can only be met by door to door
transport organisations. Here, unlike with other journeys, customers can
generally be sure of consistent levels of service from start to finish.
3.2 Information Systems
No-one travels without information. To make any journey one
needs accurate information before the journey begins, and during the journey
itself.
In providing information it is essential that there is recognition that
what is sometimes described as a preferred method of communication is generally
determined by ability, in that a choice of method is only made when the
standard channels of communication cannot be used; i.e. that people do
not choose to use a text phone in preference to a standard telephone, or
braille in preference to standard sized print. These are essential methods
of communication that are used by significant numbers of the population,
and without them independent travel is impossible. As the balance of the
population changes, so the use of small print, frequently used in timetables,
maps etc, becomes less appropriate, and there are no circumstances where
it is appropriate to use it on its own.
What is apparent is that the information varies again not only from
country to country, but from locality to locality, and frequently, as is
the case with the privatisation of heavy rail in Britain between companies
operating in the same area, often through the same station.
Currently, in general, information is usually available before commencing
a journey, though the range of media in which it is provided, the amount
of information and its clarity varies tremendously between operators, localities
and countries. Most methods can be learnt but when the rules change continuously,
it is impossible. There are few systems that provide the entire range of
accessible media; each has a bias towards one or more disability, though
there are a vast number of systems that provide nothing other than plain
text. A trend towards answering services and away from telephone operators
has been a set back to passengers who need information other than timetables
and for whom an additional journey to find the information is difficult.
Information services during a journey are generally more neglected than
information prior to the journey, and travel guides provided for use prior
to travel are frequently too heavy or cumbersome to carry.
In some cases, to add to the problem, there is too much information,
and customers are faced with the problem of piecing different publications
together to make sense of the route. In others of course the problem is
completely different: insufficient or inaccurate information. The problems
are at their greatest in countries where there is a mass fragmentation
of an overall system through privatised companies.
Most severely neglected throughout Europe are systems for people who
are visually or hearing impaired; tactile information is rarely used, and
where it is, it is badly implemented. Information provided at wheelchair
eye level is also neglected in most countries.
Internationally agreed pictorial symbols, for example those of male
and female toilets have had proven success, and are widely used. Further
development of these symbols for use in other areas would greatly enhance
levels of communication, and there seems no reason why other methods of
communication such as tactile information cannot be similarly standardised.
It should be noted however, that the internationally recognised symbol
of a wheelchair, denoting disabled access is rarely situated at anything
other than ambulant eye-level. In addition, it should be remembered that
this symbol is designed to communicate to a person with a disability that
the environment is accessible, not to communicate to a designer that everyone
with a disability uses a wheelchair!
Again, what is needed are agreed levels and types of provision that
are consistent throughout Europe and include the following:
3.2.1 the same amount of information prior to travel provided
in braille, large print, and pictorial symbols, and through a telephone
information service, as well as in plain texts;
3.2.2 the above written information to be posted free of charge where
passengers are not able to collect such things as timetables;
3.2.3 the same agreed typeface with the same series of font sizes used
throughout Europe;
3.2.4 information en route to be provided audibly, pictorially, and
in large print and braille at the same level throughout Europe;
3.2.5 information to be available in at least three languages throughout
Europe.
Ideally transport providers should be obliged to provide details
of their services to centralised departments which could then inform customers
of travelling times etc for their entire journey.
TURTLE and TOUCHCARD are two information systems which have being piloted
in European funded programmes. It is essential that pictograms such as
those used in the TOUCHCARD project should draw on work already done elsewhere.
A 'speaking guide' is available to travellers in Copenhagen railway station.
Tripscope in the UK provides the disabled traveller with information about
a large number of transport services. Although its remit does not extend
to promoting co-ordination between them, this could be considered as a
possibility.
In Barcelona, SIPTRE is a Geographic Information System (GIS), where
information is associated with map locations, so that, for example, the
position of 'dropped kerbs' (or 'cuts' as they are called in Barcelona)
is known with a high degree of accuracy. This, together with details of
transport interchanges and timetables, enables the operator to advise callers
on how best to make a journey, so that all parts of the transport chain
are known to be accessible for them. One of the challenges for such a system
is to encourage people to use it. Reliability of information is therefore
crucial, as people given incorrect or outdated information will be reluctant
to trust it again.
3.3 Language And Ethnicity
A significant proportion of the population of many countries
do not speak or read the national language of that country. For these people,
information is either not available at all, or is only available with assistance.
This problem is of course compounded in the case of international travel.
There are very few examples of information that is provided in more than
the national language except at International Terminals, although clearly
Member States have multi-racial, multi-cultural populations. Opportunity
to travel or reside within other Member States, whilst the right of European
citizens, is vastly reduced for people with a disability, particularly
for the visually impaired. Further, the current systems disaffirm the rights
of the total population in any multi-racial community, and in areas where
there are known numbers of the community of a different racial heritage,
information should be provided in that particular language in the same
range of media.
Wandsworth Community Transport in London employs a member of staff who
speaks four Asian community languages, and translates all its information
into those languages, to help overcome these barriers. A special 'language
line' telephone number is provided so that callers will have the confidence
that they will be understood.
Another ethnic difference that needs to be recognised, particularly
by door-to-door transport operators is that some Asian women are unwilling,
for religious reasons, to be assisted by a male driver. This is likely
to become more of an issue, as traditional Asian communities break down,
and more elderly people live alone.
3.4 Access To The Service
In some European countries, there is legislation preventing
people with disabilities, and particularly wheelchair users, from using
certain transport systems. Most of these bans have been lifted; those that
have not are due to be lifted in the near future, but the issue remains
the same: with or without the ban, how accessible is the transport? For
example, until very recently wheelchair users were prevented from using
the London Underground; they were seen as a fire risk. This ban has now
been lifted, and technically, a wheelchair user is able to use the service.
However, the majority of Underground Stations are still completely inaccessible
to a wheelchair user, and so, whilst equal rights have been reinstated,
equal opportunities are still denied. Moreover, the decision to travel
has shifted from the provider to the purchaser, and the decision to travel
via other more accessible methods will often incur addition costs.
Whilst concessionary fares, or travel allowances are provided in most
European Countries, there is again inconsistency in the criteria for eligibility
and the amount or adequacy of the concession. There is further fragmentation
within some countries where the localities themselves use different criteria.
Situations arise where a person is eligible to use services in their own
municipality but not in a neighbouring one where they work. In the second
locality, a person is entitled to concessionary fares in both localities
because people in this locality have a greater entitlement. However, some
countries, notably the Netherlands and Norway perceive such concessions
as acts of charity, and do not provide them as a result.
Further complicating the issue of eligibility is that different countries
have established eligibility through different criteria, including eligibility
by age. For example, in Denmark, concessionary fares are provided automatically
to people over the age of 67, whilst in Portugal, to people above 65.
In addition, although concessionary fares are provided in most countries,
public transport systems are generally so inaccessible that additional
allowances are necessary so that alternative methods can be used. Again
decentralised funding causes inconsistency and in some cases, one person
may be able to afford ten taxi-rides per month because of the allowance
provided by their Local Authority, whilst a neighbour can afford twelve
because they have a different Local Authority who award higher allowances.
Some member states consider the provision of concessionary fares insulting
and an act of charity, whilst in others, concessionary fares, subsidised
via the transport companies are considered more acceptable than grants
from Social Funds. What is consistently obvious is that passengers with
restricted mobility are not receiving the same level of service as other
customers, whether they receive subsidised fares or not.
Again, in order for people with disabilities to become truly mobile
throughout Europe, these inconsistencies need to be addressed so that entitlements
remain the same wherever you travel or choose to live.
Some of the differences in approach depend not only on the country within
which the travel takes place, but also on the country of origin, type of
disability and mode of transport. For example, in the case of rail travel,
a European-wide agreement would allow a disabled person and companion to
travel together for the price of one single fare from the country of origin
to the destination and back. The ticket for the entire journey must be
purchased in the country of origin. Any additional tickets purchased on
route would not be covered by the same concessions. In many countries the
'two for the price of one' system would not apply for a domestic journey,
where the maximum concession might for example be only 34% of the standard
fare. In the case of air travel, a 'two for the price of one' ticket is
available for domestic flights in the UK, but not for international flights.
Similar concessions are not widely available in other European countries.
The fare structure for bus and coach travel, door-to-door service and taxis
varies so widely that comparisons can be difficult to make.
The reason for these wide differences in availability of concessionary
fares and subsidised travel seems to be based on a combination of philosophical
and political attitudes and commercial needs. Whatever the arguments for
and against the different systems, the end result is a complex and almost
incomprehensible fare structure. In order to travel by the cheapest route,
it may be necessary to spend a considerable amount of time in planning
the journey, to find optimal travel times and routes. The planning of a
journey can be difficult enough already, due to the fundamental inaccessibility
of so many parts of the public transport network, and the additional complexity
of dealing with different fare structures is an unwelcome additional burden.
Whilst recognising different local and national political approaches,
it would nevertheless seem advantageous, at least where international travel
is concerned, to devise some common fare structure which is not dependent
on the country of origin, place of purchase or mode of travel.
In countries where the subsidy model provides door-to-door transport
at low cost to the passenger, operators have to decide on eligibility criteria
and operating policies. A number of questions are raised in this:
How is eligibility determined? Is there a limit to the number of journeys
a passenger is allowed to make? How far are passengers allowed to travel?
How far ahead or how spontaneously are passengers able to book their journeys?
Evaluation and monitoring of accessible transport systems should be
carried out both by the operator, and independently. In London, DaRT has
produced a number of papers in which various aspects of accessible transport
provision are evaluated. User-led organisations such as DaRT are best placed
to ensure that evaluation methods are appropriate and reflect the true
needs of the customer. It is an unfortunate fact that many transport operators
design their operating policies for their own administrative convenience,
rather than to provide the service their customers need.
The above questions are also discussed in 'Evaluating Community Transport:
Policy, Performance And Practice - Practical Evaluation in the CT Sector'
by Steve Smythe (Wandsworth Community Transport, 1989).
3.5 Operational Co-ordination
It is important that accessible transport is seen and funded
as part of the public transport system, rather than a 'welfare service'.
This will maximise the opportunities for operational co-ordination between
specialist and mainstream transport providers.
A good example of operational co-ordination in the field of accessible
transport can be seen in Lyon. Here the door-to-door operator (Optibus)
takes bookings from its customers and schedules them afterwards. Optibus
is thereby able to maximise the occupancy of its minibuses by combining
journeys. Optibus are able to satisfy all trip requests (within their operating
area). They have an arrangement with the local computer-controlled taxi
company to 'contract out' any journeys which cannot easily be accommodated
on one of their own vehicles. Coupled with this is a system where regular
bookings are worked into the schedules first, which also has the benefit
of reducing demand on the phone lines. The taxi company uses its computerised
tracking system to anticipate demand levels and adjust provision accordingly.
Also in Lyon, Optibus have provided a 'rescue service' for passengers left
stranded when the accessible metro system breaks down.
In the Netherlands, the 'Treintaxi' system enables rail users to be
met at their destination station by an accessible minibus, and then taken
on to their final destination. The driver will meet the passenger on the
platform, and assist the passenger in alighting from the train, making
use of portable ramps stowed on each platform, if necessary. This facility
overcomes the lack of personal assistance on unattended stations. The service
normally has to be arranged a day in advance, although the train operator
will try to assist with more spontaneous requests. Schipol airport in Amsterdam
has an interchange with the rail system, and assistance is also available
for passengers needing to transfer by rail to the city centre (or other
destinations).
An interesting European-funded project (ASTI) is currently underway
in Camden, London. This is a project which links transport accessibility
with environmental sustainability, and involves the London Borough Of Camden,
Camden Community Transport and Islington Health Authority, together with
other partners. A major part of the project involves the development and
testing of alternative propulsion methods such as electric and gas-fuelled
minibuses.
In addition, the project is investigating the potential for integrating
different 'door-to-door' transport provision, within the local area. This
involves technology such as satellite tracking and GIS systems to aid real-time
scheduling, as well as operational co-ordination of resources. This co-ordination
is achieved by centralised scheduling of vehicles owned and operated by
a number of different transport providers. This project will provide an
interesting test of the 'vertical integration' model, as applied to door-to-door
transport, and will be compared with the results of London Transport's
introduction of horizontal integration within the Dial-a-Ride door-to-door
service across London, which has been criticised as bureaucratic, inefficient
and unresponsive.
3.6 Staff Training
As has been already discussed in other parts of this document,
staff training provides a fundamental part of any transport organisation.
A large percentage of people with disabilities are unable to use public
transport without the assistance of staff, particularly when design provision
is not adequate and information is unclear or inadequate. Above all the
reassurance that competent staff are available in the event of something
going wrong is often the key factor in deciding whether to travel or not.
Confidence in using an unfamiliar system relies heavily on the ability
to seek assistance from trained staff.
However, the adequacy of training rarely meets the needs of passengers
in most Member States and whilst this situation is improving, it urgently
needs to be addressed. In a large percentage of transport organisations,
in the majority of Member States, staff training is non-compulsory and
therefore any form of assistance relies on the good will/benevolence of
the staff concerned. This factor alone can cause situations where people
are given inappropriate assistance, caused unnecessary distress and confusion,
and are frequently also put at risk.
Transport providers often have policies that all their staff are trained
in disability awareness without stating what this involves; who will train
the staff, how such training will be implemented, or how the effectiveness
of such training will be measured. The effect of producing such statements
is that they are usually left to individual managers to interpret. This
causes situations where policy statements are so vague that a manager could
at one extreme send his entire staff on a three day dedicated course with
yearly refreshers, or at the other extreme cover the issues over a period
of a few hours during basic induction, having had no training himself,
and still be technically fulfilling the commitments of the policy statement.
For example, a statement such as 'LUL will ensure that all relevant
staff receive disability awareness training' is typical of the way policy
statements are written. Closer inspection of this particular policy reveals
that this staff training includes the emergency evacuation of passengers
using carry sheets, a briefing on how to identify and assist passengers
with disabilities, and details of other training available.
The perception that training on the needs of passengers can be covered
within a briefing is unrealistic and uninformed, as is the implication
that over and above this safe evacuation in an emergency is the only other
perceived need. Furthermore, in this particular case the briefing is usually
given by another member of staff, and there is no guidance to suggest that
this person needs to have been thoroughly trained first.
There is no obligation on the part of managers or individuals to undertake
the additional training. Interestingly, key staff, such as managers, architects
and designers, are not obliged to receive the initial induction as it currently
only applies to station staff, and to a lesser extent to train drivers.
This is just one example, and similar training policies can be found throughout
Europe.
Even when initial training is perceived as adequate, there is rarely
an obligation to update or refresh knowledge, and with the current level
of inaccessible transport systems, staff do not have the opportunity to
maintain their skills as current.
Moreover, training budgets are frequently the localised responsibility
of individual managers, who must meet the total training needs of their
staff from the same budget. All the time that people with disabilities
are perceived as being a minority group, so budgetary considerations will
cause disability awareness and safety training to be considered as low
priority, and because so many systems are currently either partially or
completely inaccessible, people will not attempt journeys; so that budgets
are currently being managed in response to unrealistic perceptions.
As transport systems become more accessible, so the need for training
to be provided as a continuum will lessen in that staff will be developing
their awareness on an ongoing basis. Until this happens, comprehensive
staff training and customer services are the only way of compensating for
the void in design provision, but this should never be viewed as an acceptable
alternative.
Many facilities that are currently provided are adaptations rather than
integral elements within the overall design and require staff assistance;
for example stair climbers and other stair lifts, which have been introduced
to save the cost of providing appropriate lifts. If there is ever a time
when all transport systems are independently usable by the passengers,
the emphasis of staff training will shift from fundamental issues of safety
to developing a greater level of ability in meeting passengers' needs,
for example, learning a basic level of sign language or skills in guiding
passengers who have no sight.
3.7 Consumer Involvement
There is no way of measuring the effectiveness of a transport
system without both a clear analysis of user needs and active consumer
involvement. These are not finite single-stage elements employed at the
planning stage only, though clearly this is the most important stage, but
must be used as an on-going commitment to customers. Generally speaking
those companies who do involve their passengers maintain a higher level
of service, though the process is sometimes rendered completely ineffective
by a tendency to disregard the advice provided when it is likely to incur
costs or cause the aesthetics of a design to be spoilt.
Feedback from users indicates that there is an unacceptably low commitment
to consultation throughout Member States and no legislation that would
make this obligatory.
Consultation committees established on a national basis exist in some
European countries, and provide opinion and recommendations as do non-statutory
user groups such as access groups. Other countries rely solely on occasional
research to establish passenger needs. Such 'user surveys' should ideally
contain an action plan for improvements with estimated costings, and if
possible a commitment from the relevant parties to implement the improvements,
with an associated timetable.
Users' groups, which are more likely to be consulted at a local level,
consistently feel that they are under used and often that their advice
is ignored. In addition there is a common perception that official consultation
and research groups act only as a filter between disabled passengers and
those with the power to make changes, and that they are reluctant to apply
pressure. The resulting process exists then in name only, and acts as a
catalyst for frustration, anger and cynicism.
Ultimately it means that elderly people, and people with disabilities
are forced to lobby and become further isolated, viewed as being difficult
and radical.
Valuable lessons can be learnt and the majority of mistakes avoided
if user groups and disability organisations are used both to train staff
and at each stage of the policy process.
3.8 Provision Of Customer Assistants and Escorts
The increasing trend towards unstaffed train stations has led
to a reduction in service availability for disabled people, especially
where access is inadequate. Although provision of escorts seems to be contrary
to the move towards independence, human assistance will always be desirable
for some people, such as elderly people, or people with learning difficulties.
This is one of the main findings of an American Study 'Improving Bus Accessibility
Systems For Persons With Sensory and Cognitive Impairments' by Hunter-Zaworski
and Hron (Transportation Research Institute, Oregon State University, 1993).
In Belfast, Citibus has a 'Travel Club' for passengers who require assistance,
whereby the driver would be advised in advance and look out for them en
route. Another idea is the use of a visible aid such as a yellow glove,
so that passengers can hail a passing bus. 'Hail and Ride' routes themselves
have proved very effective in reducing walking distances for passengers
who live on or near a bus route, but some distance from a stop.
All staff in the transport chain need to have appropriate training in
assisting disabled people, including assisting those with sensory handicap.
Indeed, disabled people themselves can benefit from receiving mobility
training, which also helps to increase confidence in using transport independently.
The provision of assistance can be achieved through volunteers (who
must receive equally good training), although in some countries there are
cultural and organisational barriers to this. If volunteers are to be used,
in addition to training, they must receive good support, and should not
be seen as 'cheap labour'. Volunteering can be very rewarding for the volunteer,
if managed well and properly resourced.
Personal assistance is often a difficult issue at transport interchanges,
where different providers are involved. Policies should be agreed between
providers so that assistance is available for people who need it in transferring
from one service to another. Once again this is a crucial 'link' in the
transport chain upon which the accessibility of the whole system can sometimes
depend. Pilot programmes covering this matter exist in Paris and Belfast.
Sometimes accessibility can be the victim of automation, and increasing
'computerisation' of information and services. It is often the case that
the intervention of human assistance is necessary to combat design inadequacies
of computerised systems. To put it another way, computerised systems should
have a 'fallback' system involving human assistance or intervention.
CHAPTER FOUR - THE POLITICAL DIMENSION
4.1 Policy Principles
The purpose of having a policy is that it provides a clear
unambiguous set of principles. They describe standards, aims with accompanying
objectives rather than simply aims, and create accountability as soon as
they are published. They are not legally binding, in the same way as legislation,
but should state what law they comply to, and should have written into
them, a way in which to monitor their effectiveness, and a channel for
complaint so that they may be challenged. Without these two elements, any
policy becomes a sales document without meaning, and should not be trusted
as being the true principles of its authors. In addition, they must describe
the way in which they should be implemented.
The following policy principles should govern the provision of accessible
transport systems:
Design standards
4.1.1 Transport should be safe.
4.1.2 Professionals involved in the operation or design of public transport
systems or infrastructure should have, as part of their qualification,
training in disability awareness.
4.1.3 Standards should be based on functionality rather than absolute
specifications. Interpretation and implementation of such design standards
should be tested by users in each case.
4.1.4 Transport systems should recognise language and cultural differences.
User involvement at all levels
4.1.5 Disability groups should co-ordinate their actions and co-operate
to achieve common aims.
4.1.6 Disabled people should be involved at a decision-making level
in the design and operation of transport systems.
4.1.7 It is very important that the principle of user involvement and
participation is recognised and perhaps underpinned by a mandatory requirement
to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to ensure the realisation of
this principle.
Policy development and legislation
4.1.8 It should be national policy in each member state that Public
Transport is integrated, accessible and affordable.
4.1.9 Transport services should be provided at sufficient levels to
cater for peak and off-peak demand levels.
4.1.10 Design standards for public transport systems should be mandatory
(compulsory).
4.1.11 Successful implementation of mandatory design standards should
be independently assessed in a consistent European-wide manner (like a
blue flag for a beach).
4.2 Legislation
What is currently lacking in the majority of countries is the adequate
legislation to which any policy must comply. The following demonstrates
some differences between legislative practices in member states.
Belgium
Legislation requires new buildings or changes to existing buildings
to be accessible. It is generally considered by users not to be far reaching
or specific enough. It does not apply to transport systems.
France
Legislation passed in 1975 requires transport systems to be accessible
as does the transport law (LOT) although, it is considered to be ineffective
as it does not provide specifications. COLITRAH (Comité de liaison
pour le transport des personnes handicapées) provides advice on
accessibility and is a government appointed body. This body has no authority
to enforce its recommendations.
Greece
Legislation exists at a local level which covers the buses and metro
system in Athens. At a national level, legislation covering airports was
introduced in 1983, and there is also legislation covering ferries of more
than 50m length (Presidential Decree 101/1995).
Norway
Legislation does not exist that covers all modes of transport, and each
mode has its own regulations or guidance. There are separate regulations
for buses, guidance for metro systems, but no effective national regulations
or guidance for trams and trains.
UK
Legislation takes the form of Building Regulations Part M and the Disability
Discrimination Act (1995). The Building Regulations apply to new buildings
and to the re-design of existing buildings. They do not apply to transport,
and did not apply to many public buildings which have Crown immunity. The
DDA will apply to transport systems but as yet there are no compliance
dates set, and it is unenforceable as it provides the user with no means
of using it to challenge discrimination. Guidance and Regulations are provided
for trains via the Rail Regulators Report, and DPTAC provides recommendations
for other modes such as specifications for buses.
4.3 Civil Rights
European laws protect people from other forms of discrimination
and equal opportunities can be ensured through challenging such laws. Access,
however, is not included within these laws as an agreed civil right, despite
the fact that without it, a person with restricted mobility is denied the
same freedom as other people. Most member states have implemented laws
of positive discrimination, particularly with reference to employment and
education, but people with disabilities are still unable to exercise their
rights as they are denied the right to make the journey safely to get to
work in the same way as others. Some national laws for example the 1995
Disability Discrimination Act in the United Kingdom seem on the surface
to be of great benefit to people with disabilities but as yet, compliance
dates are not set, and there is currently no recourse to challenge, as
there is no independent monitoring body with statutory powers, as exists
with racial and sex discrimination.
Similarly, other countries within Europe experience the same difficulties
in that there are laws but as they cannot be challenged, they are ineffective.
This obviously raises the issue of whether a serious commitment has been
made to challenging discrimination against people with disabilities. What
is needed, is a single European law that is prescriptive, and to which
all member states and transport providers must then comply. In addition
it must allow the people for whose benefit it is intended to use it to
challenge discrimination and for both the user to be appropriately compensated
and the transport operator penalised.
Until that time, campaigning is necessary to raise awareness of the
issues, and to persuade people of the need for legislation. Users' organisations
must use a range of campaigning techniques from direct action to direct
dialogue! They should also be armed with a series of well-researched (and
rehearsed) arguments. They must set the policy agenda rather than reacting
to an agenda set by others. It is important to be able to control events
with comprehensive strategies. However, such actions can only take place
when there is collaborative working among and between organisations. It
must be remembered that transport operators' organisations, such as UITP,
employ full-time lobbyists in Brussels to ensure that EC actions do not
adversely affect their members. Disabled people and their organisations
should be equally as organised.
The following tactics are suggested as key elements in a successful
campaign.
4.3.1 Awareness-raising
4.3.2 Advice and consultancy
4.3.3 Legislation and regulation
4.3.4 Education and training
4.3.5 Research
A good example of awareness-raising and education is the 'Sad
Bluehound Bus' storybook, used by Helsinki City Transport to raise children's
awareness of the social importance of transport accessibility. This is
also used in conjunction with wooden toy low-floor buses, whose toy passengers
have a wide range of personal mobilities.
4.4 Population Trends
There can be no doubt that the population of Europe is getting
older. It is estimated that in the next 50 years the population over the
age of 65 will double in the countries of the OECD, increasing from 87
million to approximately 175 million. The number of those over 80 years
of age will triple to around 47 million. Thus, the 'aged' will account
for 20-30% of the population compared with 10-15% today. This is confirmed
by research by the Royal College of Art (UK), which shows that the proportion
of older people to younger people has been growing for more than a century.
According to their statistics, there will be more than 115 million people
over the age of 50 in the EU by the year 2000. In Sweden, the 'oldest'
country in Europe, the over 75s will amount to 14% of the working age population
by then, with the average across EU approaching 11%. As it gets older,
so the balance of wealth shifts proportionately, so that in order to remain
financially viable, services need to adapt to the changing market and those
with disposable income.
UK Population Distribution Projections
| Ages |
1996
|
2000
|
2005
|
2010
|
2015
|
2020
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0
-14 |
12,298,000
|
11,615,000
|
11,451,000
|
11,083,000
|
10,735,000
|
10,658,000
|
| 15-59 |
34,406,000
|
36,067,000
|
36,313,000
|
36,196,000
|
36,276,000
|
35,495,000
|
| 60-74 |
7,832,000
|
7,755,000
|
8,055,000
|
9,091,000
|
9,675,000
|
10,335,000
|
| 75+ |
4,198,000
|
4,451,000
|
4,641,000
|
4,768,000
|
4,987,000
|
5,379,000
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total
UK |
58,734,000
|
59,888,000
|
60,460,000
|
61,138,000
|
61,673,000
|
61,867,000
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Source:
Projections supplied by the Government Actuary's Department, based on OPCS
1991 Census data. |
In 1993, the Wandsworth Health Authority (as it was then),
published some interesting population demographics showing a 'bulge' in
the 20-34 age ranges in the general population. However, when the same
figures were analysed for Black Caribbean, Indian and Bangladeshi residents,
it can be seen that the age distribution is quite different, and that there
are proportionally more elderly people from those ethnic backgrounds, as
well as more 'soon to be elderly people'. This has important consequences
for transport planning, which are related to language and ethnicity considerations
(see section 3.3).
Wandsworth Health Authority - age distribution comparisons (1993)
4.5 Cost Benefit Analysis
Much research has been done that has analysed the cross-sector
benefits of accessible transport systems, and there is a likelihood that
funding through COST will be provided for further research.
This research has shown several positive aspects in providing fully
accessible transport systems.
Firstly, the numbers of mobility impaired passengers using services
has increased dramatically. The effect of this is to increase revenues
for the transport companies which, if applied to fare reductions, would
increase usage further. The environment also benefits, in that the more
people who travel on public transport systems, the less there are travelling
in small number in cars.
Because there is no significant delay in passengers boarding and alighting
the journey time is reduced. Some companies report that this has meant
that faster, more efficient and more frequent journeys are able to be made,
providing customers with a further incentive to travel.
In the County of Sogn og Fjordane, Norway, a system of integrated low-floor
midi buses and larger articulated low-floor buses has been introduced.
Interchange areas provide passengers with a smooth transition from one
vehicle to another, both organisationally and by the compatible design
of the vehicle (all the larger express buses are fitted with a lift and
an accessible toilet). This particular example demonstrates real cost benefits
since they have experienced an increased use of services of 20% each year
for the past three years. This system is of additional interest since it
is a rural area.
Cross Sector Benefits represent efficiencies of resource use, within
and between sectors, as a result of providing disabled and other people
with accessible public transport. It has been proven that because people
with disabilities are able to make journeys independently, the number of
services that are delivered to them are greatly reduced. In one study 'Cross
Sector Benefits of Accessible Transport' (Fowkes, Oxley and Heiser, Cranfield
University, 1995) an example used showed that the number of patients that
a chiropodist is able to see in one day is reduced because of the time
wasted travelling between appointments. A home visit incurred twice the
cost of a visit to a clinic. The same is likely to be true of large numbers
of the medical and other professions, and if disabled people are able to
travel to places for health care they are likely to receive a better quality
service. Additionally car allowances provided for medical staff to make
these journeys could be saved. Examples given in the report suggest that
a 10% reduction in the need to provide domiciliary chiropody visits could
realise benefits of £0.8 million; a 50% reduction would achieve £3.8
million and so on.
Cranfield's research estimates the potential scale of cross sector benefits
in the UK as being as much as £1 billion per annum. The figures shown
below, taken from this research show a series of estimated benefits. The
value is based on average costs and a range is given.
Estimates of Cross Sector Benefits (UK, £ Million,
UK 1990/91)
| Low |
Medium |
High |
| 256 |
582 |
1161 |
Another study on this subject which took place in Sweden, is
'Service Routes In Boras' (Stahl, Lund Institute of Technology, 1989).
4.6 Research Gaps
We have identified the following as potential areas of research
with a political dimension.
4.6.1 A comparative European Cross-Sector benefits study.
4.6.2 Achieving user involvement: developing frameworks.
4.6.3 Devising assessment criteria with a view to the development of
a core-network of accessible railway stations.
4.6.4 Surveys of operators' attitudes and plans for accessibility measures.
4.6.5 A feasibility study into the European Taxicard scheme.
4.6.6 Door-to-door services: an evaluation of developing user needs
for the next millennium.
|
