4. ISSUES FOR DISABLED PASSENGERS
4.1
For some disabled people, there is no practical or economic alternative to public transport. Yet many of the people who are most reliant on public transport find that it is either wholly or partly inaccessible to them. Over time, the inaccessibility of some or all elements of the public transport network may compound their marginalisation.
Top
4.2 A variety of complex issues were brought to the Inquiry by disabled users and potential users of public transport. They demonstrate why there can be no accessible public transport without integrated planning that acknowledges and addresses each of the components of the accessible journey.
4.3 For some disabled passengers, problems with infrastructure are the most serious impediment to a fully accessible journey. Submissions raised issues about the state of the footpaths, or their complete absence; the kerb height and kerb cuts, or their absence; the presence of safe crossings, the time allowed at controlled crossings, and the use of tactile materials and audio as well as visual signals; and the siting, design and condition of bus stops and train stations.
4.4 A total of 43 submissions addressed infrastructure design and maintenance issues; 35 submissions raised pick up point design, maintenance and siting concerns; and 31 submissions highlighted the impact of distance to pick-up point, and from set down to destination. This was an issue identified by submitters as of great importance to elderly people as well as disabled passengers:
“Those of us who are elderly and who are not as fit as we used to be, find it most difficult to walk … to bus stops that are quite distant [from our own homes]. Especially those of us who have illnesses, it is quite difficult to hurry to catch timetabled buses.” (Louisa Lavakula (English translation, original in Niuean))
“None of Dunedin’s buses drop people outside the hospital. The main route through the city is one block away from the hospital. Many elderly have frequent hospital appointments and are often visiting friends and family who are in hospital. For elderly people with age related mobility, the distance to the hospital from the stop may prevent them using a bus.” (Age Concern Otago)
4.5 The dangers any pedestrian faces in crossing busy roads are compounded for disabled people who may not be able to see or who cannot hear approaching traffic. For those with mobility impairment, even controlled crossings may be an obstacle when the time allowed to get from one side to the other is too short. The Disability Information Service Centre in Wellington submitted that the time allowed at controlled crossings was generally not long enough “for people who cannot walk quickly”.
4.6 Having an accessible bus on a route is not enough to guarantee access and egress for wheelchair users. Unless bus stops are appropriately sited and maintained, and footpaths are of the required height and width, the bus effectively becomes inaccessible. As Shane Gooderidge told the Inquiry:
“If you’re looking at a motorised wheelchair going across a grass verge in the middle of winter, it could make an awful lot of mess, not to mention getting stuck.” (Shane Gooderidge, oral submission)
The crucial role of kerb cuts in the accessible journey was described by Alison Riseborough:
“The transport hub at Johnsonville Mall is inaccessible due to lack of adequate kerb cuts from the bus stops. A new kerb cut installed on one stop is unsafe to use because there is no landing space – this prevents me from using the bus to get to the shops, library or doctor.” (Alison Riseborough)
Bus operators providing fully accessible super low floor buses shared the frustrations of wheelchair users about infrastructure. Local and regional councils all had programmes for regular incremental improvement, limited primarily by funding constraints; but provisions for involving the key stakeholders, namely disabled people and transport operators, in the prioritisation process, varied widely.
4.9 The challenge of ensuring that all aspects of the accessible journey are developed in an integrated and coordinated way is not confined to New Zealand. A recent report on social exclusion and public transport in the United Kingdom noted:
“The provision of infrastructure has, however, not always kept pace with the provision of vehicles. Bus services exist where it is possible to board and alight from a vehicle at some but not all stops … Bus stops may be difficult to access because they have to be reached via a busy road and there is no crossing place, or they may be dangerous to access because the route is, for example, poorly lit.”
Top
4.10 Problems with infrastructure limit access to trains as well as to buses. Not only do varied platform heights create difficulties in boarding trains for the mobility impaired and for those who are blind, but many stations are also inaccessible. Nigel Burton told the Inquiry that “most stations are extremely basic and offer no staff support, no emergency assistance telephone”, and they are often perceived as unwelcoming and even dangerous. He went on to note that “many stations offer no physical alternative to footbridges or pedestrian underpasses” and urged elevator access combined with wheelchair friendly ramps, grab rails and tactile paving. The benefits of incorporating these accessibility features were highlighted with the opening of the upgraded Kingsland station in Auckland, which provides lift access for disabled people and those with children in push-chairs.
4.11 Being able to plan a journey from beginning to end is critical for disabled people. Unforeseen obstacles may leave them stranded and wholly dependent on the assistance of strangers. Information is also essential throughout the journey, to ensure that disabled people can board and exit at their desired stops.
4.12 Wheelchair users and those with other mobility aids have to be assured not only that a taxi, bus or train can take them to their destination, but that there will be an equally accessible vehicle at the required time to bring them home. Information at pick up and drop off points has to be at a level a wheelchair user can read. Deaf passengers need visual information about last minute platform or routing changes, as well as written warnings of approaching stops. The partially sighted need both suitably designed visual information and audio signals. Totally blind passengers are dependent on audio signals. Those with intellectual disabilities and some phobias can be severely disoriented by unexpected changes or other distractions and may require assistance, as may those with multiple impairments.
4.13 The single issue raised most frequently, in 63 submissions commenting on aspects of bus design, was being able to identify which bus or train to board and where to get off. Jenny Rickit's experiences were reflected in a number of the submissions:
“I have also found that at stops like Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place buses tend to only pull into the stop if there is clearly a passenger wanting to get on the bus. Thus I am not given the time to see if it is the right bus for me. As a suggestion, it would really help me if all buses pull into each stop and wait for a minute to allow people who are partially blind to read the number on the bus.” (Jenny Rickit)
4.14 In its submission, the Association of Blind Citizens confirmed that for blind and vision-impaired passengers, a system that enabled them to know what buses or trains are approaching a stop and when to get off would make the most difference to their ability to use public transport.
4.15 Although access to accurate provider information remains a concern for some disabled people, there are examples of good provider practice. In the Auckland region, for example, Maxx (previously Rideline) now provides route information and timetables through a variety of media formats. As with infrastructure, this has been an area of progressive improvement, with some substantial gains as a result of new technological developments.
4.16 Buses: Those who have experienced Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) systems with both visual and audio announcements at the bus stop and on the bus regard them as ideal:
“In Auckland we now have the Link bus which goes round the central suburbs for a flat fare on which there is no discount. This is an excellent service for the blind, since most of these buses have a recording which announces each bus stop. Also at some bus stops there is a screen telling passengers how soon the next bus will arrive. Below the screen is a button which reads the screen aloud.” (Retina NZ)
Top
4.17 The introduction of GPS systems has benefits for all passengers, as well as for operators. On the available evidence, their limited use in New Zealand has been accompanied by increased patronage overall on those routes, as well as positive consumer comment. An expansion of their use will require a commitment from all levels of the sector. Ideally, all new buses should be designed as GPS-capable, with transceivers, screens and announcement equipment already fitted, or easy to fit when needed.
4.18 The Inquiry acknowledges that full implementation of such systems on all bus routes will be expensive. However, submitters identified a number of actions that can be taken in the meantime:
- operators can adopt policies that require a driver to announce their service number when they identify a blind or visually impaired person waiting for a ride;
- operators can adopt policies that require all major stops and any specific stops requested by passengers to be announced.
4.19 Trains: For blind and deaf passengers, because of identification difficulties, travelling by train is as problematic as travelling by bus. As for bus services, submitters advocated a combination of audio and visual announcements at stations and on the train.
4.20 Taxis: For blind and visually impaired taxi users, being unable to personally confirm the metered cost of the trip, the driver’s name, and the taxi company or cab number makes them vulnerable and anxious:
“Problems exist with the physical availability of taxis, the availability of subsidised funding, validating the fare, completing Total Mobility vouchers and the attitudes and knowledge of drivers.”
“Blind and low vision people are often unable to validate that the Total Mobility taxi vouchers have been correctly filled in by the driver. Few if any blind and low vision people have sufficient vision to read the fare on the taxi meter. Reliance on the integrity and/or general accuracy of the taxi driver is almost total.”
4.21 Standard placement of big print and Braille information on the back of the front seats or on the back doors was suggested. For Total Mobility scheme users, the Auckland Regional Council has come up with a swipe card that overcomes some of these problems:
Top
“A solution is offered by the Auckland Regional Council which has ceased using vouchers and replaced them with swipe cards which are read by the taxi meters. A record of all Total Mobility trips and fares is provided to the Auckland Regional Council each month by taxis in the scheme. This removes the risk of error, accidental or deliberate, in reporting the taxi fare.”
“At least two of the Auckland taxi companies in the Total Mobility scheme automatically print receipts immediately the meter is switched off. Passengers can collect these receipts for later reading.” (RNZFB)
Getting aboard
4.22 Buses: Access to buses can be impeded by other physical barriers. Illegally parked cars or congestion by buses themselves (particularly in the major metropolitan areas) can mean that ramp-equipped buses, where they are provided, may not be able to extend ramps or assume a “kneeling” position. Bus stop congestion is a source of increasing frustration and a deterrent to potential patronage, not only to disabled users but to the wider public. Coordination between local and regional planners and transport providers, and a commitment to ensure that illegal parking on bus stops attracts a prompt and meaningful penalty, is required.
4.23 It is a measure of the commitment of both users and providers that considerable progress, particularly in the main centres, has already been made in stocking bus fleets with all super low floor (SLF) buses.
4.24 Where SLF buses are consistently available, they are widely regarded as increasing the accessibility of public transport services for many people in the community:
“Where I live on the flat in Dunedin we now have kneeling buses which are ideal for all types of passengers who use buses, mothers with babies in prams, wheelchair users, elderly people with walking difficulties or support frames, and the blind, as they have contrasting features to make getting on to them visible for partially sighted bus users, and wide doors.” (Retina New Zealand)
4.25 Trains: A total of 29 submitters reported some difficulty in boarding trains. Nigel Burton identified problems at all stages of the accessible train journey:
Top
“Many railway stations are little more than an elevated footpath leading in from a street or other area. Many stations offer no physical alternative to footbridges or pedestrian underpasses – elevator access to and from stations combined with wheelchair-friendly ramps, grab rails and tactile paving are all required.
“In addition to the problems caused by railway station platform heights relative to the rolling stock, the stepped entrance to railway carriages on the Wellington Tranz Metro rail network effectively bars wheelchair users and causes difficulties for those with other physical and sensory disabilities.” (Nigel Burton)
4.26 While progress has undoubtedly been made, for users of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, motorised wheelchairs and scooters, there can still be some confusion and misunderstanding about what aids can be accommodated, even on SLF buses with a clear “wheelchair” space or spaces:
“Where wheelchair space is available, they are inconsistent in size and location on the bus. Many chairs cannot fit in some gaps, eg, my 14 inch chair just fitted in one Auckland bus where the gap was at the front near the driver. Nothing bigger would fit in. Most chairs other than children’s are 16 or 18 inch.” (Donna-Rose McKay)
“Once on the bus it is often difficult to manoeuvre a wheelchair into position or able-bodied people may be in the seats that can be adjusted. Recently an Auckland client had the experience of accessing a bus, but then being stuck in the aisle.” (Muscular Dystrophy Association)
4.27 Guide dogs are also mobility aids. The Association of Blind Citizens raised the issue of accommodating guide dogs on buses:
“The provision of seats which are particularly designated as most convenient for use by customers with guide dogs should be identified by the public transportation provider so long as this policy does not become a de facto means of segregating blind and vision-impaired passengers. It should always remain the choice of a blind or vision-impaired passenger to choose his/her seat.” (Association of Blind Citizens)
4.28 Buses: An increasing number of urban bus routes are being advertised as being serviced by SLF buses, either full-time or between particular hours. Examples were given to the Inquiry of routes in Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington and Dunedin in this category. However, it is the experience of many submitters that on other routes, it is impossible to predict that you will get a SLF bus at any particular time on any particular route. Even if you do, you have no guarantee that you will get one for your return journey. This sets up a Catch-22 situation where few people who need an accessible bus use the buses, because of the inability to guarantee an appropriate bus. This may contribute to the low levels of patronage by wheelchair users that bus companies report:
“There is no timetabling of accessible buses which leads to the uncertainty of being able to begin and/or complete a bus journey. During the cruise boat season the accessible buses were used for tourists’ sightseeing and were unavailable for Dunedin residents.” (DPA, Dunedin)
4.29 Coaches: While urban wheelchair and other mobility aid users are experiencing at least incremental improvement in bus accessibility, there is currently no appropriate accessible design solution for long distance and inter-city coaches.
4.30 Trains: There have been very few improvements in the accessibility of train carriages:
“Even if a wheelchair could access the carriages, there is no provision for it in terms of space allocation or facilities such as grab rails or an emergency assistance button. The carriages are simply outdated in almost every regard and require a major overhaul or complete replacement.” (Nigel Burton)
Top
4.31 The train design issue that attracted the most submissions (eight) also concerned the carriage of mobility aids. Submitters reported the need for all trains to be accessible to mobility aid users, and for new train designs to maximise the type and size of mobility aids that can be accommodated on trains. There was evident uncertainty about which mobility aids will be able to use which train stations and routes at particular times:
“I live in Paraparaumu and recently I wished to attend a memorial service at Old St Pauls in Wellington … [T]he only way in which I could attend would be to use my Mobility Scooter and travel in by train … [Eventually I was] informed … that in fact, if my scooter fitted their criteria, I would be able to travel. My scooter is comparatively new and has a good lock, further it is not the largest model on the market. I was overjoyed and envisaged further days in Wellington viewing the Art Galleries, going to the Theatre and meeting friends for lunch. [I was] sent … some brochures.
“Unfortunately, when the information arrived, I found that my scooter needed an extra 10cm to turn. I must say that if I had a smaller scooter I would not feel safe in the street and I would not be able to use my scooter to do my shopping.” (Barbara Barendregt)
Top
4.32 Tranz Metro have responded to the uncertainty about what mobility aids can be carried by producing a comprehensive guide to “mobility impaired access”. The information is also available through the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s website and call centre.
4.33 During the course of the Inquiry the Commission received 13 submissions relating to securing wheelchairs in wheelchair accessible taxis (WATs), and nine submissions concerning the design of hoists and associated equipment on WATs:
“Lack of adequate safety provisions and enforcement standards is another barrier to travelling in WATs. Over the years I have had many disputes with drivers who would not adequately secure my wheelchair, or provide any form of seatbelt. On several occasions drivers have tied a piece of webbing around me with a knot and insisted it will provide adequate restraint in a crash. On three or four occasions (in Wellington and other cities) I have insisted on being unloaded from the taxi because not even the minimum of securing was provided. I have persisted with regular drivers until they now automatically tie down my chair properly and provide some form of seatbelt. I am very concerned that my experience may be typical and that others who cannot advocate for themselves may not be travelling safely.” (Alison Riseborough)
“Some taxi drivers do not place a lap/safety belt on as, if you are in a wheelchair and already have one on, they assume this is enough. When securing wheelchairs, sometimes drivers take footplates off and put chairs too close together to fit more people in.” (Ripple Trust)
“Some drivers do not engender much confidence when they are loading wheelchair users, like not standing behind the wheelchair users whilst the hoist is being raised or lowered. Sometimes the standard of wheelchair tie down is inadequate.” (DPA, Dunedin)
4.34 Land Transport Rule: Passenger Service Vehicle 1999: Rule 31001 has specific requirements for wheelchair hoists and ramps, doorways and interior height and wheelchair and wheelchair-occupant restraints. The requirements refer directly to Australian standards, which appear to have been published in 1991. Some of the issues mentioned during the Inquiry raised questions about the adequacy of the present rule. For example, the Rule requires a “20mm high safety ridge along the side edges” of the loading ramp. A number of submitters, including the Ironside Vehicle Society, a community transport provider from New Plymouth, thought that this was inadequate. Other issues mentioned would appear to be in clear contravention of the rule requirements. For example, many centre-anchored WATs would appear not to have an easily reachable “horizontal handrail adjacent to the wheelchair parking position for wheelchair occupants to steady themselves while the passenger service vehicle is moving.”
Top
4.35 The age of the national WAT fleet is undoubtedly a factor that impacts on safety provisions. At the request of the Commission, the New Zealand Taxi Federation updated an earlier survey of the condition of all WATs in New Zealand. The results are reported in Chapter 7.
4.36 Comparatively few submissions made reference to premises, and most of these were about railway stations. This may well be because all new and renovated premises are covered by New Zealand Standard 4121. The standard, issued under the Building Act 2004, applies to “all new buildings and existing buildings, other than private residential buildings, when they are altered, or there is a change in use”. It applies to all transport premises built or altered since 1991. The current standard is stronger for those with mobility impairments than it is for those with hearing or sight impairments. Appropriately, it places considerable emphasis on design for access and mobility in buildings. Features that would assist blind or visually impaired visitors are less prominent. There are few or no requirements for tactile indicators, and the need for good colour contrasts on signs and features is mentioned only sometimes. Some of these inadequacies, particularly in the design of the access path to the building, are addressed in RTS 14: Guidelines for Facilities for Blind and Vision-Impaired Pedestrians. However, unlike the standard itself, these guidelines are “not mandated by law”. The necessity for guidelines such as these arises when standards are developed that apply only to particular sections of the public.
4.37 In The New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights – Mana ki te Tangata, the Commission has recommended that New Zealand Standard 4121 be reviewed every five to 10 years to reflect developments in best practice in building accessibility.
