« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
TRANSPORT PROVISION FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND
SECTION FOUR: PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES
This section will deal in some detail with public transport services. In each case, an overview of the policy framework relating to the mode will be explored, followed by a summary of the issues identified in relation to vehicles, services and infrastructure.
BUS AND COACH TRAVEL
This section will set out the findings of the research in relation to bus and coach services.
Organisations involved
Bus services in the UK were deregulated following the Transport Act 1984. The practical effect of this was to introduce competition into bus services in most areas for the first time. Following a period of some uncertainty, where many bus companies either merged, were taken over or went out of business, the last few years have been marked by increased stability in services. Since the mid-1990s, a small number of companies have dominated Scottish bus services. In some areas, such as Edinburgh, there are two large companies in direct competition with each other, operating similar routes, but in most areas, including the other 3 large cities, single companies have by far the largest share of the market. Thus, in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, while one company has an overwhelming market share of in-city services, another company operates most of the rural routes. A similar situation applies in Dundee and Angus. There are also a very large number of small operators, generally in rural areas, but also in urban areas, where many operate as few as one or two timetabled routes. Many also provide school or social work transport services to local authorities under contract (which often has the practical effect of limiting the times of the day when scheduled service can be offered).
Routes have to be registered with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, and a range of duties apply to this in terms of the provision of timetables and other information. Currently, there is no requirement to specify that a service will be operated by a specific type of vehicle (for example, a low floor bus).
In many parts of Scotland, most, and in some cases, all services are provided under contract to the local authority. Local authorities have the power to subsidise services they deem to be necessary, and where commercial operators would be unable to operate profitably. In some cases, services are subsidised for their entire duration, in other cases, only at weekends or in the evenings. In a small number of cases (for example in Shetland) the local authority has used this contracting approach to specify that low-floor buses should be used on all main route services.
Coach travel takes two main forms. There are a large number of coaches available for hire, some of which also undertake contract work for local authorities. There are also scheduled coach services operated by a smaller number of operators, particularly Citylink, Rapsons and Stagecoach. Many of the scheduled coach services are over quite long distances, and there are services linking to both airports and ferry terminals (such as those at Uig, Ullapool and Scrabster).
The implications of the DDA for bus and coach services
Bus and coach services (although not bus stations) are exempt from Part III of the DDA. Since 1995, a series of changes have been introduced under the provisions of Part V of the Act, designed to make buses more accessible in advance of the final deadlines set in the Act of 2016 for single deck and 2018 for double deck buses. New buses are now governed by the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000, which were developed from advisory standards proposed by DPTAC and published in 1997. These set out the minimum standards which all buses carrying more than 22 passengers have to comply with, including having a low floor and easy access (with standards set for the operation and nature of ramps), and at least one wheelchair space (with standards governing the size and location of this). The specification also covers issues such as the width of passageways, the location bell pushes and the nature of the seats provided. DPTAC has published a standard for small buses in advance of the implementation of regulations in 2005.
Coaches will not be fully compliant until 2020, partly in recognition of the particular technical difficulties posed by the steep entry steps. New regulations will come into place from 2005, which will be similar to those for buses. The Department for Transport has supported a trial of wheelchair accessible coaches on a small number of long distance routes in England in advance of the commencement of the regulations.
It is fair to suggest that there was some level of incredulity among disabled people interviewed as part of this research, and who responded to the postal survey, that changes to the accessibility of bus and coach services should be so protracted. A number noted that Part III comes into force fully in 2004 29, yet buses would not be fully accessible until 2018 (although there were also many disabled people who do not perceive that current low floor buses actually are accessible) and coaches until 2020. As one respondent, typical of a range, noted:
"I was told by the First Bus Glasgow Depot, that although I had been under the impression that all buses would be low floor and available by 2004, they have a special dispensation to extend to 2012, which I think is a disgrace by that time I would be 81 years old and perhaps not so able to travel anywhere by bus."
It is also clear from a small number of respondents that there is some level of misunderstanding about the provisions of the DDA both among passengers and service providers. One noted that a bus operator had claimed to them that the DDA did not apply to buses, while others noted being quoted a range of dates by which buses should be fully compliant with the PSVAR. There is also, as suggested by the previous quote, some level of misapprehension that, from October 2004, the full implementation of Part III will apply to buses.
Bus services
As noted earlier, most bus services in urban areas are provided by commercial operators and are geared to make a profit. In peripheral areas, and in rural areas, most are provided by commercial operators under subsidy-based contracts to local authorities.
One area of consistent criticism of bus operators was routing. This issue was raised in relation to most areas of Scotland, and was also a key feature of a joint consultation undertaken by Edinburgh City Council and a range of equality forums. Although local bus services have to be registered with the Traffic Commissioner, and any amendments notified in advance, there is no stipulation that any consultation should take place with either local interest groups or with disabled people specifically (although the Traffic Commissioner does suggest consulting with local authorities and the police). Typically, companies will provide advance notification of any changes, but, unless the service is subsidised, any alterations are a commercial matter, and, unless there are overriding issues (for example, relating to road safety or congestion) are likely to be agreed. This is a matter of concern for some disabled people who participated in this research. An example (from the Edinburgh Joint Consultation) was the re-routing of service 26 by Lothian Buses, which previously served the City Council offices Waterloo Place.
Allied to this, respondents particularly in Edinburgh but also in parts of Fife, identified some measure of frustration that low floor buses were deployed by two companies competing on a route, while other routes served by the companies remained inaccessible. It was acknowledged that this may be, in part, due to the investments made in road infrastructure to support the introduction of the services.
A further area of concern in relation to changes in timetables was identified by one respondent, who suggested that:
"Most of the adults I work with have few physical barriers preventing them from using public transport but other factors can make it difficult. There have been several major reorganisations of bus routes and timetables in Edinburgh over the past 3 years. The work that people with learning disabilities have put into learning routes is lost each time this happens and it has proved very confusing for them."
New buses with more than 22 seats have to conform to access specifications developed under Part V of the DDA in relation to a wide range of aspects such as door widths, ramps, passageways, floor coverings, seats and wheelchair spaces. As noted earlier, small buses and coaches will have to comply from 2005. As will be set out later, by no means all of those with experience of low floor buses are content that the access standards are acceptable, and provide barrier free access. Many wheelchair users remain unable to use buses due to the relatively confined turning area both at the entrance door and in the area of the designated space. In this regard, Fife Council and Fife Independent Disability Network conducted an access trial using a standard low floor bus. Out of ten wheelchair users, half were unable to board the bus or gain access to the designated space. Wheelchair users in two areas expressed concerns about their safety due to the fact that, if the space is rearward facing, there is no requirement for the wheelchair to be anchored in any way, although a notice in most buses states that brakes should be applied. One interviewee stated clearly that:
"[I] won't ever use buses until they start clamping. This should be a condition of carriage - people have to be safe."
Another noted their concern at not being anchored when, for example, a bus goes round a roundabout at speed. One respondent questioned whether the wheelchair user or the bus company would be liable if brakes were not applied and the passenger concerned was injured as a direct result. Related to this, neither wheelchair users nor bus companies identified that drivers routinely ensure that a passenger is settled before moving off.
A number of interviewees in Aberdeen identified that they were unable to use First Aberdeen low floor services due to the positioning of handrails. The layout of low floor buses was also raised as a concern by older people. The provision of at least one space for wheelchair users means that, in most cases, there is now a considerable gap without either handrails or seat backs which, in older buses, can be used to help steady a passenger moving down the bus. As one participant in a group discussion noted:
"All they've done is converted the buses and made it much more difficult for elderly and visually impaired people"
The view of many disabled people and older people was that low floor buses are only a partial improvement at best, and in some ways, and for some users, actually offer poorer access.
The rate of purchase of low floor buses appears to have slowed down since 1998. Large parts of the fleets of major companies, such as Arriva, First Group, Travel Dundee, Stagecoach and Lothian Buses had been updated prior to 1998. Most change in the last 5 years has been in the fleets of smaller companies, which are progressively replacing older buses with newer, low floor buses. This process has been greatly assisted by the fact that second hand low floor buses are now coming onto the market (although these still command a premium over other vehicles).
One very small operator (with 4 buses, all low floor and all bought in the last 5 years) identified that their approach had been to identify niche markets not currently served either by larger companies for profit, or under local authority contracts. Much of their current timetable is dedicated to transporting elderly and disabled people from housing areas to shopping malls (with Shopmobility-type provision available), using a virtual door to door service where required.
Operators were virtually unanimous that cost was the main determining factor preventing all fleets from becoming low floor. This represents a slight change since 1998, when there were more concerns both about the technology embedded in the buses and the capacity of the roads infrastructure to cope. This still remains an issue in some areas as one smaller operator noted:
"In many rural areas low floor vehicles would ground regularly and therefore cannot be used without major works being carried out on the roads. (e.g. Arran and Argyll & Bute). In urban areas some road humps are also too severe and low floor buses cannot go over them."
Two operators in rural areas questioned the introduction of low floor buses on routes where suitable pavements do not currently exist. A further point identified in Shetland (Shetland Times 26.12.03) is that low floor vehicles are lighter than coach style buses, and there is a concern that these are more susceptible to being blown off the road in severe cross winds. This said, costs are the primary concern for most operators, even those which expressed support for the principle of easy-access vehicles. As one operator noted:
"It's a catch 22, we haven't got the suitable vehicles to do the job, but to buy them on spec doesn't justify the outlay. If we got a help from the government like a grant or subsidy. I remember 25 years ago my dad got a grant for a service bus, the condition was he had to do so many service miles and keep it for a certain time, this was when I was at school. Nothing has been offered since then. If something like this could happen then I am sure not only I would like to upgrade, other operators would as well."
A large operator identified that a problem for them was the potential cost of replacing older vehicles before they had fully depreciated, hence low-floor buses had to be phased in at a slower rate.
A number also identified that, in their area, most services were provided under contract to the local authority. Two points were made in regard to this. The first was that bus companies were unlikely to invest until the local authorities concerned specify low floor buses in their contract conditions, and secondly, the marginal rates offered by local authorities are perceived to be too low to allow for early replacement of older vehicles. One operator noted:
"All our routes are contracted from Angus Council. If, in future, they require low floor or kneeling vehicles we would tender for, and supply if successful, vehicles of that specification."
One company, having replaced its fleet with new low floor buses identified that, over the period of operation, very few wheelchair users had used the services, although it acknowledged that access had been greatly improved for other groups of passengers.
For many disabled people, however, the main issue remains that there are large parts of Scotland where there are no low floor buses. As one member of an elderly forum in a rural area noted:
"Is it right that people are still being lifted on and off buses in the 21st century?"
Most rural areas are served by buses with steps, as well as many urban areas, for example in Fife. Very few areas are served by an entirely low-floor fleet. In Shetland, where all main services are low floor, linking routes are provided by stepped mini-buses. In some areas, for example, Aberdeen and Dundee, the fleets of one operator are largely low floor, but some routes remain served by older stepped vehicles. This was a cause of considerable frustration to interviewees and respondents. The Aberdeen group discussion identified that, although most services in the city are served by low floor buses, one is served by a mix of low floor and stepped double deckers. One respondent to the postal survey noted succinctly:
"In Aberdeen City most of the buses are accessible for all disabled people including wheelchair users. Transport in Aberdeenshire does not cater for disabled passengers."
In most areas with high concentrations of newer buses, a range of services have been designated by their operators as being low floor. This approach has been adopted by, for example, Lothian Buses and Travel Dundee. First Group has further branded a number of these services, for example in the Glasgow, Falkirk and Aberdeen areas, and will wherever possible, use low floor buses on these routes. In some cases, for example in the cities, the introduction of these routes has been accompanied by investment in infrastructure - for example the provision of raised kerbs and boarding points, as well as new bus shelters (see below).
High floor and stepped buses present a wide range of access difficulties for disabled people. Clearly the steps themselves are an insurmountable barrier for many travellers, but there are other issues evident. Most older buses have a central pole in the doorway (which is now no longer standard, with poles at the sides to allow easier, unrestricted access). Several visually impaired travellers identified that such poles can present problems to them as these are not readily identified by guide dogs. As one noted:
"I've had situations where the dog has gone one way and I've gone the other. It's a comedy of errors, but I could have fallen back onto the pavement."
Most older buses do not have either high contrast surfaces, or slip resistant floors, again leading to substantial difficulties for visually impaired travellers. One respondent identified that their dog became distressed on being unable to grip the floor during a longer journey.
One of the main criticisms offered by disabled people was of bus drivers who either do not lower their bus at a stop, or who do not deploy the ramp. Interviewees in Aberdeen and Edinburgh provided examples of drivers refusing to deploy manual ramps. One interviewee suggested that their companion was asked by the driver to deploy the ramp. Another reported that the driver suggested to them that he had been ordered not to leave his cab at any time (even to deploy the ramp) and another refused to touch the ramp because it was "too dirty". Conversely, a number of interviewees appear never to have had a problem with the deployment of ramps, suggesting that there is some measure of inconsistency.
The deployment of ramps is covered in detail by the Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers Regulations. These state that:
- You must make a boarding device available when a disabled person wants to get on or off. If you're using a portable ramp, make sure it's positioned correctly and any safety locks are in place. If you're using a lift, you'll need to check handrails and ensure that other safety devices such as lift roll-off stops are put in place.
- You must also get as close to the kerb as you can and deploy the lift or ramp onto the pavement. If that isn't possible, you should ensure that you have stopped the bus in a position that is safe for the wheelchair user to get off.
Lothian Buses, for example, made it clear that its drivers are instructed to abide by these regulations.
None of the bus companies identified that drivers should lower the bus at every stop, although most suggested that drivers should do so either if asked, or if they believed that a passenger required this. Lothian Buses, for example, noted:
"Drivers are instructed to lower the bus as required for elderly, infirm or parents with small children".
One company also identified that their drivers will only lower the bus (or deploy the ramp) if the bus stop is suitable for this. The Conduct Regulations (op cit) suggest that:
"You must kneel your bus or get out the folding (or retractable) step if someone asks you to, or if you think they may need it. It may be difficult to tell who might need such assistance to board, so it's much better if you can kneel the bus at each stop. Doing this will help not only disabled people, but also other passengers to get on and off more easily. Remember, if it's quicker for them then it will also help you."
While the level of discretion afforded the drivers is understandable, a point made by a number of people as part of this research is that many older people and many disabled people are highly unlikely to ask for assistance (for a range of reasons, including fear of becoming enmeshed in an argument if the driver refuses, so as not to draw attention to themselves, or from a perception that this will either inconvenience the passengers or the driver). It was also noted that drivers' perception of who may or may not require this assistance may be based only on visual perceptions, and are unlikely to take any account of hidden impairments.
A further area of concern for a number of disabled people was the perceived conflict of interest between various categories of bus user. Most bus operators market low floor buses as being accessible to a wide range of people, not only disabled people, including those usually described as "encumbered". A number of disabled people identified issues which had arisen for them where the designated space was already occupied by passengers with buggies. In one case, the respondent described feeling humiliated when the driver ordered a parent to either dismantle their buggy or get off the bus, while others described discomfort at the way in which drivers handled these types of situations. A small number of respondents also described conflict with other passengers. One wheelchair user suggested that they would rather wait for the next bus than risk a confrontation with other passengers.
Visually impaired travellers raised a number of concerns about current bus services. It was suggested that many buses have small direction indicators, which may be difficult to read. The main concern, however, was that drivers still rely on intending passengers to signal their intention to board the bus. Some respondents indicate that they routinely try to stop all bus services to ask the driver their destination, but it was suggested that some drivers appear to be antagonised by this. One respondent to the postal survey noted:
"My sight is very poor and I have to ask the driver where the bus is going. This has been met with a sarcastic reply on several occasions."
Other respondents cited examples of buses simply passing them at bus stops. Another area of concern for visually impaired travellers is that they generally have no way of knowing when they are reaching their stop. A number indicated that they routinely ask the driver to indicate this, but this is generally unreliable. A number suggested that on-bus announcements (similar to those made on some SPT trains - see below - would be more reliable).
Bus stops and shelters
The issue of bus shelters was raised in a number of contexts during this research. Most new bus shelters are provided by specialist advertising companies, which, in effect, rent the space from a local authority in return for the advertising revenue generated by the shelter. There was some criticism of this approach which, in the view of some disabled people means that the needs of advertisers appear to take precedence over travellers' needs, particularly in terms of providing unhindered sight lines.
Transform Scotland has published a series of pictorial reports about bus stops and shelters (and other issues) in Edinburgh, for example "Life in the Bus Lane" (Transform Scotland, 2001)" which are very critical of, among other things, bus shelter design and maintenance. This issue was also raised by both postal survey respondents, and disabled people interviewed in Paisley, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Among the criticisms made (echoing those made by Transform Scotland) were that vandalism (particularly scratches in the Perspex) make seeing a bus very difficult, that advertising hoardings can obscure buses until the last minute and that new designs can be very draughty (as there is often a substantial space between the shelter and the pavement to allow for drainage and to prevent litter gathering). There were a number of specific criticisms made by interviewees in Aberdeen about the siting of bus shelters. Example were provided of bus shelters on hill but with no kerb (at the St Nicolas Centre) and of shelters set back from the boarding point, but close to the kerb, meaning that a wheelchair user faces the choice of either reversing out of the shelter as a bus approaches or getting wet (for example in Broad Street and Lang Stracht).
A criticism also voiced by disabled people in a number of areas concerned the fact that, in towns, there are a range of bus stops which buses use. Two particular examples provided to the research were Union Street in Aberdeen, and Burns Square in Dumfries, although other examples were noted, for example in Perth, Falkirk, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Taking the eastern end of Union Street in Aberdeen as an example, buses can arrive at up to four separate stops over a 150 yard span of roadway. Although virtually all the buses using these stops are low floor, some disabled people reported facing particular difficulties with changing buses. The area around the bus stops is part of the main shopping street in the city and is busy at virtually all times of the day. The stops in the area around and opposite St Nicolas Kirk are particularly problematic as these are on a hill. The pavements in this area are wider than average, but still make unhindered movement difficult for those with mobility difficulties or who are wheelchair users. In similar areas of Princes Street, the pavements are much wider following the renovations undertaken in the mid 1990s. The issue in Dumfries is, to an extent similar, in that buses stop in various locations around Burns Square and the general area is quite busy. There is a further complication here (as in other towns) in that some buses stop at alternative locations (including Whitesands), necessitating a journey of around a quarter of a mile (which is slightly uphill).
It was also noted that, in many areas (even within cities), bus stops do not generally have seats. Although newer bus shelters generally do have seats, these are of a tip up design, and are not always easy for older people or people with mobility impairments to use. In peripheral and rural areas, most bus stops consist simply of a signpost and potentially a boarding point. It was noted by one respondent:
"The main problem with buses is standing waiting for them! More seriously, it is more difficult for some people to stand than it is to walk."
There were also criticism of bus drivers who do not stop at the boarding point (and who may not either deploy the bus ramp or even lower the step), necessitating a higher than necessary step for less mobile passengers. The more general issue of failing to lower the bus or deploy the ramp was identified earlier. There was also criticism of a perceived failure by the police to enforce parking restrictions around bus stops. The Transform Scotland research (identified earlier) demonstrated clearly that many motorists appear to have no regard for the needs of bus drivers in terms of being able to stop adjacent to boarding points. It was suggested by one respondent that, as a matter of course, double yellow lines should be placed in the approach to, and exit from all bus stops on routes served by low floor buses (in order to ensure that buses can access the kerb).
More positively, many disabled people were very positive about the provision of information on bus shelters. This is now common in virtually all areas in Scotland, with timetable information displayed about all services. In some city locations, the number of services means that the display area is quite crowded (and may be difficult to access when the shelter is busy), but despite this, there was virtual unanimity that this was a positive development.
In a small number of locations (for example on some routes in Aberdeen and Glasgow), real time information is provided at bus stops giving the time and number of the next services to arrive.
A system is currently being piloted by Arriva in Yorkshire which offers enhanced information about services using a loudspeaker attached to the bus. There are no pilot sites for this service in Scotland.
Bus stations
The number of bus stations in Scotland has declined markedly in the last 20 years. Paralleling this, among the relatively small number which remain, most have been extensively re-built, usually including features which enhance accessibility.
In most rural and smaller urban areas, bus stations per se have been replaced by designated stopping places within town centres. Often these are served by both local and long distance services. In some locations, for example Portree, these are organised broadly into stances, and, although there are no dedicated waiting areas, the general area (in the main square of the town) looks broadly like a small bus station. In other towns, for example Montrose, buses stop at designated locations on a main thoroughfare, with bus shelters and public transport information. In some areas, for example in Dumfries, although there is no bus station per se, there is a small group of stances (at Whitesands, although with no waiting rooms) supported by stopping places (at Burns Square). A variant on this exists in Falkirk, where there is both a bus station and a group of linked stances (in Newmarket Street) serving other destinations. In smaller areas, most buses (both local and longer distance) are served by a single bus stop.
The 1998 report set out a range of bus station related developments, including those at Buchanan Bus Station in Glasgow and at Stirling. Since 1998, the only significant redevelopment undertaken has been at Edinburgh (although the development of McArthur Glen at Livingston also included what is, to all practical purposes, a bus station in all but name).
Edinburgh Bus Station was opened in 2003 following an extended period of redevelopment adjacent to the existing site at St Andrews Square. The bus station has a wide range of accessibility improvements, including lift access from the city centre, easy-access counters, induction loops, designated toilets and a range of public transport information (updated in real time). That said, there has also been criticism of some aspects of the development, for example in terms of the size and location of the signage but in general terms, the bus station represents a good example of accessible modern design. The main difficulty facing disabled people is not the bus station itself, but the fact that most of the buses using the station have high steps.
The "bus station" at Livingston differs from the now common town centre stopping areas in having a dedicated travel centre, and real time vehicle information (although the travel centre was reported to have been closed by First Edinburgh in late 2003).
The 1998 report identified a proposal to redevelop the bus and railway stations at Guild Street in Aberdeen. Although the overall development commenced in 2003, the redevelopment of the bus and rail stations has yet to commence, although it is interesting to note that local disability organisations in the North East are being consulted about the detail of the development.
In terms of existing bus stations, a range of incremental improvement since 1998 were identified, including, for example:
- The installation of ramps
- Improvements to public transport information
- The development of information about surrounding areas and through routes
- The installation of tactile information
- The installation of induction loops
Overall, however, the main difficulty for many disabled people at most bus stations remains the buses rather the bus station per se. Bus station are included within the scope of facilities which will be required to be accessible from October 2004.
Overview of bus and coach issues
There has been further progress in the introduction of low floor buses, with larger companies progressively implementing new vehicles, although at a slower rate than in the late 1990s, and many smaller companies investing in accessible vehicles for the first time. There remains, however, a substantial area of Scotland in which there are no such buses. Among older and disabled people, there are concerns about the accessibility of low floor buses in terms of both access for wheelchair users, and the difficulties faced by those with mobility impairments or who have problems with grip. Progress in terms of bus-related infrastructure appears to have been steady, with a large number of new bus stops introduced, although there remain concerns about compromises in terms of accessibility and visibility. With the exception of the new bus station in Edinburgh (which has a wide range of accessibility related features), improvements in bus stations have been incremental.
RAIL TRAVEL
This section will set out a range of issues in relation to rail travel.
Prior to the mid 1990s, all services were provided by British Rail, but following deregulation, services have been provided by a range of companies, including Scotrail, which provides all internal services within Scotland.
There is, however, an extensive regulatory framework, part of which encompasses access issues. Section 71b of the Railways Act, as amended by the 2000 Transport Act, places a duty on the Strategic Rail Authority to publish a code of practice which is binding on all train operating companies and Network Rail. This was published, following a period of consultation, in February 2002 30. All train operating companies, as well as Network Rail, are required to maintain a "Disabled People's Protection Policy" (DPPP).
"As a condition of their licence, each passenger train operator and station operator, including Railtrack [now Network Rail] in respect of the stations it operates, must establish and comply with a Disabled People's Protection Policy (DPPP),stating how they will protect the interests of disabled users of their trains and stations. The DPPP must be established within six months of the grant of the licence and must be approved by the Authority. Under the terms of the licence condition, the Authority can also instruct the licence holder to carry out a review of their DPPP."
This sets out policy and practice on a range of issues, including safety, access arrangements and consultation. The original DPPPs were prepared in the period following deregulation, but are currently in the process of being updated. The Strategic Rail Authority called for draft policies in 2002, and published a review of these in 2003. It is expected that new DPPPs will be published covering all operators within Scotland in the first half of 2004. One of the main problems with the original DPPPs was that these were not reviewed and were not, in effect, "live" documents. The SRA has now made it clear that DPPPs will be subject to annual review and agreement.
DPPPs for Scotrail, both Virgin-owned Companies and Network Rail were provided to the research. The main drawback with each of the DPPPs was that they were not current, and much of the content was either irrelevant, or had been superseded. For example, the Scotrail DPPP supplied in December 2003 is dated June 1996, and contains a considerable number of "planned" improvements, timed for 1996 and 1997. As noted earlier, revised DPPPs are expected to published in the first half of 2004, with annual updates thereafter.
Each is, as might be expected, broadly similar in its coverage and objectives. The objectives for Virgin West Coast are 31:
- To undertake a comprehensive review of facilities
- To develop a chain of care
- To continue development and use the disabled persons reporting system to allow greater flexibility and choice
- To improve staff awareness of disability, and develop staff abilities
- To develop improved contacts with disability organisations
- To develop a customer satisfaction survey
- To consult on the policy with relevant organisations
Although structured differently, the objectives within the Scotrail DPPP are very similar in content. Those for Network Rail are, as might be expected, more specifically geared towards station facilities, but the basic principles are, again, quite similar. It is interesting to note that Network Rail has taken a mainstreaming approach, suggesting that its intention is to ensure that work to meet the needs of disabled travellers is embedded in all the work of the company, and integrated into the company's overall vision.
It is also worth noting that each of the DPPPs makes explicit reference to working in partnership with either Network Rail, or with other train operating companies, in order to ensure that services are transparent and seamless. A commitment within the Virgin West Coast DPPP is interesting in that regard. It states that :
"Where there is a shared financial responsibility, Inter-City West Coast Limited will act in the interests of customers with disability, as if it were the facility owner".
The implications of the DDA for rail services
The DDA has placed a range of responsibilities on both train and station operators. Since 1996, station operators have been covered by the general provisions of Part III of the act, which placed an obligation on operators not to discriminate in terms of the provision of a service to disabled people. Since 1999, again in common with other service providers, station operators have had to make "reasonable adjustments" to overcome lack of access. The final implementation of Part III will take place in October 2004, by which time station operators will have an obligation to provide alternative means of access. This obligation applies even where the operator of the station is not the owner, and the onus is on the operator to reach an agreement with the owner on, for example, a schedule of works and payment arrangements.
Transport vehicles, including trains, are exempt from Part III of the DDA, but fall within Part V, specifically that new trains brought into service after 31 st December 1998 have to comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (first promulgated in 1998, and variously amended since). As will be noted in more detail later, the SRA has, within the context of its 2002 Code Of Practice, implemented a regime whereby any refurbishment of pre-1999 stock should also be undertaken to comply, wherever possible, with the Regulations.
Organisations involved
Services in Scotland are provided by four companies. The vast majority of services are provided by Scotrail, part of the National Express Group. Long-distance services are provided by GNER (on the east coast line to and from both Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as to Inverness and Aberdeen), Virgin West Coast (on the west coast main line from Glasgow) and Virgin Cross Country (from Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow on east and west coast main lines to Birmingham and south west England).
Services in the former Strathclyde are provided by Scotrail under contract to Strathclyde Passenger Transport, although this is currently the subject of a review established by the Scottish Executive. SPT also operates the Glasgow underground system.
Assistance to disabled people
A national agreement exists which binds all train operating companies and Network Rail to providing a seamless and transparent service to disabled people. There is a national booking service for disabled people (with a range of accessibility enhancements). Any needs notified to this service are distributed to all of the operators likely to have contact with the disabled person over their journey (including any train operating companies and station staff). In the view of contributors to this research, this approach tends to work patchily. Most disabled people have experience of some aspect of assistance not being delivered either on time or at all, but, against this, it is clear that many journeys proceed with no difficulties at all.
Rail vehicles
As noted earlier, rail vehicles brought into service since 1999 are covered by a detailed series of design-based regulations. The SRA has made it clear that its objective is that all vehicles should, in time, comply with best practice standards and has made it clear in its code of practice that any replacement or refurbishment of pre-1999 stock should be undertaken with a view to ensuring compliance with the Rail Vehicle Access Regulations, or to seek a dispensation where this is not possible. The SRA has set out a wide range of types of refurbishment it believes should be covered, many of which are of key relevance to disabled people, including doors, floors, contrasting surfaces, audio and visual display systems, spaces for wheelchair users and toilets. By this means, the SRA hopes to ensure that all stock meets or surpasses the 1998 Regulations (as amended) even where operators do not purchase or lease new stock.
Scotrail, SPT and Virgin have made considerable investments in their fleets over the last 5 years, and GNER is in the process of so doing, with the cumulative effect that access has been improved in a number of key respects. As noted in the 1998 report, slam door trains are no longer used on any Scottish service and the majority of vehicles are now relatively new.
Scotrail diesel services outside Strathclyde rely on four main types of vehicle. Short haul commuter services are operated largely using Class 150 sets (comprising two or four carriages). These have centrally located electric doors controlled by the passenger, but centrally locked. There are no visual announcements, although services do have public address systems (although a common complaint from visually impaired travellers is that they are seldom actually used). Toilets have manual locking doors and are relatively small. There are no dedicated spaces for wheelchair users per se, although on all vehicles there is a vacant area where a wheelchair can be placed, and prominently displayed signs suggesting that travellers give up seats to elderly or disabled people.
There are a relatively small number of Class 156 vehicles in use. These are designed for longer distance commuting (for example to and from Dumfries), although they are also used in other areas. Class 156 vehicles have end-carriage located electric doors. The bulk of seats are in sets of four around tables. There is a single space in each carriage identified as for wheelchair users, although there are no restraints provided. As with Class 150 vehicles, toilets are small. There are no visual announcements, and each has a public address system. Longer distance services are provided either by Class 158 or Class 170 services. Scotrail intends that longer distance express services will be entirely based around Class 170 vehicles from late 2004. In the meantime, on all routes, services may be operated by either type. This is an issue for some disabled people, as there is generally no way of telling which type of vehicle will operate on any service. Class 158 vehicles have end-located electrically controlled doors, with seating in a mixture of two abreast and table configurations. Express Class 158 services retain a small first class section. There is a single space reserved for wheelchair users in each vehicle. There was a measure of criticism of this from wheelchair users, due to the fact that luggage space on these services is generally very small, and passengers joining at an intermediate station may find the allocated space "piled high" with luggage. This was identified as a particular issue on Perth-Inverness and Inverness-Aberdeen services. These vehicles do not have visual announcements, although each has a public address system.
Class 170 services generally comprise sets of 3 or 6 vehicles. Unusually, these are self contained, and movement is not possible between the front and rear sets. This is an issue identified by a small number of disabled people in terms of being able to seek assistance, for example with alighting. Each Class 170 set has a single large toilet, which is generally accessible for wheelchair users, and which has electronically operated doors. There was a small amount of criticism of the button system, which , it was suggested could be more effectively spaced, but generally, disabled people interviewed were positive about the toilet provision.
Wheelchair users were generally less positive about the location of the space allocated (although in more general terms, the size of the space was viewed positively. Visually impaired travellers also use this area (as it provides a good amount of space for a guide dog to rest with less danger of being stood on). As one noted, however:
"It is wrong to have to share space with bicycles and luggage just because you're visually impaired".
All Class 170 services have a visual display system and a public address system.
Electric services in the SPT area follow a similar pattern, with all stock having electrically operated doors which are accessible by wheelchair users with the assistance of a ramp. Generally, there is one "wheelchair" space in each unit (generally made up of three carriages, rather than 2 with local diesel operation). Again, as with diesel services, all have public address systems. It is interesting to note that some services, for example those to Gourock, have an automatic public address system, which play a recorded announcement as the train is approaching a station. These were viewed as being particularly helpful to visually impaired passengers. One visually impaired respondent (who travels by rail a great deal) identified that this has been the single most important development in rail travel in meeting their needs as it removes the uncertainty of whether or not an announcement will be made, and similarly, does not require them to seek out a member of the train crew to specify that they may require assistance. One visually impaired passenger identified that, in their view, while the on-train announcements (on the Class 334 services) were a very positive development, the door closing signal was too quiet, and could be missed.
GNER long distance services are operated either by "HST" or "225" sets. The former serve Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness, and were particularly strongly criticised by Aberdeen-based passengers due to difficulties in general access and considerable problems faced by people with mobility difficulties and wheelchair users in accessing the toilets. Two interviewees based in Aberdeen described having to travel to London on "HST" services without being able to access the toilet for more than 8 hours. This issue is currently being addressed by GNER which has purchased carriages previously used by Virgin and, as part of a refurbishment, has redesigned the interior to allow for a fully accessible toilet and provision for two wheelchair users to travel together. These carriages are being introduced into all HST sets, and will be located in the centre of the train to allow for easy access to catering (with previously designated spaces being close to the guard's office at the end of the train) and to ensure ease of exit at stations with short platforms (such as Stonehaven and stations on the Perth-Inverness section).
GNER is embarking on a process of refurbishing all of its existing carriages on "225" services to a new standard "Mallard". This incorporates much better access arrangements, with, for example, accessible toilets and improved spaces for wheelchair users and visually impaired passengers. As of January 2004, a small number of Mallard carriages were entering service between Edinburgh and London, and it is expected that these will be progressively rolled out to all services in due course.
Virgin cross country services are now largely operated by Voyager trains, comprising 5 coaches. These were viewed positively by most disabled people interviewed, with easier access than the previous "125" services, and more accessible toilet provision.
Disabled people interviewed made a range of general criticisms about aspects of railway carriage design, which apply to most, and in some cases all of the types of vehicles set out above. Wheelchair users were consistently critical of the size and location of the space allocated, as noted, even in newer vehicles. The lack of enforcement by train staff of maintaining these are clear areas was also criticised. In a small number of vehicles, call buttons are available to summon assistance, but this is not yet universal and, although identified as an aspect of good practice, there was some criticism that this had not been more widely adopted, with older carriages being retro-fitted with such systems. In virtually all services, only one space is allocated for wheelchair users, and there was criticism (as there was in the original research) of this, with a number of interviewees (both wheelchair users and visually impaired people using guide dogs) identifying that they had to sit separately from others in their party.
Visually impaired interviewees were generally critical of train staff for failing to use public address systems, and for the generally poor quality of these on some services (although Scotrail's DPPP notes that all staff "have been reminded of the need to make clear, consistent announcements"). Automatic announcements on SPT services, for example to Gourock were identified as generally very clear, but those on, for example, suburban services around Edinburgh were described as often difficult to hear. Although more modern toilets in Class 170 and Voyager vehicles were generally well received, most disabled people identified that they were reluctant to use the toilets at all on other services, due to poor design features. Even on newer services, some disabled people identified that they found the possibility of falling due to the movement of the train to be "too much of a risk" and hence precluded their using the toilets at all.
Railway stations
There are a total of 340 railway stations in Scotland. Of these, 337 are managed by Scotrail, with, of the remainder, two, Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Central, being managed at strategic level by Network Rail, and Prestwick Airport being managed by the airport's operator.
The number of stations is slowly growing, following a sharp decline up to the 1960s. A new station was opened at Edinburgh Park in late 2003, following the opening of a new line to Newcraighall in 2002. New rail links are proposed for Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, and a feasibility study is currently underway to re-open the Stirling - Alloa railway line, with the possibility of a further extension to Dunfermline. Consideration is also being given to the reopening of part of the rail link between Edinburgh and the Borders.
New stations in the last 10-15 years have followed a largely similar pattern. Typically, new stations are unstaffed, in out of town (or peripheral) locations, have CCTV and telephones, with access to opposite platforms being via an overbridge with generally long access ramps. The main exception to this is Edinburgh Park which has an overbridge reached via a lift. Both Scotrail and Network Rail have also made substantial investments in existing stations, including the refurbishment of both Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Central stations (with a further major refurbishment proposed for the former) by Network Rail, and a series of investments by Scotrail.
A total of 194 stations are entirely unstaffed (57%). With the exception of larger stations, and some stations within the SPT area, many of the others are staffed only on a part time basis (usually from the first service until around 10am, or in some areas until early afternoon). Scotrail now publishes information on the number of stations with a telephone, and where there is no telephone, the location of the closest. Surprisingly few stations actually have a telephone at the station (and even where there is a telephone, there is no guarantee that this will be in an accessible location). SPT has taken a more proactive approach in some locations, with signs making it clear that, where no telephone exists, and where a traveller requires to contact a relative or a taxi firm, this can be done via SPT controllers.
Among those stations with a ticket office, 122 have some form of level access from the street, or from one platform (although this does not necessarily mean that a disabled person travelling independently would be able to gain access). Only 24 booking offices currently are reached via steps. In all cases, Scotrail is clear that, where an individual cannot gain access to a ticket office, they would be able to purchase a ticket on the train, or at their destination, on the same terms as would apply if they had purchased the ticket at their point of origin.
There are, however, a range of issues which can be identified with these basic statistics. For example, in a small number of cases, even though the booking office is accessible, the platforms may not be accessible to all disabled people. A good example of this is Partick, where the booking office is on ground level, but the platforms are reached via two escalators. Similarly, among the stations with ramped access to the booking office, these ramps may be too steep for users of non-powered wheelchairs. An example of this identified by an interviewee is Burntisland, where the ramp access to the booking office (and southbound platform) is very steep. One respondent raised the issue of Markinch station, which has stepped access to both platforms. There, tracks exist to both platforms which would allow level access, but these are not maintained by Scotrail, and passengers can no longer use these. Passengers with limited mobility are now required to use either Kirkcaldy or Thornton stations, both of which also have accessibility issues.
Respondents to the previous research criticised the standards used by Scotrail to assess whether or not a station was accessible to wheelchair users. The new standard applied has reduced the number of apparently accessible stations considerably. Data provided by Scotrail suggests that only 69 stations are accessible to wheelchair users without assistance (from a companion / member of staff, or by using a powered wheelchair). In some cases, stations now described as "inaccessible" are largely accessible. A good example of this is Aberdeen, where only one platform is entirely inaccessible (being reached by a footbridge), with the remaining 6 having entirely level access. In some cases, although both platforms are themselves accessible, there is no viable route between them. A good example of this (identified by interviewees) is Dumfries, where both platforms (and the ticket office) are entirely level, but the route between the platforms requires a walk of around 250m or crossing a steep-stepped overbridge. A similar example is provided at Linlithgow (where there is an underpass with steps). The view of some interviewees was that such stations should not be described as accessible.
There are a range of examples of stations where one or other platform is accessible, and where alternative arrangements have to be made for outward or return travel. Examples provided by interviewees included Montrose (where northbound travellers are required to travel south to Arbroath to be able to cross the line) and the well-publicised case of Lockerbie, where travellers have to cross the line at Carlisle. A point made in both cases, is that schedules are rarely designed to meet the needs of travellers in these situations, and that, in some cases, even relatively short journeys may require a substantial wait. One respondent to the postal survey noted:
"Dalmeny station is not accessible south bound, so the advice given is to travel to Inverkeithing then come back towards Edinburgh, or to go in to Edinburgh and come out again if returning from Fife. It's frustrating having a station so close and not being able to use it."
In rural areas, Scotrail and GNER generally use the same platform for outward and return services. Examples of this include most stations on the Perth - Inverness and on the Inverness - Aberdeen line. At Aviemore, for example, both south and northbound services typically use the same platform (which is accessible and adjacent both to the toilets and booking office, as well as the car park). A point made by several disabled people interviewed in Badenoch and Strathspey, however, is that there is no guarantee that services will use the same platform, and each described situations where they had been forced to alight on the opposite, inaccessible platform. If the disabled person is travelling independently, this was identified as a particular problem, as there is no viable route to return to the car park without assistance. (A further issue identified here is that, although Aviemore station is staffed, staff shortages mean that, often at short notice, there may be no assistance available. One disabled person reported being told, in such a situation, to stay on the train to Inverness and return via another service.)
A number of interviewees identified that these uncertainties contribute to a general anxiety about travelling by train, which, in their view, could be readily addressed were a consistent and guaranteed service to be provided. It is worth noting that this was also identified as a cause of frustration to train operating companies, as they have no direct control over the platform a train is allocated to, and that, to accommodate late running or engineering works, changes to "normal" allocations can be made by Network Rail at very short notice.
An issue was raised by one respondent who noted that they had travelled to Stirling using a GNER service, and were unable to get assistance from Scotrail staff. Both companies, however, make it clear that this should not happen, and that any disabled passenger should receive assistance in these circumstances. GNER also noted that it was in the process of specifying on-train ramps (similar to those carried by Scotrail) for HST - based services to ensure that passengers would be able to receive appropriate levels of assistance at both staffed and unstaffed stations. It is worth noting that a small number of respondents with reduced mobility and wheelchair users identified the carrying of ramps on Scotrail trains as an aspect of good practice, or, in some cases, as the most positive change to take place in the last five years. Only one respondent provided an example where a ramp was found to be missing, but in this instance, the train remained in the station until a ramp was sourced from a train stopping at another platform.
A number of respondents noted that, where ramps are not used, access to the train is in some cases via two steps, one of which is quite narrow. A further issue identified by some respondents was that some stations are sited on a curve. This is particularly an issue for commuter-type trains, which have doors in the middle of carriages (for example, Class 150s). In this case, the gap between the platform and the train may be large. One example was provided of an older person who had fallen between a train and the platform at Burntisland station, having missed their footing on the train step.
As noted in the introduction, Edinburgh Waverley was, throughout the research, subject to the most sustained criticism perhaps of any aspect of Scotland's transport infrastructure. Although each of the station's platforms have either flat or lift-based access, a range of issues were identified which preclude many disabled people from using services within the station. Among the points identified were:
- Access is via either of two steep ramps, identified by Network Rail with a "wheelchair" symbol as being an exit route, but, in the view of several disabled people interviewed, the ramps are too steep even for users of powered wheelchairs to use safely.
- For many disabled people, the only effective means of exit is by using a taxi (at extra cost) but this was also the subject of much criticism (from interviewees in a wide range of locations) due to the presence of large speed-reducing humps, which, even when driven over slowly, were a cause of considerable concern due to the possibility of injury.
- The counters are all at a high level.
- The alternative station (Haymarket) is accessible to only one platform.
One wheelchair user described using the ramp access at Waverley station in these terms:
"Try pushing your own weight in a wheelbarrow up an 11% slope. Then see whether you can get back down again without it all tipping out".
A small number of general criticisms were made by visually impaired and other travellers. It was identified that Network Rail no longer use "front" and "rear" train designations on destination boards. Previously, where two services shared a platform, each would be shown with that platform number, but now, the "rear" service is shown without a platform number until the "front" service leaves. This means that travellers may have as little as 4 minutes to find and reach the platform. This was identified as a particular difficulty for people with limited mobility (although it is recognised that station staff can provide assistance, in the concourse of either Waverley or Glasgow Central, staff may be difficult to find, and many less mobile travellers would be reluctant to venture into such a busy area).
Glasgow Underground
Glasgow Underground is, as noted earlier, operated by SPT. The service consists of one line (and inner and outer circle) serving the city centre, west end and immediate southside. At a small number of locations (for example, Buchanan Street, St Enoch and Partick), the service links with either Scotrail or bus services). The system was built more than 100 years ago, and faces very considerable constraints in terms of sites, station layouts and vehicle sizes. As noted in the 1998 report, SPT has instituted a range of initiatives designed to make the system accessible to as wide a range of disabled people as possible, but there remains no prospect of developing access for wheelchair users (as now exists on the Jubilee line in London).
Overview of rail issues
It is clear from the research that considerable improvements have been made in the accessibility of trains since the previous report in 1998. The development of the RVAR, and their introduction has led to considerable improvements in, for example, toilet provision, signage, announcement and tactile surfaces, and recent refurbishments mean that, for the first time, two wheelchair users can travel together on a service. The SRA has also made it clear that pre-1999 rolling stock, when being refurbished, should be brought to full compliance with the RVAR, ensuring that progress in achieving an accessible fleet will be faster than might otherwise be the case. The carrying of on train ramps, common since 1998, was identified as an example of good practice. There still remain some areas of concern for disabled people, for example relating to the lack of announcements and the lack of call buttons, the fact that spaces reserved for wheelchair users are often filled with luggage and the fact that, in rural areas, trains can be diverted at short notice to inaccessible platforms for operational reasons. The main areas of concern, however, remain with the accessibility of Scotland's stations. Although much of the criticism in this research was of Edinburgh Waverley, a huge number of stations remain inaccessible and train operating companies are clear that a significant proportion of these could never be made accessible for practical reasons.
AIR TRAVEL
Air travel in the UK is entirely operated by private sector companies. With the exception of air ambulance services and some services within Shetland, none within Scotland are contracted to, or operated on behalf of public sector organisations. Air services are operated on the basis either that they are scheduled, or chartered. Within Scotland, it is unlikely that many chartered services would operate, although there are, clearly, a substantial number from Scotland to holiday destinations.
The implications of the DDA for air travel
Aircraft and airline operators are not covered by the DDA. The reason for this (provided by DPTAC) was that the industry operates on an international basis, and it was considered more effective to agree standards on this basis, rather than seek to develop standards for the UK only, which would have little effect on the vast number of foreign-based carriers operating here. A code of practice at an EU level has recently been introduced, and it is expected that there may be legislation to support this in the future. In the UK, the Department for Transport published a voluntary code of practice in 2003 32, and DPTAC has published guidance for disabled people intending to travel by air 33. It is interesting to note that, although the DDA does not apply to aircraft, DPTAC completed a consultation on aircraft toilets in October 2003 and hopes to publish guidance in 2004.
Airports, and booking and other services are covered by the DDA, and will be required to conform to Part III from October 2004 in common with other infrastructure facilities.
Organisations involved
Scheduled services within Scotland are now largely operated by Loganair (a franchise partner of British Airways), with a small number of services operated by other carriers such as BMI. Services from Scotland are operated by a wide range of carriers, including British Airways, BMI and a range of national airlines, such as Air France and Lufthansa. Increasingly, many services to UK and international destinations are being operated by budget airlines such as Ryanair and Easyjet.
Within Scotland, airports are largely operated by two companies. Scottish Airports Ltd owns and operates Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd (a state owned company) operates most (although not all) airports in the north of Scotland. A small number are operated by local authorities directly (such as in Orkney and Shetland) or by a company associated with a local authority (as at Dundee). Prestwick airport (and associated railway station) are operated by a private company.
Ground services (including check in, baggage handling and passenger loading) are provided either by the airline itself (as in the case of British Airways and Loganair), or by a ground handling agent, of which Servisair is perhaps the best known. This situation is complicated further by the fact that many airport based services are subcontracted at larger airports, including the provision of assistance to disabled people. At various points in their journey, disabled people may be reliant on services provided by the airline, ground handling agent and the airport operator, or a subcontractor of any or all of these. In reality, in most cases, the airline (with whom the disabled person has a contract) will be responsible for ensuring that ancillary services are provided as required. British Airways will, for example, with at least one day's notice, ensure that a wheelchair can be made available at any airport it serves.
In all cases, airlines require that disabled people intending to travel provide them with prior warning in relation to their needs. Some, including British Airways, make it clear that, where needs are not notified in advance, and they cannot be met satisfactorily, carriage will be refused. In the view of some respondents, this approach has improved over the last five years, with a view that there is a greater level of understanding of key issues among booking staff. It was noted that larger airlines (and Loganair, through its franchise with British Airways) have access to specialist staff who can both provide advice and ensure that appropriate arrangements are made. Although these arrangements were generally in place at the time of the previous research, it is likely that, with the growth of on-line information, that passengers are more aware of their availability. One respondent to the postal survey noted, however:
"Airports offer assistance if arranged in advance of travel, but this is difficult to arrange if the ticket has been booked on the internet by a relative or friend or on the behalf of a partially sighted traveller."
With notice, assistance is, generally speaking, available to anyone who requires it. Most airlines will provide a "meet and greet" type service for disabled people, with assistance geared towards specific needs. As with other modes of transport, the need to arrange assistance was criticised by a small number of respondents, for example:
"[We should be able to travel] without having to arrange access to buses, trains and aeroplanes. A disabled person should have the ability to travel independently without restrictions. Disabled people do not want a special kind of service."
An area of concern raised by a small number of respondents was the approach taken by airport or airline staff to seeking assistance when disabled people travel independently, but with friends. One visually impaired traveller was refused assistance at a London airport because they were travelling with friends, the member of staff suggesting that they were "accompanied" and were not, therefore, eligible for assistance.
Aeroplanes
Traditionally, air travel has been the most problematic for many groups of disabled people. This is both in the context of access difficulties, and the fact that many disabled people (reiterated by this research) would not countenance flying due to a lack of confidence that their needs might be met. This includes disabled people who would otherwise be able to access the aircraft, for example visually impaired people. That said, a substantial number of disabled people do fly, and a number of those involved in this research travel by air on a regular basis.
There are a number of inherent access difficulties involved in aircraft design which, even with specialised assistance, make travel impossible for some groups of disabled people. The main difficulties are the width of the gangways, toilets and the basic seating arrangements. On wide-bodied long-haul jets, such as the Boeing 747 and 777, it is possible to offer disabled people access to a small wheelchair to reach their seat, and to move around within the aircraft. Similarly, toilets are, although still very small by, for example, modern railway standards, more accessible, with handrails being provided 34. The situation within Scotland is, however, much more problematic.
Longer distance services offered by Loganair are provided by Saab 340 aircraft. These aircraft seat 34 passengers in a 2+1 configuration. Although the gangway is narrow, and the cabin has a relatively low ceiling, the front seats offer a reasonable amount of room, and passengers who regularly fly from Shetland identified that Loganair staff are typically very flexible in their approach to carrying people with limited mobility. The toilet compartment is very small, although the flight time (assuming no diversions) is unlikely to exceed 1 hr 30 minutes. The other aircraft operated by Loganair (Twin Otters and Islanders) are much smaller still, and offer limited access. Orkney Islands Council noted:
"A step is provided to assist elderly people to board the plane. It would be almost impossible for a severely disabled person to board an Islander plane."
The other main difficulty with access to aircraft operating from Scottish airports is in terms of boarding and disembarking. Some flights at major airports embark via a walkway which stretches from the departure lounge to the aircraft itself (an airbridge). Internal Scottish flights, however, which use small aircraft, tend not to embark in this way. Passengers generally embark using a set of steps which are integral to the aircraft. This is also the means used at smaller airports, including all of those in the Highlands and Islands. These present a number of difficulties for people with reduced mobility. The steps generally are quite narrow, and steep. One difficulty, noted by a small number of respondents is that some Scottish airports are quite exposed (for example Sumburgh and Stornoway), and passengers can, therefore, be exposed to quite strong winds while disembarking. It is also worth noting that this is also the means of embarkation typically used by low-cost airlines at all times, even though the aircraft used (for example, Boeing 737s) can be accommodated at an airbridge.
In virtually all except the very smallest airports, passengers have the option of being transferred to the aircraft using a mechanical lift. The experiences of disabled people, as reflected in this research, are somewhat mixed. In some cases, respondents viewed this as a very straightforward procedure, others, however, were concerned about their own safety. One also described the "indignity" of being transferred into the aeroplane. Another noted that:
"It would be much better if I could remain in my own wheelchair and clamp down, rather than being man-handled and uncomfortable in another seat."
This was reiterated by another respondent who suggested that:
"In today's world you should be able to access the plane, be able to be clamped in place in your wheelchair, and be able to exit in the same manner."
Only one airport operator (Dundee Airport) suggested that people with mobility impairments would be unable to board the services currently offered:
"Due to the rules laid down by the present airline they currently only accept passengers who are able to negotiate the aircraft steps unaided."
This is re-iterated by the airline concerned (Scot Airways) which states the following:
"Wheelchair assistance will be available to and from the aircraft. Assistance will also be provided to climb the stairs on the aircraft, but on all flights the passenger can not be carried or lifted on board, due to the width of the stairs, and must be able to 'walk on' to the aircraft with assistance." 35
One of the key determining factors in the experiences of disabled people appears to be the approach and understanding of the staff providing the assistance.
A long-standing issue for wheelchair users is the difficulties many seem to face in airlines refusing to transport powered wheelchairs. A number of respondents identified inconsistencies, where, in their view, their wheelchair had conformed to current acceptable standards, but where the airline seemed unaware of this, or unwilling to investigate the matter further. Both British Airways and Loganair, for example, make it clear that wet cell batteries are restricted and will not be carried, but respondents provided examples of cases where airlines (via telesales operators) had claimed that all powered wheelchairs would not be carried. As Loganair makes clear, however:
"Battery (non-spill) operated wheelchairs can be accepted and will be carried as checked baggage."
Visually impaired passengers can travel with their guide dog in the cabin, and the experiences of respondents to this research appear to have been generally positive. A number noted that the dog may not have been entirely happy or comfortable, either throughout or at specific times in the flight due to a variety of factors which included changes in cabin pressure, the steeply inclining floor and the relatively cramped space. Overall however, assistance from airline staff was viewed very positively by visually impaired passengers. A small number identified that they had been reassured by cabin crew providing them with a personal briefing about safety procedures. It is also worth noting that some airlines have also introduced a signed version of their in-flight safety video.
A point made by a small number of respondents related to the fact that disabled people cannot, in many cases, use those seats with the most leg room, in which they might be more comfortable. This is generally because such seats are adjacent to emergency exits. It is worth noting, however, that some respondents suggested that they had been accommodated in seats with extra legroom in areas away from emergency exits, for example on Saab 340 and Boeing 737 aircraft.
Airports
There have been very significant improvements at a number of airports since 1998. The original report identified improvements at Glasgow, and then forthcoming improvements at Edinburgh, which have since been completed. The changes at Edinburgh have increased the number of gates where airbridges can be used, as well as developing both new check-in and arrival and departure facilities. Since 1998, there have been additional improvements undertaken at Glasgow, including the development of a new car park with direct level access to the terminal building. Work is also underway to develop new car parking at Edinburgh.
Since 1998, new airport buildings have been completed by Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd at Stornoway and Kirkwall. These have been built to a similar design, which offers flat access to check-in, departure and boarding gates, as well as flat access at arrival. At both airports, access to aircraft is available using mechanical lifts.
A range of other improvements have been carried out by operators over the last 5 years, including the installation of new toilets at Wick and Islay, and improved signage at Inverness.
Access issues remain at very small airports in Orkney and Shetland, largely in boarding aircraft. In both locations, facilities are described as rudimentary, although it is worth noting that accessible toilets have been installed at all airports in Orkney, and all buildings are accessible at least via a ramp. There are no ticket issues facilities, and check in may be undertaken by aircrew rather than ground staff (although there are always ground staff available for safety reasons).
As with ferry terminals (see below), there remain a range of issues with access to airports using public transport. In many areas, there are no low floor buses (or limited services) and few accessible taxis. Only Prestwick Airport is directly accessible by rail, although proposals exist for direct links to both Edinburgh and Glasgow, and for a transfer system between Dyce station and Aberdeen Airport. It is interesting to note that, following the opening of the Edinburgh Park railway station, Lothian Buses now operates a direct service from Edinburgh Airport to the station (although as at January 2004,most of the buses used on the route were older high floor double deckers).
Overview of issues for air travel
Although air travel remains arguably to the most problematic of all forms of public transport in terms of access, there have been a range of improvements in the last 5 years. Although there have been few improvements to aircraft per se, it appears that the overall package of assistance provided by airlines is now meeting the needs of a very large number of disabled people. That said, it is clear that many disabled people would not countenance flying, even though their needs would be likely to be met satisfactorily. It is interesting to note that, even though aircraft are exempt from the DDA, the Department for Transport and DPTAC have developed policies designed to improve access for disabled people. There have been considerable access improvements at a number of Scotland's airports, including new terminal buildings at two airports in the islands, and a range of incremental improvements elsewhere. With the exception of small airports in Orkney and Shetland, there appear to be few outstanding accessibility issues at Scottish airports.
SEA TRAVEL
Ferries operate both within Scotland and on routes to Ireland, Belgium and to Scandinavia and the Faroe Islands. The main routes within Scotland are those on the Clyde coast, to the inner and outer Hebrides and to Orkney and Shetland. The range of ships involved is quite considerable. The length of crossing varies from a few minutes to around 14 hours (in the case of Aberdeen to Lerwick) and 17_ from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. In some cases, there are alternatives to ferry crossings (for example by air from the Western Isles, Islay, Tiree and both to and from, and within both the Orkney and Shetland Islands, and in some cases, by road in Western Scotland), but in many cases, there are no alternatives (for example to Arran or Jura).
The implications of the DDA for sea travel
The position of ferry services in relation to the DDA is similar to that of air services. From October 2004, passenger terminals and other facilities have to be accessible, however, the situation with ferries is less clear. At present, ferries are not within the scope of the Act, although in November 2000 DPTAC, following a period of consultation, published a good practice guide in relation to the accessibility of larger ships and infrastructure. DPTAC is understood to be currently reviewing the implementation of this guidance in order to advise the Department of Transport whether further measures are necessary. In the event, as will be noted later, a significant number of new ships have been ordered for use within and from Scotland in the period since 2000, each of which (as reported by the companies concerned) includes significant access improvements for disabled people.
Organisations involved
Ferry services within Scotland are provided by a mix of private companies, public companies and companies controlled by local authorities. CalMac, which operates the largest number of services is currently wholly owned by the Scottish Executive, and is a partner in Northlink Ferries, a new company established to operate routes to Orkney and Shetland. A small number of local authorities (including Orkney, Shetland and Highland) operate ferry services, either directly or through associated companies. There are also a small number of private companies operating services, including Western Ferries. Services from Scotland are provided by large UK or foreign owned companies. Services from Rosyth, for example, are operated by Superfast Ltd, a Greek Company. Services to Scandinavia and the Faroe Isles are operated by the Smyril Line.
Assistance to disabled people
In general terms, ferry companies ask passenger to make them aware of any particular needs in relation to access, although this is not a condition of carriage (as with some airlines). The extent to which prior notification is required varies depending on the way in which the vessel is boarded. For example, Western Ferries vessels can only be boarded via the car deck, and, in this case, the company does not see notification as necessary (although, as with other companies, assistance will be made available if required).
Two companies identified that they had made specific improvements to the provision of information to disabled people. Both Calmac and Western Ferries identified signage specifically as an area which had been improved. In the former case, the company reported that it has installed electronic signage in unstaffed locations. CalMac also noted that it had improved the readability of its printed information to address the needs of disabled people.
Ferries
Broadly, ferries (for the purposes of this report) can be broken into three main groups. The first is passenger only ferries. There are relatively few of these operating in Scotland. The second is vehicle ferries where passengers can travel in their vehicle. These represent the largest number of ferries operating within Scotland. The third is vehicle ferries where passengers must leave their vehicles for the crossing. These include the longer crossings to the Western Isles and to Orkney and Shetland. There are also a small number of overnight crossings where cabins are available.
In terms of securing access for disabled people, ferries present a number of key difficulties, some of which are now being overcome very successfully. Much of Scotland's ferry fleet dates from the 1960s and 1970s, when, in common with other forms of transport, accessibility was rarely considered. The consequence of this was that, at the time of the 1998 research, it was largely only those ferries where passengers could remain in their cars which were reasonably accessible. The main areas of difficulty identified include accessing the ship other than via the car deck (including difficulties caused by rising and falling tides), the steepness of gangways, the access problems caused by the need for watertight doors (which require passengers to be able to negotiate a step of around 10-12 inches) and, in many cases, the fact that there was no effective means of getting from the car to passenger decks, other than by steep stairs. In some cases, for example the former P&O service from Aberdeen to Lerwick, a goods lift was available, but this was disliked by passengers. One respondent also noted:
"There was no space between the cars on the deck, so I couldn't actually reach the lift at all".
The issue of the state of the tides was identified by all ferry companies as a particular problem where passengers have to board the vessel directly. As will be noted later, Northlink has addressed this through the use of long ramps starting from a mid point in the high and low points of the tide. As one respondent from Shetland (a wheelchair user) noted:
"I used to be dragged backwards up open gangway - this is a great improvement."
CalMac and other companies have ramps which can be extended to minimise the gradient experienced. All companies also identified that staff are available to provide assistance. Orkney Ferries identified that, in some cases, it may not be possible to safely overcome the steepness of the access ramp. The height and steepness of some ramps was a cause of concern to some of those who took part in this research. Among the issues identified were that some ramps are not smooth (ridges are built in for safety reasons) leading to difficulties for those with limited mobility, some may be exposed to side winds (a point also raised earlier in relation to aircraft steps) and that some may be slippery when wet.
Since 2000, however, there have been a number of significant improvements. Guidance on the development of accessible ferries was published in 2000, which set out a wide range of ways in which traditional problems could be overcome 36. Modern ferries now incorporate lifts, and a range of other significant improvements, such as contrasting surfaces, improved handrails and accessible toilets. Western Ferries (which operate short run car ferries) has also introduced wheelchair accessible passenger lounges on its new ships, even though passengers can also remain in their vehicles. Modern ferries also have designated spaces for passengers who require extra space, for example to transfer to a wheelchair, which will, in time remove the difficulty identified in the quote above. CalMac, the Smyril Line, Superfast, Western Ferries and Northlink Ferries have introduced new vessels which comply with the improved specification. CalMac noted, however, that little can be done with older vessels, although Orkney Ferries reported that accessible toilets had been added to some vessels since 1998.
Northlink Ferries introduced four new ferries on routes to Orkney and Shetland. These vessels were built to meet or exceed the specification set out by DPTAC. Thus, passenger areas are reached by lifts, and movement within these areas is virtually step free. High contrast surfaces have been provided, although a visually impaired respondent noted that the passenger access area (which is, in part, mirrored) can be disorienting. Vessels serving Shetland have four designated cabins, two of which are fitted with hoists to allow transfer from a wheelchair to a bed. A small number of issues with the layout of the cabins were identified and it is understood that these were the subject of discussions between the company and local groups of disabled people. These included the fact that some passengers found the hoists not to have been fully charged, there were no instructions for use provided and access to the shower and toilet area required negotiation of a small lip. Overall, however, the views of those disabled people who had used the cabins was positive.
CalMac (which operates Scotland's largest fleet), through the provision of lifts and ramps (as well as alternative means of boarding) can now make at least some passenger areas available on all vessels where disabled people would not be permitted to remain in their cars. Lifts are also used by the Smyril line and by Orkney Ferries. The latter company did note, however, that some vessels are effectively inaccessible beyond the car deck due to the need to negotiate steep stairways. Most companies may allow disabled people to remain in their cars where the crossing is short. In these cases, a member of staff remains on the car deck at all times for safety reasons. Orkney Ferries noted:
"Where travelling by car and remaining in car we need to know in advance to enable the loading plan to take into account clearance required around car, and allocation of crew person to car deck whilst sailing."
It is interesting to note that a number of companies are, or have undertaken consultation with disabled people. Detailed work done by Orkney Ferries was noted in the 1998 report, and since then, for example, CalMac has created a specific steering group to advise the company on access issues (including the design of a new vessel) and has entered discussions with MACS. As noted earlier, Northlink has worked with disabled passengers to improve the quality of its service.
In terms of future developments, it is clear that companies see the introduction of new vessels as the key to further access improvements. Funding, not surprisingly, was identified as the main constraint to this.
Ferry Terminals
There is a recognition among ferry operators that there remain a range of access difficulties at ferry terminals. These access difficulties can fall into two main groups, those relating to the terminal buildings, and those relating to boarding the ship.
It is worth setting out at the outset that, in some locations, there are no terminal buildings as such (as is the case with smaller airports). Some of the smallest terminals (particularly those operated by CalMac) are unstaffed, although in these cases, assistance is provided by ferry crew.
Access difficulties in relation to terminal buildings are those which are common to most other modes of transport, including steps and inaccessible areas, the lack of accessible toilets, high counters, the lack of contrasting surfaces and the lack of provision for passengers with a range of sensory impairments. There appears to be limited progress being made towards addressing these issues, a point noted by Calmac in a presentation to MACS in June 2003. The main developments in relation to ferry terminals relate to the provision of new facilities. New terminal facilities have been, or are being built at Scrabster, Stromness and at Lerwick, in conjunction with the introduction of new services by Northlink Ferries (although the facilities are not owned or operated by the company). New facilities were also built at Rosyth to coincide with the introduction of the service to Zeebrugge.
The new terminal at Lerwick, for example, provides much improved access for disabled people. The terminal building has a lift and accessible toilets. The counters are relatively low and attention has been paid to the need for visual contrast. Access to ships is via a covered walkway at first floor level. This is designed to overcome the potential 7m rise and fall of the tide - an issue which affects passenger access to ferries throughout Scotland. A small number of points were noted by disabled people in Shetland about the accessibility of the building which are consistent with those made in relation to, for example, railway stations. Key amongst these is that the need for the operating gradient of the covered ramp to be reasonable has meant that its length is significant. Although local disability groups suggested to Lerwick Harbour Board that is should provide seating to allow passengers with limited mobility to rest, this was refused, citing both fire regulations and the potential obstruction danger to visually impaired passengers in the event of an evacuation. This was described by one participant in a group discussion as "ironic".
The other main points made were that there was insufficient visual contrast between doors and walls, and that the signage was generally too small and too high. This illustrates once again a general point made throughout this report that standards evolve, and even new buildings (or vehicles) built to current standards are not necessarily accessible for all disabled people. A secondary point, made above by disabled people in Shetland, is that addressing the needs of one group of disabled people may impact negatively on another group.
A further set of access issues exist in terms of the integration of ferry and other services. By definition, most ferry terminals are in rural, and often remote areas, and these areas are not generally well served by accessible public transport of any kind. This may make it difficult for disabled people to travel independently, other than by car. Examples of this are the ferry terminals at Scrabster, Uig and Ullapool, which are served by long-distance coach services operated by Citylink and Rapsons. In most other locations, linking services are provided by local bus companies, many of whose services will also be coach-based. In a small number of cases, linking services are also provided by Scotrail (for example at Ardrossan, Wemyss Bay, Gourock and Oban, not all of which are capable of being accessed by wheelchair users travelling independently). As noted elsewhere, there are few accessible taxis in rural areas. The overall impact of this in many areas is likely to be relatively slight, as most passengers will travel by car. The main impacts are likely to be in terms of services to the Western Isles and Orkney.
One issue raised in Shetland is that, although bus services are provided by low floor buses, in a small number of cases, passengers have to disembark and board ferries as foot passengers, before boarding another (accessible) bus following the crossing, which is potentially problematic for some disabled people. Shetland Islands Council noted that it is considering addressing this by the apparently simple expedient of using one bus for the length of the route, and permitting passengers to remain in the vehicle.
Overview of issues for sea travel
Perhaps more than any other mode of public transport, the accessibility of ferries has improved in the last 5 years. New vessels introduced by a variety of companies have taken the standards proposed by DPTAC and translated these into a much more accessible (and correspondingly less stressful) experience for disabled passengers. There remain some access issues with smaller ferries which will only be addressed as these are replaced. There have also been access improvements in ferry terminals. New terminals at Scrabster, Stromness and Lerwick are much more accessible than those in place previously. The innovative solution employed to address the rise and fall of the tides at Lerwick, involving an extended ramp, was viewed very positively by some disabled people, while others had concerns that no seating could be provided (although passengers can be transferred by using a wheelchair if they wish).
TAXI TRAVEL
Taxis are available in virtually every part of Scotland, and provide both door to door and linking service (for example between other modes of transport).
Organisations involved
In Scotland, taxis are generally either owned and operated by individuals, are owned by companies and rented to drivers, or are owned by companies and driven by employees. The consequence of this is that virtually all taxis are owned and operated within the private sector. Taxis are, however, licensed by local authorities on the basis either of a hackney carriage license or a private hire license, with various restrictions on how each can operate. The overall number of taxis in an area is regulated by the local authority, which also set fares and may (or may not) operate a concessionary fares scheme for some groups.
Implications of the DDA for taxi travel
In 1997, the government undertook a consultation on how the provisions of the DDA would be implemented in relation to taxis. It proposed that, by 2002, all new taxis should be accessible and that all licensed taxis should be accessible by 2012. However, following the consultation, the government decided not to implement the proposals as set out, and currently, new proposals are awaited from the Department for Transport. The impact of this has been felt in two ways. Firstly, it is clear that, in most areas of Scotland outside the cities, there are still very large numbers of inaccessible taxis, and secondly, as will be set out in more detail later, a number of local authorities have deferred consideration of their own policy on access while a national policy is agreed. In some areas, however, individual local authorities have chosen to either set quotas for accessible taxis, or to enforce a policy of only granting hackney licenses to operators of accessible taxis. This is set out in more detail below.
In 2001, the UK Government implemented Section 37 of the DDA, making it mandatory for taxi drivers to accept guide dogs at no extra charge, although most visually impaired respondents suggested that they had had few problems before this time. The only exemptions relate to drivers who can demonstrate an allergy to dogs. It is worth noting that this does not apply to private hire vehicles.
Taxi services
Respondents to this research were clear that there was a need for more accessible vehicles. For some, there was a need for all vehicles to be accessible, while for others, the issue was about matching needs, for example through more sophisticated booking systems. It is also worth noting that, even in areas such as Edinburgh, where all licensed taxis are "accessible", this does not necessarily mean that any disabled person would be able to use the vehicle. There was, for example, a good deal of criticism (across areas) of the traditional black cab design. The main issue for many was that the seats are low and slope backwards, making it relatively difficult for a passenger with limited mobility to lever themselves to a standing position. It was also identified that some wheelchair users would prefer to transfer to a saloon car (using a swivel seat) rather than be carried in their own wheelchair. This is not possible in a black cab. From this, and other points raised, it was clear that there is no consensus on what constitutes an "accessible" taxi, and a number of respondents made it clear that the need was for a variety of solutions.
Local authority policies on taxi licensing
All Scottish Local Authorities, as the licensing bodies for taxis, were contacted by telephone as part of this research. Thirty one authorities responded 37. 'Taxi' in this context means a public licensed hackney carriage; private hire vehicles were not included in the study.
Respondents were asked whether or not they currently had a policy on taxi accessibility. Sixteen local authorities, or just over half of the total, identified that a policy (however described) existed. Fifteen local authorities had no specific policy. Among the authorities which had a policy, the most common approach was found to be the requirement that all new vehicles licensed as taxis must be accessible, adopted by eight local authorities. In the case of Midlothian, for example, this policy had been operational for long enough to ensure that the entire taxi fleet was considered accessible by the time of the survey. In Renfrewshire, on the other hand, the policy was due to come in to force in January 2004 and would also apply to licence renewals as well as new licences. The authority identified that this would have the effect of increasing the number of accessible vehicles more quickly than if the policy had been applied solely to vehicles being licensed for the first time. West Dunbartonshire is an unusual case, with different arrangements applying in the Clydebank and Dumbarton zones, as these fall within different District Court jurisdictions for licensing purposes. Stirling Council added the caveat that, as there is currently a full quota of taxi licences in the area, it was unlikely that any new licences would be granted in the near future.
Four authorities, a quarter of those with policies, simply specify that all taxis must be accessible. This is the position in the Clydebank zone of West Dunbartonshire (and will be introduced in the remainder of the area from 2006). In East Lothian, this policy was introduced for new vehicles in 2000, then applied later to renewals, and has therefore, brought about a 100% accessible taxi fleet within three years. South Ayrshire's policy specifies the types of vehicle it considers to be accessible as custom-built and capable of carrying at least one wheelchair loaded through a side door from the pavement.
Two authorities have chosen to encourage accessible taxis either by providing grants to operators towards the cost of suitable vehicles, or by adding new plates to their quota of licences and reserving these for accessible vehicles. In one of these cases, this was identified as an interim policy which will be reviewed when the Scottish Executive publishes the Disability Discrimination Act Implementation Guidelines for Taxis.
A number of other policies were found to be operated by one authority only. These include: all new operators must have accessible vehicles, adopted by Aberdeen City Council, (who are facing a legal challenge to the policy from the trade, and feel that the publication of the Implementation Guidelines is necessary for the policy to have legal backing); all vehicles must be purpose-built and accessible by the end of 2005, adopted by North Lanarkshire, (who also face strong opposition from the trade locally, with representations being made through the consultation process); all vehicles must be accessible by May 2005; vehicles with more than five passenger seats must be accessible (being applied in Falkirk alongside the policy of new vehicles being accessible), and allowing accessible vehicles a longer service life than non-accessible ones (in Stirling, purpose built accessible taxis are allowed to be up to ten years old and adapted ones up to eight years old, while non-accessible taxis are only allowed to be up to five years old, again to provide an incentive to operators to purchase accessible vehicles).
Of the authorities which reported that they did not currently have a policy, one third said that they planned to introduce one in the future. Four of these five authorities suggested the main reason they have not already implemented a policy was a decision to wait for the publication of the DDA Implementation Guidelines. Just over half the authorities without a current policy said that they did not have plans to introduce one, but it should be noted that of these, two respondents also indicated that this was due to awaiting the Implementation Guidelines before formulating a policy, while a third indicated an awareness that the DDA would make a policy necessary, but had not yet begun the process of developing it. The fourth indicated that it was likely to introduce a policy once the DDA is fully implemented.
It would appear, therefore, that respondents interpreted 'planning' a policy differently, but that over half of local authorities with no current policy on taxi accessibility see the publication of the Implementation Guidelines as the key trigger for the introduction of such a policy. One authority reported that this had been the advice of the Scottish Executive, while another indicated that, in their view, the only way a policy would be enforceable would be if legislation was in place. Three local authorities indicated that their decision to wait was driven by a concern that the Implementation Guidelines may then make it necessary to change policy soon after implementation, involving duplication of work and extra inconvenience for the trade.
Highland Council reported that it had been considering the options for the most appropriate policy for a rural area and noted that it intended to present recommendations to members before Christmas 2003. A consultation exercise had shown a demand for saloon taxis among some sections of the public, including elderly people who felt more secure in them and valued being able to sit in the front of the taxi next to the driver. For the same reason, East Ayrshire reported that it was consulting with disabled people about its 100% accessibility policy at the time of the survey, and suggested that some compromise may be necessary. In this consultation, visually and hearing impaired respondents, as well as frail elderly people had indicated that they would prefer not to have black cabs as the only option.
Of the remaining authorities which stated that they had no plans to introduce a policy, one questioned the viability of such a policy in their area, while another indicated that they were likely to seek exemption from the Implementation Guidelines on the basis that it may be able to prove that there is no demand for accessible taxis over and above that which can be met by existing provision. Another was about to enter consultation with operators as part of a review of all licensing conditions for taxis so that demands could be identified and conditions amended accordingly; it was planned to advertise the consultation so that other stakeholders could become involved, and it was acknowledged that this may provide a means to address issues of accessibility.
Authorities were also asked to provide details of any incentives or support offered to operators to use accessible vehicles. Four authorities were found to offer grants for this purpose, ranging from one-off grants of 1,000 - 2,000 to 5,000 over five years (offered by Clackmannanshire). In one of these cases, the grant was only available to operators participating in a Taxi Card scheme 38. In Orkney, while there is no formal, publicised grant scheme, in practice the operator of the Islands' sole accessible taxi was given financial support. A further two authorities have used licence quotas as a means of encouraging accessibility by restricting the granting of extra licences to those operators proposing to use accessible vehicles, and Dumfries and Galloway is considering offering operators the chance to by pass the current three year waiting list for licences in Dumfries itself for accessible vehicles. In total, slightly more than a quarter of authorities are currently offering some kind of encouragement to the trade to increase provision.
The general view of the taxi trade is strongly supportive of the need for accessible taxis. The Scottish Taxi Federation, reflecting the views of member associations is clear, however that it does not support a "100% accessible" policy. At the time of the research, the Federation was involved in various forms of action in both West Dunbartonshire and Dundee, in relation the planned imposition of "100% accessible" policy. The Federation's approach is to ensure that adequate numbers of accessible taxis are available in each area, with booking and guarantee systems in place to ensure that any passenger requiring such a vehicle is provided with one.
The other main concern among the trade is partly financial and partly technical. Until very recently, a fully accessible vehicle acceptable to licensing authorities could cost around 30,000. As noted earlier, only a very small number of local authorities offer incentives to purchase accessible vehicles, and there is a strong view among some operators that the premium over a saloon vehicle is unlikely ever to be recouped. In the last year, a small number of converted car or van bodies have been marketed. In the case of a Fiat vehicle, the purchase cost is less than 14,000. While, on the surface, these vehicles may represent a cheaper alternative, there is concern among operators about high depreciation and potential reliability (and hence possible re-sale values of these vehicles). The Scottish Taxi Federation also expressed reservations about the safety of such rear-loading vehicles in the event of an accident.
Licensing conditions
Less than one sixth of authorities were found to impose any conditions on the granting of licences to drivers in terms of completing disability awareness training 39. Among those which do, Aberdeen City Council offers non-compulsory training, including disability awareness, to drivers, and Scottish Borders was piloting courses including disability awareness at the time of the survey, aiming for full introduction at the start of the 2004-05 financial year. In the latter case, training would be compulsory for new drivers, while existing drivers would be encouraged to participate.
A further three authorities have more or less advanced plans to introduce training, although this would not be compulsory in all cases, and in West Lothian, plans include a test for drivers in relation to carrying disabled passengers. Two more authorities are considering the introduction of training in the future. In one authority, training had been provided by the council in the past but was withdrawn due to the low number of accessible vehicles and the high turnover of drivers (caused by the lack of a quota on licences). In this area, training is now arranged for drivers by a private sector operator. One other authority reported that, although it does not provide disability awareness training directly, some drivers had undertaken it.
It is worth noting that the Scottish Taxi Federation is supportive of training, and encourages members to undertake this as part of being able to provide a properly professional service to all users.
Available information on accessible taxis
Only three local authorities (just under 10%) identified that they maintained a list of accessible taxis, and in two of these, the list is limited to those operators participating in the Taxi Card discount scheme. In West Lothian, this information is published in a Concessionary Travel information booklet available to members of the public, and in Angus a list of operators in the scheme, including accessibility information, is provided to applicants for the card. Of the twenty eight authorities which reported that they do not maintain a list, one quarter said that this information is kept on the licence register and could be extracted and provided to members of the public on request, with two authorities citing Data Protection issues as a reason for not publishing the information.
Authorities were asked to state the total number of taxis in their area and the number that are accessible. Two authorities were unable to provide a figure for accessible taxis and one for the total number, although in this latter case the number of accessible vehicles was known. Percentages of accessible vehicles were found to cover the range from 0% to 100%, with only one authority having no accessible taxis and four (plus the Clydebank zone of West Dunbartonshire) having an entirely accessible fleet. It is worth noting that, of these, three are in the Edinburgh and Lothians area. Over one third of the sample currently have fewer than 5% of taxis accessible, and with the exception of Glasgow, where around 90% are accessible, no authority has a proportion of accessible vehicles between one third and 100%. Three authorities have proportions in the 5 to 10% range, three in the 10 to 20% range, two in the 20 to 30% range and one in the 30 to 40% range. Respondents to this research identified large areas where there were known to be no, or very few accessible taxis, including, for example, Shetland, Orkney, much of Highland, parts of Aberdeenshire, most of Angus, parts of Fife, the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway.
As might be expected, there was found to be a strong correlation between a low proportion of accessible taxis and not having a policy on taxi accessibility, with over three quarters of authorities with fewer than 10% of taxis accessible having no stated policy. Of the three authorities in this range who did have a policy, one had an interim policy and another had adopted a policy that all new taxis must be accessible but which had not had time to take effect.
Complaints
Twenty nine authorities operate a complaints system for taxis, while in the remaining two, complaints about taxis have to be made to the police. Additionally, in two of the authorities where complaints can be made to the council, these are then passed to the police for investigation as the authorities concerned have no Taxi Enforcement Officer. Two authorities stated that taxi complaints are dealt with under the council's standard complaints procedure. More than half of all authorities required complaints to be submitted in writing, with only two providing a form for this purpose, and only six said that they would accept complaints made verbally. Over three quarters of respondents stated that serious complaints would lead to referral to the Licensing Committee, with suspension or loss of the licence as the ultimate sanction.
Taxi concessions
Fourteen authorities, or around half of the sample, were found to operate Taxi Card or similar discount scheme for disabled passengers, with twelve of these being in Eastern Scotland. Of those not currently operating a scheme, two authorities were considering introducing one and a further six had considered introducing one in the past but decided not to go ahead with it. Three of the latter reported that they had been prevented from doing so by budgetary constraints.
Orkney Islands Council identified an additional difficulty in having only one accessible taxi in the Islands, and so had concluded that working with community groups through the Rural Transport Initiative to provide a Dial-a-Bus service was a better way of meeting the needs of disabled passengers. Nine authorities reported that they were unlikely to introduce a scheme in the future, with one acknowledging that there was grassroots demand for one, one again citing prohibitive costs and two suggesting that it would be up to the trade to organise any discount scheme. This may suggest a need for wider dissemination of information about local authority policies and practices across the rest of the country. Three respondents said that they did not know whether or not a scheme may be introduced in the future, one that they 'may', and one that they 'would aspire to'.
Among the schemes currently being operated, there was considerable variation in detail. Eligibility conditions for schemes and definitions of disability used are divided in many cases between those which give automatic qualification and those which require support from an applicant's GP, or a medical assessment, prior to a decision on whether to grant the discount. In some cases, different authorities take a different approach to the same criterion, e.g. six authorities reported that receipt of War Pensioner's Mobility Supplement gives automatic entitlement, while another would require an applicant on these grounds to undergo an assessment. The most frequently cited conditions for automatic entitlement were found to be registration as a blind person, used by eleven authorities, and receipt of Disability Living Allowance Mobility Supplement at the Higher Rate, used by eight. Two authorities require all applications to be supported by the applicant's G.P.
The number of subsidised trips allowed under schemes also varies considerably, from 80 per year to 14 per week (equivalent to 728 per year), with the most common provision being equivalent to one return journey (two trips) per week, found in five authorities. Similarly, there was great variation in the subsidy available. In almost all authorities offering a scheme, there is a percentage discount (varying from 40% to 67%) coupled with a maximum metered fare to give a maximum subsidy per trip varying from 12 to 2, with any metered fare over the maximum paid by the passenger. The most generous subsidies are in the Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire areas (67% discount up to 15 total fare, 10 maximum per trip and 50% discount up to 24 total fare, 12 maximum per trip respectively). Generally, however, the maximum subsidy available is at the lower end of the scale, with almost two thirds of schemes providing for 3 or less per trip, while only around one third of schemes cover maximum metered fares of over 5. On the whole, therefore, subsidies only impact significantly on the cost of the shortest, most local journeys.
One of the main concerns of disabled people in areas where a taxi card operated was that journeys were, in some cases, severely limited. Several respondents made the point that they have little choice but to use taxis, and, therefore, can face prohibitively high costs, even in areas with a scheme in place. A number of examples were set out in Section 2 of disabled people who felt that either the lack of a scheme, or the limitations of their local scheme constrained their ability to travel. Respondents in rural areas particularly commented on the still high cost of taxi travel, even where a scheme was in place. Capability Scotland identified that some taxi firms appear to impose additional charges on disabled passengers, although this was not specifically identified by this research (and may be a function of the areas in which fieldwork was carried out).
The final point made by respondents in some areas (including Edinburgh and Dumfries) was that some local authorities allow disabled people to have either a taxi card or bus pass (although it is understood that at least some local authorities are reviewing this policy). As noted in Section 2 (in relation to the need for multi-modal journeys in rural areas), this was seen by respondents as being a cause of limitation to their mobility.
Service issues
A wide range of points were made by respondents in relation to taxi services (some of which were rehearsed in Section 2). It is important to stress at the outset that many respondents were entirely positive about taxi companies and taxi drivers, and it is fair to stress than some respondents, even heavy users of taxis, had never encountered any problems. Equally, it is also fair to stress that this was not the experience of all respondents, and comments, both positive and negative are summarised in this section.
One of the key difficulties some disabled people face is in actually securing the services of a taxi company. Broadly, taxis can be obtained in three main ways, depending on both the location of the client and the license held by the operator. These are; by telephone, from a rank and in the street. (Private hire vehicles can, generally speaking, only operate by telephone, or under a contract, while hackney licenses allow taxis to stop at ranks and in the street, as well as respond to telephone calls.)
As noted earlier, in most areas there are either central booking services or associations which process telephone bookings. The Scottish Taxi Federation identified that good practice in relation to disabled people would involve the use of a computerised database to store users' details (within the terms of the Data Protection Act) and confirm that this approach is used by many operators throughout Scotland. Where respondents had registered with such services, there was a clear view that the service obtained generally was good, with little difficulty found in obtaining a taxi except in certain circumstances (such as very late at night, and at peak times, such as Christmas). Respondents in Aberdeen, for example, identified that this database system meant that in virtually all cases, a suitable taxi was despatched and, in many cases, the same taxi driver was used to respond to bookings by each individual. The main benefits of this were seen to be in developing the confidence of the disabled person that their needs would be addressed.
Users' experiences of firms not operating such a system were less positive, with a number citing poor service in a number of areas. Among the issues raised were inaccessible taxis being despatched, drivers being unwilling to deploy ramps (even where a booking was clearly identified as being for a wheelchair user) and bookings apparently being accepted even where the company was aware that no accessible taxi was available. One interviewee (in an area where virtually all taxis are accessible) noted that:
"Taxis come more quickly if you don't say you're disabled".
Respondents also identified systematic problems with being able to hail a taxi at a rank, or in the street (where this is permitted). Many respondents covering each of the cities suggested that they had had personal experience of drivers either directly or indirectly refusing to accept them as passengers. Indirect examples cited included taxis slowing, but refusing to stop, and taxis pulling away from ranks on identifying a wheelchair user in the queue. Clearly, it would be wrong to conclude that, in all cases, these situation were necessarily due to the intending passenger being disabled, but, in the view of a number of those who participated in this research, this was a likely explanation. The implication of this is that, whether or not, on a case by case basis, this was the correct explanation, many disabled people believe that they will be unable to hail a taxi at a rank or in the street, and this has clear implications for the likelihood that they will travel (a point made in Section 2).
Overall, there were a range of service related issues raised about taxi companies. One interviewee in Edinburgh identified the frustration of this:
"Sometimes they send a non-accessible taxi even though I've asked for an accessible one - they don't always listen."
Participants in a joint consultation in Edinburgh identified bad practice among taxi drivers in that:
- Some drivers refuse to take wheelchair users
- Some drivers have no ramp, or claim the ramp isn't working
- Some drivers don't use the proper ramp
One interviewee, echoing a point made by a number of respondents, reported that:
"A taxi driver refused to load the wheelchair into the boot - I saw that he had golf clubs. It was nothing to do with a bad back at all."
An Edinburgh - based interviewee identified that :
"I gave up using taxis two years ago because of not being able to rely on getting one, drivers don't want to stop for you, get ramps out and saying 'you can't get that type of chair in'".
A significant number of respondents suggested that they only ever used one taxi company, in order to minimise the risk of poor service.
One of the key areas of difficulty (as suggested earlier) was in the use of ramps. This issue was raised by most wheelchair users with experience of taxis. Among the concerns were:
- The design of the ramps used, with, in most cases, one design being expected to suit any sort of wheelchair;
- The extent to which ramps protrude into the cab, with a small number of wheelchair users reporting having "see-sawed" on crossing the threshold of the cab;
- Some drivers appearing to be unwilling to deploy the ramp, preferring to use other means;
- The condition of some ramps;
- The observation that some drivers appeared to be unaware of how the ramps should be used safely.
It was also identified that drivers face a range of difficulties, for example in terms of poor parking by other motorists, meaning that ramps had to be used in locations the passenger felt might be unsafe. A number of wheelchair users reported ramps having been deployed in a way which would leave them in the roadway, or off a kerb with no easy means of access to the pavement. One suggested that:
"Sometimes I get a driver who doesn't want to get the ramp extension out (which helps make the ramp less steep so that you can get out gradually and it's easier to get in if the vehicle isn't at the kerb) - they push and shove trying to get you in".
The final criticism made by a wide range of respondents, and reflected in some of the earlier comments, was about the attitudes of some drivers. As identified at the outset, it is important to stress that many disabled people have little or no difficulty in using taxis, and receive exemplary service. Nonetheless, as with other modes of public transport, it is clear that this is not the case for all disabled people at all times. One respondents summed up the views of a range of disabled people thus:
"The attitudes of taxi drivers can be appalling and it all makes a journey more difficult and less worthwhile".
Another respondent, from a different area identified the level of inconsistency which is perceived to exist:
"Some [taxi drivers] are very nice and that's great, but there is variation and inconsistency. I once got told at 10pm that I shouldn't be out at that time of night."
The effect of this for some disabled people is that the fear of receiving poor service means that they are less likely to travel, a point also made in relation to other modes of transport.
Overview of issues for taxi travel
There has been progress in relation to the introduction of accessible taxis. Clearly, more are on the road than in 1998, some as a consequence of licensing policies, some as a result of initiatives by the trade. Cost, and perceptions of limited return on investment appear to remain significant disinhibitors to further growth in numbers. The current policies of some local authorities in having all-accessible fleets are not popular with the taxi trade. There were also a number of examples of very good practice identified throughout this research, and one area in which there has been considerable development in the last 5 years has been the use of computer systems to record, and meet the needs of disabled travellers.
PERSONAL, COMMUNITY AND DEMAND RESPONSIVE TRANSPORT
The final strand of this section will deal with a wide range of types of transport which might be broadly termed "community" or "personal" transport. These are distinguished largely by being non-commercial, or not for profit, and are often operated by voluntary organisations, or directly by local authorities (or by SPT).
Organisations involved
This classification includes traditional community transport, local authority or voluntary sector dial-a-journey type services, car sharing and volunteer driver schemes and a small number of demand-responsive door to door services. There are also a very substantial number of accessible vehicles of all kinds owned and operated by local authorities, generally within the social work service (but also within the education service.) With some exceptions, these vehicles are not available to the public, being used to move clients from, for example, their homes to day centres. In some areas, for example Angus and Shetland, bookings are accepted for these vehicles at off-peak times. In the view of a number of those who participated in the research, the pool of accessible vehicles owned by social work services remains an under-utilised resource.
The other main form of transport not included in this section is patient transport, as this generally exists only to move patients from home to appointments and back, although this distinction appears to be becoming blurred, as, in some areas, patient transport is the only transport, while in other areas, medical appointments are, for many people, services by community transport (or public transport) solutions.
Community Transport
There are a large number of "traditional" community transport schemes across Scotland. Most exist to serve a very local area, and may have very specific aims and objectives, which restrict their service to a small number of clients. The main areas of restriction relate to either geographical areas, for example:
"Members must live within a ten mile radius of Inverurie and have a physical or sensory disability",
or on the basis of membership or use of a service, for example:
"Not general members of the public. Passengers have to be clients of [a local voluntary organisation]."
In some cases, more general restrictions can apply. Among those identified by respondents were:
- Age
- Income
- Employment status
- Specific impairments
- Inability to access mainstream public transport services
- Lack of public transport services in area
One scheme described its client group as:
"Any member of the community aged 50+ or in need of assistance due to physical, mental or social disabilities."
It is clear from responses to this research that by no means all community transport providers offer accessible vehicles, although many do, and accessible vehicles represent a high proportion of overall fleets.
The following summary of activities is typical:
"We have 2 wheelchair adapted Peugeot Expert vans to provide affordable and accessible transport to all residents in [area]. We employ 2 paid drivers who work 30 hours each and have 12 volunteer drivers who cover the other hours. We operate 7 days a week."
The following quote is typical of volunteer driver schemes:
"The scheme was set up to provide a door to door service for people who cannot use other forms of transport. The scheme relies on volunteer drivers using their own vehicles to take people to various appointments, shopping and community activities."
Most community transport providers are very small, having one or two vehicles, and operating with either a very small number of paid staff, or by using volunteers (or, in some cases, a mixture of both). In many cases, organisations are member-led, and have disabled people represented on management committees or boards (depending on their structure). Most organisations identified that they also consulted widely with disabled people in their community of interest, either on a regular or ad hoc basis. A number of organisations identified that they regularly undertook evaluation surveys or users. One organisation (which is fairly typical) described its approach as:
"We consult with all our client group regularly through face to face chats, questionnaires etc. I also attend meetings regularly with local disability groups across the spectrum."
The funding for community transport provision is often complex. Many providers have been gifted vehicles, either by larger charities or by private sector companies, and in some cases, this is accompanied by revenue support to pay for maintenance. The other main forms of funding are community fund raising, endowments and legacies, and both local authority and Scottish Executive grants. It is reasonable to suggest that relatively few community transport providers are well funded, and many identified costs (particularly maintenance and replacements) as a difficulty. As one respondent noted:
"We are a charity - all our drivers are volunteers. We depend on donations to keep us afloat and to cover the high cost of insurance and regular servicing of vehicles."
Most community transport providers generate revenue income through fares or bookings, often on a cost per mile basis. In a small number of cases, providers are seeking to cross-subsidise services by, for example, working with childcare and other service providers to maximise utilisation and open up fresh revenue streams.
The range of services offered by community transport providers is extensive. In some cases, services are provided on a group basis (for example shopping trips and summer outings) while some services offer personal use (for example hospital visiting or visiting relatives). In some cases, the service is provided by the transport provider (for example through volunteer or employed drivers), while in other cases, the service is offered on the basis that community groups can hire the vehicle (or a mixture of both). In some ways the key defining factor is that services are provided on a door to door basis. As one provider noted:
"People don't live on routes".
Among the range of services offered include:
- Shopping trips
- Trips to community facilities
- Trips to visit friends and relatives
- Hospital and other similar visits
- "Outings"
- Transfers to other services, such as lunch clubs
- Transfers to other modes of transport, for example airport and ferry terminals
Given the relatively small scale of most community-based transport, relatively few of the participants in this research had had direct experience of this form of provision. Of those which had, there was, however, universal praise, both for the organisations and the individuals concerned. The main drawback identified, as might be expected, was the limited availability in terms of both times and coverage, although it is fair to say that some disabled people identified a willingness to structure their lives around the support available to them.
The main constraints experienced by community transport providers include funding issues (including the insecurity of funding, as well as a general shortage of funding), a reliance on grants and, in some cases, local authority and other contracts. The other main issue facing many organisations is a lack of volunteers, and the implications of a range of recent changes, including the need to undertake Disclosure Scotland checks.
There were relatively few significant changes identified by providers over the last five years. Most progress appeared to be in terms of the purchase of new, more accessible vehicles and in terms of training. A number of organisations identified that they had invested in making their premises more accessible, including, in some cases, the purchase of an induction loop. It is interesting to note that a number of local authorities, either directly or through other organisations have employed development officers with a remit to assist in both the creation and sustainability of community transport initiatives.
"Dial-a-ride" and similar provision
The second main form of non commercial public transport is, broadly, dial-a-ride type schemes. These are branded in a range of different ways across Scotland. Some provision is run by voluntary organisations (such Handicabs in Lothian and The Order of Malta in central Scotland) or by public authorities (such as Fife Council and SPT). In most areas, both dial-a-ride and community transport operators co-exist, often providing services to the same group of clients, but meeting different needs at different times. It is important to stress that dial-a-ride type schemes are not available in every area.
Dial-a-ride provision works in ways similar way to other forms of community-based transport. For example, there may be a mix of timetabled provision (for example to a shopping centre) and demand responsive provision (where an individual can book a door to door journey). Payment is usually on the basis either of a notional cost per mile, or, in some cases, on a table of standard fares defined by the journey. In some areas, although not all, local authority concessionary passes are valid.
It is important to stress that dial-a-ride type provision can be limited in terms of the destinations it serves. In Glasgow, for example, travel is restricted to specific zones, and is not available for a range of purposes (which are assumed to be served by other means). In most areas, services to and from shopping destinations are timetabled, and the time at destination may be too long or too short to meet the needs of some users. Generally, users must show that they are eligible for the provision. In Fife, this is done through the holding of a Mobility Card, but the general approach varies. In some areas, some groups of users must travel with a companion.
A number of participants in this research (both interviewees and through the postal survey) had considerable experience of dial-a-ride type schemes. For most, the provision was viewed positively, particularly the "door to door" element. This point was stressed by a number of respondents, contrasting this with taxi firms, who generally do not permit drivers to enter clients houses. A number of users also contrasted this with mainstream public transport. One noted:
"I use dial-a-ride where I can. I live 50 yards from the bus stop, and it might be only 50 yards at the other end, but that 100 yards makes a huge difference to how I feel".
The main difficulty identified by respondents with dial-a-ride type schemes was their limited availability. Most providers will only allow one booking at a time, and may restrict how far in advance bookings can be taken. Although there are good reasons for this, it is also a source of considerable frustration to service users:
"The only problem is not being able to make block bookings. Ideally I would like to go to work and come home with them every day".
An example was provided in Section 2 of a dial-a-ride scheme user who has had to structure their work around the availability of transport, and this was typical of a number of comments made by disabled people as part of this research. As one disabled person noted:
"The availability of community transport is pot luck - you can only make one advance booking at a time, and since I always seem to have one for weeks away, that means that for any other journeys I have to ring the day before and hope a space is available."
This was echoed by another respondent, who suggested that:
"I usually book a fortnight in advance, any less and I stand a good chance of not getting booking - I can never be spontaneous"
A point raised by participants at the Scottish Travel Access Review conference (in September 2003), as well as in the postal survey carried out as part of this research, is that dial-a-ride type services tend to be organised by local authorities, and cross-boundary travel is not permitted. This was also identified as an issue with concessionary travel earlier. As one delegate at the conference suggested:
"It is entirely wrong that someone living on the edge of an area can't use demand responsive services just because they are contracted by another local authority".
Demand responsive services
Increasingly, the future focus of such services is likely to be on "ring and ride" type services. This option has always been available to a limited extent within some existing schemes, but in some areas, for example, Fife and Angus, pilot projects have been developed to develop this further. The rationale behind the pilots is that there remain many people who may be capable of semi-independent travel, but for whom the existing options, including dial-a-ride, are not suitable. A pilot project has operated in Kirkcaldy and Levenmouth since early 2003, and is being considered for wider implementation. The basis of the approach is that prospective users register their details (with a summary of their transport related needs, as happens currently with some taxi operators, but there are no "eligibility" conditions as apply to, for example, dial-a-ride) and, once registered, individuals can book a trip between 8am and 10pm. Initial feedback from users has been positive, and there appears to have been a stimulation of travel among some users who had been unwilling, or unable to travel on a semi-independent basis.
A slightly different approach is being taken by SPT, which has introduced pilot ring and ride schemes in six rural areas. Although these services are operated by accessible small buses, the scheme is actually open to anyone in the areas who has limited or no access to conventional public transport. The services provide links to town centres, and to transport interchanges, for example main line and other railway stations. The services must be pre-booked.
Issues for personal, community and demand responsive services
Personal, community and demand responsive services provide a wide range of services but with limited scope, in terms of geography and / or eligibility. Some pilots, such as those in Angus, Fife and within a part of SPT are offering a wider door to door service on a demand responsive basis. These services are beginning to define an alternative model of public transport for disabled people, albeit in currently very limited geographical areas, and there remains the scope in due course for close links between these services and mainstream services (such as rail and air services, as these become more accessible). In terms of more general improvement in the last 5 years, these appear to have been largely incremental, through the purchase of new buses, improved training and access improvements, for example to offices. The main constraints on traditional community transport schemes appears to be, as might be expected, the availability of funding, as well as, in some areas, a shortage of volunteers.
« Previous | Contents | Next »