Memorandum by Access Group Tunbridge Wells
Borough Area (DAF 13)
DISABLED PEOPLES
ACCESS TO
TRANSPORT
I write on behalf of the Tunbridge Wells Access
Group in response to your invitation to submit views on disabled
access to transport. Our comments under each of the questions
raised in your Press Notice are each set out below.
Q1. What progress is being made in providing
disabled people with proper access to transport?
Regrettably, there has been little improvement
in the provision of accessible services in the Tunbridge Wells
area, despite the existence of the DDA. Facilities at all three
of our local stations remain poor. At Tunbridge Wells Central
and High Brooms stations, the down platforms cannot be reached
by wheel chair users and others with walking difficulties. Slam
door trains are still widely used. There are virtually no low
floor bus services in the area. Few bus stops offer visual information
and none provide audio information. Although the number of licensed
accessible taxis has increased, the majority still cannot carry
wheelchairs, and there is no affordable Dial a Ride Scheme. With
regard to pedestrian travel, many parts of the highways network
remain closed to wheelchair users and blind and partially sighted
residents because of the absence of dropped kerbs, unnecessary
clutter on pavements and a paucity of safe road crossings.
Q2. Are the provisions of the DDA being interpreted
in unexpected ways?
Yes. Despite the fact that the rail authorities
have known full well for years what needs to be done to make stations
accessible for all, the provisions of Part 3 of the DDA have been
largely ignored at many medium and small sized stations. Worse
still there are no plans to rectify matters, and moreover the
Department of Transport seems intent on using the Courts to determine
what must be done thus delaying still further much needed improvements.
Even the proposals to provide alternative arrangements for passengers
who cannot use their local station are very unsatisfactory. Similarly
bus operators have been less than sympathetic in their approach.
Although they are not required to replace their fleets until 2017,
staff do not appear to have been instructed to assist disabled
customers wherever possible, eg by loading a wheelchair onto the
bus for the wheelchair user who is able to walk a few steps. Our
group has not seen any evidence of bus companies willingness to
discuss alternative arrangements for those who find it impossible
to use services. It is also a fact that in this area, the highway
authority (KCC) has no plans or target date for making its network
accessible throughout.
Q3. Is Accessibility coming second best to
other considerations?
Again yes. It is appreciated and accepted that
health and safety must continue to be high priority for all public
services. This is no less important for disabled travellers as
to others. However, funding of safety measures must be based on
a balanced risk assessment. For example, the suggestion that all
unmanned railway crossings should be replaced by bridges or tunnels
could not in our view be justified when money is needed to improve
access to platforms and other measures designed to facilitate
disabled travel. Tunbridge Wells Access believes that the provision
of accessible services should have been given a much higher priority
in the past, and that the deficiencies still present within the
system should now be addressed through programs aimed at completion
within an acceptable time period. The work would need to be prioritised,
to provide the most basic requirement in the first instance.
Q4. Is there any truth in the argument that
services are being levelled down rather than up?
Given that services for disabled travellers
have always been and remain poor in Tunbridge Wells and the surrounding
area, it is difficult to imagine how things could get much worse.
The Group's concerns and frustrations over the
continuing failure of rail authorities to provide accessible facilities
are summed up in a recent letter dated 8 October 2004 to Archie
Norman MP. To sum up Tunbridge Wells Access views in respect of
all forms of public transport, including pedestrian provision,
it is bad enough that so little progress has been made, but it
is even more disheartening that none of the service providers
involved have produced any plans to resolve the problem.
DS Haskett
Vice Chairman
November 2004
| 
