Accessibility
99. The Disability Rights Commission (DRC)
told us that "the 2012 Olympics provide an historic opportunity
to dismantle major transport barriers to disabled people's participation"
in life in London and beyond."[87]
We agree wholeheartedly.
100. There are long lead times for the creation of
accessible transport. It is essential that accessibility is a
primary factor determining the design of projects from the outset.
Mr William Bee, Director for Wales, Disability Rights Commission
(DRC) explained:
Our experience all too often is that inclusive
design principles are applied to a limited extent in major projects.
They get some of the obvious points right increasingly, thankfully,
but when you get down to the detail of finishing buildings all
to often artistic licence takes over. You have lots of glass with
no markings to make it safe for people with visual impairments
and notices missing off the fronts of steps, again creating all
sorts of obstacles for people with visual impairments. If DPTAC
and bodies of that sort are involved in the very beginning, the
message gets home and it is not bolted on at the end. My concern
with the Olympic infrastructure, if the experience of Sydney and
Athens is anything to go by, is that they will still be finishing
it in the weeks and months running up to the start of the Olympics.
If then they are suddenly trying to cobble together some of the
more important parts of access, they may get lost. It needs to
be embedded right from the beginning and that message must be
driven home by official representations of DPTAC in appropriate
places.[88]
We were reminded, too, that inclusive design is often
beneficial for the population as a whole not solely for people
with disabilities. [89]
POOR DISABILITY PLANNING
101. The Paralympics is an equal, integral part of
the 2012 event, and it might have been expected therefore that
those preparing the draft transport plan for the 2012 Games would
have made accessibility a key planning consideration. It is absurd
that this does not appear to have happened so far.
102. Quite rightly, groups representing people with
disabilities were keenly disappointed that the five key objectives
of the Olympic Transport Strategy Team at Transport for London
made no reference to accessibility, inclusion or disability.[90]
This was a serious omission on the part of the Olympic transport
planners. Mr Wilben Short, Director of Transport, LOCOG, admitted
that it would have been better if such a reference had been made.[91]
He assured us that this point would be addressed.[92]
103. Full consideration must be given to
those with disabilities in all aspects of planning for the Olympic
and Paralympic Games, including transport. We expect the Government
to give consideration now to the appointment of a member of the
Olympic Delivery Authority Board who is a "disabled person
who has a representative mandate to speak for a full range of
disabled people", as suggested by the Disabled Persons' Transport
Advisory Committee (DPTAC).[93]
BUSES
104. Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995 provides the Government with powers to make technical regulations
setting access requirements for buses, coaches, trains and taxis.
The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) 2000
set out the standards that new buses and scheduled coaches are
required to meet, together with dates by which existing vehicles
must meet the relevant regulations. Small buses must be accessible
to wheelchair users by 1 January 2015, large single deck buses
by 1 January 2016, and double deck buses by 1 January 2017. London
buses however will be compliant ahead of this timetable and will
all be accessible to wheelchairs by 2012.
105. Mr Neil Betteridge, Chairman of DPTAC, reminded
us however that buses which are wheelchair accessible are not
necessarily accessible to those with visual impairments
or those with learning disabilities.[94]
Transport for London is however investing in resources to
ensure that buses in London have audio-visual equipment by 2009.
106. We welcome the intention of Transport
for London (TfL) to invest in audio-visual announcements on the
buses in London by 2009 in good time for the Games. There must
be no slippage in this timetable. Audio-visual announcements will
assist not only people with disabilities but also strangers to
London. These measures are, in the words of Mr William
Bee, Chair of the Disability Rights Commission "a critical
feature for visually impaired people, hearing impaired passengers,
many people with learning difficulties and of course anyone who
is unfamiliar with London."[95]
107. Outside London only 30 per cent of
the national bus fleet is even wheelchair accessible and audio
visual aids are rare. Olympic organisers must ensure that all
the buses serving Olympic venues outside London are wheelchair
accessible at least. Buses used for Olympic venues however should
not be provided by removing them from normal routes to the disadvantage
of local residents, but should be provided additionally to the
normal complement.
108. Audible and visual information systems
are not mandatory under the current Public Service Vehicle Accessibility
Regulations (PSVAR). Where buses to Olympic venues outside London
meet the PSVAR this will be on a voluntary basis. This is unacceptable
in the 21st century. The Government must amend the PSVAR to require
the provision of audio-visual announcement on buses.
109. Glasgow has put in a bid for the Commonwealth
Games in 2014,[96]
and there are plans to bid for a Deaf Olympics in London in 2013.[97]
Improvements in accessible transport outside London will increase
the opportunities there to host international sporting events.
We look to the Government to lay the groundwork for disabled access
to future major sporting events throughout the UK.
PEDESTRIAN ROUTES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
110. Consultation on the part of the interim
Olympic Transport Authority with the Disabled Persons' Travel
Advisory Committee (DPTAC) will be needed at an early stage to
determine the design of the pedestrian routes from transport hubs
to the Olympic Park to enable these to be fully accessible.
DPTAC had firm views on this:
Q179 Mrs Ellman: What about access to
the pedestrian routes between the stations, car parks and the
venues? Has that been looked at, to your knowledge?
Mr Betteridge: No, not explicitly. It
does tie in with the parking issue. We know that if there is adequate
seating along the way and the staff are well trained and sensitive
to the needs of what could be hundreds of disabled people at any
one moment, making their way along these pedestrian routes, we
could have a very positive situation, but we are not being asked
to provide that sort of advice.
We commented earlier on the need to ensure
proper pedestrian access to Games venues.[98]
DPTAC must be involved in this work.
GAMES MOBILITY SERVICE
111. The same principle of DPTAC involvement applies
to the Games Mobility Service which is planned for the Olympic
Games to assist people with disabilities to, in and around Olympic
venues. DPTAC hopes this will be modelled on that of the International
Tennis Federation:
If it is based on something like the International
Tennis Federation sense of the Games Mobility Service, it will
be very positive. The main characteristics of that service were
that free tickets were available to disabled people which corresponded
to the most accessible routes for their needs and, along the way,
they could be sure that they would meet staff who would be trained
in disability awareness. If that is the model, that is excellent.
We are asking to find out what the model will be though and if
the Committee can do anything to help us find that out we can
offer our advice earlier.[99]
112. DPTAC knows what works for people with
disabilities and must be consulted on the design of the Games
Mobility Service. Mr Betteridge of DPTAC said "we are sitting
on lots of information which could be being used right now but
we are not being asked for it."[100]
This is nonsensical. We expect the Government and the Olympic
transport organisers to start listening to DPTAC now.
ELECTRIC SCOOTER WHEELCHAIRS
113. We received evidence about the problem of access
for users of electric scooter wheelchairs.[101]
People with disabilities and the growing number of elderly people
are increasingly using electric scooter wheelchairs and other
electric wheelchairs, some of which can be folded but not all,
which are larger than the reference wheelchair set out in the
Rail Access Vehicle Regulations (RAVR) 1998. It is the case apparently
that some train operators have banned these vehicles which had
previously been carried.[102]
114. One solution would be an amendment to the RAVR.
But the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) takes the view that
it would be more sensible to encourage manufacturers to produce
an electric wheelchair of the same dimensions as the reference
wheelchair. Mr Bee praised an initiative taken by South West Trains
which involved painting a 'footprint', the dimension of a reference
wheelchair on the platform so that someone in a wheelchair can
assess whether it will fit on the train.[103]
115. Manufacturers must ensure that the
size of all wheelchairs are suitable for transport by train. The
design of trains need to take account of passengers using wheelchairs.
Good co-operation between manufacturers and train operating companies
will be essential if this is to be achieved. In its response to
our predecessor committee's report 'Disabled People's Access to
Transport: A year's worth of improvements?'[104]
the Government indicated that it proposed in 2005 to commission
research into the "issues surrounding the carriage of scooters
by public transport…including rail".[105]
We would like the Government to tell us the results of this research
now.
116. Regardless of the actions of manufacturers
the train operators must adopt a common and fully transparent
approach by 2012 to allowing electric wheelchairs onto their services.
We also wish to know what arrangements are to be taken by the
train operators to carry wheelchairs of foreign manufacture which
may not conform to UK standards.
117. Our predecessor committee noted last
year the importance to people with disabilities of consistency
amongst train operators in permitting wheelchairs on their rolling
stock.[106]
The evidence we have received suggests that this has yet to be
achieved. We now want the Association of Train Operating Companies
(ATOC) and the train operating companies to tell us when this
will happen.
ACCESSIBLE AVIATION
118. Aviation is currently exempt from the provisions
of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and
is covered by voluntary codes and advice. The Government has said
that it will lift the exemption from the DDA if the voluntary
codes are demonstrated not to work.
119. We received disturbing evidence that, in the
case of aviation, the voluntary codes currently in place to guide
airlines on wheelchair accessibility are not working. Mr Bee,
Chair of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC), explained the
difficulties that disabled people in wheelchairs have when travelling
with Ryanair, which had been involved in a court case which the
company lost.[107]
We also heard from the DRC of a disproportionate number of complaints
received on its helpline about air travel compared with other
transport modes.[108]
120. After we had taken evidence, on 16 December
2005, the Government announced that new legislation enhancing
the rights of people with disabilities when travelling by air
had been agreed by the European Parliament and Council.[109]
The majority of the provisions will come into force well before
the 2012 Olympic Games.
121. The new legislation will require airport operators
to provide a service to assist passengers with disabilities as
they board, disembark and transfer between flights. It will also
require airlines to provide certain specific facilities,
equipment and information needed by people with disabilities and
those with reduced mobility whilst on board their aircraft. This
approach is rather different from the UK Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 which mandates a general requirement for providers
to make reasonable infrastructure adjustments to accommodate people
with disabilities.
122. We have had disturbing evidence of the high
number of complaints from people with disabilities against airlines.
The voluntary approach adopted in this area is evidently not working
well. New EU legislation, requiring airport operators
to provide a service at airports, and during aircraft boarding
for passengers with disabilities, and requiring airlines to provide
certain facilities for those with disabilities whilst on board,
will have been implemented in the UK well before the 2012 Olympics.
This is good news. The Government needs to ensure that these provisions
are applied promptly, and to monitor carefully how the new legislation
works in practice.
LEGACY OF ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT
123. Mr Bee of the Disability Rights Commission accepted
that some parking for the disabled needed to be provided at Olympic
venues, but wished to discourage initiatives which focused over
much on people with disabilities being provided with parking facilities.
In the longer term interests of accessible transport he argued
that it was preferable that people with disabilities were able
travel by public transport, even if those journeys were more difficult
than travelling by car:
The Games will leave a legacy in London that
will last a generation and beyond. If they are developed without
the full inclusion of disabled people and disabled people are
encouraged to use what may be exemplary alternative services,
it will miss a critical opportunity to not just have a truly inclusive
Games but to build a truly inclusive London and those other parts
of the country where there are games activities. We would be discouraging
towards initiatives which focused on disabled people being given
lots of parking. Parking needs to be provided; I would not want
to exclude that, but to be diverted away from the mainstream public
transport options would not be our preferred solution to the 2012
Games.[110]
Q184 Mr Goodwill: Even if that meant that
during the Games themselves it may be slightly more difficult
for disabled people to get to and from the events they want to
attend?
Mr Bee: I think I would have to say yes
and acknowledge that drawback. We must not miss the opportunity
presented by this legacy.[111]
124. Our evidence from organisations with
disabilities is that "mainstreaming" access provision
for the sector on public transport is the policy which should
be adopted by the Olympic Games organisers. We expect Interim
Olympic Transport to take full account of this in its transport
planning.
Freight deliveries
125. Careful consideration will be required to manage
the impact of freight deliveries on the transport infrastructure
of London and other areas during the Games period. We discovered
that deliveries of freight in the central business district in
Sydney were restricted to the period from 1am to 10 am during
the 2000 Olympic Games, because "you could not clog the streets
up, particularly in the central business district, with people
making deliveries in the middle of the day." Also delivery
times at the Sydney Olympic Park itself were restricted; restocking
and the removal of rubbish took place between midnight and six
in the morning.[112]
126. This issue is complicated in London by the existence
of the London Lorry Control System, commonly known as the 'night
time lorry ban', under which many London Boroughs impose a curfew
for lorries between 7pm and 7am.[113]
The Transport chapter of the London Olympic Candidature File suggests
that a lifting of the ban during the Games is envisaged "background
work on the road network adjacent to the Olympic Road Network
will be suppressed through measures including night deliveries
of non-essential goods."[114]
127. The Freight Transport Association is calling
for a review of the lorry ban.[115]
The Mayor of London has been reported recently as saying that
improvements in truck technology mean that the time had come to
revisit the lorry ban.[116]
There is a potential conflict between the present pattern
of lorry deliveries in London, which exclude night time deliveries,
and the requirements of Olympic transport, which may necessitate
them. We expect the Mayor of London and Interim Olympic Transport
to consult widely about any changes; and in coming to a decision
to weigh carefully the requirements of the Games and those of
local residents.
Security
128. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has
been acutely conscious of security issues ever since the Munich
Olympics of 1972 when terrorists broke into the apartment building
housing Israeli athletes, killing two and taking nine hostage.
The security of the Olympic Village, where that incident took
place, has been a particular concern.[117]
VULNERABILITY
129. Since the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and the
July bombings on the London Underground there has been a sharply
increased awareness of the extreme vulnerability of public transport
in the UK. The Government is currently testing new security measures
at London Underground and mainland railway stations and we inspected
the current trail at Paddington mainline station. We hope the
results of these trials will provide useful feedback for the Olympic
security teams.[118]
SECURITY ORGANISATION
130. We heard evidence that the Government will establish
a Cabinet-level Olympic Security Committee (OSC), which will be
chaired by the Home Secretary. This is intended to be the ultimate
authority responsible for Olympic security matters, and the co-ordinating
group for all UK security agencies involved. We understand that
the Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate (TRANSEC)
of the Department for Transport will be represented on the OSC,
and that the Metropolitan Police will be responsible for day-to-day
operations.[119] LOCOG
is to have its own dedicated security directorate which will take
responsibility for co-ordinating the operations of all the services
involved in protecting the Games.[120]
131. The overall success of Olympics will be dependant
on the quality of its transport systems. If these systems are
disrupted then the Games will suffer. The requirements of security
must also be weighed carefully in designing the buildings and
routes required for the Games. The Government, police,
and security forces must spare no effort to ensure that effective
security is put in place for the Olympic sporting events, wherever
these take place in the UK. We are pleased that early planning
against terrorist and other threats to the security of the Olympic
and Paralympic Games is underway. But there is no room for complacency.
The security of the Games will be complex and the agencies involved
need to communicate well in order to operate effectively.
132. We were surprised to learn from the Rail Freight
Group (RFG) that the Olympic bid team had not consulted the London
Metropolitan Police or TRANSEC over a proposal to prohibit freight
trains from using the High Meads Curve on the Stratford site for
two months over the Games period.[121]
The proposal had been made because rail freight was thought to
be a security threat to the Olympic Village, and the Village was
to be built over this line. When the Olympic bid tram consulted
the Metropolitan Police and TRANSEC after a request from the RFG,
they discovered that there was no need for such restrictions under
normal security conditions.[122]
133. It is important that the LOCOG security directorate
team liaise closely with Metropolitan Police and other the security
organisations to ensure that security restrictions are appropriate.
We were given evidence of poor liaison between the Olympic
bid team, the Metropolitan Police, and the Department for Transport's
Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate on one occasion.
We want an assurance from the Government that there will be no
repetition. We will keep transport security for the Games under
close watch.
SECURITY COSTS
134. Security will be an important cost issue for
the 2012 Olympic Games.[123]
Attributable costs for Olympic Games security are normally split
into those that the Olympic organising committee considers itself
liable for, specifically the venues, and other more general security
costs. For example, at the 2000 Sydney Games the Olympic organising
committees held that it was liable only for security costs at
the venues themselves. £23.125 million has been allocated
from the LOCOG budget for security for the 2012 Olympic venues.[124]
We were told that it is too early for a budget to have been set
for other security measures.[125]
We note that in a report prepared in 2002 for the Government,
Mayor of London, the British Olympic Association and made available
to us by the Department for Culture Media and Sport, total security
costs for the Olympics Games is estimated at slightly in excess
of £160 million.[126]
The Government must guarantee that the security budget
for the Games will be sufficient to take all necessary measures
to ensure the safety of the spectators and participants. We expect
the Government to have drawn up a detailed security budget for
the Games by the end of 2006.
38 Olympic Transport Plan, Transport Operations and
Delivery Plan for the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games version 2: October 2005, 2 vols Back
39
Ev 71 Back
40
Q 209 Back
41
Q 223 Back
42
Ev 174 Back
43
QQ 256, 257 Back
44
Ev 69 Back
45
Ev 163 Back
46
Q 164 Back
47
William Tyson OBE, Specialist adviser Back
48
Vassilios Vavakos, Specialist adviser Back
49
Ev 7 Back
50
Q 217 Back
51
Q 260 Back
52
QQ 254,255 Back
53
Q 261, "derestricted" means that access for Olympic
family vehicles would be sought for some sections of road at some
times Back
54
Ev 71 Back
55
Table 14.14.of the Candidature File Back
56
Olympic Transport Plan, Delivery Plan, October 2005, p 28 Back
57
Ev 7 Back
58
Olympic Transport Plan, Delivery Plan, October 2005, p 22 Back
59
London's Olympic Candidature File, para 14.7, p 117 Back
60
Ev 85 Back
61
Ev 54 Back
62
Ev 108 Back
63
Ev 85 Back
64
Olympic Transport Plan, Transport Operations, October 2005, Chapter
6 Back
65
London Olympic Candidature File, para 14.15 Back
66
Ev 142 Back
67
Ev 168 Back
68
Ev 166 Back
69
Ev 173 Back
70
Q 299 Back
71
Ev 167 Back
72
eg. boxing, judo, taekwondo, wrestling Back
73
Ev 108 Back
74
Air and Business Travel Newsletter, 21 November 2005, "Can
we suggest that next time you go to Excel (home of WTM - as above),
and try to return to central London on the (excellent) DLR but
are put off by the massed crowds on Excel/Custom House station,
you travel in the opposite direction, get off at the next stop,
Prince Regent, walk across the platform and catch the first train
back. You may well get a seat too. However if you are really smart
use the east (that is Prince Regent) access to the exhibition
centre. It is never busy." Back
75
London Olympic Candidature file, para 14.18 Back
76
Q 95 Back
77
Q 97 Back
78
Q 97 Back
79
Ev 39 Back
80
Ev 14 Back
81
Q 35 Back
82
Q 39 Back
83
Vassilios Vavakos, Specialist adviser Back
84
Q 35 Back
85
London Olympic Candidature File, Table 14.1 Back
86
Letter from David Peacock
to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs on
behalf of Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth,
the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers Association, Transport 2000
and the Woodland Trust. Unpublished evidence. Back
87
Ev 49 Back
88
Q 186 Back
89
Q 198 Back
90
Ev 53 Back
91
Q 290 Back
92
Q 294 Back
93
DPTAC provides independent advice to the Secretary of State for
Transport, Q 186 Back
94
Q 198 Back
95
Q 185 Back
96
Scotland put in a bid on behalf of Glasgow on 15 December 2005.
"Scotland picks up pace in Commonwealth Games bid",
Scottish Executive Press release, 15 December 2005 Back
97
Ev 53. UK Deaf Sport is considering a bid, www.deafsport.uk Back
98
Para 81 Back
99
Q 182 Back
100
Q 178 Back
101
Ev 121 Back
102
Ev 122 Back
103
Q 175 Back
104
Transport Select Committee, Third Report of Session 2004-05,
Disabled People's Transport: A year's worth of improvements?,
HC 93 Back
105
Department for Transport, The Government's response to the
Transport Committee's report on disabled people's access to transport:
a year's worth of improvements?, Cm 6558, June 2005, p 8 Back
106
Transport Select Committee, Disabled People's Access to Transport:
A year's worth of improvements?, p 18 Back
107
Q 194. Robert Ross v. (1) Ryanair Ltd (2) Stanstead Airport Ltd
2004, [2004] EWCA, Civ 1751 Back
108
Q 196 Back
109
Department for Transport press release 16 December 2005, "UK
presidency secures improved levels of service for people with
reduced mobility at EU airports" Back
110
Q 183 Back
111
Q 184 Back
112
Q 206 Back
113
Ev 231 Back
114
para 14.17 Back
115
Ev 231 Back
116
"London lorry ban revisited", Transport Times, 2 December
2005 Back
117
Q 212 Back
118
The Committee visit took place on 24 January 2006 Back
119
Ev 89 Back
120
Ev 72 Back
121
Ev 157 Back
122
Ev 157 Back
123
Vassilios Vavakos, Specialist adviser Back
124
London Olympic Candidature File, Table 6.6.1 Back
125
Q 304 Back
126
Arup," London Olympics 2012 Costs and Benefits", 21
May 2002, p 98 Back
