Environment Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Transport for All

Transport for All represents London’s older and disabled transport users. We are the only UK organisation campaigning exclusively for an accesible transport system.

Summary

Disabled and older people face major problems accessing the UK’s transport system. These include:

physical barriers such as steps and poor signage;

the rising cost of bus and trains for a population which is more likely to be living below the poverty line; and

attitudinal barriers such as bus drivers who refuse to let on wheelchair and scooter users and harassment from members of the public.

When travelling is painful, difficult or unsafe, disabled and older people opt to stay at home and get out and about less frequently, becoming isolated.

The difficulties of getting out and about is perhaps the biggest factor in the exclusion of disabled people from public life—including our exclusion from work; from healthcare, from higher education; from representation in politics and from culture and sport.

The Government’s 2025 aim is that “Disabled people have access to transportation on an equal basis with others so that they use transport as much as non-disabled people, and feel safe and comfortable doing so, and are ensured personal mobility with greater independence.” However, other Government policies—notably the rise in rail fares; a reluctance to regulate and cuts to local authorities—have resulted in this target being undermined.

The problems disabled people face on transport are not just unjust but also have an economic cost.

Where we are now

Fourteen per cent of the general population have mobility difficulties—and almost all of us will be disabled at some point in our life. 9.8 million people in the UK are disabled.

People with mobility difficulties make around a third fewer trips than those without difficulties

Disabled people are disproportionately dependent on public transport: 60% have no car in their household, compared to 27% in the general population.

In March 2009, only 53% of licensed taxis were wheelchair accessible.

In 2009–10, 39% of buses in Great Britain did not meet DDA accessibility requirements.

In London, only 66 Tube stations of 270 are stepfree to the platform—76% remain inaccessible. Even fewer are stepfree including from platform to train and can be used by those with electric wheelchairs.

In London, 30% of bus stops are not fully accessible, and in some boroughs—eg Barnet—the proportion of inaccessible bus stops is as high as 66%.1

Inaccessible transport is trapping disabled people in unemployment. Twenty-three per cent of disabled people have had to turn down a job because of inaccessible transport and 48% have restricted their job search because of inaccessible transport. (Mind the Gap, Leonard Cheshire Disability.)

Inaccessible transport cuts disabled people off from community and family life. Fifty per cent say they did not see friends and family as often as they’d like because of inaccessible transport and 20% find it difficult or impossible to get the healthcare they need because of inaccessible transport. (Mind the Gap, Leonard Cheshire Disability.)

Disabled people were not able to board the first relevant bus to arrive at their stop in one in three of journeys surveyed—and in more than half of journeys, there was some problem with the accessible facilities on board or at the stop; or with staff. (Trailblazers End of the Line, 2009.)

On one in four journeys the disabled person was unable to board the first train they wanted to—because of having to wait for staff availability; because the staff could not be contacted at the destination station with the Assisted Passenger Reservation Scheme; or because there was no disabled seating or space available. (Trailblazers End of the Line, 2009.)

On 50% of rail journeys, surveyors found some form of disappointment with the disabled facilities at the station, on the train or a poor service from members of staff. (Trailblazers End of the Line, 2009.)

Evidence

How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (ie whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?

(1) Cuts to local authority funding has resulted in cuts in many areas to transport to school for disabled children; and cuts to door-to-door transport like Taxicard. In many London boroughs, the trip allocation for Taxicard has plummeted so many people only have enough trips to go out once a fortnight. The distance people can travel has halved. For people who are not able to use buses and trains, door-to-door services are a lifeline and this cut has had a very damaging effect on people’s mobility and independence. Cuts to local authority budgets have also led to a squeeze on local authorities’ ability to keep pavements clear and free of trip hazards; make bus stops accessible; and keep bus routes going. There is also anecdotal evidence that it is becoming more difficult for disabled people to get a Freedom Pass or Taxicard or Blue Badge through local authority assessments and we believe that turning people down for such benefits may be a “stealth cut” in response to reduced funding.

Each of these has made it harder for older and disabled people to get out and about.

(2) The EU regulation on bus and coach passenger rights would improve the rights of disabled passengers including disability equality training for all staff who deal with customers. But Transport minister Norman Baker says the coalition wants to “make use of all available exemptions in order to delay costs to industry and give them more time to prepare”. This will have a negative effect on disabled people’s ability to use buses and coaches.

(3) The McNulty review suggests that rail companies in their tenders should cut their numbers of station and on-train staff. Staff assistance is vital for disabled and older passengers and this will threaten people’s ability to travel safely.

(4) The increase in rail fares has reduced disabled people’s ability to travel at reasonable cost.

(5) The increased funding for the Access for All scheme has led to more stations becoming accessible and is very much welcomed.

(6) The Government is proposing to remove the statutory duty to consult with disabled people on transport issues.

Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?

(1) Many transport benefits like disabled person’s railcard, Taxicard, Blue Badge and Freedom Pass are assessed on whether a disabled person has DLA. The Government plans to cut expenditure on DLA by a fifth. We are concerned that this will result in fewer disabled people able to access these transport benefits and thereby having to make fewer journeys.

(2) We have seen in London patients finding it harder and harder to be judged eligible for patient transport to hospital. We believe that the shrinking eligibility criteria are in response to squeezed hospital budgets.

The Papworth Trust found that a fifth of respondents had found it difficult or impossible to get the healthcare they needed because of public transport. And a 2005 Health Development Agency report found that over a year, 1.4 million people missed, turned down or chose not to seek medical help because of transport problems, at a cost of £140 million to the NHS.

How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)

(1) Transport-related accessibility of services needs to take into account whether older and disabled people are disproportionately affected by the location of public services. Disabled people’s transport patterns are very different from the general public’s. Disabled people travel a third less often than the general public. Sixty per cent of disabled people have no car in the household.2

Decision making needs to take into account the different needs of disabled people. For example, sustainability agendas to discourage driving in town centres and to services like hospitals, while generally a positive step, must retain sufficient Blue Badge parking for those who cannot walk far.

The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services

(2) Only 37% of households over pension age have internet access yet so much information is not available offline Even with inititatives like Get Online, this is unlikely to change radically in the next decade. Therefore, for older people, internet access cannot mitigate the need for decent transport links.

(3) For disabled and older people no less than for the general population, going out is not simply a practical necessity for accessing public services. It is a way of keeping active and independent, of having a change of scene, of seeing others and avoiding social isolation: it is crucial to wellbeing. The idea that being able to access tele-healthcare instead of going to the GP; e-learning rather than participating in face-to-face education; doing shopping online rather than going to the local high street or corner shop, are real substitutes for going out is sinister. A virtual world cannot be substituted for older and disabled people being out and visible in the public realm.

Already, much useful information on access (for example, maps) is only available online instead of at stations. This means it is rarely seen by those for whom it would be most useful.

Transport for All reject the idea that internet access to services can mitigate the need for an accessible transport infrastructure.

Conclusion

When inaccessible transport excludes disabled people, there is a net cost the taxpayer.

When disabled people are excluded from getting a job and paying taxes, and so are forced to claim benefits; when we cannot get to the doctor or optician and so have to have healthcare at home; when we cannot do our own shopping and have to get Meals on Wheels; when we get housebound, isolated and depressed and have to use NHS mental health services, it costs the public purse. The Government-commissioned report “Measuring the benefits of the Access for All Programme” shows that there are significant economic benefits to increasing transport access.

Recommendations

(1) Reducing rail fares.

(2) Retain the statutory duty to consult with disabled people on transport issues.

(3) Monitoring accessibility criteria and complaints from older and disabled people when transport services (bus and train routes; stations) are put to franchise and including access improvements as part of the franchising process.

(4) The Government reject proposals in the McNulty Review to cut staff at train stations,3 who provide essential assistance to disabled and older passengers.

(5) A change in the law4 to ensure that all buses and coaches are equipped with the audio-visual equipment that makes them accessible to blind and deaf people.

(6) Increased funding for Access for All programme to make rail stations stepfree as way of kickstarting economy.

(7) Protection for bus routes5 which are so essential to avoid isolation and maintain activity and independence, especially for older people.6

(8) Transport concessions to be made available to carers and Pas.

12 September 2012