ࡱ> =?<5@ ;bjbj22 FXX32VVVV b21$R9^:D,~ lgVp  01z 22 22$V22VSubmission to HREOC Notice of Inquiry: Equal Access to Wheelchair Accessible Taxi Services Allen Ringland My submission covers all the items for comment ranging from response times to the effective use of accessible fleets.. My comments derive mainly from my nine years of experience in the Cairns taxi industry, seven of which I have served as an owner /driver of a wheelchair accessible taxi. Response times Queensland taxi service contracts were first written in late 1996. In February 1997, the Cairns taxi company became the first in the state to sign for a five year period. The contract has Minimum Service Levels (MSLs) identical for all hirers, with specific clauses for wheelchair customers as follows:(This is for normal times, not Friday nights or new years eve etc) 85% of hirers requesting a wheelchair accessible taxi should experience a maximum waiting time of no more than 10 minutes; and 95% of hirers requesting a wheelchair accessible taxi should experience a maximum waiting time of no more than 20 minutes. Until the review of Queensland wheelchair accessible taxi services, which commenced in September 1999 and was completed in July 2000, monitoring of the contracts had been poor to non-existent. The review was conducted by Liam McKay, with the results published in a document titled The Waiting Shame. A sanitised version of this report was released to the public late 2000. It can be viewed on the Queensland Transport (QT) web site. The 2000 wheelchair taxi review showed that response times were quick for some, with 92% of ordinary bookings being picked up in 10 minutes. In contrast, only 55% of wheelchair bookings were picked up in that same 10 minutes. The response times in Cairns were consistent with other similar sized cities. The only companies that met the response times required under the MSL were small ones where 1/3 of the fleet were wheelchair accessible. The current response times for Cairns are better than those indicated in the 2000 review. I have been told that we are near our Minimum service level contract conditions at the moment. This improvement may be the result of a combination of factors. First, the company has improved its dispatch procedure to indicate the nature of the job being advertised, ie. whether it is for a wheelchair or whether there are any additional requirements. Previously, all jobs were lumped together with no way for drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis to give priority to jobs requiring wheelchairs. Second, the overall dispatch procedure has been improved, thereby speeding up general response times. A more likely explanation for the improved response times is that there has been a general slow down in taxi work that has left the taxis free for wheelchair jobs when they occur. The period between January and June is generally slow, but the sluggishness has been exacerbated by the overall downturn in the economy and the reaction to large fare increases over the last year to cover for GST and fuel price increases (7.8 & 13%) respectively. From looking at the general submissions already received, there appears to be a common perception that advance bookings will ensure the timely arrival of a taxi. While early bookings are given priority by the dispatcher, they do not guarantee a quick pick up. Unlike limousine booking services where jobs are issued up to 24 hours in advance, taxis are a demand response service and jobs are only issued to the taxis shortly before pick up time. Contrary to the general public view, competition between taxi companies does not improve the service from taxi companies. Under the current system, prices are fixed by regulation and taxi companies only compete through advertising and perceptions of reliability of service. At present, all individual taxis compete against each other for the available work. In a situation where there is more than one company involved (therefore involving more than one dispatch service) the total set of available jobs are compartmentalised and only a proportion are able to be viewed by each taxi group. This naturally slows down the general response times of the taxis. This shows up clearly in Brisbane where both ordinary and wheelchair MSLs are below their contract levels. What is needed is a system where, if a job is outstanding for a short period of time, then it is opened up to all taxis in that area without regard to which company they belong to. Service to the customer should be the first priority. Proportion of taxi fleets accessible Queensland initially had a policy to get up to 10% of the taxi fleet wheelchair accessible. I am led to believe that the fixed percentage policy was replaced in late 1999 with a flexible policy that required taxi fleets to have whatever percentage was necessary to meet their service contracts. At present, Queenslands has 295 wheelchair accessible taxis out of a total taxi fleet of approximately 3100. The Cairns taxi fleet consists of 127 taxis, 12 of which have wheelchair accessible licences. The fleet has been stable in number since the last wheelchair taxis came on in 1996. In 1999, the local company requested five extra licences, specifically asking that they not be wheelchair accessible. No licences were issued. This request reflected the negative feelings towards wheelchair taxis held by this company at the time. I suggest that this view would be common amongst other companies and state taxi councils. Following this event, owners of wheelchair accessible taxis in Cairns were prompted to group together for the reform of both local and state taxi services. My own studies of the Cairns taxi area suggest that during a normal busy day, clear of school run times, between 0900 and 1400 hours, 1/3 of the fleet is required to be wheelchair accessible in order to meet the contract MSLs. I have been requesting Queensland Transport for a statistical study to confirm the exact percentage needed. Their resistance to carrying out a study suggests a reluctance to learning the inevitable answers. I accept that the original requirement of 10% wheelchair accessibility was a reasonable starting point, however, it has quickly been shown to be out dated. Rather than looking into the possibility of increasing the percentage of wheelchair accessible taxis, QT has demonstrated a tendency to place pressure on drivers to drive excessive distances to meet wheelchair jobs. In their revised 2000 report, QT went so far as to say that it would be worthwhile revisiting a case in Townsville where the practice in question had been ruled illegal by the ACCC. This practice involved hiding from drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis all jobs other than wheelchair jobs, regardless of the location of the driver or the job. There are better alternatives to improving the taxi service if the taxi companies are willing to devote more resources to monitoring taxi drivers through GPS and improving dispatch services Measures to ensure sufficient proportion accessible Liam McKays review raises a number of possible methods to increase the proportion of wheelchair accessible taxis. I believe that the following three methods would be the most acceptable to the taxi industry: First, all newly issued licences must be wheelchair accessible. Second, all high occupancy taxis (Maxi taxis) must be wheelchair accessible and operate within the taxi fleets as such. Approximately 37 of Cairns fleet are Maxis, however 2/3rds are not all wheelchair accessible. Third, a tender process could be used to encourage the conversion of ordinary licences to wheelchair accessible licences. The licence money received from any new taxis issued could then be used to assist in the conversion of taxis into wheelchair accessible ones. This money could also be used to help with the conversion process in country and regional areas where taxi numbers are not being increased but wheelchair accessible taxis are still required. Economic Factors On a daily basis, my taxi earns a similar return to that of standard licences. While I incur the extra costs of covering long distances for wheelchair work, I make up for this with the occasional maxi fare, which attracts a higher tariff. However, due to the requirement to have a bigger vehicle and the extra fit out cost of at least $15,000, my capital costs are higher than that of a standard taxi. These costs are incurred whenever the vehicle is renewed. In recognition of the higher capital costs involved, wheelchair lift equipped vehicles are allowed 8 years from date of manufacture to operate as taxis, as compared to 6 years for ordinary vehicles. An additional financial burden on owners of wheelchair accessible taxis is created by the requirement to have dual wheelchair capacity. Although Queensland requires all accessible taxis to have dual wheelchair capacity, apart from school runs and some nursing home outings, most of our fares are for single wheelchairs. Do we need to have dual wheelchair capacity? If this requirement was dropped and taxis were allowed to have single wheelchair capacity then owners would have a greater range of vehicle options, with possible cost savings, and would incur lower outfitting costs. While maxi fares were introduced to help compensate owners of wheelchair accessible taxis for the higher fitting out costs, their application is complex and difficult to explain to the average passenger, resulting in occasional problems. The maxi fare attracts a tariff 1.5 times the normal rate and in return it allows the customers to travel in groups and save on the costs of ordering a second taxi (Brisbane works on a flat $10 extra). Under the regulations, the higher tariff only applies to bookings, and does not generally apply to other work. Imagine trying to explain to a group of football players on a night out why they are charged one rate when they get a taxi at the rank and a higher rate when they book it for the ride back from the pub. The safety of the driver and the vehicle can and have been threatened. Another common situation arises when taking a group of tourists from their accommodation to the airport after they had taken Maxi rides from the airport rank to the city and Maxi hails around the city at normal tariffs. They believe they are being ripped off. These misunderstandings do not assist our tourism industry. While the maxi taxis are greatly appreciated by customers for their convenience and flexibility, consistency in the application of the tariff is critical. The tariffs need simplification. Universal taxi The use of universal taxis, such as in London, may only be justified if the aim is to have 100% wheel chair accessibility and total equality of service. However, the added cost of the vehicles would push taxi fares up. Due to the present lack of suitable vehicles in Australia and the higher costs involved, there is considerable resistance to this approach within the taxi industry. A Toyota Camry costs about $20,000, compared to a universal taxi at about $80,000. The universal taxis would also attract additional problems because of the higher costs and burdens of sourcing limited spares and the higher fuel costs. Many vehicles travel over 1 million km as taxis, thereby increasing their maintenance costs. Dedicated services Dedicated services could not run commercially without large public subsides. Some days my taxi carries 0 wheelchair bookings while on other days, up to 10 or more. Effective use of accessible fleets The existing taxi fleets could be used more effectively through monitoring with GPS. While many of our taxi fleets are fitted with GPS, the companies have been reticent in using them to their full capacity. Effective use of the GPS requires dedicating personnel to monitor the dispatch systems and allocating jobs to wheelchair accessible taxis where required. This would supplement the current dispatch system where drivers operate blind to the activity of all other wheelchair taxis around them. Conclusion The introduction of wheelchair taxis into Queensland was the result of high principles and good intentions, and has been matched by the excellence of service contracts with all major taxi companies. The Minister of Transport must be thanked for this. At the same time, he must be held accountable for the poor regulation, monitoring and enforcement of the service contracts. The losers have been the users of wheelchair taxi in Queensland. Having read many other submissions, the problems in Cairns seem manageable by comparison. However, our performance is not reliably and consistently reaching the levels required under the service contract. We simply do not have the resources and support. If minimum service levels similar to those mandated in Queensland are regarded as sufficient, then given a sensible dispatch system, it should be sufficient for 1/3 of our taxi fleets to be wheelchair accessible. However, if equal service is the goal, then the answer is to adopt a universal taxi system and make 100% of the taxi fleet wheel chair accessible. Given the difficulties in enforcing a universal taxi system and the high costs involved, I suggest that the better alternative is to require 1/3 of our taxi fleets to be wheelchair accessible using the methods suggested above. [k  [^c#d#;h2Q>*mH sH h2Qh2QmH sH  [jk    ~/#$ & F & F;/#c#d#5$6$v$L%''%'&')),,91:1I1J144(4)444446$<@&$ & F6668899;. A!"#n$n%8@8 Normal_HmH sH tH P@P Heading 1$<@&5CJKHOJQJN@N Heading 2$<@&56CJOJQJDAD Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List PC`P Body Text Indent ^ mH sH u3F3M90T;/#6;!"; aitx333JohnJohnJohnJohnJohnJohnJohnJohnJohn David MasonpB H  hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(HpB2Q:#3@j3P@UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial"0hW&W&8V4,^4,^$24d333H?:#<Submission Anti Discrimination Inquiry into Wheelchair TaxisJohn David Mason  Oh+'0 ,8 T ` l x=Submission Anti Discrimination Inquiry into Wheelchair TaxisiubmJohnssiohnNormali David Mason2viMicrosoft Word 10.0@F#@wc@D7@D74,՜.+,0$ hp|   s^3A =Submission Anti Discrimination Inquiry into Wheelchair Taxis Title  !"#%&'()*+-./012356789:;>Root Entry F zj@1Table$WordDocumentFSummaryInformation(,DocumentSummaryInformation84CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q