аЯрЁБс>ўџ FHўџџџEџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСY П.@bjbjѓWѓW -T‘=‘=.<џџџџџџ]ТТТТТТТжжжжж т$жь2ѕѕѕБГГГГГГ$єhзТѕѕѕѕѕзoТТлoooѕ"ТТЌжжТТТТѕБo`oЯ :Œ oТТРАчБСжжXћ HREOC Taxi Inquiry July 2001. Submission to the Inquiry into Equal Access to Wheelchair Accessible Taxis By Greg Killeen 34 Dent Street BANKSMEADOW NSW 2019 Issues for comment Response times: Are response times significantly longer for passengers requiring wheelchair accessible taxis than other passengers making taxi bookings in any part of Australia? Yes, the response times are significantly longer for passengers requiring wheelchair accessible taxis than other passengers making taxi bookings in any part of Australia! I have used the regular taxi service in Sydney as a person without a disability prior to acquiring a spinal cord injury resulting in quadriplegia and the need to use an electric wheelchair and rely on the WAT service as my main form of transport. There are numerous reasons for the poor response times which include: The lack of accessible taxis in total The lack of accessible taxis during peak times WAT's being used to transport children with disabilities to and from school WAT drivers who have the lucrative ‘school runs’ not working in the evenings and weekends or having a second or other drivers working those shifts WAT drivers not picking up people with disabilities WAT drivers not being ‘logged into’ the ‘0200’ system WAT's are virtually owned and operated as a small business WAT's not quarantined to work in certain areas creating ‘blackspots’ The ‘0200’ booking service not having the power to direct WAT drivers to cover the work (even though the GPS system can show all the details of the WAT e.g. where it is, if it is occupied or vacant, it’s passenger capacity (two wheelchairs or one) When I have booked WAT's through the ‘0200’ booking service, the response times were delayed in approximately 90% of all bookings. Occasionally, I could not get a WAT at all for the time I needed, even allowing one hours grace and had to cancel the booking. On some evenings I have had to wait for over two hours for a WAT to arrive (an 11PM booking arriving after 1AM). Service expectation and acceptance. Since the inception of the WAT Service in 1981, WAT passengers were advised to make a booking the day before it was needed but also expect a delay of around 1 hour. Many people with disabilities accepted this as it was a new service and there were few WAT’s available. People with disabilities expectations have changed along with various government legislation’s, anti-discrimination acts and access codes based on ‘access for all’ and disability rights. The WAT Service is a crucial link in services for many people with disabilities. This is especially so when people with disabilities need to get home to meet their personal care attendants [PCA]. If there is a delay getting a WAT, especially in the evenings, people with disabilities are under a threat of being left to stay in their wheelchairs all night. It is very distressing and frustrating being stranded and unable to get a WAT for 2 to 3 hours. I live approximately 10 minutes from Sydney Airport and often travel past it and the surrounding area. The airport has a high demand for taxis and this is where many of the WAT's are operating from instead of prioritising and providing a service for people with disabilities, which is the intention of the WAT's. Proportion of taxi fleets accessible: What proportion of existing taxi fleets is wheelchair accessible? I am not exactly sure of the current proportion of accessible taxis in the Sydney area but I believe it is approximately 5% of the overall taxi fleet. I would not be confident that there would always be accessible taxis on the road and operating to make up 5% of the fleet due to some of the issues I have raised in the ‘Response times’ question above. Are these proportions sufficient: Is the proportion of taxi fleets which is wheelchair accessible insufficient in any areas of Australia to enable services to be provided to passengers requiring wheelchair accessible taxis, with equivalent reliability and waiting times to those for other passengers booking taxis? If so, what proportion of taxi fleets being accessible would be sufficient? I believe there should be a minimum threshold of 10% of the taxi fleet that should have a variety of different types of wheelchair accessible vehicles. There should be a combination of vehicles that have the capacity to carry one or two people using wheelchairs. Obviously, if all taxis were wheelchair accessible there would not be the inequity that currently exists for people with disabilities, especially wheelchair users, and their families. Regardless of the number of WAT's in the fleet, there stills need to be rules, regulations and requirements of the drivers and operators to cover the jobs and pick up people with disabilities. Measures to ensure sufficient proportion accessible: What measures have transport authorities taken or could they take to ensure that a sufficient proportion of taxi fleets is accessible? Mr. Carl Scully, NSW Minister for Transport, released 400 licenses for WAT’s in August 1998. These licenses were to be released at 20 licenses per month and the WAT was required to have the capacity to carry two passengers using wheelchairs [M50]. Of these licenses, only about 80 were applied for. These 400 licenses, plus the existing 150 WAT licenses would have resulted in 10% of the Sydney taxi fleet being WAT's by April 2000. The NSW Department of Transport [DoT] completed a WAT Usage Survey in early 2000 to gather information on the demand for the service. The WAT service is essential for many people with disabilities, especially M50 passengers, as for many, it is their only form of transport. The survey showed about 85% of WAT’s M50 fares were carrying only one person using a wheelchair. That reinforced what I have known for many years from asking WAT drivers. This data could have been gathered from data from the '0200' booking service or a survey of the WAT drivers. In hindsight, a survey should have been taken of the WAT passengers and WAT drivers to establish the demand of the service prior to the release of these 400 licenses. Universal taxi: If 100% fleet accessibility (the "universal taxi" approach) is necessary or desirable to ensure fully equal access to services (whether to achieve access to hailed services as well as booked services, or to reduce problems regarding priority for wheelchair user passengers, or to increase general public acceptance of wheelchair accessible vehicles, or for other reasons), what measures may be feasible and necessary (currently or within a reasonable period) to make possible the achievement of this level of accessibility? I would like people with disabilities, especially wheelchair users, and their families to have an equitable taxi service and all taxis to be wheelchair accessible. The NSW DoT and Roads and Traffic Authority should require all existing regular taxis be replaced by WAT’s at the end of their seven year taxi life. If this could be implemented, allowing for two to three years lead in time, 100% of the taxi fleet would be wheelchair accessible by approximately 2010. In relation to a Universal design, a committee was set up by the NSW DoT to look into the possibility of a vehicle that could be designed and built in Australia for the taxi industry that would be wheelchair accessible and meet all the other requirements of a taxi. I believe this committee was disbanded. I’ve spoken to many stakeholders, and there is debate on the most appropriate type of vehicles for a WAT, and what percentage mix of these vehicles should have the capacity for one or two M50 passengers. Obviously the current requirements of the licenses, amongst other industry issues, are retarding the take up of licenses and policy changes are needed. Until all taxis are wheelchair accessible, a range of 'multi-purpose’ vehicle options is needed to meet the current demand of the WAT service. Plus they need to meet the National Accessible Transport Standards. The current options for WAT’s are restricted by the types of vehicles available in Australia, that are affordable and viable for the drivers and taxi cooperatives, and acceptable to the passengers with or without disabilities. Passengers and taxi drivers have various reasons for the WAT’s they prefer. Currently, the WAT vehicle options being used for two M50 capacities are the Toyota Commuters ‘Maxi Taxi’, Mercedes Sprinters and Vito’s, Ford Transit Van’s and VW Caravelle’s and the single M50 capacity Flashcab. All these vehicles have their benefits and limitations. I believe the Flashcab, apart from being less expensive, has a lot in its favour as a ‘multi-purpose’ WAT. The Flashcab is the only Australian designed, owned and manufactured vehicle and it meets the National Accessible Transport Standards. The survey showed that it is accepted and preferred by many M50 passengers. Flashcab passengers have clear sightlines through the windows compared to the vans and Maxi Taxi’s. More Flashcabs would definitely improve the chances of having 10% of the taxi fleet wheelchair accessible by 2010. Dedicated services: What experience or issues are there with operation of wheelchair accessible taxis as a dedicated service rather than also being available for mainstream service? WAT Services must prioritise that people with disabilities bookings are covered. Obviously, when there aren’t the jobs to cover then the WAT’s should cover the mainstream work. In NSW, WAT Operators are provided with discounted licences as an incentive to operate their accessible vehicle. If drivers/operators don’t want to pick up people with disabilities then they should not drive/operate these vehicles. Currently, the majority of M50 fares are arranged by private bookings made directly with the WAT driver. Economic factors: Are there any economic disincentives to provision of wheelchair accessible taxi services (either in provision of accessible vehicles or in their use to serve passengers using wheelchairs) which could be addressed by taxi regulatory authorities, by other relevant government agencies or by industry? In particular: Issues affecting capital or running costs of accessible vehicles Any other distinctive costs in providing wheelchair accessible services Fare structure and fares income received for wheelchair accessible taxis in comparison to other taxi services. Obviously, there are extra costs in the modification and set up of WAT's. Depending on the type of vehicle the costs will very. Currently, the cheapest vehicle to set up as a WAT is the Flashcab. To try to offset the extra costs of modification and running costs, WAT drivers/operators are provided with discounted licences and the vehicle has an extended life from 7 to 10 years. Unfortunately, I understand that WAT's have to pay a fee for a second radio for the ‘0200’ network. In relation to the fare structure, there should be no difference in charges. Regulations allow the WAT driver to start the meter at the booking time, or on arrival after contact with the passenger, and be paid for the time while loading the passenger. On arrival to the destination the meter should be stopped before unloading the passenger, but this is rarely done. Depending on the type of WAT, the vehicle may need to the set up e.g. moving the seats, getting the wheelchair restraints from the storage box and installing them, moving the baby capsule and other paraphernalia from where the passenger in the wheelchair is to sit. Some WAT drivers start the metre before they start to set up a vehicle and expect the passenger to pay for this. One recent experience I had was a driver in a van who took five minutes to set up the van. When I started to be loaded into it there was $8.50 on the meter and he expected me to pay it which I refused to and asked him to restart the meter which he did. Effective use of accessible fleets: Are there any regulatory or technical measures being taken or which could be taken which would ensure that any given level of accessible taxi fleet meets demand for wheelchair accessible taxis more effectively? In particular: Possibilities for more effective implementation or enforcement of priority systems including issues affecting use of GPS and other new technologies, and barriers to effectiveness of priority systems As I mentioned before, the WAT license and regulations should enable the ‘0200’ operator to direct the WAT driver to pick up people in wheelchairs. The GPS enables the operator to know where the taxis are, if they are vacant and what the capacity of the vehicle is. Relevant performance standards and licence conditions There should be a minimum M50 job requirement, either per shift, per week or per month. All WAT's should be logged into the ‘0200’ booking system. If they are offered M50 jobs and refuse to pick up the person on more than a certain number of times, say 3, then they should be suspended from driving and/or fined and asked to explain why they did not accept the jobs Clarification of responsibilities of booking services, taxi operators, regulators and any other relevant industry participants In Sydney there are committees meeting on a regular basis dealing with the taxi industry and wheelchair accessible taxis. I believe there should be a number of forums where larger groups could meet to discuss relevant issues for all stakeholders. This would include passengers with all types of disabilities, taxi industry representatives, vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, radio booking operators, government representatives, disability organisations and any other group interested in the issues such as nursing homes, schools and the department of education etc. Issues regarding competition or co-ordination of services Measures to ensure accessible taxis are complete with necessary equipment and driver skills to ensure accessible service with an equivalent degree of safety to other passengers is available in practice Although drivers are being trained and accredited as operators of WAT's, they are being trained by other WAT drivers but there are no people with disabilities who are wheelchair users involved with the training. I believe people with disabilities should be involved in the training as they can portray a real situation of loading, unloading and explain what assistance they need. At least new drivers will have had some experience dealing with people with disabilities who use wheelchairs prior to going out on the road Issues regarding compatibility of different types or sizes of wheelchairs or other mobility aids with accessible cabs and possibilities for certification or consumer information regarding public transport compatibility of these aids Manufacturers and suppliers of wheelchairs and mobility aids should be made aware and given the size requirements of the T90 footprint [1300mm x 80mm] of the Draft Accessible Transport Standards. People with disabilities who are going to purchase new equipment need to be made aware of the size of the equipment they are going to purchase and if it is to be compatible with the Draft Accessible Transport Standards. Issues regarding co-ordination with or substitution for other modes of accessible public transport (generally or for specific purposes such as school transport), including relationship to "community transport" services. iАБПdЁ Ї f Щ ЭЮђ—™ЙтЃІйъыьњмЃ'Є'Ж'[(a*b*r*}2 2Ж9З9Н:Ч<Б=R?.@§§љїѓїїљїљїљїљїљїљљїїї5>*556CJ)iyˆБcdNOuЄ№ƒЗэ( n f g м н  Щ §ћћћћ§ћћћћћћћћіііііііііћєћєє & FiyˆБcdNOuЄ№ƒЗэ( n f g м н  Щ Ъ ’“Э67˜™ !)*туЅІbcыь мн!!v"w"|$}$‹%Œ%Ѓ'Є'Z([(a*b*Џ+ё+:,Љ,Њ,*.+...00|2}2~2…3M4X5Ž5§6}7З9ђ9Н:Ч<Б=ќќљљљљљљљљљїѕѕѓѕїїїѕїїїїѕ№№№їїѕїїїѕїѕѕ№ю№ѕ№ь№№№  ]Щ Ъ ’“Э67˜™ !)*туЅІbcыь мн!!v"§§§§ћ§љ§§§љљљ§§§§§љљљ§§§љ§§§§v"w"|$}$‹%Œ%Ѓ'Є'Z([(a*b*Џ+ё+:,Љ,Њ,*.+...00|2}2…3M4X5Ž5§§§§§§§§§§§§јјј§іііііііі§јђј„а & FŽ5§6}7З9ђ9Н:Ч<Б=R?.@§ј§јјєјєј„а & F Б=R?.@ќ +0PА‚. АЦA!Аљ"Аљ#‰$n%АА А  [0@ёџ0 Normal_HmH sH tH <A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font8ўO8 H2$ЄdЄd@&5CJ$htH u,B@, Body Text$a$.P@. Body Text 25BC@"B Body Text Indent „h^„h5\FR@2F Body Text Indent 2 „а^„а5\.< Tџџџџ.@#Щ v"Ž5.@$&'(Б=.@%)№8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№bl!!,!0<9DЂЃ?D_ l ,65.J.0<џџ Greg KilleenC:\Documents and Settings\Greg Killeen.GREG-OZOE3GX4A3\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of HREOC WAT Inquiry.asd Greg KilleenC:\Documents and Settings\Greg Killeen.GREG-OZOE3GX4A3\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of HREOC WAT Inquiry.asd Greg KilleenC:\Documents and Settings\Greg Killeen.GREG-OZOE3GX4A3\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of HREOC WAT Inquiry.asd Greg KilleenŽC:\Documents and Settings\Greg Killeen.GREG-OZOE3GX4A3\My Documents\Word docs\Dept of Transport - NSW\HREOC Taxi inquiry\HREOC WAT Inquiry.docKilleen%C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\HREOC WAT Inquiry.docKilleen5C:\GREG\STARTUP\Taxis\HREOC WAT Inquiry June 2001.docKilleen5C:\GREG\STARTUP\Taxis\HREOC WAT Inquiry June 2001.docKilleen5C:\GREG\STARTUP\Taxis\HREOC WAT Inquiry June 2001.docKilleen5C:\GREG\STARTUP\Taxis\HREOC WAT Inquiry June 2001.docKilleen5C:\GREG\STARTUP\Taxis\HREOC WAT Inquiry July 2001.docўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџуdЬLа„zџџџџџџџџџ*"„8„0§Ц8^„8`„0§OJPJQJ^Jo(-€ „ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „p„˜ўЦp^„p`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№€ „@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ўOJQJo(З№€ „„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „р„˜ўЦр^„р`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№€ „А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ўOJQJo(З№€ „€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „P„˜ўЦP^„P`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№ўџџџдиЂуdЬLџџџџриЂ @h „а„˜ў^„а`„˜ўOJQJo(З№џџџџџџџџ BadObjectsФйЂ lastRangeEndЬйЂlastRangeStartмйЂSelEndьйЂSelStartєйЂ 1322513221  џ@€Р;Р;H#Ђ-Р;Р;.<А@GTimes New Roman5ЬБO€Symbol3&МЋOArial?5 Courier New;€Wingdings"qˆ№аh—2WІ—2WІДŸ1iщ№ЅРДД€20№<џџIssues for comment DigbyKilleenўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0x˜ДРамшќ  4 @ LX`hpфIssues for comment ssuDigby figbigb Normal.dotcKilleen2llMicrosoft Word 8.0@@ŠўЯБС@ŠўЯБСДŸ1ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎDеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ@ќ hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М мф si№<j Issues for comment Title˜ 6> _PID_GUIDфAN{604C4363-71F3-11D5-9D58-0000E8DE96A7}  !"#$%&'()*ўџџџ,-./01234ўџџџ6789:;<ўџџџ>?@ABCDўџџџ§џџџGўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF ‹щцБС`Ё)чБСI€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ+zWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ-TSummaryInformation(џџџџ5DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ=CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџ`Ё)чБС`Ё)чБСџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq