Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Committee Meeting - Minutes and Actions

27 March 2013

DPTAC members:
Dai Powell – Chair / Heather James –Deputy Chair
Helen Dolphin / Alan Norton

John Ballantine

/ Will Bee
Andrew Probert / Olav Ernstzen
Asif Iqbal / Christine Court
DPTAC Observers
Niki Glazier MHAG
DPTAC Guests
Damian Dutton South Yorks PTE / Elizabeth Mundy –
DfT Concessionary Travel
Richard Jeremy Transport Select Committee / Nigel Dotchin DfT
Graham Pendlebury DfT / Ben Jones DfT
Pauline Reeves DfT / Elena Barcan DfT
Susanne Isaacs DfT / Sharon Maddix DfT
DPTAC Secretary
Phil Pool / Elina Kamellard
Apologies
Tomi Jones

1.Introductions and minutes – the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2013 were agreed. Graham Pendlebury, Director Local Transport, was welcomed to the group.

2.South Yorkshire PTE – Damian Dutton, Senior Network Accessibility Officer.

2.1Inviting South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) was an action from the January meeting as members noted that they exhibit good practice and (we expected, correctly) would be awarded Better Bus Area (BBA) status. Damian sent a supporting paper prior to the meeting an extended version has been used as the basis for the following note of the item – additional points are noted.

“Partnership Working

2.2South Yorkshire and particularly Sheffield have a strong history of community involvement and community/user groups. We are very fortunate that this is the case but also ourselves and operators have been active in engaging with these and utilising their knowledge and skills to improve planned developments and direct future work. The level of consultation and involvement ranges from strategic through to the detail of operational issues.

2.3Transport 4 Allis a pan-disability group based in Sheffield that is facilitated by Sheffield City Council and South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. The group is well attended by operators, First, Stagecoach, Supertram and Sheffield Community Transport. The group started in the early 2000s as the ‘Low-floor bus group’ and has been very successful in helping shape both Council and PTE policies and approaches to the accessibility of public transport.

2.4In other districts we have specific transport user groups that are attended by a range of different users. All disability and older people’s organisations (150+ of them) are part of our consultation list and with any major scheme we always ensure that specific consultation meetings are undertaken with such groups. There is also very good on-going dialogue with visual and hearing impaired groups, access groups and older peoples’ forums.

2.5Some areas of work that groups have been involved in include:

  • Increase in the number of low-floor vehicles – less direct work recently but operator involvement with accessibility groups means that this is kept as an important issue.

2.6The fact that the percentage of low floor vehicles in SY is approx 97% highlights the work that has been done. However there is still more work to be done as the number of PSVAR compliant vehicles is approx 65%. Although this is increasing all the time and operators’ are on track to meet their legal obligations. Once up a time we used to receive regular complaints about drivers not putting ramps down for passengers and this one of the issues that used to get an airing at every group I went to. Recently this has definitely changed and there is now a need to consider the increasing demand for the space at the front of buses for a range of different users.

  • Supertram internal refresh

2.7Disabled passengers involved in design sessions and many of their suggestions incorporated to improve layout and usability, including improved priority seating and a redesigned wheelchair space, improved usability of door controls and better on-board information.

  • Redevelopment of Rotherham and Sheffield Stations

2.8Consultation with local user groups to ensure consideration given to all users’ needs. Access groups also carry out access audits as part of the snagging process.

  • Tactile design for raised bus boarding areas

2.9Standard layout and design developed in collaboration with access groups.

  • Accessibility of information provision

2.10 Where possible we provide a minimum 12 point font in timetable information. For people who still cannot use this kind of information we offer Large print, Braille, audio and recently had the information in a national concessions leaflet done as a BSL interpretation and posted on our website. Our website has browse aloud facility but we also have Traveline complete with typetalk and language line facilities.

  • Development of smart card readers

2.11 Location of smart card readers on-board vehicles, the customer interface and issues surrounding whether those holding VI passes should be required to scan them were all considered at user group meetings.

  • SYPTE Equality scheme and ‘Commitment to Equality’ document

2.12 There has been a good deal of dialogue in relation to our equality scheme and it has been well received. We are continuing to undertake work in to more clearly defining the needs and concerns of different protected groups along with statistical information where available and an appropriate narrative. These will then be easier to consider and embed in funding bids and schemes.

  • Tram-train project

2.13 Initial consultations have taken place with disability groups to establish what aspects of the existing tram vehicles they like and which areas they think could be improved. These will then be built in to the first designs and these will be presented again to establish if they represent what people want. Some of the main issues so far surround level boarding, wheelchair space design, location of next stop screens, number of speakers conveying announcements. Also the need to incorporate at-stop announcements (or the React) system so that people with visual impairments can know what part of the network the vehicle approaching is operating on.

  • AfA and Minor work schemes on rail network.

2.14 Feedback from groups forms part of the decision making process in putting forward schemes to be funded. Groups have also supported this work in providing feedback once work has been completed.

2.15 The above areas of work have also required the involvement of other district partners, operators (incl Northern) and bodies such as the DfT, Network Rail etc.

Committed Individuals

2.16 Often giving the necessary importance and impetus to accessibility issues requires committed individuals in the partner organisations. This is certainly the case in South Yorkshire and from my experience is also true elsewhere in the country. We have people who are involved in groups now that have been for the past 20 years, from the times when the main issue was an absence or lack of low-floor buses. Some of these people are paid professionals, whilst others are members of the public.

National Commitment and Tone

2.17 Having the ability to acquire funding for schemes is vital but also the importance that national bodies attach to accessibility improvements sends a message to delivery organisations. Furthermore, the tone that high performing organisations (Reading Bus, Brighton & Hove Council, TrentBarton) set is also extremely useful when developing local initiatives as it demonstrates what can be achieved and the different solutions that are possible.

Culture within delivery organisations

2.18 This is somewhat linked to the second and third points but requires the necessary ‘buy-in’ from senior managers and the will from all necessary departments. At one time it was the case that users had to push and campaign for change (and that still happens to some degree) but now accessibility is much more considered at the outset and more often improvements happen organically.

Recent initiatives improving bus accessibility

  • CPT scooter code implemented on buses

2.19 Issues surrounding the use of scooters were first discussed a number of years ago at Transport 4 All which actually resulted in a scooter sub-group. In relation to the CPT code a plan on how best to implement the scheme locally was developed. Issues to be decided included, communicated with key stakeholders (particularly scooter users), how and where assessments would be undertaken and the need to ensure consistency of application and sharing of information between separate operators.The group endorsed this work and this has led to a significant increase in the number of scooter users travelling by bus.

2.20 Following the success of the bus permit implementation the scheme is now also in operation on the Supertram network. This followed concerns from the operator over damage and incidents caused by mobility scooter users. One option was to ban them altogether as in the case of Metrolink in Manchester but Sheffield has a differently designed system and so it was felt that we could continue to provide access for scooter users but not in the existing way.

  • Portable tactile maps in interchanges

2.21 SYPTE has been working with a local company called TacMap who have links with SheffieldHallamUniversity and Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind. We have recently introduced portable tactile maps at Meadowhall and Sheffield Interchanges. Feedback from passengers with visual impairments told us that they avoided such facilities because they were difficult to navigate with no obvious and consistent wayfinding that they could use. The guides produced, are located at a local organisation representing people with visual impairments (in order that they can familiarise themselves with a site prior to visiting it) and at the customer service desk of the site (so they can be used to navigate as the person walks through the site). There are plans to roll out this initiative at other sites.

  • Audible real-time

2.22 There are approximately 170 real-time units with the RNIB React system integrated in to them. This will increase as they are incorporated in to Key Routes projects. SYPTE issues fobs, free of charge, to passengers that require them. Where there are bus stops without real-time they are covered by the Your Next Bus system which can be used with a phone capable of text to speech.

  • On-bus next stop announcements

2.23 A trial of on-bus announcements has taken place in Barnsley on Stagecoach services. Following this the 120 service in Sheffield, which is coordinated between First and Stagecoach as part of the Sheffield Bus Partnership, will also have next stop announcements funded as part of the Better Bus Area Fund. It is hoped that such initiatives will establish the systems needed for a wider scale rollout and will encourage operators to include such systems as part of future fleet investments.

  • Door 2 Door services

2.24 Approximately 350,000 Door 2 Door journeys are undertaken per annum in South Yorkshire. SYPTE has funded the services for over 20 years and over the past 5 years Sheffield Community Transport has acted as lead operator. They have previously been voted urban CT operator of the year. We continue to invest in high quality, accessible vehicles, bespoke information leaflets, new booking and schedulingsystem.

  • South Yorkshire Safe Places Scheme

2.25 All manned PTE sites are now part of the South Yorkshire Safe Places scheme. The scheme provides a recognisable safe place for people with learning disabilities. We were involved in the initial discussions regarding a SY wide scheme and are one of the largest organisations signed up and promoting it.

  • Enhanced concessionary arrangements

2.26 Mobility pass holders have access to any bus or tram or train within South Yorkshire all day as well as local train services to and from West Yorkshire. We also have a ‘carers’ pass which people qualify for if they are on the higher rate care component of the DLA. These are above and beyond what we are required to provide under the English National Concessionary Scheme.

  • Low floor (and PSVAR compliant) vehicles

2.27 Numbers and our work with operators to increase this number also the fact that we require low floor vehicles as part of our tender requirements.

  • Academic work by the University of Sheffield looking at the issues facing passengers with learning disabilities using buses in Sheffield.

2.28 A very useful independent assessment of what the main issues for this passenger group are, particularly as people with learning disabilities often don’t have as much of a voice as others and so can be under-represented.

  • Involved in campaigns developed by bodies such as RNIBs ‘stop for me, speak to me’.

2.29 Recent campaign which has seen a meeting in Sheffield between RNIB, Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind and operators First and Stagecoach. This has so far been useful in highlighting how we need to raise more awareness to some of the good schemes we have in place.

  • Sheffield Bus Partnership

2.30 Brings together a number of the initiatives considered and strengthens the partnership approach to deliver joined up schemes. Each party is committed to providing improvements to the public transport offer and these can be built on further whenever funding is available. Investments such as those in on-bus announcements have the potential to encourage operators to build this requirement in when new vehicles are purchased.

Additional points from the discussion

2.31 National commitment, from DfT but also from local authorities and other PTEs, to accessibility improvements is vital. A shared view was that DfT might do more in terms of “tone” to further establish an expectation of high accessibility standards. This could include statements to the effect that engagement on access issues is not optional and evidence of a clear (locally appropriate) structure and of outcomes is a necessary for bids and the further development of successful bids.

2.32 Damian noted that senior managers in SYPTE are very clear in their support – this generates trust in the community that access issues will be built into all considerations and an expectation that these will be delivered. The Equality Plan is important but only so far as it is seen that the actions it contains are delivered.

2.33 Sharing of good practice and being able to access information about it is important too – TfL are able, because of scale, to (perhaps) lead in this area but for SYPTE it has been valuable to share knowledge with other areas such as Reading and Brighton.

2.34 Damian’s contribution to the meeting was welcomed by DPTAC – particular support was noted in relation to the importance of engagement with local people generally and with disabled people in particular. Equally, it was noted that DPTAC recommends to DfT that active engagement tailored to local needs should be a requirement of any funding or other support, scheme or endorsement.

3Concessionary fares, revision of guidance, Liz Mundy DfT.

3.1Liz set out that the changes to the concessionary travel eligibility guidance is intended (as far as is possible) to respond to changes to the main passporting assessment criteria i.e. to reflect the change from DLA to PIP. The amendments are intended to minimise the effects of the change in terms of assessing eligibility for the statutory concession.

3.2It was noted in discussion that there are concerns, particularly for people with significant mental health problems and for people with learning difficulties, that they are not considered automatically eligible for concessionary travel as the mobility component of PIP referring to planning and following a journey is not included within the scope of the automatic eligibility passport. The response to this was that the changes to the guidance do not change the underlying eligibility criteria set out in the Transport Act 2000[1] – the guidance concerns a re-draft of the existing document to reflect passporting from the new disability benefit (PIP).Individuals who’s condition satisfies the criteria of the Transport Act 2000 but do not receive a PIP award with an automatic passport to concessionary travel will still be able to apply for a bus pass and will be assessed by a local authority using other sections of the guidance.

3.3Liz said that improving guidance on assessing learning disabilities was something the Department hopes to look into in the medium term future. Also, given that DWP have now revised their approach to mobility with the introduction of PIP, there could be a case for exploring the need to recognise “hidden disabilities” in the eligibility criteria for a bus pass i.e. in relation to the ability of a person to be able to plan and follow a journey. Similar points were raised in relation to people who are “hard of hearing” or who have vision impairments – however, these are covered in both the legislation and the guidance. The guidance, in particular, highlights that the underlying eligibility criteria, as set out in the Transport Act 2000, have not changed.

3.4Concerns were raised with how variable conditions would be considered – again, the guidance covers these (see paragraph 12 and 13 of the guidance). The Department also reminds local authorities that they can issue bus passes with shorter validity periods (for example, one year rather than the five year maximum) if they are unsure of the permanent nature of a disability.