1. Introduction
2. The
legal rights of people with
disability
3. Disability
Discrimination and taxi services
4. Are
wheelchair accessible taxis commercially
viable?
1.
Introduction
PDCN welcomes the
opportunity to comment on aspects of commercial
viability (costs and benefits) of operating
wheelchair accessible taxis in NSW. We hope that
in so doing we will make a positive contribution
to an important debate.
2.
The legal rights of people with
disability
Our discussions are not
taking place in a policy vacuum. Federal and
State laws exist, which are designed to protect
people with disability from the disadvantages,
marginalistion and social exclusion that can and
do result from disability discrimination.
We want to remind
stakeholders in this debate, therefore, of these
contextual matters:
- The NSW
Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977 (ADA),
Section 49B.1(a) defines discrimination as
less favourable treatment in the same
circumstances (when compared with people with
no disability). Clause 4 of the Act,
Definitions, makes it explicitly clear that
it is unlawful to provide less favourable
treatment with regard to
- "services relating
to transport and travel" as well as
- "services
consisting of access to, and the use of
any facilities in, any place or vehicle
that the public or a section of the public
is entitled or allowed to enter or use,
for payment or not."
- The Commonwealth's
Disability Discrimination Act of 1992
(DDA) has, since March 1993, made it unlawful
in the area of transport to discriminate
against people on the grounds of disability
(See Section 24: Goods, Services and
Facilities). Although it is more than eleven
years since the DDA was enacted it remains
clear that people with disability generally,
and wheelchair users in particular, are
denied equal access to transport services
(including taxis) by factors such as vehicle
design.
- More particularly, the
DDA Disability Standards for Accessible
Transport have set December 2007 as the
deadline for ensuring that response times for
booked WAT services be the same as response
times for non-WAT services.
3.
Disability Discrimination and taxi
services
We want to remind people
that disability discrimination in relation to
taxi services truly does result in less
favourable treatment of people with disability,
particularly wheelchair users. And we repeat,
because it matters, less favourable treatment on
the grounds of disability is unlawful under both
State and Federal Statute.
We add, as a further
reminder, what the Minister for Transport said
in his media release:
"It is
appalling that people who require a
wheelchair accessible taxi are left waiting
hours, or are unable to get a cab at
all."
It is "appalling" and
unlawful and, we contend, not unrelated to
another observation made in the same Ministerial
media release that:
"Only 7 per
cent of taxis in New South Wales are
wheelchair accessible - 418 of 6,000 taxis
across the State;"
4.
Are wheelchair accessible taxis commercially
viable?
The incontestable fact is
that they are.
There may be relatively
few WAT vehicles operating in NSW but it is
clear that they currently operate in
commercially viable and sustainable
circumstances. For most owners/ operators and/or
operators (and possibly all of them) WAT
vehicles are 'going concerns'.
We acknowledge that
drivers who are not owner / operators may be
disadvantaged by aspects of current WAT
operations (not to do with vehicle design). The
disincentives to take-up WAT work that weigh
down drivers need to be removed. But
acknowledgement of those operational
disincentives does not mean that WAT services
are unviable.
We believe that a
substantial body of evidence already exists
(some of which is well known to the Ministry for
Transport) that shows WAT vehicles to be
commercially viable, perhaps the most
commercially viable of all available
options.
PDCN has commented on WAT
viability in three substantial submissions,
which are available on our Web site. Those
documents are:
Many of the points we wish
to make in this submission are contained in the
three documents above. Here, we provide a
summary of what we consider to be the key points
to note.
a. We need to appraise
the costs of taxis, not just
vehicles
It is an often-repeated
observation that WAT are more expensive to buy
than non-WAT. The observation perpetuates a
misunderstanding about what needs to be assessed
as we consider the commercial viability of
wheelchair accessible taxis.
A taxi is not just the
vehicle in which passengers are transported. And
no vehicle can become a taxi unless and until it
meets certain standards and is licensed to ply
for trade. So, whilst it is clear that Holden
Zafiras or Chrysler Voyagers (as examples),
which have not been modified to accommodate
wheelchair users, have lower purchase prices
than Zafiras or Voyagers that have been
converted, such a comparison does not constitute
a sound basis for assessing the commercial
viability of WAT.
No Holden Zafira or
Chrysler Voyager (modified or not) is permitted
to perform taxi duties unless and until it is
licensed by the State Government. When the costs
and concessions of licenses are added to the
purchase prices, running and maintenance costs
of vehicles the comparison (of WAT and non-WAT
set ups) produces a quite different picture from
an assessment of vehicle costs alone.
In our second submission
to HREOC (Still Waiting For Godot) we considered
the relative costs of WAT and non-WAT in detail.
Here's a summary (using broadly indicative
figures that suffice for this paper):
- Wheelchair accessible
vehicles are more expensive to purchase than
non-wheelchair accessible vehicles. Based on
figures supplied by the Taxi Council and
Drive.com we believe that an accessible
Holden Zafira might be $25,000 more expensive
than an inaccessible version and, at the top
of the range of vehicles currently in use as
taxis, an accessible Chrysler Voyager might
be $35,000 more expensive than an
inaccessible version.
- A WAT licence costs
$1,000 per year in metropolitan NSW and
nothing in regional NSW.
- A non-WAT licence
costs somewhere in the region of $300,000 on
the metropolitan market place.
- WAT vehicles can be
deployed by licence holders for a maximum of
10 years.
- Non-WAT vehicles can
be deployed by licence holders for a maximum
of 6 years.
Just by comparing these
elements it becomes clear that WAT are not more
expensive than non-WAT (based on our assumption
that a taxi is the vehicle plus its licence, not
just the vehicle).
Costs over
10 years for a new entrant to the industry
(at today's prices)
Holden
Zafira
- 1 WAT vehicle
($60,000) plus licence ($10,000) =
$70,000
- 2 non-WAT vehicles
($70,000) plus licence ($300,000) =
$370,000
Chrysler Voyager
- 1 WAT vehicle
($95,000) plus licence ($10,000) =
$105,000
- 2 non-WAT vehicles
($120,000) plus licence ($300,000) =
$420,000
We note that these figures
would result in an annualised increase in cost
calculations (based on current prices) of $2,500
per operating year for an accessible Holden
Zafira and $3,500 per operating year for an
accessible Chrysler Voyager. We believe these
amounts (even without consideration of the
benefits of access to new market share) would
not constitute unjustifiable hardship within the
terms of the DDA.
We believe that the
additional costs of vehicle conversion could be
substantially reduced through economies of scale
and increased competition (among companies
carrying out conversions). If the NSW taxi fleet
were required to become universally accessible
over a ten-year period there would be a
substantial growth in demand for converted
vehicles. If the fleet made the transition
evenly over the period, we might expect there to
be about 600 conversions required per year (in
perpetuity). We believe that the number would be
greater, however, because the transition of the
NSW fleet would have spin-off benefits for taxi
owners and regulators in other Australian
jurisdictions.
In the circumstances we
describe above it is likely that current
conversion costs would be reduced in the
expanded market for wheelchair accessible
taxis.
We assume that the running
and maintenance costs of accessible and
inaccessible vehicles of the same type are
broadly comparable within the 10-year business
cycle. We accept that as WAT vehicles become
older (beyond the six year limit of non-WAT)
they will become more expensive to service but
the savings in outlay or finance repayments on a
non-WAT licence fee more than compensates for
moderately higher maintenance costs.
b. Increasing choice of
vehicle types
It has been observed in
the past that some taxi customers (not
wheelchair users) have expressed resistance to
using wheelchair accessible taxis. There is no
hard data on the numbers of people who reject
travel in WAT vehicles because of their styling
or colour but we do not challenge the assertion
that some potential taxi customers prefer not to
travel in an orange minibus.
PDCN is aware of 7
different vehicle types currently being used as
wheelchair accessible taxis in NSW. Five of
those vehicles are identified in the interim
report of the WAT task force. There may be other
vehicles in use as WAT that are not listed below
(We deliberately exclude the atypical
Metrocab).
- Chrysler
Voyager
- Flashcab (converted
Ford Falcon)
- Holden
Zafira
- Kia
Carnivale
- Maxi Taxi (Toyota
Hiace or Commuter van)
- Mercedes
Vito
- Stretch Sedan
(converted Ford Falcon)
It is clear that a broad
(and increasing) range of vehicle types can be
and are being deployed as wheelchair accessible
taxis. Some of the newer models of WAT vehicles,
perhaps the most popular among all types of
passengers, are indistinguishable from the basic
vehicle model from which they have been
converted. The Chrysler Voyager, Holden Zafira,
Kia Carnivale and Mercedes Vito come immediately
to mind.
We believe that new models
of WAT have the potential to eradicate all
vestiges of resistance to travel by potential
passengers who are not wheelchair
users.
We further believe that
the current (and increasing) range of WAT
vehicles makes it possible for operators to
choose from a range of business decisions about
the segments of the market they may wish to
focus upon and / or target, for
example:
- Chrysler Voyager WAT
vehicles may also seek to capture sections of
the so-called premium service or business
travel markets.
- Maxi Taxi WAT vehicles
may also seek to capture sections of the
tourist trade or entertainment related
clientele, where larger groups might be
anticipated.
- Holden Zafira and Kia
Carnivale WAT vehicles may also seek to
capture sections of the market looking for
the capacity and comfort of 'people movers'
rather than traditional sedans.
The key points here in
assessing the commercial viability of WAT
vehicles are that newer designs and models of
WAT vehicles,
- Neither put off the
unquantifiable proportion (we think it's
small) of passengers who are resistant to
using them;
- Nor exclude entry to
other niche markets;
- Nor exclude access by
the general customer base.
And of critical
importance:
- Don't exclude
wheelchair users.
c. More than just the
vehicle and the licence costs
There are more costs to
consider than the range of available vehicle
types, their purchase prices and licence costs.
Some of the factors that affect the commercial
viability of WAT services are a direct
consequence of discretionary decision-making by
taxi co-operatives, radio networks and / or
licence holders and operators.
PDCN has argued in other
documents submitted to the WAT taskforce that we
must scrutinise and assess the totality of the
cost / benefit equation of WAT operations. We
repeat some of the questions that we believe
require investigation:
- Are there 'pay ins' or
charges levied on drivers of WAT vehicles
that are not levied on drivers of non-WAT
vehicles?
- Is the
industry-imposed requirement that WAT
services be booked through a central booking
service now a restraint on trade?
- Market behaviour
confirms that for the overwhelming
majority of WAT journeys passengers and
drivers simply ignore the 'official'
booking service. The industry's
representatives themselves have reported
that as many as 80% of WAT journeys are
initiated through private arrangements.
For this overwhelming number, the role of
the 0200 service is reduced to allocating
a job number (for TTSS purposes mainly)
after the event.
It may have been
that while the number of WAT was extremely
low (in the order of tens) a single
booking service was a necessary mechanism
for determining access to a service that
was even scarcer, 10 years ago, than it is
now. The dynamics of the market have,
however, changed in 10 years. Customers
and drivers with savvy and mobile phones
have taken the market to a new place. The
service systems need to reflect the new
realities in a market that may now be
constrained from growth by the single
entry point of the dedicated booking
service.
- If the booking
of WATs were to be 'de-regulated' (i.e.
normalised to the extent that customers would
book WATs directly through Network /
Cop-operative / private arrangements rather
than a centralised booking service) what
would be the effect on 'pay ins', charges and
other costs currently levied on WAT drivers?
(E.g. what would be the financial benefit to
drivers of no longer requiring a second radio
network in the cab?)
- What actuarial
evidence exists to support the contention
that WAT vehicles are more expensive to run
and service than non-WAT
vehicles?
- What are the different
operating costs of different types of WAT
vehicle?
- What are the true cost
of WATs operation and non-WAT operation and
how do the two compare?
d. Operating
benefits
We run the risk of
repeating what we have said in other documents
and (in reverse) what we have said above. So
we'll be brief.
Taxis that can accommodate
wheelchair users (one or more) have access
(potentially and in reality) to the whole taxi
market and to more segments within that market
than taxis that are not wheelchair accessible.
There is a very clear benefit to operating a WAT
that doesn't apply to non-WAT vehicles.
WAT vehicles, in contrast
to non-WAT vehicles, exclude no section of the
customer base. That seems to us to be a
fundamental pillar upon which assessment of
commercial viability needs to be
based.
e. Industry transition:
why and how
Once again, we'll be brief
because much of what we note here has been
written in other documents, earlier in this
document or expressed by PDCN representatives at
meetings.
Why change the
supply side of the industry?
- First: It's our belief
that people with disability must enjoy the
same opportunities and rights as other
members of society. That means taxis
too.
- Second: State and
Federal legislation define it as unlawful to
treat people with disability less favourably
because of their disability with specific
regard to access to and use of transport
vehicles, goods and services (including
taxis).
- Third: the DDA
Disability Standards make explicit a clear
performance standard to be achieved by
December 2007. In short, the clock is
ticking.
- Fourth: Federal and
State policies in areas such as inclusive
education, de-institutionalisation, community
care and promoting employment opportunities
for people with disability (to identify only
4 such policy areas) will result in a greater
number of wheelchair users travelling more
often to a more diverse range of
destinations. The market is
expanding.
- Fifth: The trends of
demographic change over the next thirty years
are unambiguously clear. We need more
accessible vehicles to meet the changing
circumstances that we know will arise in the
period ahead. More than one-quarter of the
population will be 65 and over. Ageing and
disability are linked and, the older people
are, the greater the incidence of disability.
Two-thirds of people with disability have a
physical disability (according to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics). In short,
there's about to be a massive growth in
demand for more universally accessible
transport of all types.
- Sixth: There is very
substantial latent demand currently from
people with disability (including wheelchair
users) for universally accessible taxis. To
open up those untapped elements of the total
market the supply of vehicles has to be
increased so that potential passengers can be
wholly confident of the service
system.
- Seventh: Universally
accessible vehicles, which will be wheelchair
accessible, are more appealing to the whole
customer base. Higher quality vehicles with
staff (drivers) trained in customer care
procedures for all customers will be more
likely to encourage increased use of
taxis.
How can we assist
or encourage the industry to
change?
- First: Operators must
accept their obligations in law not to treat
people with disability less
favourably.
- Second: The regulator
(NSW Ministry for Transport) should adopt a
policy that would require any taxi operating
in NSW to be universally accessible (based on
an agreed definition of such) by a specified
date. We propose that the date of taxis to
meet the universally accessible threshold
should be ten years after the policy is
adopted. We think that probably means 1st
January 2016.
- Third: The NSW
Government should create a transition fund to
pay for the capital costs of the change
management strategy.
The transition fund
would be used to pay owners of vehicles that
are not universally accessible an agreed
subsidy figure to cover the cost of
conversion to vehicles that would be
universally accessible. The payment would be
a 'one off' payment made for each licensed
taxi in service at the time the policy is
adopted and for any new licences issued after
the policy commencement date.
Entitlement to the
subsidy and the duty to purchase a
universally accessible vehicle would arise
whenever a vehicle had to be replaced under
current arrangements for each licence holder
in NSW. We understand that all vehicles,
currently used as taxis, must be replaced
within a maximum of 6 (non-WAT) or 10 years
(WAT).
After 1st January 2016
taxi owners would be required to plan their
future business cycles on the assumption that
universally accessible vehicles would be
required to maintain the vehicle quality
standards of the newly accessible fleet.
We see the options
below as some of the possible means for
establishing the transition fund:
- As is done for road
building, trains and buses the State
Government could allocate the resources
required out of general taxation revenue.
Given the number of passenger journeys
carried out by the (predominantly)
unsubsidised taxi industry, the
development of a public finance fund for
transition appears to be good value for
money when compared with public investment
levels in road, rail and bus
services.
- IPART could
recommend to Government a fare increase to
cover the costs of industry
transition.
- Government could
impose a modest levy on all passenger
trips (not just wheelchair users' trips)
for a fixed period. We have expressed our
support for further investigation of a
10-cent levy per passenger trip for a
period of no more than 10
years.
- A combination of
Government funding from general revenue
and the passenger trip levy (equivalent to
a 5 cent contribution by Government for
each 5 cent contribution by
passengers).
- Fourth: Planned growth
of the Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme
(harnessing smart card technology) to
encourage use by currently marginalised
groups such as wheelchair users, resulting in
increased passenger trips by potential WAT
users.
- Fifth: Terminate the
single booking service, de-regulate bookings,
establish direct connections between
customers and co-operatives / radio networks
/ operators with the effect of eradicating
the need for a second radio in cabs and,
therefore cutting the level of charges levied
on WAT drivers.
- Sixth: Establish an
independent training regime for WAT drivers,
part of whose training remit would be to
promote cultural change within the industry
about WAT work.
- Seventh: Incentivise
drivers.
Dougie Herd
Executive Officer
Physical Disability Council of New South
Wales
Friday, 3rd September 2004
