Funding cuts hit station access for disabled travellers

[Oswyntail]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-access-for-disabled-travellers-9256663.html

Funding to provide disabled access to railway stations is being cut by nearly half over the next five years, new figures have revealed.
Only one in five stations has step-free access, and campaigners fear that cutting funds will make the situation much worse for disabled people.

The figures emerged less than two years after London's hosting of the Paralympic Games was supposed to herald a new era for disabled people in this country, but charities said this legacy was under threat.

The Department for Transport has cut funding for the Access for All programme from £43m to £25m annually between 2015 and 2019, a reduction of 42 per cent. While the AFA funding was £388m for the nine-year period between 2006 and 2015, the Government has announced only £100m between 2015 and 2019.

Labour published a list of the top 10 stations by passenger numbers that have no step-free access: they include commuter hubs such as Putney and Highbury and Islington in London, and Moorfields in Liverpool.

The figures were obtained by shadow Transport Secretary Mary Creagh, who said it was a "disgrace" that the Government was failing to make more stations accessible.

She added: "On buses and railways, the Government is cutting costs and failing to act to improve travel for people with disabilities. How can people with disabilities have any trust that the Government is on their side?"

Yesterday, the Disabilities minister Mike Penning criticised football clubs for the "woeful" lack of access for fans in wheelchairs at stadiums. He has written to all professional football clubs to highlight the legal requirement to provide access.

Yet the situation on trains suggests a more widespread problem. In January, Transport minister Robert Goodwill told the Transport Select Committee that requests made by disability charities amounted to the "sort of list that my children used to bring me to give to Santa". In a response to the committee's report raising concerns about disabled access, the Government said: "We believe that if we were to seek the views of charities and disability groups at a national level, this would add little value to the process."

Ruth Owen, chief executive of Whizz-Kidz, the charity for disabled children, said: "As a wheelchair user myself, I experience the frustrations of not having the same access to travel or train facilities as non-disabled passengers. For young disabled people to fulfil their potential, being able to travel safely and independently is absolutely paramount. Whether it's travelling to socialise with friends, access health services, education or employment, it's important to recognise that accessible transport can enable young disabled people to enjoy the same opportunities as their peers, and to contribute to society."

Fazilet Hadi, director of inclusive society at RNIB, said: "Being able to use public transport is fundamental to the independence of blind and partially sighted people. RNIB would be concerned about the impact if money for disability access to stations is cut."

Is this the complete story?

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah, AfA program is the main method for making stations acessible, in theory within reason all stations are supposed to be accessible by the same deadline as rolling stock. Naturally the spend to achieve that falls far short.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I thought Moorfields had lifts?

 

[swt_passenger]

The figure is wrong, first of all. NR give it as £132m.

NR explain Access for all like this in the CP5 plans:

The DfT Access for All Programme Consultation (Spring 2005) targeted a five per cent (125 stations) increase in accessible stations across the network by March 2015. As of September 2012 Network Rail’s projected output suggests six per cent (153 stations) of the network will be made accessible as a result of the Programme.
The CP5 Programme from 2015 - 2019 is an extension to this.

That suggests to me that Access for All was introduced (under Labour) with a finite timescale, and wasn't a rolling programme at the same rate. Nothing there that I can see about all, or even most, stations being made accessible in line with the rolling stock, and I don't think that has ever been suggested, it just isn't realistic. It may be on the user groups wish list, but it seems to me that not for the first time Labour's spokesman is out of line with what the original policy was...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I have always wondered, whilst it is great to be seen doing something about it, just how effective AfA has been economically. Take for example the footbridge at Barnetby (though I believe this predates AfA): for how long would it have been cheaper to arrange for taxis to Scunthorpe or Habrough for people in wheelchairs (I'm not sure how you'd classify those with prams, large amounts of luggage or infirm people) than install a ramp costing thousands a time to multiple platforms? I appreciate there are other, smaller improvements with AfA (paving, handrails etc), but I would still be keen to know just how many years taxiing would be cheaper than a great big footbridge / lifts etc.

 

[w0033944]

I have always wondered, whilst it is great to be seen doing something about it, just how effective AfA has been economically. Take for example the footbridge at Barnetby (though I believe this predates AfA): for how long would it have been cheaper to arrange for taxis to Scunthorpe or Habrough for people in wheelchairs (I'm not sure how you'd classify those with prams, large amounts of luggage or infirm people) than install a ramp costing thousands a time to multiple platforms? I appreciate there are other, smaller improvements with AfA (paving, handrails etc), but I would still be keen to know just how many years taxiing would be cheaper than a great big footbridge / lifts etc.

Is it always correct to reduce questions of social good and equality to a line on a balance sheet, though? It's one thing to suggest on the one hand that money should be no object (which is obviously ridiculous and should not be taken as the mindset of all disabled people), and to say that whatever is cheapest is the best on the other.

 

[edwin_m]

There's also the question of different types of disability. Most of the cost (and most of the quote above) is about step-free access, which is likely to be the most expensive part especially for underground stations. Providing facilities for the blind people mentioned at the end of the article would usually be much cheaper and simpler.

 

[reb0118]

campaigners fear that cutting funds will make the situation much worse for disabled people.

How so? Surely as all new built stations are accessible then the overall picture will see a net benefit to disabled access as new stations open, even if no more existing stations are converted.

I do, however, accept that the rate of increased accessibility will be much slower if no existing stations are converted as well.

My personal view is yes, we should improve accessibility for all at our stations but, we should target the stations concerned. I do not feel that it makes economic sense to adapt every station on the network.

 

[route:oxford]

Campaigners fear that cutting funds will make the situation much worse for disabled people.

How will cutting funds make things worse?

Surely it only slows down the rate that things improve...

 

[Clip]

How will cutting funds make things worse?

Surely it only slows down the rate that things improve...

It does but that does not make for a harder hitting soundbite that many will pick up on and run with rather than the fact that it only slows it down - which doesnt make a good soundbite.

 

[WatcherZero]

That suggests to me that Access for All was introduced (under Labour) with a finite timescale, and wasn't a rolling programme at the same rate. Nothing there that I can see about all, or even most, stations being made accessible in line with the rolling stock, and I don't think that has ever been suggested, it just isn't realistic. It may be on the user groups wish list, but it seems to me that not for the first time Labour's spokesman is out of line with what the original policy was...

You know perfectly well most rail funding is given in five year plans.
Access for All is funded through HLOS, most directly to NR which compares competing bids and some goes straight to the TOC's who do likewise inviting local authorities to bid for funds.

AfA is England and Wales only and excludes Scotland for which the Government has set a £100m budget through the HLOS, the further £32m in your NR figure comes from Transport Scotland. It was begun in 2006 with principal stations but was expanded in 2011 in light of the Equality Act 2010 to include all stations which could be made compliant within a reasonable budget.

http://sendpo.org/content/access-all-programme-–-next-control-period

 

[jamesst]

I thought Moorfields had lifts?

It does, and a ramp!