Australasian Railways Association application for temporary exemption under the Disability Discrimination Act: Recommendations (Consultation Draft)

These draft recommendations are being circulated for comment before final recommendations are put to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In view of the amount of discussion which has already occurred on this application a period of four weeks for comments is being provided.

Issued: 13 September 2006. MS Word zipped version also available

Responses by: 11 October 2006

Responses by email to disabdis@humanrights.gov.au

Executive summary:

In July 2005 the Australasian Railways Association ("ARA") lodged an application on behalf of its members for exemption from the effect of a large number of the clauses of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport ("the Standards") , on condition that they comply with a revised set of obligations.

A revised proposal was lodged by ARA in February 2006 after consideration by them of issues raised in public submissions. (Submissions and ARA's application and revised proposal are available on HREOC's website together with HREOC's notice of inquiry on this matter.)

This application has been subject to public consultation, as required by HREOC's policy on exemption applications under the DDA, and to consultation with the Accessible Public Transport Jurisdictional Committee (APTJC) , as required by the Disability Discrimination Regulations.

The length of time taken to date in considering this application has been considerably longer than for exemption applications generally under the DDA, due to the scale of the application.

ARA argue that on the points where exemptions were applied for, the specifications in the Standards for how access should be provided either are not capable of being complied with in their terms in a rail environment, and thus have to be interpreted by extensive and uncertain application of the unjustifiable hardship defence, or otherwise fail to give sufficient direction on actions required.

They argue accordingly that greater certainty of obligation in the terms sought would assist in making the large scale investments being incurred in new and refurbished conveyances and infrastructure to comply with the objectives of the Standards and of the Disability Discrimination Act ("DDA").

This paper recommends that this argument be accepted on some points.

In some instances (on 39 points) there is a recommendation to grant an exemption, either in the terms applied for in ARA's revised application, or in modified terms and on conditions intended to ensure that the objects of the DDA are advanced. In a number of instances the terms and conditions recommended include a requirement to consult and report during the exemption period.
In other instances (on 34 points) it is recommended that an exemption be rejected - either because it has not been shown to be justified, or because it is not necessary as it is not considered to constitute any variation from current obligations.
On a further 26 points of requested exemption, the recommendation is to defer a decision, pending further discussion, research or consultation.

In the majority of instances where an exemption is recommended to be granted, APTJC also supports granting of an exemption.

It should be noted that the recommended decision on each point is confined to whether and in what terms a temporary exemption would be appropriate. A decision for or against a temporary exemption on each point does not bind any decisions which may be made in future regarding amendment of the Standards following the review which the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is required to conduct within 5 years of the commencement of the Standards.

HREOC's consideration of this application, and the processes of consultation and reporting recommended as conditions on a number of points where granting an exemption is recommended, may assist in that review; but HREOC's responsibility to decide exemption applications on their merits neither extends to reviewing and amending the Standards, nor can properly be wholly delegated to that process of review.

This recommendation is structured as follows:

Background to the application
A summary of recommendations in response to each point of ARA's current (revised) application, including (where an exemption is recommended) an indication of where APTJC supported the same decision
Discussion of each of these points having regard to submissions received on the initial application, ARA's revision of that application, and comments subsequently received.

Background

On 29 July 2005 on behalf of its members the Australasian Railways Association ("ARA") lodged an application with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("HREOC") under section 55 of the Disability Discrimination Act ("DDA") for exemption from a range of provisions of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport ("the Standards"), on condition in relation to each member that the member meet a proposed set of compliance requirements expressed as modifications to the obligations set out in those Standards.

ARA also indicated that they proposed to adopt the obligations provided by an exemption if granted as an industry code, this being the principal means of regulation in practice in the rail industry on a range of significant issues including safety.

For this reason ARA's application is defined by reference to a set of clauses based on revisions of the Standards. This does not mean that any decision by HREOC to grant an exemption need necessarily be in the same form.

Some comments on the application have expressed confusion that the ARA is amending, or asking HREOC to amend, the Standards. Clearly neither the ARA nor HREOC can do so.

The Standards can only be amended by the Attorney-General remaking the Standards in amended form and submitting such amended Standards to the Parliament as provided for by the DDA. The Standards provide for the Attorney-General to review the Standards after their first five years in force, that is, at the end of 2007. Such a review once conducted may or may not lead to amendments to the Standards. The effect of a temporary exemption, however, may be to vary, for the period of the exemption, obligations arising from the Standards. The review of the Standards might also be informed by discussion of relevant issues during consideration of an exemption application by HREOC, and by the results of any research, consultation and reporting required during the period of and as a condition of granting an exemption.

On 2 August 2005 in accordance with HREOC's policy on applications for exemption under the DDA a notice of inquiry and call for submissions on the ARA's application was published together with a copy of the application. In accordance with the requirements of s.55(1A) of the DDA and of Disability Discrimination regulation no.5, notice of the application was also provided to the Accessible Public Transport Jurisdictional Committee ("APTJC") with which HREOC is required to consult on applications for exemption in relation to the Standards.

Submissions were requested by 13 September 2005, it being noted that further processes for participation by interested parties would be determined after consideration of submissions.

69 submissions were received. Submissions continued to be received and accepted for a further month after the requested date, in view of the time needed both for people and organisations in the disability community and for the APTJC to consider an application of this scale. APTJC comments were provided to HREOC on 12 October 2005.

Submissions provided electronically were made available, and remain available, on the HREOC website.

On 11 November 2005 HREOC officers (the then Deputy Disability Discrimination Commissioner and the Director of Disability Rights policy) together with representatives of the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, and the Queenslanders with Disability Network (which had made the most detailed submission in response to the application) met with ARA to brief them on issues raised by submissions. ARA requested time to revise their application in response to issues raised.

A revised application was lodged by ARA with HREOC on 24 February 2006 and published on the HREOC website.

A meeting chaired by the Commissioner responsible for disability discrimination was convened on 6 April 2006, involving

ARA and its member railway operators and manufacturers;
members of APTJC (including the Attorney-General's Department which has observer status on APTJC);
disability community members of the Accessible Public Transport National Advisory Committee (APTNAC);
representatives of People With Disability Australia, Queenslanders with Disabilities Network and the Disability Council of NSW as the organisations which had made the most detailed submissions on the original application.

As well as discussing issues of process (HREOC's role in dealing with exemption applications; the relationship of exemptions to the Standards and the 5 year review of Standards; the role of industry codes and other mechanisms in relation to Standards, and possible further processes on this application) the meeting reviewed a number of the major substantive issues presented by the application. A point by point review of the application was not possible or attempted within the scope of a 7 hour meeting.

In summary:

ARA reiterated that they were committed to the purposes of the Standards; they stated however that some of the provisions of the Standards could not be complied with as drafted (instancing those in relation to toilets in so far as rail conveyances are concerned), without an unspecified degree of modification downwards by reference to the unjustifiable hardship defence, and thus failed to provide the guidance and certainty required for very large scale investments in vehicles and premises occurring now and in the near future and involving hundreds of millions of dollars; these investments meant that it was not appropriate to further postpone consideration of the issues raised by the exemption application until such time as a process for the 5 year review of the Standards should be decided on, conducted and acted on.
APTJC members noted that, although on some issues the application even as revised appeared to seek reduction of current obligations without sufficiently clear justification, some of the revised application represented positive work on how to comply with the purposes of the Standards in a rail environment.
Some APTJC members questioned why ARA members could not simply adopt these approaches to compliance, in practice and as an industry code if they saw fit, and rely on the provisions of the Standards allowing for the defence of unjustifiable hardship, and the performance based concept of compliance by "equivalent access" to permit departures from the specifications expressly provided in the Standards.
ARA stated their view that on issues where the unjustifiable hardship defence needed to be relied on in all or most rail settings to make the standards work, rather than only to deal with truly exceptional cases, the standards did not provide sufficient certainty, and that therefore pending possible amendment of the Standards, ARA needed to ask HREOC to exercise its power to grant temporary exemptions.
Several participants noted that HREOC's decision on this application could not bind the Attorney-General in considering what if any amendments to make to the Standards arising out of the 5 year review.
HREOC noted that consensus among interested parties was not a precondition to making a decision to grant an exemption, but that the views of interested and expert parties were of course relevant. HREOC also noted that an exemption based on a degree of consensus was likely to give more of the certainty sought by the applicants, in view of (a) the provision for affected persons to seek review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a HREOC decision for or against an exemption, and (b) the need for the Attorney-General to be subsequently persuaded of the appropriateness of amending the Standards to the same effect if certainty on a longer term basis were to be achieved.
It was also noted that when the matter was presented for decision HREOC would have to consider how far it was possible and appropriate to use the exemption power under DDA s.55 in effect to certify a wide ranging industry code.
Some elements of the application clearly had the effect of requesting a specific exemption, which might or might not be decided to be appropriate to grant. Other elements however involved redrafting for clarification or confirmation of existing obligations. Not all of these elements might fit within or be an appropriate use of the exemption power.
ARA members emphasised that as far as possible they were seeking to have issues dealt with together rather than separated out, because of the interconnections seen between different elements covered by the application.
HREOC undertook to inform participants as soon as possible of the approach to be adopted to further consideration of the application.

Bearing in mind views expressed by ARA members that it would be preferable to continue to consider the application as a whole, HREOC indicated following the meeting to participants that it nonetheless appeared to be useful to review the application point by point to determine:

whether there were issues on which it appears a decision in favour of an exemption should be recommended to HREOC now, either on the terms proposed by ARA or on different but immediately identifiable terms including on conditions which would promote progress in achieving accessibility in rail services;
whether there were issues on which further consultation with ARA, APTJC and the disability community could assist in determining whether HREOC should grant or refuse an exemption
whether there were issues which did not properly fall to be considered within a decision on an exemption application and which could be separated out from HREOC's further consideration of this matter notwithstanding that they might continue to be raised as possible future amendments to the Standards.

Preliminary views on these points were subsequently discussed with participants at the meeting via email.

The views provided by a number of disability community participants are summarised in the following extracts from comments provided by People With Disability Australia:

. the onus is clearly on an applicant to provide relevant evidence in support of its reasons for seeking an exemption, and these reasons and evidence should at a minimum allow the Commission to make relevant findings of fact and to then assess those findings against the above criteria.

In the present case, ARA's application fails both to offer any or sufficient reasons for each exemption sought, and to provide evidence of sufficient probity in support of them. In particular, it fails to provide:

Any or sufficient evidence of the technical, financial or other reasons for inability to immediately comply with each and every legal obligation in respect of which an exemption is sought; or

Any or sufficient evidence that each or any exemption sought will further the elimination, as far as possible, of discrimination against people with disability in the provision of public transport services; or

Any or sufficient evidence that the exemptions sought are to be temporary in nature and are only to apply pending ARA's members becoming able within a reasonable period of time to comply with the Standards as currently written.

. PWD recognises and applauds ARA and its members' good will and commitment to developing flexible and innovative rail-access solutions, and offers to continue to contribute to the finding of a satisfactory conclusion to this matter.

The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations in its comments states:

We recognise that underlying the ARA application is a commitment to the development of flexible and innovative solutions to achieving access. However, we have fundamental concerns about the original and the revised ARA applications: proposed technical solutions have not been satisfactorily tested; exemptions sought are insufficiently targeted; and exemptions are sought where none is needed. The exemption seeks changes to wording within the Standards but does not explain how the changes will effect services to people with a disability and lead to the removal of barriers. The exemption application also fails to demonstrate a commitment to the objects of the DDA and the removal of barriers over time - to our knowledge the ARA has not lodged a Disability Action Plan.

The ARA has subsequently prepared a second application for exemption. Despite the concerns raised by the disability sector, this application is again poorly constructed and inaccessible. This has made it extremely difficult to respond to the application. It has also unnecessarily undermined the exemption process. While some of the exemptions sought may be reasonable, the lack of a robust evidence base to the application and the poor engagement with people with disability arguably leaves HREOC decisions on the application open to legal challenge.

We recommend that the ARA amend their current application, addressing the deficiencies identified above, and that the revised application be accompanied by a Disability Action Plan. In the mean time, we are happy to provide this response to the Commission's preliminary response. It should be read in the light of our earlier submission. Our responses are grouped as follows:

Exemptions which should not be granted

Issues on which it appears that a decision in favour of an exemption should be recommended

Issues on which further consultation with ARA, APTJC and the disability community could assist

At the November 2005 meeting about the application, hosted by the Commission, it was suggested that the ARA application may lead to the development of a rail specific guide for implementin g the Standards and that the equivalent access measures within the application might form the basis of an Action Plan. AFDO sees great value in these documents being developed and we urge the Commission to progress this.

AFDO also made the following suggestions for any exemptions which are granted:

that the exemptions be tightly targeted; and
that the ARA should agree to strict reporting requirements and to document the processes it will use to ensure that equivalent access is achieved.

ARA in turn responded (on 31 July 2006) as follows to comments:

ARA is fundamentally committed to provision of integrated accessible rail services and maximising compliance with existing standards where possible.
This commitment is reflected in the enormous amount of time and dedication that operators have contributed since 2001 to the resolution of the issues raised in the exemption application.
ARA's goal is to define minimum standards that are achievable for all operators within the technical, operational, safety and topographical constraints that define the rail environment. It is not valid or achievable to transfer the specifications from a building in the common domain to rail infrastructure, premises and conveyances. The rail environment has specific space constraints in rail corridor width and track gauge that define the feasibility of access paths and manoeuvring areas on stations and trains. In addition, the passenger flows on and off trains are completely different from the movement of people in and out of premises such as offices and shops.
ARA has indicated their commitment to an Industry Code which, if you like, is an industry action plan. However, the exemption application was necessary at this point in time to clarify the compliance requirements for the substantial and unprecedented capital investment that is being committed now within the industry to new and retrofitted conveyances and stations.
ARA has been raising these issues since before the last 5-year review without success. Rail operators documented the technical issues for premises, infrastructure, conveyances and information provision and submitted them to APTNAC via the Rail Modal Group in 2001 and we are still waiting for resolution, agreement and amendments on critical design issues.
Contrary to the claims by APTJC and AFDO that insufficient consultation has taken place, rail operators individually, and through the ARA, have had ongoing consultation on these issues with the disability sector since 2001. This includes:
- APTNAC - disability sector, as representative of all state and regional disability organisations, present for all discussions and recipient of documentation on all issues
- Rail Modal Group - disability sector representative invited to all meetings and recipient of minutes and associated documentation
- State level consultation undertaken:
  - through general forums
  - disability action planning sessions
  - consultation on specific key rail projects
  • Local level consultation on case by case basis as required to resolve specific issues peculiar to projects
- Engagement of independent access consultants to provide advice on key projects
The revision to the ARA exemption application was the result of extensive consultation with the nominated disability sector representative (and independent access consultant) with the experience and expertise to understand the technical, operational, and safety constraints in the rail environment
The proposals and solutions in the exemption application have evolved from this consultation process. Solutions that represent reasonable adjustment have been found where constraints do not allow the standard in its existing form to be met or where clarification is required to define the scope of compliance.

ARA encourages HREOC to consider the concept of reasonable adjustment to the provision of accessible services when considering this application. The Productivity Commission has recommended it as a future provision of the DDA and it is already incorporated into the provisions of the Education Standards 2005. It allows rail operators to take into account the unique aspects of the rail environment and the impact of the Standards on safety, demand management and other passengers and staff.

In response to the other issues raised by APTJC (Attachment A) and AFDO:

ARA has provided explanations for the proposed changes in the original application, and in ongoing discussions with the Rail Modal Group and APTNAC (and by membership, the disability sector) as well as consultation at all levels and with a range of access experts since 2001.
The proposed changes are the result of review of the Standards, consultation and extensive effort on the part of operators to find achievable design solutions that maximise compliance.
Consultation - see above
Action Planning:
- Some states have disability action plans and some have been registered with HREOC
- the revised application is in itself an achievable action plan that will form the basis of an industry code - that is the stated commitment of the ARA
In redrafting many of the clauses, the ARA is not seeking to quantify financial hardship, rather the primary goal is to address those standards that are impossible to meet in their current form and to clarify the scope of compliance commitment to facilitate immediate capital investment and design development without the need for future retrofit.
Having said that, the cost of full rail compliance with Standards as they are currently drafted in one state is greater than the $3.7 billion estimated by the EIS 1999 for all transport modes across Australia .
Commitment to maximising compliance
- Redrafting of the Standard is critical where wording in clauses is prescriptive but unachievable. ARA has also attempted to give legal basis to the intent of the guidelines by bringing in relevant wording into the Standards. Defining the scope of compliance and addressing fundamental issues such as the definition of infrastructure and the definition, size and nature of mobility / disability devices are fundamental to the provision of service and beneficial to both operators and people with disabilities.
Where ARA has sought to increase the compliance requirement in particular clauses, we have done so to provide balance to those areas where we know we cannot achieve the standards as drafted.

ARA has worked hard to find a reasonable and achievable way forward on the implementation of the Standards. However, rail operators need an early determination on these issues as significant investment is being committed now. The 5-year review process in 2001-02 did not resolve the issues then and it will be several years before the issues raised in this application will be formally addressed through the next 5-year review.

Having considered the views put forward in this process to date it appears appropriate to consider the application on the following basis:

HREOC's guidelines on consideration of exemption applications under the DDA, while intended to promote exemption applications being formulated in a way both capable of efficient consideration and promoting the objects of the DDA, do not constitute, and cannot validly be applied by HREOC as, mandatory statutory preconditions for consideration of an application.

Whether or not it would be appropriate in some cases for HREOC to approve an exemption on condition that applicants comply with an industry code considered as a whole, there is sufficient doubt and need for further discussion on some elements of the proposal put forward by ARA to render it more appropriate to consider this matter issue by issue rather than as a single application.

The proposition put by PWD Australia - that an exemption application, or conditions on the grant of an exemption, in relation to the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport, must include specification of how an applicant will over time achieve compliance with the specifications in those Standards in their terms - goes further than is justified by the nature of the exemption power or by the Standards considered as a whole. Without the benefit of an exemption, the obligation to comply with the specifications in the Standards may nonetheless be modified by the capacity to comply by equivalent access or by limitations on the requirement to comply derived from the defence of unjustifiable hardship. The true limitation on whether an exemption should be granted is rather whether it would advance or be consistent with the objects of the DDA to do so.

Redrafting of clauses of the Standards for improved clarity and/or appropriateness of applicability to rail issues cannot be stated with certainty to be an available use of the exemption power.

However, requirements to comply with revised obligations defined by reference to and as variations from clauses of the Standards could be valid and appropriate, depending on whether granting an exemption in these terms on the issue in question advances the objects of the DDA and remains within the scope of an administrative power to grant temporary exemptions for a limited group of applicants, as distinct from the legislative power to specify obligations more generally and permanently.

As suggested by AFDO, conditions requiring reporting by a body covered by an exemption, during the term of the exemption, on the impact of the exemption and on measures to advance access in relevant respects provides an important means by which a temporary exemption may be used to advance the objects of the DDA. This appears particularly significant in relation to the present application, having regard to issues raised by APTJC and in other comments on the importance of consultation and accountability and on appropriate technical and other evaluation of approaches proposed in ARA's application.

With these considerations in mind, it is possible to move on to make recommendations on each issue raised by the application.

Recommendations

(Links are provided to the discussion on each item.)

1.9 Access path

Recommendations:

Approve exemption permitting access only from a single nominated boundary point for existing stations - subject to the limitation that an exemption on this point does not exclude any requirement for fuller upgrading of access paths or entrances which arises under legislation giving effect to applicable provisions of the Building Code of Australia as in force during the period of the exemption.
Require report during exemption period from each operator on stations with a mix of accessible and inaccessible entrances, and constraints on upgrading entrances for access
Defer decision on nominated boarding point: further discussion required of need for and limits of exemption.

[Note: APTJC agreed to an exemption on this point (subject to appropriate definition)].

Assistance animals: ARA proposal 1.11AX

Recommendation: Grant exemption on modified terms

[Note: APTJC did not support an exemption on this point regarding it as a redrafting of the Standards or the Act; however HREOC may nonetheless apply its own view, formed on this issue after extensive consultations]

1.11BX Boarding Point

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

1.11CX Booked Services on Trains

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

1.11DX Unbooked Services on Trains

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

1.15X Disability Aid

Recommendation: Defer decision: an exemption may be justified in principle to define limits of required staff assistance but requires further discussion of drafting and of accompanying positive obligations including training

1.18 Infrastructure

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: exemption not required

1.18X Level Crossing

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

1.19AX Mobility Aid

Recommendations:

Reject exemption on aids designed for more than one person or recreational use;
Defer decision on exemptions to limit obligations regarding mobility aids not conforming to the assumptions in the Standards: exemption justified but by reference to specific situations to be identified, rather than by way of general limitation or definition

1.19BX Nominated Accessible Boarding Point

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption; see other relevant proposals.

1.21 Premises

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

1.23X Sleeping berth

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

1X1. Mobility aid

Recommendation: defer decision for further discussion: appears justifiable to recommend exemptions to limit obligations regarding mobility aids not conforming to the assumptions in the Standards, but by reference to specific situations to be identified, rather than by way of general limitation or definition

1X2. Performance criteria

Recommendations:

Approve exemption regarding flange gaps, but as exemption for access paths rather than as feature of mobility aids, and subject to reporting on accompanying positive measures;
Defer decision on possible limits of exemption on staff assistance with stowage and operation: further discussion required
Refuse exemption on other points

[Note: APTJC has indicated agreement regarding flange gaps]

1X3. Orientation

Recommendation: approve exemption in relation to orientation and location of allocated spaces and priority seating on conveyances

[Note: APTJC did not express support for this recommendation - which however reflects the existing Guidelines to the Standards.]

2.1 Access paths

Recommendations:

Approve exemption permitting access only from a single nominated boundary point for existing stations - subject to the limitation that an exemption on this point does not exclude any requirement for fuller upgrading of access paths or entrances which arises under legislation giving effect to applicable provisions of the Building Code of Australia as in force during the period of the exemption.
Require report during exemption period from each operator on stations with a mix of accessible and inaccessible entrances, and constraints on upgrading entrances for access
Defer decision on nominated boarding point: further discussion required of need for and limits of exemption.

[Note: APTJC advice agrees with intent of an exemption on this point so long as it avoids the approach of rewording the Standards.]

2.2 Continuous accessibility

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: Not an independent point of exemption since only restates current obligations more accessibly.

[Note: APTJC advice accepted an exemption on this point, but HREOC is of course not bound to follow APTJC views either for or against an exemption, rather than to give these views due weight.]

2.4 Access paths - Minimum unobstructed width

Recommendation: grant exemption consistent with ARA revised proposal

[Note: Consistent with APTJC advice]

2.4X Access paths - Minimum unobstructed width for railway platforms

Recommendation: grant exemption consistent with ARA revised proposal

[Note: Consistent with APTJC advice]

2.5 Poles and obstacles, etc: requirements for contrast

Recommendation: Defer decision for further discussion

[Note: APTJC agrees with exemption regarding clause 2.5.1(minimum unobstructed width) but not 2.5.2 (contrast)]

2.5AX Level crossings

Recommendation: Grant exemption, subject to reporting on measures to reduce use of level crossings as part of access paths and research into other possible solutions

[Note APTJC advice indicates acceptance that 75mm flange gaps may be accepted.]

2.6 Access paths - Access paths - conveyances

Recommendations:

Grant exemption for reduction in width of access path for existing carriage doors to a minimum width of 760mm, on condition that direct assistance is available
Defer decision on other restrictions and new carriages: further discussion required to ensure sufficient specification of unavoidable constraints.
Stair access to areas of double deck carriages: grant exemption on condition that access to unique facilities is assured.

[Note: this is consistent with APTJC advice]

2.8 Access paths - Extent of path

Recommendation: Refuse separate exemption: issue addressed under 2.6; additional exemption not required.

[Note APTJC indicated agreement to an exemption here.]

3.1 Manoeuvring areas - Circulation space for wheelchairs to turn in

Recommendation: Grant exemption accepting use of lower end of range of dimensions stated for existing premises and infrastructure where required by space constraints.

4.1 Passing areas - Minimum width

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

4.2 Passing areas - Two-way access paths and aerobridges

Recommendation: Grant exemption for existing platforms, subject to re-opening if Premises Standards process results in different provision and with requirement for reporting during exemption period on instances where exemption has been relied on, impacts for passengers, and measures taken to minimise these.

[Note: APTJC support an exemption on this point.]

4.3 Passing areas - Passing areas - conveyances

Recommendation: Defer decision: Further discussion required to confirm that proposed change would not substantially diminish access in practice, including possible positive measures to ensure equivalent access through staff assistance.

[Note: APTJC support an exemption in principle on this point but are likewise not satisfied that appropriate drafting has yet been achieved.]

5.1 Resting points - When resting points must be provided

Recommendation: grant exemption for existing infrastructure to the extent required by site constraints, subject to specification that this applies where constraints completely prevent compliance rather than only adding expense or difficulty, and subject to reporting during exemption period on impacts.

[Note: APTJC agree with an exemption on this point subject to further consultation occurring.]

6.1 Ramps - Ramps on access paths

Recommendation: Refuse exemption as unnecessary: use of updated specifications appears sufficiently clearly permitted as equivalent access

[Note: APTJC would have supported a limited exemption in this area.]

6.2 Boarding ramps

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: Not an independent point of exemption

6.3 Ramps - Minimum allowable width

Recommendation: Refuse separate exemption: subject matter covered better by proposals on 8.5

8.1 Boarding - Boarding points and kerbs

Recommendation: Grant exemption specifying that assisted boarding is only required at a single entrance rather than all doors, subject to reporting on measures taken to ensure non-discriminatory operation including staff training and passenger information

8.2 Boarding - When boarding devices must be provided

Recommendation: Exemption not necessary as revised application on this point reflects existing position

8.5 Boarding - Width and surface of boarding devices

Recommendation: approve exemption

8.6 Maximum load to be supported by boarding device

Recommendation: Exemption not required

8.7 Boarding - Signals requesting use of boarding device

Recommendation: Approve exemption

8.8 Boarding - Notification by passenger of need for boarding device

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion needed to confirm appropriateness of specifications

9.1 Allocated space - Minimum size for allocated space

Recommendation: Approve exemption for actions consistent with the Guidelines.

9.6 Number of allocated spaces to be provided - train cars, etc

Recommendation: Defer decision: Further discussion required before decision possible

9.7 Allocated space - Consolidation of allocated spaces

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion required to determine if ARA proposal involves request for exemption

9.10 Allocated space - International symbol of accessibility to be displayed

Recommendation: grant exemption

[Note: APTJC agree with an exemption on this point.]

10.1 Surfaces - Compliance with Australian Standard

Recommendation: Refuse exemption as unnecessary

10.1X Surfaces - Compliance with Australian Standard

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

11.1 Handrails and grabrails - Compliance with Australian Standard - premises and infrastructure

Recommendation: defer decision: further discussion required

11.2 Handrails and grabrails - Handrails to be provided on access paths

Recommendation: Grant exemption for railway platforms; defer decision for other areas for further discussion

[Note: APTJC likewise support an exemption on this point for rail platforms only.]

11.3 Handrails and grabrails - Handrails on steps

Recommendation: grant exemption

11.4 Handrails and grabrails - Handrails above access paths

Recommendation: Refuse exemption as unnecessary

11.5 Handrails and grabrails - Compliance with Australian Standard

Recommendation: Refuse exemption as unnecessary

11.6 Grabrail to be provided where fares are to be paid

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion required of appropriate performance requirement to replace obligation to meet prescriptive requirement.

11.7 Handrails and grabrails - Grabrails to be provided in allocated spaces

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

12.1 Doorways and doors - Doors on access paths

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion of safety issues required

12.2 Doorways and doors - Compliance with Australian Standard - premises and infrastructure

Recommendation: Grant exemption agreeing to revised proposal

12.3 Doorways and doors - Weight activated doors and sensors

Recommendation: Refuse exemption as unnecessary

12.4 Doorways and doors - Clear opening of doorways

Recommendation: Grant exemption approving revised proposal

[Note: APTJC agree with an exemption on this point.]

13.1 Lifts - Compliance with Australian Standard - premises and infrastructure

Recommendation: Refuse exemption as unnecessary

14.1 Stairs - Stairs not to be sole means of access

Recommendation: Grant exemption for internal stairs on double deck carriages.

14.3 Stairs - Compliance with Australian Standards - conveyances

Recommendation: Approve exemption subject to conditions that direct assistance is provided for access via external stairs and report during exemption period on measures taken to ensure effectiveness of access including staff training and passenger information.

[Note: APTJC agree with an exemption on this point]

15.1 Toilets - Unisex accessible toilet - premises and infrastructure

Recommendations: Grant exemption approving revised proposals subject to report during exemption period on impacts and consultation

[Note: APTJC want more information on door pressure requirements on this issue. The recommended approach would be one means of gaining such information.]

15.2 Toilets - Location of accessible toilets

Recommendation: Grant exemption approving revised proposal subject to reporting during exemption period on locations where co-location is not possible, impacts on passenger amenity, and management approaches including passenger information to ensure equal access

[Note: APTJC agreed with an exemption on this point.]

15.3 Toilets - Unisex accessible toilet - accessible rail cars

Recommendations:

Compliant mobility aid: refuse separate exemption as unnecessary - issues dealt with by provisions on access path and proposal on 15.4 below
Requirement for trains rather than for accessible carriages: grant exemption approving revised proposal subject to condition that first toilet in any accessible car be a unisex accessible toilet.

15.4 Toilets - Requirements for accessible toilets - ferries and accessible rail cars

Recommendation: Approve exemption where compliance not possible (narrow gauge and standard gauge stock) subject to a requirement to report during exemption period on implementation and consultation; seek further information on whether exemption should be extended to all carriages.

[Note: APTJC agree with an exemption on this point subject to the issue of consultation.]

16.2 Compliance with AS2899.1 (1986)

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

16.3 Symbols - Accessibility symbols to incorporate directional arrows

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

16.5 Symbols - Accessibility symbol to be visible on accessible doors

Recommendation: Grant exemption

17.4 Signs - Destination signs to be visible from boarding point

Recommendation: depends on decision regarding nominated boarding point proposal; recommend reject

17.5 Signs - Electronic notices

Recommendation: Grant exemption subject to report on consultation and experience during exemption period

[Note: this is consistent with APTJC recommendation]

17.6 Signs - Raised lettering or symbols or use of Braille

Recommendations: Approve exemption for conveyances; defer decision regarding infrastructure for further discussion

[Note: APTJC agree with exemption in relation to conveyances only.]

18.1 Tactile ground surface indicators -Location

Recommendation: Approve exemption subject to conditions requiring report on experience and consultation during exemption period

18.2 Tactile ground surface indicators - Style and dimensions

Recommendations: Approve exemption from TGSI requirement on conveyances; further discussion required to confirm appropriateness of proposed exemption on infrastructure constraints

18.4 Tactile ground surface indicators - Instalment at railway stations

Recommendation: Decline exemption as unnecessary as an independent point of exemption

19.1 Alarms - Emergency warning systems

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: Not an independent point of exemption

20.1 Lighting - Illumination levels- premises and infrastructure

Recommendation: Grant exemption

[Note: APTJC agree with exemption on this point.]

21.1 Controls - Compliance with Australian Standard - premises and infrastructure

Recommendation: Grant exemption as for 15.1

21.2 Controls - Passenger-operated devices for opening and closing doors

Recommendation: Defer decision: as for 12.1, further discussion required of safety issues and of need for exemption

21.3 Controls - Location of passenger-operated controls for opening and locking doors

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion needed to confirm how access would remain possible for people needing to approach controls side on

22.1 Furniture and fitments - Tables, benches, counters, etc

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion required

22.5 Accessible sleeping berths - trains

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion required of justification and extent of possible exemption

23.1 Street furniture - Seats

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

24.1 Gateways - Gateways and checkouts

Recommendation: Defer decision: further technical discussion required before HREOC could be satisfied an exemption was appropriate

25.3 Payment of fares - Vending machines

Recommendation: Approve exemption subject to consultation and reporting during exemption period on equivalent access measures

[Note: APTJC agree in principle with an exemption on this point]

25.4 Payment of fares - Circulation space in front of vending machine

Recommendation: Defer decision: further discussion required to confirm whether any exemption from existing obligations is proposed here rather than only an editing change

26.2 Hearing augmentation - listening systems - Public address systems - conveyances

Recommendation: Grant exemption subject to conditions requiring consultation and report within 12 months on equivalent access measures

[Note: APTJC agree with exemption on this point.]

27.1 Information - Access to information about transport services

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: exemption on this point not shown to be justified

27.2 Direct assistance to be provided

Recommendation: Approve exemption subject to requiring consultation on equivalent access measures and report on experience during exemption period.

27.3 Information - Size and format of printing

Recommendation: Grant exemption subject to report on consultation and experience during exemption period

[Note: APTJC agree with exemption on this point.]

27.4 Information - Access to information about location

Recommendation: Refuse exemption as unnecessary

28.1 Booked services - Notice of requirement for accessible travel;
28.2 Booked services - Period of notice of requirement for accessible travel

Recommendations:

Grant exemption to allow requiring reasonable notice for accessible travel or assistance
Defer decision on exemption in relation to provision of assistance transferring to seats on booked services: further discussion required

[Note: APTJC agree with recommended approach to period of notice]

28.3 Booked services - Location of carers, assistants and service animals

Recommendation: Decision not necessary -request for exemption not persisted with

29.1 Food and drink services - Equal access to food and drink services

Recommendation : Refuse exemption as unnecessary

30.1 Belongings - Disability aids and mobility aids to be in addition to baggage allowance

Recommendation: Defer decision: exemption justified in principle but discussion required of specification of size limits and of limits of assistance in stowing

31 Priority - Priority seating

Recommendation: Grant exemption

[Note: APTJC disagreed with this proposal but regarded it as making no net change to the existing position.]

DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1.9 Access path

Recommendations:

Approve temporary exemption on nominated boundary point for existing stations, subject to the limitation that an exemption on this point does not exclude any requirement for fuller upgrading of access paths or entrances which arises under legislation giving effect to applicable provisions of the Building Code of Australia, as in force during the period of the exemption.
Require report during exemption period from each operator on stations with mix of accessible and inaccessible entrances and constraints on upgrading entrances for access
Not satisfied of need for exemption on nominated boarding point

Obligations of operators and providers of related infrastructure (for rail and for other modes) are currently defined by reference to the following definition in the Standards:

1.9 Access path

An access path is a path that permits independent travel for all passengers within public transport premises, infrastructure or conveyances.

ARA's original application requested that for rail operators and infrastructure providers an exemption be granted which redefines an access path as follows:

An access path is a path that permits independent travel for all passengers within public transport premises, infrastructure or conveyances. An access path may include a compliant walkway, ramp or lift .

An access path on a rail conveyance is a path from the external passenger doorway to the allocated space, priority seats and other essential facilities for passengers with mobility aids .

An access path on a railway station is a clear and unobstructed path from a nominated boundary point to a nominated accessible boarding point on each platform and to all accessible facilities.

ARA argued that improved definition is required for access paths for a rail environment, including certainty about where various access features must be provided.

APTJC disagreed with ARA's proposal on this point, viewing it as an editing issue more appropriately considered during the 5-Year Review of the Transport Standards.

The main differences between current obligations and ARA's initial proposal appear to be:

1. An access path on conveyances would be specified as required only to reach allocated spaces, priority seating and other essential facilities for passengers with mobility aids.

A number of submissions questioned the inclusion of the reference to facilities for passengers "with mobility aids" as being too restrictive regarding other passengers with physical disabilities, or with other impairments such as vision impairment which may affect mobility.

ARA's revised proposal is modified slightly in relation to conveyances, referring to essential facilities "accessible to" passengers with mobility aids rather than "essential facilities for passengers with mobility aids".

Further clarification that an access path is not required to extend to, and will not necessarily be provided to, all areas within conveyances might be appropriate to undertake through revision of the Standards and development of industry codes and action plans.

It is not clear however that this point in itself would constitute an exemption, noting that the required extent of an access path is also addressed in other clauses of the Standards, in respect of which ARA has also applied for exemption, such as in relation to stairs within conveyances.

2. An access path for stations would be required only from a nominated boundary point and to a nominated boarding point and to all accessible facilities.

Nominated boundary point

Submissions raised the issue of whether it is acceptable to provide a single access path where stations have multiple entrances without having to refer to issues of unjustifiable hardship.

Submissions including AFDO pointed to a distinction in this respect between new and existing stations, indicating some acceptance of the ARA's proposals in relation to existing stations, but seeking full compliance for new stations.

Submissions also argued that if a proposal for access from a single point on the boundary is to be accepted for existing stations, this should be the principal or most used entrance in line with current building requirements.

ARA's modified proposal on this issue accepts the distinction put by submissions between new stations - where they accept that an access path should "permit independent travel for all passengers within the station" - and existing stations, where they seek permission to provide an access path only from a nominated boundary point to a nominated accessible boarding point on each platform and to all accessible facilities. They propose acknowledging that the nominated boundary point should "where possible" be the principal entrance or the one most accessible to surrounding pedestrian and transport modes.

ARA's proposal to be permitted to direct initial efforts to achieving at least one accessible entrance for existing stations, and where possible the principal or most convenient entrance for passengers, rather than being required to upgrade all entrances before a station may be counted towards the targets for accessible premises, may be defended as a means of ensuring that accessible travel is made possible to and from as many stations as possible within the resources available within the period of the exemption.

Granting a temporary exemption on this point for existing stations appears appropriate on this basis.

This does not mean accepting such an approach as permanently sufficient. The same choice of entrances being provided for all passengers is not purely a matter of principle. In some settings (such as where entrances are from streets on opposite sides of railway lines) passengers might need to travel significant distances to reach the accessible entrance, and be denied convenient access from the station to community facilities on one side until all entrances are accessible.

For this reason, it appears appropriate to make an exemption on this point subject to a condition requiring reporting during the exemption period on the number of stations having a mix of accessible and inaccessible entrances, constraints on achieving access, consideration of the impact of restricted access on equal amenity for passengers with disabilities and prospects for further upgrades in future.

This proposed exemption would apply only to accessibility of entrances. Access to facilities within the station from an accessible entrance would remain covered by the provisions of the Standards on access paths (subject to any further relevant exemptions which might be granted) and does not need to be defined by an exemption on this point.

Access path to nominated boarding point and accessible facilities

Some submissions argued that, except where unjustifiable hardship can be shown, it is unacceptably discriminatory to limit people with disabilities to one access path, when other passengers have more than one available. Submissions also argued that there should be an accessible boarding point for each car.

As discussed below it appears justifiable to clarify that boarding assistance may only be available at one entrance to a train. The approach of providing an access path only to a single nominated boarding point however raises some additional issues.

AFDO indicated concerns that ARA's proposal could be seen as directing all passengers with disabilities to use a single access path including lifts even for those who can use and prefer stairs and being directed to a single boarding point even where this is not necessary for access for them.

It appears clear that at least in the context of many existing stations there may be constraints in providing a compliant access path along the full length of a railway platform.

In some settings, nominating a single consistent accessible boarding point could be an effective response to these constraints as well as facilitating provision of assistance: for example if assistance is always available at the middle of the train and the middle of the platform.

In other settings, however, the position where boarding assistance is available might vary from train to train.

Participants at HREOC's forum on 6 April 2006 also emphasised that where train - platform gaps are small enough, many people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids, as well as other people with disabilities, can board without assistance and benefit by provision of an access path to enable boarding at more than one point on the platform. It therefore promotes equal access to have an access path extending to as much of the platform as possible. While on some stations constraints may be so severe as to permit only an access path as far as a nominated boarding point, on others more extensive access may be possible.

It is thus not clear that an exemption permitting provision of an access path only to a nominated boarding point is justified for all existing stations.

Where site constraints prevent more extensive access it would appear to be possible for operators to raise a defence of unjustifiable hardship with strong prospects of success, particularly if effective measures are taken to ensure as nearly equivalent access as possible (such as making available customer information on details of the access arrangements at each station to avoid a passenger being inconvenienced during a journey by unforeseen access limitations) and to ensure that all facilities required by the Standards to be accessible (such as ticketing and toilet facilities) are located in accessible areas.

If ARA members nonetheless continue to seek a greater degree of certainty than is available currently on this issue, further discussion would be required of how an exemption on this point might be limited to apply to situations where it is merited, and what conditions might be applied to promote provision of equivalent access.

APTJC have noted the concept of "essential" facilities would also require further clarification if it were to be incorporated in an exemption. The exemption recommended here however does not import such a concept into obligations - rather it is the Standards which already include this concept.

Assistance animals: ARA proposal 1.11AX

Recommendation: Grant exemption on modified terms as set out below

HREOC has previously identified uncertainty in the operation of the assistance animals provision of the DDA as requiring attention, and has engaged in public consultation on this issue over an extended period.

In July 2003 the Disability Discrimination Commissioner released a paper discussing concerns that section 9 of the DDA does not give adequate definition to rights and responsibilities in relation to animals other than guide or hearing dogs, and seeking comments on options for reform. Concerns identified included

lack of clarity on what evidence may be required of an animal's status as an appropriately trained animal and of a person's need for assistance by that animal;
lack of express provision in section 9 that as well as the animal being trained to provide assistance, the training extends (as guide dog and hearing dog training does) to giving other parties a high degree of assurance of appropriate behaviour and health standards in the animal, such that it can be safely admitted where dogs or other animals are not otherwise permitted.
assertion, in a number of cases, of a right claimed to be founded on the DDA to be accompanied (including on public transport) by clearly inappropriate breeds of dog including large and intimidating breeds;
confusion in this area undermining the effectiveness of legally recognised access rights for guide dogs and hearing dogs (in terms of recognition by retailers and other service providers and in terms of public acceptance);
lack of clarity of rights and responsibilities contributing to conflict between service providers and users of "other" assistance animals.

The paper also sought comments on possible approaches to recognition of assistance animals and agencies for their accreditation, either directly under the DDA or under State and Territory based regimes or both.

Submissions were received from a range of individuals and organisations in the disability community and from several public transport providers including rail operators.

After considering submissions HREOC released a report in November 2003 recommending changes to the DDA to address the issues raised in its discussion paper.

The Government undertook to consider these issues in the context of a response to the Productivity Commission review of the DDA, which was completed in 2005.

It is of course not possible for HREOC to pre-empt the results of consideration of legislative reform by the Government or the Parliament. Equally, the fact that legislation on an issue may shortly be forthcoming does not relieve HREOC of its responsibility to consider an exemption application raising the same issue on its merits.

An initial proposal by ARA to restrict coverage to assistance dogs rather than animals was withdrawn after consideration of views expressed in submissions.

ARA's proposal would restrict obligations of its members to permit passengers to be accompanied by assistance animals to those instances where assistance animals are registered as such.

Registration would clearly provide more certainty for assistance animal users as well as for public transport providers and other relevant parties, and would be expected to provide a means for quality control of the training and suitability of assistance animals for use in public. However, it is not yet the position that there are registration procedures for assistance animals in place in all jurisdictions. This proposal in its current form would thus appear to have the effect of permitting exclusion of people who in fact have a disability requiring assistance, and whose animal is in legitimate use to provide such assistance, and where these facts may be capable of being sufficiently clearly evidenced to transport providers by means other than registration.

ARA also seeks to require assistance animals to be under the direct control of the user. As noted in submissions, this appears unduly restrictive, in that on occasions an assistance animal might instead be under control by another person on behalf of the user. Further, while in general an assistance animal such as a guide dog may be expected to be under direct physical control by or on behalf of its user, exceptions to this might well arise in public transport settings. For example, a guide dog might be left in a sleeping compartment while its user, once familiar with the layout, or with the assistance of a companion, goes to another part of the train such as a lounge or dining car.

It appears appropriate to grant an exemption in relation to assistance animals, but in narrower terms than those requested by ARA:

so as to permit operators to apply reasonable requirements for independent evidence that an assistance animal is required to alleviate the effects of a person's disability and that the animal meets appropriate standards of training, behaviour, and hygiene, and to refuse passage to an animal in respect of which such evidence is not or cannot be provided
with the specification that evidence of recognition or registration by a body authorised under a law of any State or Territory should be accepted as sufficient for this purpose
and on condition that an operator concerned include in its training of customer service staff information on the right of passengers requiring use of an assistance animal to travel on its rail services accompanied by such an animal.

Such an exemption would also appropriately state that should the DDA be amended in relation to assistance animals during the currency of the exemption the exemption would cease to apply, being displaced by such an amended provision.

1.11BX Boarding Point

Recommendation: Refuse exemption: not an independent point of exemption

ARA's proposed definition on this point (which is unchanged in their revised proposal) appears intended only to clarify rather than to change the existing position.

APTJC disagree with this proposal on the basis of their general preference for considering new provisions instead in the course of the 5 year review of the Standards.

One submission raised a need for it to be specified here that an accessible boarding point would include boarding devices. However, obligations to provide these are already specified elsewhere.

Submissions questioned whether the proposed definition was sufficiently specific, and proposed reference to the "immediate point" or "immediate designated point" rather than "place" where passengers board.

This point does not appear to constitute an independent point of exemption, rather than a statement interpreting the Standards in a manner which appears consistent with their existing effect. It is not clear that its inclusion is needed to define the ambit of other points on which an exemption might be granted.

1.11CX Booked Services on Trains

Recommendation: not an independent point of exemption

ARA's proposed definition on this point (which is unchanged in their revised proposal) appears intended only to clarify rather than to change the existing position.

APTJC disagree with this proposal on the basis of their general preference for considering new provisions instead in the course of the 5 year review of the Standards.

This point does not constitute an independent point of exemption rather than a statement interpreting the Standards in a manner which appears consistent with their existing effect. It is not clear that it is required to define the ambit of other points on which an exemption might be granted.

1.11DX Unbooked Services on Trains

Recommendation: not an independent point of exemption

ARA's proposed definition on this point appeared intended only to clarify rather than to change the existing position.

However, the statement that unbooked services are generally suburban raised some concerns. Several submissions referred to access needs including needs for direct assistance in longer distance unbooked services and expressed concern that the proposed clause could reduce or obscure obligations in relation to these.

APTJC disagreed with this proposal on the basis of their general preference for considering new provisions instead in the course of the 5 year review of the Standards.

ARA's revised proposal responds to concerns by removing the reference to unbooked services being generally suburban and adds a reference to an allocated space, rather than only a seat, being booked or reserved.

1.15X Disability Aid

ARA proposed that a definition be provided of "disability aid", a term seen as currently undefined within the Standards. In some respects this proposal is not purely definitional but raises requests for limitation of potentially existing obligations in accommodating disability aids and in providing assistance.

APTJC disagreed with this proposal on the basis of their general preference for considering new provisions instead in the course of the 5 year review of the Standards.

Some submissions argued that this proposal is unnecessary since adequate definition is already provided by the Guidelines. These submissions, however, do not deal with the limited legal status of the Guidelines, or indicate why that status should not be enhanced by way of an exemption to reduce uncertainty.

Other submissions did indicate awareness that the Guidelines are not legally definitive but regarded this as an important feature to be maintained so that people are able to travel with whatever aids meet their requirements rather than disability aids having to fit within particular specifications. These arguments, however, may indicate why ARA sees a need for greater certainty regarding the disability aids which are required to be accommodated.

These issues of limitations are discussed further below in relation to mobility aids.

ARA initially proposed that definitions exclude devices primarily designed as transport vehicles, but withdrew this proposal in response to submissions.

ARA also proposed that their obligations should be defined by assigning responsibility to passengers for supply, assembly and operation of disability aids, although in response to submissions the ARA revised proposal adds a note on assistance with folding and storing chairs on booked services at clause 28.1.

An exemption on this point may be an appropriate means for providing greater clarity on what assistance will be provided and the limits of assistance available. However, further discussion appears needed on

what further instances there may be where staff assistance should be required (such as where passengers are not able to move independently within conveyances using their own mobility aids due to internal constraints such that reliance is required on direct assistance and use of aisle chairs similar to those used in aviation)
whether staff assistance can be wholly limited to stowing manual wheelchairs (rather than extending to matters such as disconnecting and reconnecting batteries and folding down the back of an electric chair for stowage)
whether an exemption is sought partly on operational grounds of staff availability or whether it should be more narrowly tailored to address situations presenting an unacceptable risk to staff health and safety
what commitments and reporting requirements on staff training and passenger information might accompany an exemption on this point to ensure that any exemption promotes access as far as possible.

1.18 Infrastructure

Recommendation: Exemption not required

ARA seek to limit the definition of infrastructure, to exclude items unrelated to provision of public transport service.

APTJC indicated disagreement on the basis that this is an editing issue better dealt with within the 5 year review of the Standards.

Submissions raised concerns about unintended impacts on matters that should remain covered. It was noted that limitation to facilities used to gain "direct access" to public transport service might not only exclude matters such as retail concessions, as intended by ARA, but extend to issues such as ticketing (although these may be covered elsewhere under the heading of premises). Submissions also noted that the proposed definition could exclude information systems, and proposed instead reference to facilities "needed by passengers in order to use" a public transport service.

ARA's revised proposal removes the proposed exclusion of areas beyond immediate boarding points.

It is not clear that an exemption in relation to the Standards is required to limit potential responsibility of ARA members for inaccessible facilities in retail concessions. Services not provided as part of a public transport service are not covered by the Standards although they remain covered by the general provisions of the DDA.

It would be possible for HREOC to consider an application exemption for ARA members against such ancillary liability as they might have under section 24 for discrimination by lessees or concession holders. However, HREOC's practice on exemption applications indicates that such an application would have better prospects if it were accompanied by an action plan or other measures designed to promote improvements in access to the relevant services over time.

1.18X Level Crossing

Recommendation: not an independent point of exemption

ARA proposed a definition of a level crossing, to accompany their proposed new obligations clause 2.5AX.

APTJC disagreed with this proposal on the basis of their general preference for considering new provisions instead in the course of the 5 year review of the Standards.

Submissions expressed concern about referencing an Australian Standard which is not yet finalised. One submission proposed that level crossings be defined instead as follows:

A level crossing is any vehicular and/or pedestrian crossing of a railway corridor at grade.

ARA's revised proposal adopts this wording.

This appears an unexceptionable definition, but not one which constitutes an exemption from any existing obligation.

Safety issues regarding crossing of flange gaps are discussed under other proposals.

1.19AX Mobility Aid

Recommendations:

Reject exemption on aids designed for more than one person or recreational use;
Defer for further discussion exemptions to limit obligations regarding mobility aids not conforming to the assumptions in the Standards: exemption appears justified in principle, but by reference to specific situations to be identified, rather than by way of general limitation or definition

ARA argue that a definition is needed for a term currently undefined by the Standards.

APTJC disagree with this proposal on the basis of their general preference for considering new provisions instead in the course of the 5 year review of the Standards.

ARA's proposal in this area raises several issues.

Use by one person

ARA's proposed definition limits mobility aids to aids designed to be used by one person. Submissions queried the need for this limitation.

If a mobility aid fits within the dimensions provided for or assumed in the Standards and meets other necessary performance requirements (either already contained in the Standards or as might be included in an exemption) in particular regarding safety and stability, it is not clear why the one person limitation is necessary or justified. It would be perverse for example if an exemption constrained a parent using a wheelchair to carry their baby or small child with a mobility aid not designed to accommodate the additional person in safety and comfort, rather than being able to use a mobility aid with additional design features for the purposes of carrying an additional person.

It appears appropriate to reject an application to limit obligations in this area to devices designed to carry one person.

Transport and recreational devices as mobility aids

ARA indicated that their proposed definition includes wheelchairs and scooters but excludes devices designed primarily for transport or recreation. ARA's revised proposal accepts submissions on not excluding devices designed as transportation vehicles but maintains the proposed exclusion of devices designed for recreation.

However, again, if a device fits within the dimensions provided for or assumed in the Standards and meets other necessary performance requirements (either already contained in the Standards or as might be included in an exemption) and is in fact being used by a person with a disability as a mobility aid it is not clear why its use should not be permitted despite being designed primarily for recreation. Instances of amputees using skateboards for mobility may be less likely to occur in Australia as a matter of economic necessity than in other countries. However, the DDA and its processes (whether development of Standards or decisions on exemption applications) should not unnecessarily hinder innovative use of technology by people with disabilities any more than by transport providers.

Uniform limitations across transport modes

In relation to the specific limitations proposed, submissions strongly objected to limitations based on bus dimensions being imported into rail environments. Submissions disputed that uniform limitations across transport modes are actually justified by issues regarding integrated ticketing as indicated by ARA.

ARA's revised proposal appears to accept these arguments and reframes limitations on mobility aids according to what are seen as limitations in a rail environment. Whether these limitations should be accepted through an exemption and if so on what terms remains to be discussed as below and under proposed point 1X1.

Justification for limitations on mobility aids

Some submissions objected to any definition of a compliant mobility aid in a manner which defines obligations rather than only providing guidance, on the basis that

people with disabilities ... need to meet their own individual and technical requirements

and that

It is not necessary to define a disability aid as these standards are about Accessible Transport. Each disability aid is specific to an individual so can not be specified in an accessible Transport Standard.

These submissions give some indication of why ARA consider it necessary to seek more certainty on their obligations and their limitations in this area.

Any set of standards involves a process of determining what range of user requirements can and must be met within particular environments, having regard to fundamental design constraints, the rights of other users, and the level of expense or difficulty that can justifiably be imposed on providers and operators in those environments - rather than imposing an open-ended obligation to accommodate any and all requirements that are presented or asserted.

The DSAPT do not take the complete range of mobility aids which people with disabilities use now, or may use in future, as a given to be accommodated, any more than they take pre-existing rail engineering practice as given.

The range of mobility aids currently in use clearly does relate to a range of user needs. It also relates to a range of user preferences and to economic and design decisions. Some of these may require reconsideration of their appropriateness or practicability in particular contexts - just as the specifications of rail vehicles and infrastructure relate to a combination of fundamental performance requirements, accidents of history (such as rail gauges), economic factors and design decisions: some of which need to be revisited to accommodate the needs of passengers with disabilities, and some of which are less readily altered.

However, specifications in relation to mobility aids may be better conceived and presented as specifications for what can be accommodated within particular settings, rather than as an attempt to standardise a transport compliant mobility aid for all purposes through an all purpose definition.

AFDO's submission appears persuasive in arguing that limitations in rail environments are more specific to particular settings and should be dealt with separately in the context of those settings (boarding ramp loads; size of allocated space; size of available luggage/stowage space) rather than by seeking to impose more general limitations on mobility aids. AFDO note for example that weight limitations appear applicable only to boarding ramps.

A mobility device which cannot fit within an allocated space may nonetheless be able to enter and travel in a short distance or suburban train, without unjustifiable hardship to providers or other passengers. On a long distance train, a passenger using such a device may be able to transfer from it and have it accommodated in a luggage area - if the device meets reasonable size limitations.

Conversely, in some settings even a mobility aid meeting the assumptions might not be able to be accommodated as baggage if it cannot be folded or safely lifted - demonstrating another difficulty with setting a one size fits all purposes specification of mobility aid dimensions.

1.19BX Nominated Accessible Boarding Point

Recommendation: not an independent point of exemption; see other relevant proposals.

ARA's proposal here is not an independent point of exemption but a definition accompanying their proposals under other points including 2.1 and 8.1 and is discussed below under those headings.

1.21 Premises

Recommendation: not an independent point of exemption

In this area ARA's proposal would have the effect of

changing the current reference to premises supplied by "operator" to refer to "provider": in line with the position that some rail operators use station premises provided by a separate infrastructure provider.
excluding open platforms, open shelters and footbridges from "premises" while noting these are covered under "infrastructure" .

This proposal might be one which would usefully clarify the drafting of revised Standards or be adopted in an industry code but it does not appear to have the effect of providing an exemption.

1.23X Sleeping berth

Recommendation: not an independent point of exemption

This proposal, which is unchanged in ARA's revised application, provides a definition currently lacking. Some submissions endorsed the need for such a definition.

This proposal might be one which would usefully clarify the drafting of revised Standards or be adopted in an industry code, but it does not appear to have the effect of providing an exemption.

1X Mobility Aid

ARA's proposals here extracted relevant clauses on criteria for mobility aids from the Guidelines in order to avoid arguments about possibly limited legal status for this material; but also made some revisions and additions.

APTJC disagreed with this proposal on the basis of their general preference for considering new provisions instead in the course of the 5 year review of the Standards.

Specific parts of ARA's proposal are discussed below.

1X1.

Recommendation: Defer for further discussion to determine appropriate approve exemptions to limit obligations regarding mobility aids not conforming to the assumptions in the Standards, but by reference to specific situations rather than by way of general limitation or definition

This sets out size limitations based on Guidelines Part 40 and AS1428.2

Submissions referred to material from the Guidelines in relation to use of larger mobility aids and argue these should be accommodated. Some submissions assert strongly that any attempt to limit the size of mobility aids is inconsistent with the intent of the Standards.

ARA's concern is clearly to set some limits on the extent of the continued expansion of dimension of mobility aids to be accommodated.

As with disability aids more generally, however, it is not clear that uniform size limitations are required and justified, rather than limitations in rail environments being more specific to particular settings and, as proposed by some submissions, being able to be dealt with separately (boarding ramp loads; size of allocated space; size of available luggage/stowage space; manoevring areas; ability to use furniture).

Submissions objected strongly to the proposal for 750 mm rather than 800mm width. One submission stated:

It would be unreasonable to restrict access to trains, ferries, taxis etc over an accessway constriction on buses. While integrated ticketing may allow bus and train to be accessed with a single ticket, people may choose not to use the bus, knowing that they will not fit. This bus constraint should not restrict access to other modes of transport.

ARA's revised proposal responded to these issues by stating a 800mm by 1300mm footprint for mobility aids but noting that in limited locations mobility aids would need to be able to pass through a 760mm opening, for example in a corridor passing an accessible toilet or through an existing carriage door.

Several submissions noted that scooters could not satisfy the dimensions proposed for fit under furniture and proposed instead that dimensions from relevant standards for knee clearance be used.

ARA' revised proposal responds to these concerns by referring to the knee clearance specifications in AS1428.1.

Submissions queried the need for mobility aids to be able to be positioned in a single manouevre in a rail conveyance and objected to the proposed specifications in this area as reducing existing rights, on the basis that while the 2070 by 1540 dimensions are indicated as a minimum, dimensions of 2270mm by 1740mm are also indicated as preferable where achievable and should be achieved at least in new conveyances premises and infrastructure.

ARA's revised proposal adds a note on this point that the 2270mm by 1740mm space should be attained where possible.

One submission queried the need for specifications regarding maximum mass, on the basis that this was covered in the guidelines, but did not address the lack of legal status of these. Other submissions accepted the need for clarity regarding mass, but noted that this constraint only applies to boarding ramps, and should not be taken as constraining the mass of passenger plus mobility aid if and where boarding without a boarding ramp is possible.

ARA's revised proposal responds to these issues by adding wording to make clear that the mass limitation relates only to use of a ramp rather than being a general limitation.

It appears that ARA's proposals under this point would be appropriate to accept, subject to each limitation being specified as applying only where it is relevant as indicated above. Extensive further discussion ought not to be required to determine appropriate drafting on this point.

1X2. Performance criteria

Recommendations:

Approve exemption regarding flange gaps, but as exemption for access paths rather than as feature of mobility aids, and subject to reporting on accompanying positive measures;
Further discussion required of possible limits of exemption on staff assistance with stowage and operation
not satisfied that exemption required on other points

ARA propose setting out requirements for braking, anchoring, stability, propulsion, batteries, wheels and gaps, ramps, operation and storage.

Gap crossings

ARA's initial proposal specified that mobility aids must be able to cross vertical gaps of 20 mm (rather than the current 12mm) and horizontal gaps of 65 mm (rather than the current 40 mm), noting that maintenance of platform/train interface to more demanding tolerances than this is not practicable and that many people with disabilities can safely cross such gaps.

Submissions queried whether this revision would be appropriate, given that the current requirement is not to maintain 12mm and 40mm vertical and horizontal gaps but to deploy boarding devices if these specifications are not achieved.

The ARA revised proposal accepts these points, and does not seek an exemption in relation to gap crossings other than for flange gaps as below.

Safety and stability

One submission argues that any requirement for anchorage points on mobility aids should be phased in, in the same manner as access requirements for rail cars. It is not clear, however, how such a requirement, if actually required for safe carriage now, could be phased in.

Other submissions raised concerns that the reference to safety requirements for mobility aids on public transport was not defined, noting that an Australian Standard in this area is under development but not completed.

Submissions raised concern regarding lack of provision for any testing or certification of mobility aids to comply with stability requirements.

The Standards already state an assumption that mobility aids will be stable under normal manoeuvring forces for the conveyance concerned. It is not clear that sufficient evidence has been presented to justify an exemption permitting specific restrictions, such as requiring anchorage points for mobility aids on trains, or that such a requirement should apply to all rail services.

References in the Standards and Guidelines to anchorage are in terms of mobility aids complying with other regulatory requirements for securing where these exist, rather than directly expecting or requiring that all mobility aids on all public transport will have anchorage points.

Flange gaps

ARA's revised proposal maintains that gaps of up to 75mm are part of the technical constraints of the rail environment.

APTJC indicate agreement with ARA on the view that flangeway gaps cannot safely be reduced below 75mm.

Other submissions objected to a requirement for mobility aids to be able to cross flange gaps of 75mm, arguing that such gaps should have to be justified on an unjustifiable hardship basis and should not be accepted as permanent but rather subject to continued research.

As indicated by the heading in part 33.7, however, the unjustifiable hardship defence is intended to apply to exceptional cases. A constraint which appears to exist for all instances of rail operations throughout Australia and indeed worldwide does not appear well suited to being dealt with through a mechanism intended for exceptional cases.

It appears appropriate to grant an exemption on this point, subject to reporting during the exemption period on measures being taken to promote provision of access paths which do not require traversing of flange gaps, and on any developments in acceptable methods for bridging flange gaps.

As noted below ARA's proposals under 2.5AX below do include a commitment for level crossings used as part of an access path to comply with the requirements for access paths so far as technically possible.

Reporting should be required however on measures to avoid or reduce the use of level crossings as part of access paths noting the difficulties of achieving full compliance with access path specifications.

Ramps

Submissions object to ARA's proposal for a requirement to be able to climb a 1 in 12 ramp unassisted, preferring 1 in 14 consistent with existing requirements. ARA's revised proposal accepts this point and thus does not seek an exemption on this issue.

Submissions sought a limitation on 1 in 4 ramps for assisted access, suggesting 1200mm as permitting a 300mm rise. ARA's revised proposal maintains the 1520mm figure from existing Standards. It may be appropriate to revisit this issue in the context of review of the Standards or the development and possible approval of an industry code, but on this issue ARA are simply proposing to continue to apply the existing Standards and thus an exemption on this point does not appear necessary.

Stowage of mobility aids

As discussed under 1.15X above, submissions object to the proposed clause indicating that passengers are responsible for stowage etc of mobility aids, noting that as drafted it appears to cut across existing obligations at least in relation to taxis. As indicated in relation to proposed point 1.15X, further discussion appears required on this issue to ensure that any exemption is confined to the extent justified by safety issues for staff and does not unduly restrict access.

1X3. Orientation

Recommendation: approve exemption in relation to orientation and location of allocated spaces and priority seating on conveyances

ARA proposes providing, in accordance with the existing Guidelines, that operators may determine location and orientation of passengers.

Some submissions argue that this is discriminatory unless all passengers are also required to face whichever way the operator determines. Other submissions accept the proposed approach, if expressed as applying only where justified on safety grounds.

One submission indicates that the proposed clause is too broad and suggested restricting the reference to conveyances only. In relation to premises and infrastructure, providers and operators may more appropriately (and potentially less offensively) be seen as determining the location and orientation of facilities (including at nominated boarding points as proposed by ARA) rather than of the passengers themselves. ARA's revised proposal accepts these points and refers to orientation only of seating and allocated spaces on conveyances.

Despite the statement in the Guidelines, there have been complaints made on this issue. An exemption on this point appears appropriate to ensure that the Standards operate as intended.

2.1 Access paths

Recommendations:

grant an exemption permitting provision of only a single access path for existing stations
further discussion required of need for and limits of possible exemption regarding access to single boarding point.
decline an exemption for action according to updated specifications, as unnecessary since this would clearly provide equivalent access to that specified in the Standards.

[These recommendations are consistent with APTJC advice]

ARA proposed that it be specified that access paths are to be provided "to a boarding point" rather than more generally and that providers may nominate the access path.

ARA also proposed updating reference from AS1428.2 (1992) to AS1428.1 (2001) with the addition of 1200mm width for walkways etc and of maximum crossfall specifications of 1:40 or 1:33 for bitumen finishes.

One submission argued there is a need for further emphasis here and in following clauses on placement of tactile indicators in accordance with AS1428.4

Submissions queried referencing existing building standards here in view of these being under review and raised particular concerns regarding the degree of camber provided for.

As already noted some submissions saw more justification for the proposed approach of a single nominated access path for existing buildings than new stations. AFDO's initial submission summarised concerns in this area by stating that if an access path can be made compliant with existing standards without unjustifiable hardship, then it should be. APTJC expressed agreement with ARA proposals in this area on 2.1.1 and 2.1.3, but subject to inclusion of criteria for determining when more than one access path is required such as in larger buildings.

One submission proposed the following alternative drafting, distinguishing between new and existing facilities:

2.1 Unhindered passage
(1) An access path that allows unhindered passage must be provided along a walkway, ramp or landing.
(2) On existing premises and infrastructure, where technical constraints do not permit compliance with Part 2.1(1) an access path that allows unhindered passage to a boarding point must be provided. The Provider may nominate the access path.
(3) An access path must comply with AS1428.1 (2001), subject to Part 2.X and with the following exceptions and additions:
(a) Walkways, ramps and landings shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 1200 mm.
(4) An access path must have a maximum crossfall of 1 in 40 except for 1:33 if the surface is a bituminous seal.

ARA's revised proposal adopted this revised approach.

The proposed changes in referencing here could be seen, as APTJC sees them, as a drafting change more appropriately considered in the context of review of the Standards and/or the development of an industry code.

ARA's proposal here could also be seen however as a request to be excused from complying with one set of standards on condition of compliance with other standards. The latter appears to be within the scope of the exemption power and HREOC's previous practice in exercising it.

AFDO indicated agreement on this point subject to there being a timetable for compliance and a potential trigger for full upgrade linked to the Access to Premises Standard.

On the issue of permitting provision of only a single access path from a nominated boundary point for existing stations, it appears appropriate to recommend a temporary exemption, subject to

reporting on constraints in this area, impacts on passenger amenity and plans for reduction of these impacts; and
the limitation that an exemption on this point does not exclude any requirement for fuller upgrading of access paths or entrances which arises under legislation giving effect to applicable provisions of the Building Code of Australia, or under a Disability Standard on Access to Premises if in force during the period of the exemption.

As discussed under point 1.9 above, further discussion is needed to determine whether an exemption permitting provision of an access path only to a single boarding point can be limited to those situations where such a restriction is justified or necessary, and what accompanying conditions on such an exemption might be appropriate including in relation to information and assistance for passengers to ensure that this approach does not unduly impair equal access in practice. A decision on an exemption permitting a single boarding point should therefore be deferred.

2.2 Continuous accessibility

Recommendation: Not an independent point of exemption since only restates current obligations more accessibly.

ARA's proposal here lists features requiring to be linked by an access path, in place of current obligations requiring reference to AS1428.2 (1992) clause 7 for this.

APTJC disagree with this proposal on the basis that editing and referencing of Australian Standards are better dealt with through the 5 year review of the Standards.

A number of submissions including AFDO while accepting this proposal in principle argue that it is important not to omit the material from AS1428.2 clause 7(e) and the notes dealing with siting of facilities and fatigue issues. AFDO note that their acceptance in this area is contingent on resolution of issues in relation to clause 1.9 and is restricted to rail only.

ARA's revised proposal incorporates a reference to the material from the requested clause.

Stating the required actions expressly rather than by reference to Australian Standards or other documents has clear advantages in terms of accessibility for all concerned, whether in Standards, an exemption decision or an industry code. It is not clear however that on this point ARA are seeking any variation to or exemption from existing obligations.

2.4 Access paths - Minimum unobstructed width

Recommendation: grant exemption

ARA's proposal here while not seeking substantial change to existing obligations seeks to make clearer that the 1200 mm minimum is varied for doorways and gateways.

One submission proposed inclusion of explanatory material to make clear that

while existing infrastructure and premises may not be able to meet the 1200 mm minimum width for access paths in all locations due to technical constraints, in these situations a path of more than 1000 mm width should be provided;
if the access path stricture is of a very limited nature (eg access around a power pole or column) a minimum of 850 mm width should be acceptable;
alternate paths of travel should be provided if access path strictures are of an extended nature (e.g. over several metres).

ARA's revised proposal incorporates the requested explanatory material.

This proposal could be seen as purely explanatory rather than constituting an exemption since the Australian Standards referred to in the DSAPT already provide for narrowing of access paths at doorways. However, the requested exemption would also to insert clearer statements of other permitted limitations on width of an access path which may occur due to features on a railway platform. It appears appropriate to grant an exemption on this point, applying to existing infrastructure only as recommended by APTJC.

2.4X Access paths - Minimum unobstructed width for railway platforms

Recommendation: grant exemption consistent with ARA revised proposal

ARA's proposal here reflects the outcomes of the QR exemption application and related national meeting on TGSIs convened by HREOC in December 2002; and requires accordingly that while new platforms must comply fully with unobstructed width for access paths, for existing platforms reduction of unobstructed access path to 1 metre is allowed where required by site constraints, and where unavoidable allowing platform edge warning TGSIs to intrude into the access path.

Some submissions argued that platforms should be brought into full compliance with the standards as they stand in accordance with the upgrade schedule provided, except where unjustifiable hardship can be shown in particular cases. Other submissions argue that the outcome referred to on TGSIs should be regarded only as guidelines rather than given legal status. Other submissions indicate agreement with ARA proposals in this area.

One submission proposed inclusion of explanatory material indicating that

warning TGSIs are an important safety feature for people who have vision impairments
however they introduce a level of difficulty for many people who have mobility impairments
every attempt to keep access paths clear of TGSIs must be made, but not at the expense of the safety of blind passengers.

ARA's revised proposal incorporates the requested material.

Noting the degree of public discussion already conducted on this issue it appears appropriate to grant an exemption on this point in terms consistent with ARA's revised proposal. APTJC and AFDO agree with this proposal.

2.5 Poles and obstacles, etc: requirements for contrast

Recommendation: Defer decision for further discussion

ARA proposed replacing the current requirement for 30% luminance contrast between obstacles and background with a requirement for colour contrast in view of difficulties found in measuring luminance.

APTJC indicated agreement with ARA's proposal on 2.5.1 (minimum unobstructed width of paths), but disagreement on 2.5.2, viewing this as an editing and referencing issue more appropriately addressed within the 5 year review of the Standards and expressing concern that current work by Standards Australia should not be pre-empted.

AFDO indicated concern that colour contrast should not replace luminance contrast without acceptable specifications for defining and measuring colour contrast.

Other submissions however indicated agreement with ARA's proposal on the basis that field experience indicates that luminance contrast fails to produce a consistent visual contrast, but called for emphasis on strong colour contrast for example by referring to "distinct" colour contrast.

ARA's revised proposal includes the requested emphasis and some material from Australian Standards on inappropriate colour combinations.

Further discussion appears required to confirm whether ARA's proposals deliver equivalent access to those currently specified in the Standards.

2.5AX Level crossings

Recommendation: Grant exemption, subject to reporting on measures to reduce use of level crossings as part of access paths and on research into other possible solutions

ARA's proposals include an obligations clause to apply where a public pedestrian level crossing is used as a direct access path to a boarding point.

ARA's initial proposal required compliance with draft AS1742.7, Pedestrian Level Crossings. Submissions expressed concern about giving effect to an Australian Standard not yet finalised.

Submissions in relation to this clause raised concerns also raised in relation to proposed clause 1.18X regarding mobility aids. Submissions argue that while eliminating flangeway gaps at present may involve unjustifiable hardship, this position should not be accepted as permanent.

One submission proposed alternative drafting in this area as follows:

2.5AX Level Crossings
If a public pedestrian level crossing is used as a direct access path to a boarding point it shall, so far as is technically possible, comply with the requirements for an access path.

This drafting is seen as acknowledging the lack of current technical solutions in relation to flange way gaps while not closing off possible future technical solutions.

ARA's revised proposal accepts this approach and adds a note that providers must seek a safe solution to flangeway gaps but that no acceptable solution currently exists.

As noted above an exemption on this point appears appropriate subject to reporting during the exemption period on measures to reduce the use of level crossings as part of access

Site navigation

navigation Disability Rights

Australasian Railways Association application for temporary exemption under the Disability Discrimination Act: Recommendations (Consultation Draft)

Executive summary:

Background

Recommendations

DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1.9 Access path

Assistance animals: ARA proposal 1.11AX

1.11BX Boarding Point

1.11CX Booked Services on Trains

1.11DX Unbooked Services on Trains

1.15X Disability Aid

1.18 Infrastructure

1.18X Level Crossing

1.19AX Mobility Aid

1.19BX Nominated Accessible Boarding Point

1.21 Premises

1.23X Sleeping berth

1X Mobility Aid

1X1.

1X2. Performance criteria

1X3. Orientation

2.1 Access paths

2.2 Continuous accessibility

2.4 Access paths - Minimum unobstructed width

2.4X Access paths - Minimum unobstructed width for railway platforms

2.5 Poles and obstacles, etc: requirements for contrast

2.5AX Level crossings