Joint Submission Parliamentary Inquiry Into

Joint Submission Parliamentary Inquiry into Mobility About us CCS Disability Action is a community organisation that has been advocating for disabled people to be included in the community since 1935. As of June 30 2015, we were providing support to 3,405 children, young people and adults through our 16 branches, which operate from Northland to Invercargill. Our support focuses on breaking down barriers to participation. We receive a mixture of government and private funding.

CCS Disability Action have a national network of access coordinators, who work with local government and transport operators to create a more inclusive society. We also run the Mobility Parking scheme. As of June 30 2015, this scheme supported more than 122,000 people to more easily access their local towns and facilities.

The Blind Foundation is the main provider of rehabilitative, support and advocacy services for blind and low vision New Zealanders. The Blind Foundation has approximately 12,000 clients throughout the country.

Purpose

To enable people who are blind or have low vision to be self-reliant and live the life they choose.

Vision

Life without limits

Kahore e Mutunga ki te Ora

Four Key Priorities

1. Independent living

2. Access for all

3. Reach more people

4. Building a Foundation for the future

The Blind Foundation advises government, business and the community on inclusive standards to ensure that the people we represent can participate and contribute equally. We have four major contracts with government. We value our relationships with officials and Ministers. We seek to act as a trusted advisor and specialist on the blindness sector. We are a long serving and expert provider of services to the sector.

Contents Joint Submission Parliamentary Inquiry into Mobility ...... 1 About us ...... 1 Introduction ...... 4 Objectives of the submission ...... 4 Recommendations ...... 5 Number of people with access needs ...... 6 Population growth and aging; we need to future proof transport ...... 7 Nature of the issues ...... 8 Income, employment and health outcomes of people with disabilities ...... 9 Personal Income for visually impaired people ...... 10 Government international obligations and statutory role ...... 12 Human Rights Act 1993 ...... 14 Formal complaints concerning discrimination and transport ...... 15 Some overseas examples of new legislative and regulatory approaches to accessibility/mobility ...... 15 Local government ...... 16 Quiet vehicles ...... 17 Public transport ...... 17 Shared spaces ...... 18 Small passenger transport services ...... 18 Technology and transport ...... 18 Collecting quality data on disabled people and transport ...... 19 Using universal design ...... 20 Summary of Findings ...... 21 Bibliography ...... 22

Introduction The reason the Blind Foundation and CCS Disability Action are making a submission on the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Future of New Zealand’s Mobility is that mobility in all its forms is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of individual freedom, dignity and independence. Yet for many New Zealanders who have disabilities, including people who are blind or have low vision, "mobility" is a source of difficulty, expense, anxiety and sometimes danger.

There has been some improvement in removing transport barriers for people with disabilities. However, consideration of accessibility still is not included in business-as-usual transport-planning and economic analysis. We need to be using transport-planning processes that treat all stakeholders, including disabled stakeholders, as equal. (Burdett, Locke, & Scrimgeour , 2016). Both the Blind Foundation and CCS Disability Action have been involved in developing new ways to adapt transport-planning and measurement processes to be inclusive of all stakeholders, including:

• Ways to measure how well people with access needs are using transport infrastructure and public spaces (Traffic Design Group, 2013). • Inclusive economic modelling methods that count the benefits of transport improvements for people with access needs (Burdett, Locke, & Scrimgeour , 2016). • Better modelling of the number of people with access needs and their participation in the labour market.

Going into the future, we need to do more to meet our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Moreover, improving the accessibility of transport options will enable more people with disabilities to participate in the economy and their communities thus reducing the government’s future welfare liability. Our overriding concern is that the deliberations of the select committee and the resulting reports and recommendations should recognise the strategic importance and value of providing full "mobility" on an equal basis to all people, including people with disabilities

Objectives of the submission The objectives of the submission are:

• Estimate the number of people who have access needs in relation to transport • Indicate the nature of the day-to-day issues with mobility that people with access needs face • Demonstrate the human rights, legal and economic case for barrier-free mobility • Look at ways to improve the regulatory regime to make it more nationally consistent. • Recommend regulatory changes that will benefit the mobility of New Zealanders who have disabilities, including people who are blind or have low vision.

Recommendations The Select Committee recommends that local and central government start planning for the impact of the aging population now, especially planning to meet the increasing need for accessible transport services and infrastructure.

The Select Committee recommends that the government use transport-planning methods that include all stakeholders, including people with access needs.

The Select Committee recommends that the government take action, when needed, to make sure new transport technology is accessible to all.

The Select Committee recommends the government reviews and strengthens our legislation and regulatory systems to make sure transport is accessible for all, including looking at bringing in dedicated discrimination/accessibility legislation.

Number of people with access needs In the 2013 Disability Survey there were an estimated 1.1 million disabled New Zealanders, almost one in four of the population. Out of this number, an estimated 632,000 people had a physical impairment (14% of the total population) and an estimated 484,000 people had a sensory impairment (11% of the total population). An estimated 89,000 people had a learning disability (2% of the total population). All these types of impairment can create access needs; it is also important to note that 53% of disabled people have more than one impairment type (Statistics New Zealand, 2014).

Research in the USA indicates that approximately 20% of the over 65 population have difficulty leaving their homes due to mobility related impairments. These people are "especially vulnerable to the physical conditions of the built environment creating barriers to mobility" (Health and Places Initiative, 2015, p. 6). It is clear that the broader group of disabled people who have access needs is a significant proportion of the population.

The Blind Foundation has recently completed a research project to estimate the number of people in New Zealand who are blind or have low vision. The definition of low vision was a Snellen (standard eye chart) score of 6/12 or worse. The Ministry of Transport guidelines to doctors in certifying patients for driving recommend that vision worse than 6/12 is generally unacceptable for safe driving. The Blind Foundation blindness and low vision prevalence study found there are approximately 75,000 people aged 15 and over who fall within this group. In all virtually all cases these people will be either reliant on others to drive them or to use public transport. Within this group there are about 30,000 people whose vision is 6/24 or worse. With a visual acuity of 6/12, people need large print formats to read, they use complex optical aids and rely more on audio information for many normal day-to-day needs. At 6/24 and worse people vision is very limited and most normal visual functions are severely compromised. For instance the ability to read public signage and information displays at bus stops cannot be guaranteed.

The Blind Foundation survey indicates that 46% of clients are reluctant to leave their homes. In many cases we know this is because of mobility issues. The age distribution of Blind Foundation clients is:

• 0 to 59 years 30% • 60 to 79 years 20% • 80+ years 50%

We think this distribution also applies to the larger vision impaired population so we can estimate that about 23,000 of that group are working age and will have a significant dependence on public transport.

Population growth and aging; we need to future proof transport Our population is aging and this will increase the number of people with impairments. The over 65 age group is projected to make up over 20% of New Zealand’s population from late 2031, compared with 13% in 2011 (Statistics New Zealand, 2012). In the 2013 Disability Survey people over 65 had a disability rate of 59%, compared to 21% of people aged 15 to

64 (Statistics New Zealand, 2014, p. 3).

The government should plan now to meet the needs of the aging population which will have access needs. The effects of the aging population will be particularly high on provincial and rural areas (Bascand, 2012, pp. 15-16). There will be a growing need for affordable and accessible transport outside the main centres as well as within the main centres. Central and local government should be working together to ensure accessible transport is available across the country, including lower density areas. Improved accessible transport may be able to keep people working longer into retirement age.

Map 1. Proportion of population over 65 Map 2. Proportion of population over years of age in 2011 65 years of age in 2031

Source: Bascand, 2012, 13 Source: Bascand, 2012, 16 Statistics New Zealand’s median labour force projections predict that people over 65 will make up 14% of the labour force by 2036. The future prosperity of New Zealand depends on our ability to ensure people with access needs can still stay in employment.

Esmated percentage of labour force over 65

18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% Esmated percentage of labour force over 65 6% 4% 2% 0%

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 Designing transport systems to accommodate the access requirements of people with disabilities assists in future proofing the transport system. Accessible transport also provides easier access for older people, people with temporary impairments and caregivers with children in buggies and strollers.

Nature of the issues In 2014, the Blind Foundation conducted a large-scale survey of people who used its services, including their personal experiences with public transport. The following summarises the results.

Identified Difficulties Percentage of respondents Difficulty getting to or finding the stop 18.1% Waiting at the stop 19.5% Getting on or off 26.7% Hearing announcements 15.5% Identifying the right bus, train, tram or ferry 59.5% Not enough space to sit or stand 8.5% Standing in the vehicle while it is moving 10.7% identifying the right stop to get off the bus, train or tram 38.4% getting information about timetables or routes 27.5% staff who are not supportive or helpful 20.8% transporting a wheelchair or other special equipment 2.4% No difficulties 26.9% Other (please specify) 5.1%

From the above, it appears that about 71% of people surveyed have negative experiences with public transport related to their vision impairment. A lack of access to transport is one of the most significant reasons that blind and low vision people are unable to participate in the workforce. In a previous survey by the Blind Foundation, 59% of blind, vision-impaired and Deaf-blind people said a lack of access to transport hindered their ability to work (Human Rights Commission, 2010, p. 270).

In 2015, CCS Disability Action surveyed 2952 people on accessible transport and infrastructure. A full report is expected in the first half of 2016. Initial analysis has revealed widespread access problems across footpaths, driving and parking as well as public transport. There were few positive comments about accessible transport. Below is a graph from the survey.

Proporon of people in New Zealand who ﬁnd transport 'easy' by mode of transport

100%

80%

60% People with no disability (n = 40% 368) People with 20% disability (n = 0% 2338) Using footpaths Driving Using the bus

Income, employment and health outcomes of people with disabilities The Government spends over $2 billion dollars supporting people on disability-related- benefits (Ministry of Social Development, 2013, p. 87). This is a high price to pay for the high unemployment rate amongst disabled people.

A sizable number of people on government income support are prevented or discouraged from working because of access barriers, including a lack of accessible transport. Disabled people and their families make up a significant percentage of people on income support. In

June 2014, 35% of people on a main benefit claimed a Disability Allowance (Ministry of Social Development, 2014).1

Researchers from Canada have estimated that reducing the unemployment rate amongst disabled people could increase GDP per capita by up to $600 Canadian dollars per year. (The Martin Prosperity Institute, 2010, p. 1).

Personal Income for visually impaired people In 2013, 41% of people with vision impairment had incomes of $20,000 or less. The equivalent for people without disabilities was 35%. The difference in household income of less than $40,000 per year was 29% for people with vision impairment and for people without disabilities it was 13%.

Income $20k and less 70

60 Sight PwD 50

20 PwoD 10

0 2001 2006 2013

$21k to $40k 35

20 Sight PwD PwoD 15

0 2001 2006 2013

1 Disability Allowance information sourced by Official Information Act request. 10

Unemployed 10

6 Sight PwD PwoD 4

0 2001 2006 2013

Not in Workforce

50 45 40 35

30 Sight 25 PwD 20 PwoD 15 10 5 0 2001 2006 2013

(Source, yet to be released, Blind Foundation Auckland University of Technology Disability Study 2016)

The disparities between people with vision impairment and people without disabilities are clear. In some cases, the data shows improvements over time, but the fundamental discrepancies remain.

Participation in society

Mobility barriers impact on people with disabilities in many ways. American research found that disabled Americans are less likely than non-disabled Americans to engage in the recommended levels of physical activities (37.7% of disabled people got their recommended level of physical activity compared to 49.4% for non-disabled people) (Health and Places Initiative, 2015).

Disabled people typically have less access to private vehicles than non-disabled people. This is mainly because of affordability issues (Office of Disability Issues and Statistics New

Zealand, 2009, p. 11). Disabled people typically have lower incomes and some require expensive modifications to vehicles. The overall conclusion is that people with vision impairment and people with disabilities are very dependent on public transport. Yet they have lower income to afford it and this results in lower participation in society, which, in turn, impacts their social outcomes. We do not think the situation has changed appreciably over the period we have measured (2001 to 2013).

The Human Rights Commission report "Accessible Journey" said:

"The lack of accessible public land transport is one of the biggest barriers to active participation in society faced by disabled people today" (Human Rights Commission, 2005, p. 17).

This conclusion is also supported by a previous Blind Foundation’s survey, where people with vision impairment identified transport problems as a significant inhibitor to entering the workforce (La Grow & Daye, 2005, p. 9). That inability to participate leads to lower incomes and higher unemployment.

A report on the Cost of Disability reported that transport availability and costs was a significant barrier to social and economic participation:

“Outside the home, barriers to participation become more prevalent and often harder to negotiate. Simply getting around the community, from home to a destination such as work or school or shops, requires considerable effort, forward planning and resources. To avoid multiple legs to a journey with often unreliable and indirect public transport services, mobility taxis were identified as the most appropriate option. However, participants noted that they are not a perfect solution because they are expensive. The group noted that current funding for trips is limited to meeting basic needs such as appointments or shopping rather than socialising or other forms of participation” (Disability Resource Centre Auckland, 2010, p. 47).

The same report indicated that on average disabled people spent about 18% of their budget on transport (Disability Resource Centre Auckland, 2010, p. 104). This compares to 14.2% for the New Zealand average individual (Statistics New Zealand, 2013).

Government international obligations and statutory role The two main commitments of the New Zealand government to a fully accessible society are the international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities Article 9 and 20 as well as the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.

UNCRPD Article 20 - Personal mobility

"States Parties shall take effective measures to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities, including by:

a) Facilitating the personal mobility of persons with disabilities in the manner and at the time of their choice, and at affordable cost;

b) Facilitating access by persons with disabilities to quality mobility aids, devices, assistive technologies and forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including by making them available at affordable cost;

c) Providing training in mobility skills to persons with disabilities and to specialist staff working with persons with disabilities;

d) Encouraging entities that produce mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies to take into account all aspects of mobility for persons with disabilities.

UNCRPD Article 9 Accessibility

“To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia: (a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;…” (Our emphasis)

The Convention requirements have not been effectively realised in the law and regulations that control the wider transport sector.

The major limitations are the Land Transport Management Act that refers on only one occasion to accessibility requirements (Section 120, 2a). Similarly, the Land Transport Act has only the provision for mobility parking (Section 22AB O ii). The Public Transport Management Act contains only two references to accessibility/disability. In the first case (Section 4) accessibility standards are defined (though not very well) and a subsection of Section 14 allows the local authority to request information on the accessibility of contracted service vehicles.

Further the implementation of accessibility standards is often left to the 67 territorial authorities and the multiplicity of private transport operators. For example, the Ministry of Transport Road Transport standard RT 14 addresses the needs of blind and low vision pedestrians:

"The purpose of this guideline is to provide best practice design and installation principles for pedestrian facilities that assist people who are blind or have low vision"

But the RT 14 introduction notes:

"RTS 14 is a best practice guideline. The use of this document is not compulsory in New Zealand law at present..."

The New Zealand Disability Strategy deals with accessible transport matters; but central government has little direct operational responsibility as most urban transport planning is delegated to local government. Our point here is the requirements are not sufficiently specific and that once delegated the accountability for progress is diluted.

There has been a lack of central government leadership, since 2009 the annual Disability Action Plan reviews by the Office of Disability Issues only cite three instances of disability- related public transport matters. (These are the Requirements of Urban Bus Guidelines, participation of Disabled People's Organisations in transport planning and the post- earthquake opportunity for improved public transport accessibility in Christchurch).

Human Rights Act 1993 The Human Rights Act 1993 is the key statute on discrimination and disability. Section 42 of the Act covers access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(a)to refuse to allow any other person access to or use of any place or vehicle which members of the public are entitled or allowed to enter or use; or

(b) to refuse any other person the use of any facilities in that place or vehicle which are available to members of the public; or

(c) to require any other person to leave or cease to use that place or vehicle or those facilities, by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Though Section 42 refers to "refusing to allow" as being the discriminatory act, a wider interpretation is that it is discriminatory not to make adequate provision for the use by people with disabilities. The Convention’s Article 5 obligates governments to take all appropriate steps to ensure that “reasonable accommodation” is provided so that disabled people can access services and facilities. The denial of reasonable accommodation is discrimination (Drake, 2016).

A contrasting and more recent approach is exemplified by legislation like the United Kingdom Equality Act 2010 and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005. These acts provide a clear and substantive prohibition against discriminating by not providing accessibility. The acts recognise that the government should make meaningful and substantive efforts to promote accessibility and provide an equal footing for disabled people. The Equality Act makes it a duty to make adjustments when a physical feature puts

14 a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person (Part 2 Chapter 2, Section 20).

In our view the NZ Human Rights Act provisions are passive and no longer meet the prevailing international standard.

Formal complaints concerning discrimination and transport The numbers of disability based complaints to the Human Rights Commission is relatively few. In 2015 there were 354 disability based complaints of which only 16 concerned transport issues. The bulk of these complaints related to physical disabilities. This pattern has been relatively consistent of the years for which HRC has supplied data (2011 to date). We find there is an inconsistency between the small numbers of complaints and the results of our surveys which indicate transport is a significant issue for very many people with disabilities. We note two matters. Firstly even over the short period 2011 to date the numbers of complaints though small have actually increased. Secondly we believe the process for lodging and prosecuting complaints under the Human Rights Act deters many complaints. The complaints based system requires the offended party to lodge and essentially prosecute their own case in the first instance. Legal assistance is not normally provided until a case proceeds to the Human Rights Tribunal where legal aid can be obtained. These could be major inhibiting factors for people with disabilities. This leads us to the view that a complaints based human rights system is possibly a less efficient means of achieving long term change than some other legislative approaches. (Smith p98)

Some overseas examples of new legislative and regulatory approaches to accessibility/mobility In the Human Rights Commission report "Accessible Journey" the authors reviewed international legislation dealing with the accessibility and mobility issues of public transport systems (Human Rights Commission, 2005). The jurisdictions reviewed (United States, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union) varied in how they approached the problem, but there were a number of common features.

• Specific provision for disability/accessibility of transport as grounds for discrimination. This is where failure to provide accessibility is treated as a discriminatory act and the provision has independent legal status.

There is no dedicated discrimination/accessibility legislation in New Zealand, other than a section within the Human Rights Act that does not address accessibility per se (see previous section).

• Compulsory standards and guidelines for design construction and operation of accessible transport services.

New Zealand has some (limited) guidelines, but these are voluntary.

• Statutory implementation deadlines for achieving accessibility standards

New Zealand does not have this.

• Mechanisms to assist the provision of accessible services such as auditable plans

In New Zealand regional authorities are obliged to produce regional transport plans, but these are not specific to disability. The audit requirements are mainly concerned with statutory compliance not the specifics of the services being planned or provided.

The Blind Foundation has also completed a similar exercise comparing local and overseas disability legislation and concurs with the conclusion reached in the Accessible Journey Report:

"The “Overseas Compliance Chart” indicates a clear tendency towards the establishment of mandatory accessibility standards in comparator jurisdictions, including Australia, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the European Union. These standards are seen as the most effective, efficient, transparent and fair way of ensuring that services are delivered in a consistent and compatible manner and provide certainty for all those involved. Measured against these jurisdictions, New Zealand compares very poorly" (Human Rights Commission, 2005, p. 136).

Local government The Blind Foundation and CCS Disability Action regularly assists some local authorities with technical advice on the accessibility of transport plans and street design. We also make suggestions via public consultation processes. While many local authorities are interested in improving their overall knowledge and performance in this area, we find that we are repeatedly and frequently facing the same problems. This leads us to the view that a systematic regulatory approach will be a more effective way of achieving long-term change. The following illustrates the range of practical issues.

Best practice guidance documents, such as RTS 14 and the Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide, are not always used in the design of pedestrian facilities and transport infrastructure. There is a need for local government to better understand the user requirements and have a consultative approach with the community to ensure everyone is able to participate and use streets and public spaces. Early consultation is essential. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have both set a good example of how consultation with and advice from the disability community can benefit design and the operation of transport services. Examples of good early consultation and achieving accessible streetscapes include the shared spaces in Auckland – specifically Fort Street, O’Connell, Darby, and Elliot.

Local government bylaws, policies and guidelines are often highly variable, including on: • Footpath management – the requirements within these need to ensure footpaths are accessible. Sandwich boards, café dining and other street furniture should be kerb side, not adjacent to the building line, which is the accessible route for people with vision impairment. • The use of public spaces – the rules need to ensure journeys for those who have impairments are not prevented, hindered or their safety put at risk. • Council guidelines - these need to incorporate best practice in their design. Various Councils have developed their own guidelines and these do not always follow accessible and inclusive design (see section on Universal Design).

Quiet vehicles Quiet cars and mobility scooters continue to be an issue for people with vision impairments and others in the community as they cannot be detected easily. Cars need to have some audible sound as they travel in built up areas – not just at intersections, but so they can be heard to give sufficient distance for the traveller to make safe judgements. Mobility scooters are regulated as though they are powered wheel chairs when in fact they are substantially different vehicles and do not always mix easily with blind/low vision pedestrians.

Public transport It is important to ensure consultation from the beginning of any changes to public transport systems. A poor example is the changes to the Christchurch Bus system which now involves interchanges and hubs. Many journeys now require people to change buses at the larger bus and hubs as fewer buses go to the Central City. For those who have impairments or are older this is proving to be a challenge with the levels of stress and longer journey times. For some passengers three buses are used whereas previously it was one or two. Without the supporting on-street infrastructure being prioritised for entire bus routes, the journeys are not faster or making bus travel a better option for disabled commuters.

Not every city has public transport with audible announcements or the technology to give access to real time information. There are different payment systems across the country with differing accessibility; all of them should be using fully accessible systems.

The work the Blind Foundation was involved with for the consultation with Auckland Transport on electric train use is a great example of collaboration. While there are still some of areas that have not been addressed (having to push the door button to open the door on entering and exiting, the accessible carriage stopping in a set area), the carriages

17 themselves and the announcements work well for people with vision impairment. Also and most importantly, Auckland Transport staff are very helpful.

Shared spaces Shared spaces have become a common design feature when both urban and rural roads are being refurbished. Shared space can create a hazard for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision. Orientation clues (kerb edges, for example) relied on for independent travel and the location of the continuous accessible path of travel are often absent. In shared spaces, pedestrians, cyclists and motorists share a common level surface. The number of places where shared space is being used is increasing. The way that shared spaces are being developed is not being done consistently. For blind people and those with low vision, this makes interpreting the spaces difficult and can discourage them from using that area. The encroachment of cycle-ways onto traditional pedestrian areas is also becoming a problem for people with vision impairments. This is an issue of poor design thinking and a lack of enforceable standards.

Small passenger transport services Small passenger transport services are currently under review by the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry is proposing to remove a significant amount of regulation from taxi operations. In some key areas, this will have a negative impact on passengers with vision impairments. These include for instance the removal of a requirement for the driver to have English proficiency and to have local knowledge of the area, both of which are significant to passengers with vision impairments. Also the proposals remove the requirement for Braille signage in the cab. The overriding reasoning behind the proposals is that digital technology (smart phones especially) has now made a lot of regulated requirements redundant. While this may be the case for some people, there will be people with limited access to smart phones, due to cost or just preference. It is also worth noting that in 2013, an estimated 70,000 vision impaired people were over 65 (Statistics New Zealand, 2014).

Technology is only a partial solution and the proposals are essentially a discriminatory backward step that evidence little effective consultation with those affected.

Technology and transport In general, changes to transport due to technology offer both risks and opportunities for disabled people (Lapowsky, 2015). Internationally the evidence so far is mixed with both positive impacts and negative impacts. For example, transport-related apps have driven down the price of accessible transport and have resulted in better service, such as in Toronto where Uber teamed up with a local company to provide wheelchair accessible transport (CBC News, 2016).

In other areas, transport-related apps appear to have led to fewer wheelchair accessible vehicles. In San Francisco the introduction of transport-related apps coincided with the number of wheelchair friendly cabs dropping from 100 in 2013 to just 64 in 2015 (Willingham, 2016). Transport app companies have also not always taken responsibility for their drivers discriminating or abusing disabled customers. In some cases, Uber drivers have refused to accept passengers with service dogs (Strochlic, 2015).

We cannot afford to assume that new technology will take into account people with access needs. Accessible transport is a public good that creates benefits above and beyond what transport operators receive in direct payment. As such, in general, accessible transport options are likely to be undersupplied without government intervention. There will often be a need for government intervention and regulation to ensure everyone can benefit from new technology and that adequate levels of accessible transport are provided. The government needs to think about how accessible transport options will be affect by new technology, such as the impact of transport-related apps on the Total Mobility Scheme. A laissez-faire attitude to the impact of technology disruption on accessible transport options could see new access barriers created for disabled people.

Collecting quality data on disabled people and transport There is currently a lack of quality data about disabled people and how they access the transport system. In order to ensure that this issue is addressed data gaps identified in the Transport Domain Plan process such as establishing baseline information on ‘accessibility’ must occur. To address this, and other information gaps, we having being working with traffic researchers to develop a tool that counts the number of people using visible mobility aids in public places (Traffic Design Group, 2013). We have also been working on developing economic models to show the costs and benefits of access upgrades (Burdett, Locke, & Scrimgeour , 2016).

There are a growing number of tools available to collect reliable data on the accessibility of public transport and infrastructure. The Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency, alongside local government, should be more proactive in gathering data on disabled people. The government cannot afford to be only reactive to emerging needs, especially with the aging population. Government should be proactive and strategic.

The government need to anticipate and respond now to future demand for accessible transport. In some provincial and rural areas, the available rates-base is likely to decline as the proportion of people over 65 increases. This will leave local government having to meet increasing demand for access improvements from declining funding. The solution is to invest now, while funding is higher.

Technology and Assistive devices

The Blind Foundation monitors new technology and participates in testing and development when ever the opportunity presents. Our current view is that "bionic eyes" is still down the track somewhat: there are certainly trials of treatments underway in some parts of the world that the media has mis-labelled as artificial or bionic eyes but these still fall short of being proper vision replacements as such. But even if they come to fruition and provide an option for some people who have acquired blindness, we’re talking some time yet and then, it will be of benefit to people who lost their sight after childhood for the most part.

Indoor navigation is a different story. There are a lot of real-life examples of that happening now, both at experimental level and to a lesser extent in permanent situations. The i-beacon pilot which the Blind Foundation is trialling in Wellington, along with CNIB and others is just one example among many. In a very short time we expect to see this kind of technology in airports, railway stations, shopping malls etc. (i- beacon is automated location application that works with iPhones; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon) At first, this type of device will primarily be of benefit to those with smart devices like iPhones, higher end Android devices though it will not be long before lower cost receivers become available. The technology is all based on mainstream technology with the icing on the cake being that information is turned into synthetic speech or potentially braille by the end user’s device.

Using universal design We think the most promising approaches to accessibility is the concept of universal design. A concept that is fully applicable to transport and mobility. Universal design requires that accessibility becomes an inbuilt design feature of all systems, The Harvard Design School paper describes it as:

"Universal design seeks to reduce functional and mobility difficulties for everyone, not just those with disabilities. The term “universal design” is credited to Ron Mace (1985, 147) who defined it as, “… simply a way of designing a building or facility at little or no extra cost so it is both attractive and functional for all people disabled or not” (Health and Places Initiative, 2015).

The universal design philosophy is based on the idea that most people will experience mobility difficulties at some point in their lives: illness, injury, caregiving for an older parent or young child, or aging. Therefore, the use of universal design benefits everyone. Universal design principles can be applied to pedestrian and road transit options as well as amenities.

The issue for New Zealand is to find a legislative context in which to support the implementation of universal design.

Summary of Findings The number of disabled people is growing with the aging population. The Blind Foundation and CCS Disability Action’s recent surveys have found disabled people continue to face major access barriers to transport.

Social outcomes for disabled people, such as rate of employment and income, are behind those of the non-disabled people, in part due to accessibility issues. The government needs to more seriously tackle access issues to address these inequalities.

Elements of New Zealand's human rights and transport laws as well as regulations do not provide sufficient detail or enforceability to effectively implement the Convention. Specifically:

• Design standards are not mandated • Discrimination within the transport sector on the grounds of disability is poorly defined and there is a lack of enforcement mechanisms to deal with discrimination • Complaints processes are unlikely to be capturing the full range of concerns

There are key areas where local authorities could make changes in public space use and street design as well as the contracting for public transport services that would lead to significant improvements.

We see the government adopting universal design principles as the long term solution within a revitalised framework for disability/accessibility legalisation.

Bibliography

Bascand, G. (2012). Planning for the future: Structural change in New Zealand’s population, labour force, and productivity - Paper presented at Affording Our Future Conference. Wellington.

Bootham, L. (2015, December 1). Disabled forced to live 'life in the slow lane'. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from Radio New Zealand: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/291044/disabled-forced-to-live-%27life-in- the-slow-lane%27

Burdett, B., Locke, S., & Scrimgeour , F. (2016). The Economics of Enhancing Accessibility: Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Participation.

CBC News. (2016, January 19). Uber and taxis compete for every rider - including, finally, wheelchair users. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/uber-and-taxis- compete-for-every-rider-including-finally-wheelchair-users-1.3409364

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (n.d.).

Disability Resource Centre Auckland. (2010). The Cost of Disability Final Report.

Drake, N. (2016). Legislature providing for accessibility for disabled persons. Blind Foundation (awaiting publication).

Health and Places Initiative. (2015). Mobility, Universal Design, Health, and Place . Harvard Graduate School of Design and the Harvard School of Public Health.

Human Rights Commission. (2005). The Accessible Journey.

Human Rights Commission. (2010). Human Rights in New Zealand Ngä Tika Tangata.

La Grow, S. J., & Daye, P. (2005). Barriers to employment identified by blind and vision impaired persons in New Zealand. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand.

Lapowsky, I. (2015, August 14). Uber's business isn't built to help disabled people. Retrieved September 16, 2015, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/2015/08/uber-disability/

Ministry of Social Development . (2013). Performance Information for Appropriations Vote Social Development 2013/14.

Ministry of Social Development. (2014). All main benefits - June 2014 quarter.

Office of Disability Issues and Statistics New Zealand. (2009). Disability and Travel and Transport in New Zealand in 2006. Wellington.

Smith, B. (n.d.). Australian Anti-Discrimination Laws – Framework, Developments and Issues. University of Sydney.

Statistics New Zealand. (2012). National Population Projections: 2011(base)–2061.

Statistics New Zealand. (2013). Household Economic Survey: Year ended 30 June 2013.

Statistics New Zealand. (2014). Disability Survey: 2013. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.

Strochlic, N. (2015, May 21). Uber: Disability Laws Don't Apply to Us: Is Uber letting its drivers dodge The Americans With Disabilities Act? The Daily Beast (New York).

The Martin Prosperity Institute. (2010). Releasing Constraints: Projecting the Economic Impacts of Increased Accessibility in Ontario.

Traffic Design Group. (2013, July). Measuring Accessible Journeys - Pilot Project Summary Report. Retrieved October 29, 2014, from CCS Disability Action: http://www.ccsdisabilityaction.org.nz/images/measuring%20accessible%20journeys %20tdg%20%20final%20report.pdf

Willingham, R. (2016, January 10). Disability groups fear Uber will kill off wheelchair cabs. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from The Age Victoria: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/disability-groups-fear-uber-will-kill-off- wheelchair-cabs-20151222-glthji.html

Supplementary material from CCS Disability Action

IPENZ TRANSPORTATION GROUP CONFERENCE 2016

Planning for Universal Access to Transport Services and Infrastructure

AUTHORS

Roger Loveless B.Sc. Grad Dip Bus Studies MIPENZ MIET C.Eng.(UK): Access Coordinator: CCS Disability Action [email protected]

Gerri Pomeroy NZCS (paramedical): Access Coordinator: CCS Disability Action. [email protected]

Susan Mellsopp NZLA Cert BA (Sociology) Grad Dip Arts MPhil (Distinction): Project Researcher: CCS Disability Action. [email protected]

Presented by Roger Loveless

ABSTRACT Currently available data relating to persons with disabilities is insufficient to apply normally recognised benefit cost analysis to prioritise expenditure on transport services and infrastructure. Whilst costs are relatively simple to ascertain, the value of benefits are not well understood. This requires a cross agency approach that places a value on the greater participation in society by persons with disabilities that the removal of transport barriers facilitates. Our team of consultants, academics and others have been supported by the Ministry of Social Development's Think Differently Campaign. We have manually measured the presence of persons with disabilities in the community and are now working on automated methods of counting such persons using video recognition technology.

Highlights to date include:

• Successful demonstration that counting persons using visible aids shows differences between sites. • Proof of concept that persons using visible aids can be determined from selected CCTV footage. • Wider acceptance by the disability community of the value of involving transport professionals in driving change. • TRAFINZ merit award in August 2015

This paper details progress to date, and identifies a number of challenges as we seek to identify the way forward to achieve our goal of a transport network that demonstrates inclusion for everyone.

INTRODUCTION The New Zealand Government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, in 2006. Since then some progress has been made in making our transport systems more accessible to persons with disabilities, but in comparison to the USA, who have legislation to support the rights of such persons, progress towards a more accessible transport system has been slow. There appear to be some fundamental issues that are preventing change.

• Misconceptions of Disability

Despite having rights enshrined by legislation, persons with disabilities, and in particular Maori and Pasifica persons, are still severely disadvantaged within our society. Unfortunately many people making decisions that affect persons with disabilities do not have any understanding of the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities and often work within rules that place little or no value on persons with disabilities. Often people only recognise a small subset of persons with disabilities as being disabled and fail to recognise that many do have the capability of being lawyers, engineers, teachers, accountants and other professionals. In a digital age, new opportunities for work not requiring physical attributes are available to everyone.

• A Collaborative Approach

In 2010, CCS Disability Action recognised that, despite lobbying Governments on the basis of the rights enshrined in the UNCRPD, all public transport, including fixed transport infrastructure, upgrades and improvements are subject to defined asset management processes. However these processes require access to data in appropriate form to enable the rules used to be applied. There is no data available to transport planners and engineers concerning many aspects of disability, so access improvements are often instigated by emotive stories of high profile access issues. In order to obtain this data collaboration with transport professionals was identified as essential to developing ways of providing the appropriate data.

Unfortunately all too often disabled persons organisations and their membership have failed to recognise the many competing pressures that legislators, planners, engineers and others must consider when making decisions. It is also unfortunate that many of these decision makers only see the costs of implementing these rights and associated infrastructure improvements as there is very little information on the benefits, presented in a format that fits with the processes they are obliged to use. The consequences can be limited acceptance of accessibility requirements; lack of awareness of the effect of built-

25 environment barriers on participation by persons with disabilities, and reluctance by those decision makers to enter into meaningful dialogue with the disability community.

THE CCS DISABILITY ACTION POSITION AND UNCRPD CCS Disability Action firmly believes that the rights of persons with disabilities underpin the way we should be working. This is underpinned by Article 9 of the UNCRPD: Accessibility. It is also included as one of six CCS Disability Action’s strategic work priorities for 2014-2019, aronga matua ā-rautaki.

Accessible Environments: We take action and encourage people and organisations to think and act in ways that include all people, and advocate for public facilities, homes, workplaces and outdoor environments to be designed for everyone to use.

Article 9 Accessibility opens as follows:

1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

(a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;

(b) Information, communications and other services, including

electronic services and emergency services.

The text lists in some detail what the rights apply to and defines a series of mechanisms for delivery. However it does not elaborate on what are deemed the “appropriate measures” to take. It appears different interpretations of this have “excused” more meaningful progress not only in respect to article 9, but also many other articles from the UNCRPD.

To CCS Disability Action there should be equal access to transport such that for anyone with a disability that wishes to travel, can use accessible local taxis, urban buses, school buses, urban trains, ferries, intercity trains, inter city buses, tour buses and aircraft. They should also have safe footpaths and other infrastructure to access these modes of transport.

Enabling Inclusion

CCS Disability Action suggests that demand from persons with a disability is too late to benefit many such people. For the fullest possible participation, the transport industry must provide suitable transport options based on the potential demand so that those persons with a disability can take up opportunities to be more involved with society. Persons with disabilities, having adapted and “learnt” routes are not accessible, cannot be expected to change the ways they travel without support and encouragement. At present:

• It is deemed acceptable to provide a Total Mobility taxi scheme with commercial operators providing a very limited number of vehicles capable of transporting persons using wheelchairs, with the service often not available 24 hours per day and limited to main centres. • There are still no legislated requirements for intercity and tour buses to make provision for wheelchair passengers. • In rural communities, our most disadvantaged people must often rely on severely underfunded health shuttles to get to hospital and other health related appointments, with little provision for trips that are not health-based.

CCS Disability Action identified that the commercial model used by governments and business to allocate resources is based on priorities set within a cost/benefit framework. To increase the chances of a project proceeding, it must have a benefit/cost ratio above a threshold set by the particular limit on resources available.

Unfortunately the framework is flawed with respect to persons with disabilities. This is due to a lack of appropriate data both on the numbers of persons with disabilities excluded by inappropriate infrastructure and the lost value to society of that exclusion. Unless data is available clearly defining benefits and costs, work for improving access will be treated as low priority. Accessible environments are considered a “nice to have” but not as important as eliminating safety concerns, especially when it can easily be shown the risks of injury are reduced. However there is an increasing body of opinion that merely using data that is easy to collect is no excuse for not attempting to collect data that is of significantly more relevance, even if it is hard to collect. Another way of considering the problem is to define in more detail the term “reasonable accommodation” for persons with disabilities. CCS Disability Action maintains this requires the value of benefits to be wide ranging and inclusive of such things as health benefits, opportunities for social interaction, reduced carer support, and dependence on family.

THE VISION OF THE MEASURING ACCESSIBLE JOURNEYS PROJECT In order for CCS Disability Action to demonstrate how New Zealand society has inadvertently institutionalised discrimination within our transport networks, a simple vision was required to keep everyone focused. After discussion we settled on:

An effective transport system that demonstrates inclusion.

This is a vision that has taken some time to agree upon. Whilst across the disability sector nationally there have been many different initiatives that address specific transport access concerns that affect persons with disabilities, we are not aware of any that attempt to measure how these transport initiatives impact on persons with disabilities. It is an unfortunate reality that resources are constrained and that there will be some limitations on the affordability of measures to increase accessibility. What this process does is encourage debate on where it becomes acceptable not to remove barriers to access. One view is that this should be based on the safety risk to a person with a disability that is acceptable, and another would be to define what services and activities should be available to persons with disabilities on an equal basis to all. It is clearly recognised that we do not place children in certain positions where they could be injured or at risk, and in a similar way we need to define those limits for persons with disabilities. However the wide variety of disabilities must be recognised, as what may be a barrier to one group may not be to another.

Measuring Accessible Journeys came out of recognising that professional planners have the task of analysing what projects should be funded from limited resources by using asset management practices.

APPLYING ASSET MANAGEMENT PRACTICE Whilst Article 9 of the UNCRPD requires appropriate measures to improve access, it is silent on how we invest in improvements to make journeys for persons with disabilities more accessible. Transport planners must use recognised evidence, including benefit/cost methods to prioritise limited funds and prove the cost of upgrade has benefits. Asset management systems have been developed under a number of jurisdictions, but they all incorporate the same basic functions. For example Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI)

The components of the Asset Management Process involve

• Level of service definition, which in this case would be based on article 9 of the UNCRPD.

• Measuring what level of service is actually being delivered.

• Identifying the gaps between desired and actual level of service.

• Identify, cost and prioritise methods to reduce the gaps.

• Determine the benefits in dollar terms of the greater level of participation in society enabled by removing barriers.

• Carry out access improvement work that meets agreed funding criteria based on rigorous cost / benefit analysis.

Key to this process working effectively is access to data. Because they have relevant data on the movement of motor vehicles, this is where traffic planners focus most of their attention, with projects that benefit persons with disabilities given low priority. There is data on accidents to pedestrians, but there is very little data relevant to persons with disabilities whose needs are often poorly recognised. Whereas an able bodied pedestrian can usually get out of harm’s way quickly, those with impairments cannot, and hence they often avoid taking the risk entirely by isolating themselves. Initially it’s not for want of wishing to get out and about, but as time passes their expectations drop. Hence asking persons with disabilities where improvements are necessary will under report the needs. Therefore planners may fall into the trap of thinking access improvements are not justified.

Hence the benefit / cost analysis must be well understood, with a robust definition of the desired level of service based on the longer term benefits. This is why we started on Measuring Accessible Journeys. Questions we seek to answer are:

1. How many persons with disabilities should we expect at key destinations in a barrier free world?

2. How many persons with disabilities are actually at those key destinations?

3. Why aren’t they there? What are the barriers?

4. What will it cost to remove those barriers?

5. What are the benefits to society of removing those barriers?

6. What is the value, in monetary terms, of those benefits?

Our plan is to demonstrate that a supply/demand curve of accessible transport is feasible and to objectively demonstrate a way to compare increased accessibility to the cost of investment. It will use data about people drawn from multiple sectors of society, whether that data is immediately tangible or not.

A recent piece of work included in this project involved a survey of people using the CCS Disability Action Mobility Parking Scheme, which we now refer to as the Kiwi Transport Survey. This has brought in some 2000 plus responses which are now being analysed. It

29 brings together what has previously been mostly anecdotal evidence, giving an opportunity to identify common themes of significant concern, and will give us some direction as to where there are gaps.

ASSESSING ACTUAL PRESENCE OF DISABLED PEOPLE Census data tells us that approximately 25% of New Zealanders report having a disability, defined as a long term limitation (resulting from impairment) in a person’s ability to carry out daily activities. This can include sensory, physical, intellectual, psychiatric/psychological or learning impairments, many of which are invisible. However when nothing is being measured, it is a significant step to start measuring something, As we can’t afford to stop and ask everyone passing over our cordons whether they have a disability, we only count those with a visible aid such as a walking stick, service dog, white cane, stroller or wheelchair. Although this doesn’t count everyone with a disability, demonstration counts using volunteers have shown it is more than sufficient to provide a useful measure of accessibility.

Having demonstrated that differences can be measured, there remain two further problems.

• Data collection costs. • Extrapolation to the full disability sector. The transport industry has a well proven, efficient and nationwide network of automatic count sites for vehicular traffic, which can break down the results between different vehicle types. At a local level, some data is automatically collected on pedestrian flow, but there is nothing to break this data into categories. In conjunction with Traffic Design Group and Callaghan Innovation we have demonstrated CCTV camera footage can be used to generate individual picture files of pedestrians crossing defined cordons, which can then be analysed from a desktop. However this is still relatively expensive, and hence we successfully applied to Callaghan Innovation for funding for a PhD student who will be working on algorithms that will analyse the individual picture files to break down the numbers into categories, including persons using or carrying visible aids. This project has only recently commenced, but could be used to detect bicycle and persons with gait patterns that indicate some forms of impairment.

Extrapolation of count numbers to the full disability sector will require access to detailed and high quality data, which is an area that overlaps with another task, the assessment of benefits detailed below. As the primary focus of this project is to apply benefit/cost analysis to removal of physical barriers, it will be necessary to exclude persons facing psychological, financial or other barriers.

The following Venn diagram shows the measurement problem when using the presence of visible aid users to determine the presence of persons with disabilities. There may be some people apparently using a visible aid who may not have a disability, such as people carrying umbrellas, people using aids which are not visible, such as hearing aids, and those with disabilities not using a visible aid, such as people with cognitive or intellectual impairments and some people with sensory impairments.

Visible Aid Users All People

Disabled People

ASSESSING POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES In order to determine if there are significant barriers to persons with disabilities, it is necessary to know the incidence of disabilities within the local populations. We have some census data available at a macro level, but no such data is released for the local level due to privacy concerns. For local planning purposes it is necessary to come down almost to mesh block level. In this regard we face a further difficulty in that to include more useful data in a census we need to demonstrate the value of that data to justify the expense of its collection. Currently we must rely on local knowledge, but with some indication being

31 derived from the age profile of a local population as we know the incidence of disability increases with age.

In normal asset management practice it should be possible to identify gaps by comparing actual and potential figures. Unfortunately we do not see this as immediately achievable, but by demonstrating differences in actual presence we introduce the idea into conversations which will influence planning processes.

BENEFITS OF A MORE ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORT SYSTEM Whilst the costs of removing physical barriers and creating accessible environments can be easily determined, as the transport industry standards are well developed, the same cannot be said for the benefits. This is because the transport industry has built many of its business models around the reduction of risk, with the benefits being determined on the basis of avoided costs of accidents. In contrast to data on accidents, which is easy to collect, data on the benefits to persons with impairments is limited, if available at all. However we believe it is important to seek some data, albeit with deficiencies, than to avoid the issue and continue to use processes that are not inclusive of all people. With some data available, persons with disabilities are no longer totally invisible in the planning process.

When assessing benefits, it is also necessary to recognise the wide range of disabilities. What may be a barrier to some may not be to others. For example steps are a barrier to wheelchairs but not to most sensory impaired people. Hence the value of benefits of a particular intervention will vary depending on the person’s impairment, and it may be necessary to initially focus on a specific group. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the benefits may also extend beyond the disability community, which is something outside the scope of this project.

Ultimately it may be possible to develop a more complete model, but it is still useful to be able to have an indication of the value to society of a more accessible transport network. Initially we propose a ‘portfolio analysis’ approach, which looks at a set of investments and the best value that can be gleaned from the whole (rather than analysing individual elements to some unnecessarily precise degree). For example, what package of improvements is likely to result in making an independent accessible journey possible, and what is the value of that journey? Even if it is only to get to the supermarket, there may be a benefit in avoided companion/carer costs.

CONCLUSIONS Applying recognised asset management practice to planning for a more accessible environment is a significant challenge. However the introduction of improved processes to build a more accessible environment will allow people with impairments to contribute in

32 society to their full potential. This must have financial and other less tangible benefits. Our challenge is to establish suitable “building blocks” for the process and to recognise there will be compromises to enable use of data that is either readily available or economically possible to collect. We must not fall into the trap of using inappropriate, yet readily available data that excludes the 25% of our population who have some form of impairment.

It is essential that a multi-disciplinary approach is adopted and that there is collaboration between the disability sector, transport professionals, planners, government ministries and academia. This is because the benefits of accessible transport infrastructure, namely increased levels of health-supporting participation, sit largely outside of the transport sector.

By seeking to achieve meaningful progress, this project has identified a number of tensions that are not well understood:

• Although rights of disabled persons are recognised, these rights exist in the context of a resource constrained world, and this inevitably requires priorities to be set. Expecting to be treated fairly is what should be expected. • The disability sector needs to engage with the transport planners and professionals to identify where their processes inadvertently make the disability sector invisible, particularly in respect to the failure to collect relevant forward-looking data. • Different sectors of the disability community often find it difficult to relate to each other, particularly when a disability affects the ability to communicate.

As the project progresses, it is hoped the collection of data relating to the presence of persons with disabilities can be made economically possible by use of automatic video recognition, the benefits of a more accessible environment can be defined in a meaningful and inclusive way, and that this data becomes a requirement of the processes to allocate appropriate funding for improved access.

In addition to providing more inclusive processes for transport planners and engineers, the ideas presented will ensure better communication between the disability and transport sectors, allowing much improved collaboration.

Within a wider context, the asset management principles we have applied to the transport sector can also be used elsewhere. There are international moves to apply an evidence- based approach to decision making, and key to this is having appropriate data. The approach could be used to justify expenditure on such things as publicly-funded vehicle modifications, sign language training for passenger service vehicle drivers, provision of mobility aids, and other support services.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ministry of Social Development: Think Differently Campaign

Traffic Design Group: Hamilton

Hamilton City Council

New Zealand Transport Agency

University of Waikato

CCS Disability Action

REFERENCES Book

CRANO WILLIAM D. (2012). The Rules of Influence, St. Martin’s Press, New York

Documents

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT NATIONAL LANDCARE PROGRAMME. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) framework, viewed November 2015 http://www.nrm.gov.au/my-project/monitoring-and-reporting-plan/meri

NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT. Infrastructure Evidence Base 2015 Refresh viewed November 2015 http://www.infrastructure.govt.nz/plan/evidencebase/2015-nip-evidence-overview.pdf

UNITED NATIONS. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Journal Articles

ALDRED R. and WOODCOCK J. (2008). Transport: Challenging disabling environments, local environment. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 13(6), 485-496.

BOCEREJO S and OVIEDO H. (2012). Transport accessibility and social inequities: a tool for identification of mobility needs and evaluation of transport investments. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 142-154.

BURDETT B. (2014). Measuring accessible journeys: a tool to enable participation. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 1-8.

CASS N, SHOVE E, and URRY J. (2005). Social exclusion, mobility and access. The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review, Blackwell, 539-555.

MAYNARD A. (2009) Can measuring the benefits of accessible transport enable a seamless journey? Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2(2), 21-30.

PRESTON J., and RAJE F. (2007). Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion.