ACCESSIBLE FEATURES IN PARATRANSIT SYSTEM S IN HONG KONG: CHALLENGES AHEAD

1. ACCESSIBLE FEATURES IN PARATRANSIT SYSTEMSIN HONG KONG: CHALLENGES AHEAD Dr Ernest LEEUniversity of Hong Kong And Mr Albert SU Transport Department, Hong Kong Government

2. Purpose • Hong Kong’s paratransit (informal) services (minibus, taxis, non-franchised buses) make up 27.5% of the 11 million daily public transport trips. • They are not as inclusive as the formal modes, but they fare well despite competition and nil subsidy. • In terms of accessible public transport, what are the socio-economic, political and technical difficulties of alignment with mass transit modes? • What mitigation measures are available? • What is the prospect of a more inclusion? • What are the implications for other economies?

3. Hong Kong’s “Transport For All” Policy • 1995 White Paper on Rehabilitation and Equal Opportunity and Full Integration . • 2002 – The 5-Betters Strategy: accessible railways, franchised buses, PLBs, taxis and ferries. • Optimise efficiency of Rehabus services.

4. Formal and Informal Modes of Transport FORMAL MODES– • Franchised buses and railways: routes, fares and rates of return regulated. • Mostly accessible INFORMAL MODES (Paratransit) • Minibuses, taxis, non- franchised coaches – controls by licensing, but not fares. Not accessible. • Some restrictions on fleet size, vehicle dimensions, weights, and operating areas.

5. Accessibility provisions on formal transport modes (1) • Franchised buses and railways are to provide accessible facilities as a franchise condition and fare approval terms. • 51% of the 5800 franchised buses: wheelchair accessible. • 72% have on-board bus stop announcements and visual displays. Wide entrance, front knelling capability. • Contrasting colour textured handrails, priority seats, large electronic destination displays • Railway stations, coaches and light rail cars: accessible, with lifts and ramps.

6. Accessibility provisions on formal transport modes (2) • Achievements due to: (a) software -- legislation and licensing controls; Government encouragement; public pressure; competition from other modes (b) hardware -- availability of low floor bus models in Europe and UK, HK’s main supply source. • Formal modes: owned by franchisees which are listed public companies. Corporate social responsibilities

7. Accessible Public Light Buses: (a) Technical / design challenges (1) • Japan, origin of HK’s PLBs,, does not produce the right accessible light bus models. Vehicle is designed to carry the majority, not wheelchairs. • Maximum carrying capacity is set at 16 by law (anti-competition); • Only the minimum is provided --non-slippery floors, priority seat, handrails.

8. Accessible Public Light Buses: (a) Technical / design Challenges (2) • Vehicle construction constrained by law: Size (7m x 2.3m x 3m), and weight (7 tonnes GVW) may not be exceeded. • Minimum isle and door widths to allow optimal seating layout. • High floor due to engine design – wheelchair if fitted, has to be moved by tail lift – inconvenient in transit operations terms. • Wheelchair takes up two seats, operators’ fare earning capability compromised.

9. Accessible public light bus (PLB) :(b) Commercial Challenges • Individual PLB owner pays US$0.9million for vehicle and licence premium, usually with a bank loan. • Collects rental of US$140 per day in return. • Too costly to forego 2 seats and revenue for sake of PWD, unless compensated by subsidy. • High demand for PLB service throughout the day -- no commercial incentives for operators to carry PWDs. • Cost of retrofitting vehicle to carry a wheelchair (with robust floors, anchorage) is 50% the net price of vehicle, not to mention loss of seats hence earnings. • Uncertain prospect for car industry to develop new PLB that is accessible.

10. Accessible Taxis: Challenges (1) • Hong Kong’s salon type taxis can carry foldable wheelchairs, but not powered ones which are gaining popularity. • HK’s salon type LPG taxis are sourced from Japan, which have no suitable make or model for wheelchairs. • Retrofitting to carry wheelchair not feasible due to dimension and weight constraints.

11. Accessible Taxis: Challenges 2 • The ‘London cab’ is accessible but does not run on LPG. • MPVs may use LPG but not convenient as a street taxi. • Audio announcements of fares payable, Braille vehicle registration plate etc are some marginal improvements. • A taxi’s licence premium costs US$0.6 million; fleet size capped. Licensing of additional, special accessible taxis may create sensitivity to existing operators thus potential political issues

12. Non-franchised Buses (NFB) 1: • The NFB has a niche in serving tourists, students, employees, residents of housing estates. • Normal NFB is not accessible due to high floor, narrow aisles. Step height does not fit elderly. • Carriage of PWDs is market driven. Different makes and models of vehicles available.

13. Non-franchised Buses (NFB)2: • Special NFB include centre-based accessible buses serving elderly homes, workshops, special clientele. • Vehicles are modified to meet special needs and accessibility standards.

14. Challenges (1) • Operating economics, costs and uncertainty of potential revenue foregone, tend to create inertia for paratransit operators. Government hard to ask for changes for the benefit of PWDs, unless public subsidies are available. • Mass carriers may be incentivised by the government to reach accessibility goals more easily, due to economies of scale and availability of vehicle supply.

15. Challenges (2) • Paratransit operators, being individuals or SMEs, have limited financial capability, and weaker influence on market and vehicle suppliers. Technical support is weak, in terms of hardware and software. • Too many individual owner-operators -- no synergy gains • Imposing mandatory requirement may invite social discontent. • Government and legislature tempted to change cautiously and incrementally when handling complaints from paratransit operators, or users of paratransit services.

16. Challenges (3) • Paratransit services are exposed to escalating costs of fuel, insurance, maintenance, fluctuating revenue, but no subsidy. • Increasing competition from mass carriers which have economies of scale, better bargaining powers and public subsidy (licence fee, fuel tax). • Financial sustainability of paratransit operations is increasingly risky, operators only make a marginal profit. • As a result, hard to expect the trade to install accessible facilities, unless subsidy is available.

17. Response to the challenges:-- The Rehabus System -- • Policy in 1978 to enable the HKSR to operator private light buses as an accessible transport service for PWDs, for work, medical visits, social and recreation. • Modes of operation include fixed route, dial-a-ride, contract-hire. • Wheelchair accessible • Receives capital grants from charities, Government subsidies, donations help keep fares low. • Policy: Rehabus’ expansion and improvement a viable solution to mitigate hardship of wheelchair passengers before transit system is fully accessible.

18. Table 1: The Development of Rehabus Services, Hong Kong, 2000-2009

19. Rehabus system- Implications • PWDs carried in Rehabus cannot be integrated with others in society, but an effective step in enabling them to stay mobile for work, study, make social and work trips, at a reasonable fare. • Stimulated development of centre-based vehicles of NGOs serving target clientele. • Public donation and subsidy essential to keep fares low, to meet an expanding market due to an aging and increasingly mobile population. • New products: (a) Easy Access Bus Service for non-emergency service for hospital trips (b) Easy Access Hire Cars: Pre-booked personalised point-to-point service for PWD, tourists.

20. Lessons and Conclusions (1) • Should incorporate inclusive designs during planning and design; • Retro-fitting is not always possible -- a last resort. • Government’s role: help paratransit modes through non-financial incentives such as sites for parking and stacking, fuel tax concession, reduced licence fees. • Sustainability: continuous improvements through policy formulation, better planning of hardware and software, guidelines and standards for stakeholders and operators.

21. Lessons and Conclusions (2) • Continuous education to promote the legitimate right of PWD in using pubic transport in an inclusive community. • Due to constraints in vehicle design market and economics of transport operation, chance of fully accessible taxis, minibuses and non-franchised buses will be remote, despite incentives from Government, and pressure from users. • The Rehabus model is a compromise, a public-private collaboration, filling in niches and offering mitigating effects for the time being. But service shortfall still current.

22. Lessons and Conclusion (3) • Paradox created • Success of Rehabus operations inadvertently has disincentivised paratransit operators to go for inclusive designs for PWDs, and relieved pressure for Government. • Availability of Rehabus fills the service gap created by paratransit modes, making excessive regulation for accessibility in paratransit modes unnecessary. • No room for complacency.

23. Thank you.Questions are most welcome.