Appendix 5 - Total Mobility Scheme Review

The Total Mobility Scheme

Appendix 5 - Subsidised Mobility Schemes:
International issues and practice 2004
(Executive Summary)

This report was commissioned as background to the Total Mobility (TM) Review led by the Ministry of Transport in partnership with Transfund New Zealand (now known as Land Transport New Zealand).

The Total Mobility Scheme (TMS) is a national transport scheme which aims to help people with severe mobility constraints to participate independently and effectively in their communities. Regional Councils manage and operate the Scheme and are reimbursed a proportion of the costs by central government.

The Scheme provides a subsidised taxi service to people with serious mobility constraints by way of:

• taxi vouchers that provide a subsidy (usually 50 percent) on the normal taxi fare
• funding assistance for the purchase and installation of wheelchair hoists in taxi vans.

This report describes some of the features of subsidised mobility schemes operating in Australia, the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom - countries which have cultural, social and economic similarities to New Zealand.

Issues in the provision of mobility schemes

Reduced Demand for Public Transport

The literature suggests that travel by private vehicle has become increasingly more attractive than public transport. Private vehicles offer benefits in travel time, comfort, convenience and cost which is placing increased pressure on the viability of some public transport services.

Prevalence of disability increases with age. The increasing proportion of older people in the population, in conjunction with a dwindling supply of readily accessible public transport suggests that the need for subsidised mobility schemes will increase in the future.

Demand Responsive Transport

There is a growing interest in the potential of Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) to meet public transport challenges. DRT combines the social, environmental and economic advantages of a bus service with the convenience of a taxi service. DRT provides the intending traveller with the opportunity of travel on demand. The main thing that distinguishes a DRT service from a mainstream service is that DRT does not operate along a fixed service route, but rather responds to requests for service by making special trips to pick up and drop off passengers. As well as this, the service may or may not be offered on a fixed schedule. In the United Kingdom, shared DRT services are cheaper for local authorities to provide on a per-trip basis than conventional specialist health, education or social service transport services.

Integration

People with disabilities travel less, because of both perceived and actual barriers to accessing links in the 'transport chain'. The most common difficulties for disabled people in the UK were getting to and from the bus stops or stations, or getting on and off buses and trains, and research found each element of the transport chain needs to be inter-linked for the whole journey to be manageable.

Through better co-ordination of services, existing transport resources may be able to be managed more effectively to cope with rising costs and increasing patronage of mobility schemes. Co-ordination and combining of resources reduces fragmentation and duplication of services and ultimately improves delivery of quality services.

Advancements in computer technologies allow transport resources to be pooled, enabling integration between different modes and public and private operators. Computerised demand responsive software packages are now being developed to schedule, allocate and despatch services to meet the journey requirements of different groups, through co-ordinating the services of providers and the range of vehicle types. These packages are aimed at promoting integration and co-ordination of services while also being both flexible and cost-effective for user and funder alike.

Information

Adequate, appropriate and accessible information is important if people with disabilities are to be able to access transport services.

A recent study into the attitudes of disabled people to public transport found that obtaining information about community transport was difficult, and that overall community transport awareness, knowledge and use were low.

Funding options

Supply-side funding is given either in a block grant to the provider, or triggered by the disabled user when using the service. This method of funding can be useful in helping transport providers to become established and to enable them to develop services. This type of subsidy has the advantage of producing significant savings for the funder if the process stimulates competitive tendering among the potential transport providers.

User-side funding gives funds directly to individual passengers. This form of subsidy provides the user with the ability to exercise a degree of choice if it is not restricted to a particular mode of transport.

The literature suggests that a system that uses a combination of both funding methods may prove to be a better funding model as the supply-side method can assist developing transport providers by providing them with funds to establish and meet capital costs, whilst the user subsidy allows the individual to exercise more choice.

Demand Responsive Transport options

Subsidised Taxi Schemes

A number of countries offer subsidised travel by taxi for people with disabilities who are otherwise unable to use the public transport system. The New Zealand TMS is an example of such a scheme, although it also offers financial assistance to operators for hoist installation and/or conversions.

Under the subsidised taxis system people with disabilities are able to use ordinary taxis at a cost which is substantially lower than the metered fare. The balance of the fare is subsidised by local or central government funding via user-side subsidy, supplier-side subsidy or a mixture of both. The main advantage of using taxis is that they:

• use an existing resource
• are increasingly wheelchair accessible
• do not involve funders in capital outlay or administrative costs
• provide on-demand flexible service 24-hours a day throughout the year
• are subject to the taxi licencing system.

However, the cost of providing this service is higher than other public transport, and research shows that cost of use is an issue for older taxi users. Although taxi use is higher among the TMS users, affordability remains an important issue for users of subsidised taxi services.

The taxi subsidy levels provided by the countries under review vary dramatically from a set percentage discount, in most instances to a preset maximum, to an amount which is more reflective of a regular bus fare. Setting the subsidy at a rate comparable to bus fares seems to be linked to philosophical issues around the rights of people with disabilities to access transport at an equivalent cost to that of using public transport.

Table 1, at the end of the Executive Summary compares elements of subsidised taxi services in different countries.

Shared Transport

Demand responsive shared transport services, like dial-a-ride services have operated in Canada and USA for some time. Although the set up of these services may vary slightly, the basic operating structure will be the same - demand responsive, door-to-door, shared services requiring advance bookings.

In the UK services are mostly managed by 'not for profit agencies' receiving funding from local or central government, whilst in the USA they seem to be operated by private contractors. Many of the schemes provide transport either at bus fare equivalents or at concessionary fare rates. Many local authorities in the UK allow taxi vouchers to be accepted by a range of transport providers which encourages competition in the transport market, and allows users to exercise some choice with regard to their preferred mode of transport.

Research suggests that demand responsive shared services are an effective means of delivering transport services to isolated communities but that they are vulnerable to funding constraints.

Partnerships

In an effort to provide more integrated transport options to meet diverse needs and rising costs, a number of countries are exploring partnerships with community and business agencies.

Some city councils in Australia subsidise community transport programmes so that transport services can be provided free to eligible frail older persons or people with disabilities. For example, Melbourne City Council subsidises two such transport programmes, a door-to-door community transport service for day centre clients, and a minibus service.

In the UK, many new initiatives have been developed from funding that has recently been made available through the Rural Transport Partnership Schemes and Rural and Urban Bus Subsidy Grant. However, although these funding sources have been beneficial in helping to establish new schemes, the matter of ongoing sustainability after the expiration of the subsidy remains a crucial issue.

In the UK there are a number of examples of formal car sharing schemes providing volunteer driver services to particular groups, generally older clients or disabled people. In some, the cars are owned by the organising agency or there is common ownership of the vehicles. Car sharing schemes are exempt from all licensing and operating regulations provided the fare does not exceed the running costs. In many instances passengers contribute to the running costs whilst the rest of the costs are met through fund raising and local authority support.

In rural UK, public transport is provided through a partnership between a local community group and the local authority, sometimes assisted by government social services and other agencies.

Partnerships between agencies, local governments and businesses are an area of increasing interest as governments attempt to maximise returns on transport funding, and businesses try to attract customers for their goods and services.

Options

Increased use of specialised transport services, rising costs and predicted increases in the older population have led other countries to investigate a range of measures to ensure the sustainability of mobility schemes and services.

Restrictions on eligibility are one of the main methods of limiting access. Recent developments in the USA suggest that information collected through the eligibility determination process can be used to identify people's potential to access other transport services. Computerisation enables eligibility data to be matched to route information to assess suitable and available transport options thereby reducing unnecessary demand for subsidised mobility services. Some work on this is also being carried out in the UK.

Other methods used to contain demand and to avoid duplication of services are the imposition of restrictions on journeys, maximum fare restrictions, annual subsidy caps and limited advance booking times.

Some of the methods to manage scarce public resources while providing transport options for people with limited mobility include:

• improvement in co-ordination and co-operation between government sector, transport providers and disability communities
• integration of services - research, policy and practice seems to emphasise the need for future integration of all transport services including community services
• promotion of demand responsive shared transport services -use of multihire taxis to reduce expenditure, use of minibuses, feeder services and service route
• development of transport co-ordination centres and use of sophisticated software to manage booking, scheduling, despatching
• use of audits to identify transport resources - emphasis on local government involvement as facilitator and broker of services
• provision of adequate and secure funding to promote the development of a range of initiatives
• acceptance of concessionary fare cards and mobility vouchers by a range of transport providers.

Recent research suggests that there is a service in the transport market that could be addressed through the introduction of a range of demand responsive shared transport options, such as multihire taxis which are significantly cheaper than individual taxis.

Funding targeted towards increasing mobility should be delivered as part of a comprehensive and integrated transport package that promotes co-ordination and co-operation between government agencies involved in transport.

There is no one single, cost-effective, affordable solution to achieving mobility for people with disabilities. It is most unlikely that the needs of severely disabled people will be met by mainstream services alone. Improvements in mainstream services are important and better co-ordination between funding groups and transport providers in the public, private and community sector is likely to increase the patronage of mainstream services significantly thus reducing demands on specialist services.

Individualised specialised transport services such as subsidised taxi schemes for people with severely impaired mobility will continue to remain an integral component of any public transport service. Overseas examples also suggest that opportunities exist to develop community transport which provides services for both members of the general public and concessionary users using a differential fare structure. Other transport models that are worth exploring further are the shared taxi or multihire taxis which could address issues of affordability to users and escalating subsidy costs.

Table 1 Features of subsidised taxi services by country 1.

 

Features of subsidised taxi services by country

	United Kingdom	United States of America	Canada	Sweden and Finland
Legislative requirements	No statutory minimum requirements are set down by central government for provision of disability services. The Transport Act (2000) requires that a 50% discount be provided to elderly (pensioners) and people with disabilities travelling on mainstream bus services. ECMT (2001) survey found that 28% of the 150 local authorities surveyed offer a Taxicard, voucher or taxi token scheme.	Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990, it is mandatory for public transit agencies to provide paratransit services that complement fixed route accessible bus services - in some instances, taxi services are contracted. In addition state transit agencies may elect to provide additional subsidised paratransit services to meet the travel needs of residents who are not eligible under ADA. These can be 'premium' services which have higher charges - e.g. the Tier 1 system provided by the City of Raleigh provides a 52% taxi discount.	Not indicated in the literature examined. The general nature of subsidised mobility assistance in Quebec obtained from European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) 2001 Report.	The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) 2001 Report notes that Finland and Sweden both operate a subsidised national Special Transport Service (STS).
Funding	In London, the Taxicard scheme is funded by the London Boroughs collectively and by a central government grant. Taxicard also operates in other regions throughout the UK. In addition, some local authorities provide funding assistance to other transport services e.g. dial-a-ride services.	Not researched fully. Appears to be funded from State and Federal funding, support from local communities and fares.	In Quebec 75% of travel costs are funded through provincial government and a further 20% is funded by local authorities. The remaining 5% is paid by the user.	Funded by central and local government funding - proportion varies between regions.
Purpose	Door to door transport is provided to people residing in the participating area who experience '... serious mobility impairment and difficulty in using public transport' 2	To provide equitable access for people with either permanent or temporary disabilities to fixed route public transport services.	Not defined by literature examined.	Not defined by literature examined.
Subsidy	Members of the London scheme are required to pay a flat fare (£1.50) to which is added the Borough maximum fare subsidy under the scheme. If the fare exceeds this amount, the member must pay the difference. The maximum amount varies between boroughs as well as depending on the time of day, with it being more expensive to travel at night or in the weekends. The Transport for London website indicates that an average journey is discounted by approximately 60%. An additional subsidy is available to persons with disabilities under the Disability Living Allowance - this can be used for any purpose including transport.	Subsidy available varies from region to region however, ADA regulations stipulate that the fare may not exceed twice the fare charged on a comparable trip on the fixed route service 3. Transit operators are able to provide additional premium services.	In Quebec, the individual pays 5% of the fare.	The individual pays approximately 10% of the journey cost - reported to be equivalent to a similar priced bus ticket.
Membership cards	Taxicard with photo id must be presented when travelling.	Varies from region to region. Time limiting membership enables any changes in the individuals personal and health conditions to be updated as well as allowing for any environmental changes to be taken into account. The City of Raleigh example used in this review utilised photo ID and limited membership to 2 years. The Detroit paratransit service (this was a shared service using minibuses) provided membership for up to 5 years.	Not indicated by the literature researched.	Not indicated by the literature researched.
Eligibility criteria	Taxicard applicants are automatically eligible if they are in receipt of the Higher Rate Mobility component of the Disability Allowance; are registered as Blind or receive the War Pension Mobility Supplement. All other applications are considered on a case by case basis. These criteria may however vary from region to region. People with short term disabilities do not meet the criteria.	Varies from region to region. Time limiting membership enables any changes in the individuals personal and health conditions to be updated as well as allowing for any environmental changes to be taken into account. The City of Raleigh example used in this review utilised photo ID and limited membership to 2 years. The Detroit paratransit service (this was a shared service using minibuses) provided membership for up to 5 years.	Not defined by literature examined. To be eligible for the Montreal STM paratransit service (Societe de Transport de Montreal) the applicant must meet two conditions. 1. Have a significant and chronic handicap that limits their ability to carry out normal activities. 2. Have such limitations that would warrant use of paratransit service. The website identifies a number of significant limitations - such as an inability to walk 400 meters, inability to climb up a 35 centimetre step etc. 4	Not defined by literature examined.
Trip purpose	No restrictions on trip purpose - may be used 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Each borough however can place restrictions on the number of journeys an individual member can make per annum or an individual case can be reviewed. It is reported that most boroughs allow between 70 and 120 trips per annum, with the average number 24 per annum. A restriction however does apply if a trip is already subsidised under some other scheme - - e.g. employment related travel that may receive assistance from Employment Services Agency.	Paratransit services provided in accordance with ADA provisions cannot be restricted according to trip purpose.	No restrictions on number of trips.	In Finland there are no restrictions on the number of trips to and from hospital, however recreational trips are restricted to 18 one way trips per month.
Financial assistance for vehicle purchase or improvement	Local Authorities are able to contribute but largely choose not to contribute towards vehicle purchase or improvements.	No reference to the provision of financial assistance located in the literature reviewed.	Federal Government provides up to 75% of the cost of accessibility features for the purchase of accessible vehicles, whilst it is reported a number of provincial governments also offer financial support.	No financial assistance provided in Sweden.
Other comment	2003 survey of London Taxicard users found that this service is predominantly used to access mainstream services. The same study indicated that more use of mainstream and speciality transport services would be made if they were more physically accessible.		A study of three American and two Ontario (Canada) service route (SR) services found that significant savings were made as former paratransit travellers elected to use SR services.	Research on Swedish service route (SR) services suggests that since the implementation of this service, patronage has increased and consequently demand for subsidised taxi services has decreased. Surveys in 1995 showed that nearly 80% of elderly passengers using SR were people entitled to STS.

 

Footnotes:

1. Table excludes Australian State taxi subsidy schemes - summary table contained in body of report.
2. Information obtained from Taxicard website - http://www.taxicard.org.uk/
3. Information obtained from 'Premium Charges for Paratransit' - Federal Transit Administration website www.fta.dot.gov. 
4. Information on Montreal paratransit service obtained through Transport Canada website. This information is not referred to in body of report.

 

 

<< Previous | Contents | Next >>


 

---

 

Download the Total Mobility Review document (PDF v7.0, 161kb)