Appendix 6 to Appendix 11 - Total Mobility Scheme Review

The Total Mobility Scheme

Appendix 6 - Description of Total Mobility Schemes
(Executive Summary)

Description of Total Mobility Schemes

This report has been prepared by the Ministry of Transport as part of its review of the Total Mobility Scheme (the Scheme). The purpose of the report is to outline the current practices of local authorities, assessment agencies, and transport operators, who participate in the Scheme.

The Total Mobility Scheme is a national transport Scheme that aims to help people with severe mobility constraints to participate independently and effectively in their communities. Local authorities manage and operate the Scheme and are reimbursed a proportion of the costs by central government.

The Scheme relies on existing taxi services and works in two ways:

• eligible travellers receive taxi vouchers which (in most regions) entitle them to a 50% discount on a commercial taxi fare
• funding is made available to taxi operators for the purchase and installation of wheelchair hoists in vehicles.

Potential users of the Scheme are assessed either by an assessment agency, or by a GP, depending on the region they are in. In some regions assessment agencies also administer the Scheme.

The key finding of this report is that the Scheme is characterised by a core of similar or identical practice, with diverging practice around the policy fringe of the Scheme. These variations are described below. 

Purpose

Local authorities agree regarding the proposed core purpose of the Scheme, that it is to provide a subsidised, door-to-door, transport service for individuals who have a disability that prevents them from using trains, buses, or ferries. However there are a number of areas where there is significant variation between authorities regarding who they allow on the Scheme.

Eligibility

Most authorities allow anyone who lives within the region and meets other eligibility criteria to access the Scheme, however some require that the individual lives in an area rated for public transport.

A majority of the 15 local authorities accept individuals with non-accident related short-term injuries, but four do not, and amongst those who do there is variation surrounding the definition of short-term.

Only one of the 15 local authorities do not accept individuals living in residential care or rest homes.

Whilst some regions accept children onto the Scheme, others do not. Furthermore, amongst those who do accept children there is variation regarding the age range of those accepted.

Entitlement

All regions have a 50% fare subsidy, but in one region this has dropped during the year due to financial pressure.

There is significant variation amongst Schemes regarding the maximum subsidised fare. Whilst variation due to local conditions is an inevitable part of having a regionally responsive Scheme, the degree of variation suggests that current maximum subsidised fares are not determined in a consistent or transparent manner.

Three regions have a minimum fare threshold as well as a maximum subsidised fare.

As in the case of maximum subsidised fares, the number of trips allocated to each person varies beyond what would be expected due to local factors.

Four regions also place restrictions on the purpose of travel.

Assessment Services

Who assesses potential Total Mobility Scheme users varies between regions. In some regions GPs provide assessments for the Scheme, in others voluntary Disability Organisations provide this service, whilst in others the Council themselves have final say on users eligibility. In yet another region an independent assessor is contracted. 

Administration

Administration practices vary greatly amongst local authorities. Only one region has a smart card, although seven other regions have identity cards for users. Who bears the costs of these cards also varies between regions.

Only two regions engaged in any formal advertising of the Scheme.
 
Who administers the Scheme varies, in most case it is either the Regional Council or Local Authority on their own, or jointly with Assessment Agencies. In one region an individual is paid to administer the Scheme.

Transport Operators

In most regions there is a contract between the administrators of the Scheme and the operators. However, in four regions no such contract exists.

Examples of good practice by local authorities

Some regions have established interesting and unique initiatives as part of the Total Mobility Schemes:

• Auckland Regional Transport Authority have developed smartcard technology which is used instead of vouchers. The Total Mobility Co-ordinator says the automated technology has met with a favourable response from all stakeholders. This reduces paperwork, makes for quicker reporting, reflects the true cost of the Scheme and allows easy identification of any trends in use of the Scheme.
• Environment Canterbury have introduced a 15% loading on trips made by Scheme users requiring wheelchair accessible taxis. This contributes towards operators 'dead running time' at either end of the trip when loading and unloading a wheelchair. It appears as though the additional subsidy has resulted in doubling the number of wheelchair accessible taxis since 1996.
• Environment Canterbury manages and operates a Total Mobility Scheme in Waimate. This Scheme is based on the use of community transport, where the vehicles are owned by the Waimate Community Vehicle Trust and are driven by volunteers. The fare structure is set at such a rate to cover all of the vehicles' running costs.
• Invercargill City Council has recently reviewed their Scheme and implemented a new self-assessment of need system (along with a host of other changes). Once accepted onto the Scheme, each new member estimates how many tickets (trips) they might need in the year ahead - they are guided by their assessor as to what might be reasonable. These trip estimates are submitted to the Council who matches it with their budget and allocates all users a given percentage of their requested trips (in 2004/05 they were allocated 93% of requested trips).
• Otago Regional Council provides an additional subsidy to trips made by wheelchair users travelling in wheelchair accessible taxis to contribute towards the extra costs associated with loading and unloading. The Otago Regional Council pays the first $4.00 of a trip by a wheelchair user, and 50% of the remaining cost of the journey up to a maximum subsidised fare of $50. Wheelchair users have welcomed the additional subsidy and appreciate the effort made to bring their costs in line with other Scheme users.
• Environment Waikato has no maximum subsidised fare limit within city boundaries. The city boundaries provide a natural limit to the length of the journey. 

Key Budget Levers

Administrators of the Scheme use various levers to control their budget. This report considers cases where proposed changes to the Scheme would remove some of these levers. The most important lever is probably the absence of advertising. As stated above only two authorities actively advertise the Scheme, making it likely a number of eligible individuals are unaware of its existence.

Tight eligibility criteria also allow authorities to control the number of individuals on the Scheme. Examples of this can be seen in the eligibility section above.

Authorities can also use allocation of vouchers as a lever to manage their expenditure. By limiting the number of vouchers, and hence the number of trips that can be made, some control of the budget can be gained.

Maximum subsidised fares and minimum fare thresholds also allow administrators to limit the size of fares that they subsidise, and hence limit the amount they spend.

Authorities can also use allocation of vouchers as a lever to manage their expenditure. By limiting the number of vouchers, and hence the number of trips that can be made, some control of the budget can be gained.

Maximum subsidised fares and minimum fare thresholds also allow administrators to limit the size of fares that they subsidise, and hence limit the amount they spend.

Appendix 7 - Proposed Policy Framework For The Total Mobility Scheme

Download as PDF (PDF v7.0, 87KB)
 

Appendix 8 - Summary of Statistics New Zealand Report

1. Current Total Mobility Scheme Users

The 2003 Transfund (now known as Land Transport New Zealand) Total Mobility Survey (p. 39) reports that regional council data showed 39,000 active total mobility users in 2002. The Ministry of Transport survey of local authorities found 43,427¹ registered Total Mobility Scheme users in 2005.

The 2003 Transfund Total Mobility Survey (p. 39) suggests that the 2001 Household Disability Survey (HDS) only found 8,000 users of the Total Mobility (TM) Scheme. Yet the latest Statistics New Zealand analysis of the 2001 HDS shows 26,000 disabled people who could not use a bus easily, and who were not completely prevented from travelling short distances by their disability, who claimed to be users of the TM Scheme.

The HDS does not account for disabled people who do not live in households or children, but Statistics New Zealand's analysis (NZDS Snapshot 1 - Key Facts) shows that only 4% of people with disabilities live in residential facilities, while 96% live in households. 70% of disabled people living in residential facilities live in a rest home, while some 25% live in private hospitals.

It is unclear why the HDS figure on TM users is less than the Ministry of Transport figure. Transfund comments "this data suggests there is relatively little brand awareness of the TM Scheme among people with disabilities - even users of the Scheme." Another factor may be that the local authority figures may not be up to date, in as much as they may include people who are no longer able to use the Scheme. It is thought that the Ministry of Transport figures are likely to be the most accurate.

Given the New Zealand population was 3,880,500 in 2001, local authority data indicates that about 1% of the population are Total Mobility Scheme users.

The HDS identified 743,000 who reported some level of disability in 2001. This suggests that about 5% of people who report some level of disability are users of the TM scheme. 

2. Potential Total Mobility users

This section is based on the Statistics New Zealand analysis of the HDS.

The Statistics New Zealand analysis shows 107,900 adults with a disability who were not completely prevented from travelling short distances by their disability and would not easily be able to use a bus if one was available (termed Broadly Eligible²) This is just under 3% of the total population. 9% of these people were in rural areas.³

78,300 of these people (77,200 in urban areas and 1,100 in rural areas) indicated that there was a bus service in their area (termed 'Eligible' ⁴). 29,600 of these people (20,900 in urban areas and 8,700 in rural area) indicated that there was no bus service in their area.

Note: 83% of the urban population live in main urban centres of 30,000 people or more, and most of these centres should have a public transport system. It seems likely that some disabled people in urban areas were incorrect when they reported that there was no bus service in their area.

This figure drops to 75,900 when individuals receiving travel assistance from ACC are excluded (termed 'Strictly Eligible' ⁵).
 
Nationwide
If TM eligibility was open to adults with a disability who would not easily be able to use a bus if one was available and who were not completely prevented from travelling short distances by their disability, and if every eligible person became a TM user, this would potentially almost treble the number of TM users over the current level.

Urban Areas
If TM eligibility was only open to those people living in an urban area, and if every eligible person became a TM user, this would potentially increase the number of TM users by 150% over the current level.

Public Transport Areas Only
If TM eligibility was open to adults with a disability who would not easily be able to use a bus if one was available and who were not completely prevented from travelling short distances by their disability, and who believed there was a bus service in their area, and if every eligible person became a TM user, this would potentially double the number of TM users over the current level. However, this seems to be a nonsensical criterion.

3. Other statistics

It makes little difference including or excluding disabled people who receive transport cost assistance from ACC. Doing so may reduce the number eligible by 3.1%, based on Statistics New Zealand analysis.

Considering the 107,900 adults with a disability who were not completely prevented from travelling short distances by their disability but who would not easily be able to use a bus if one was available, the Statistics New Zealand analysis shows that:

• only 18% are employed (compared to 60% of the overall population)
• almost 80% are 45 years old or older
• 52% are 65 years old or older  

4. Anticipated Demographic Changes based on current eligibility

The key assumption of these projections is that the percentage of future users in the 15-74 age-group, and the 75+ age group will stay this same. This is likely to be a conservative assumption, given that medical and transport advances are likely to reduce the percentage.

These figures were produced using an estimate for the number of West Coast users, and no data for Marlborough. This means that the numbers that follow may be slightly different to latter numbers that include figures for these two regions.

Future total population is based on Statistics New Zealand's Medium Projection, which assumes medium fertility, medium mortality and medium migration. 

Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. 

Appendix 9 - Nationally consistent maximum subsidised fare calculations

Download as PDF (PDF v7.0, 14KB)  

Appendix 10 - Recommendations and Costs

Download as PDF (PDF v7.0, 32KB)  

Appendix 11. Continuum of Public Transport Services

Download as PDF (PDF v7.0, 8KB)


Footnotes:

1. As a result of the consultation process, (gathering input from a sample of Scheme users) the Ministry of Transport discovered that some of the people on the Scheme are deceased or no longer use the Scheme.
2. Broadly eligible relates to people with a disability that does not prevent them from travelling short distances, but can not easily use a bus if one was available.
3. Statistics NZ defines rural as living outside of concentrated settlements of 1,000 or more people. In 2001, 14% of the total population lived in such rural areas
4. 'Eligible' refers to people with a disability and that have indicated they have a bus service in their area, however it appears that some people with a bus service in their area were unaware of it.
5. 'Strictly eligible' refers to people with disabilities that don't receive transport assistance from ACC.

<< Previous | Contents 

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