Tube cuts impact on people with disabilities

How cuts to tube staff will affect disabled people :

Open letter to TFL against Underground staff cuts

Open letter to TfL and the Mayor of London.

Dear Mr Johnson,

London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF) Transport for All and Inclusion London are greatly concerned about the proposed staffing cuts for London Underground which, we believe, could seriously undermine the mobility of older and disabled people in the capital.

Introductions
LVIF comprises voluntary (not for profit) organisations working with, and on behalf of, blind and partially sighted people in Greater London. There are approximately thirty eight local, London wide and national organisations actively involved. There are 39,315 people registered as blind or partially sighted in London, with between 78600 and 117900 others that have low vision but who have not registered.

Transport for All (TfA) – is a pan London disabled and older persons organisation that provides advice, information and advocacy on accessible transport issues. It is recognized that there are approx 1.4 million disabled people in London and over 1 million people aged 60.

Inclusion London is a pan-London disability equality organisation. We provide policy, campaigning and capacity-building support for Deaf and disabled people’s organisations (DDPOs) in London. Inclusion London promotes equality for London’s Deaf and disabled people. Our work is rooted in the Social Model of Disability and the Cultural Model of Deafness. Inclusion London is a Community Interest Company. We receive funding from London Councils, Big Lottery and Capacity Builders.

We understand, from the RMT’s open letter to TfL and London Underground’s response to this, that cuts to London underground staff have been proposed. Whilst we understand that budgets are tight our concerns centre around the impact on the level of assistance that will then be available to older and disabled people. We are also concerned about the implications for personal security.

Many disabled people rely on assistance from staff in order to safely use and negotiate the system. The need for assistance arises both in normal operating conditions when passengers may need help to use ticket machines, negotiate barriers or access platforms, as well as during periods of disruption and emergencies, when the need for assistance is particularly critical. For example, when services are disrupted staff are needed to provide advice on alternative routes, physical assistance (e.g. escorting to an alternative line) and reassurance, especially when the disruption occurs midway through a journey.

The presence of staff is also important in terms of personal security. Passengers, particularly vulnerable passengers, feel safer if there are staff around on which they can call if needed. The presence of staff may also act as a deterrent to those who would otherwise cause problems on the system.

We believe that the loss of staff will have a significant impact on the lives of London’s residents and commuters. With the Olympics and Paralympics Games only two years away the impact will be even more acutely felt then when there will be many thousands of visitors, including disabled visitors, wishing to use the Underground. Staff cuts now are likely to undermine proposals to increase staff on the Underground during the Olympics and Paralympics.

LVIF, TfA & Inclusion London would therefore call on you and TfL to reconsider these proposals to ensure that disabled and older people can continue to use the London Underground in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Henrietta Doyle
(On behalf of LVIF, Transport for All and Inclusion London)

Disabled Parking Badge? Naff Off

So you thought that a person with a disability would be entitled to a disabled parking badge (Blue Badge)? Wrong! They have to have the right kind of disability, apparently.

Said badge gives you a range of parking concessions, including exemption from parking and congestion charges, and the use of marked bays. People with severe mobility impairments will get the badge, but people with other disabilities which might make it hard or impossible for them to use public transport will not necessarily get it.

We applied for a Blue Badge for Joe. His Asperger syndrome makes it difficult for him to travel on public transport, especially because he has an aversion to loud noises, and because he gets very distressed when unexpected things happen, such as service disruptions (which, after all, happen quite often). His behaviour when distressed can be alarming, possibly even dangerous to himself and others.

Joe would really enjoy a trip to London Zoo, for example, but it is an arduous journey by public transport, and there is no parking nearby apart from a car park exclusively for Blue Badge holders.

But Hackney Council refused our application. Apparently, because Joe does not have a severe mobility impairment, he can not have the badge. 'Behavioural difficulties', the letter explained, do not qualify him. Why?! Are they irrelevant to a person's travel needs?! Er, no.

It seems to me that the Blue Badge scheme is far too narrow in its scope, and does not recognise the range of disabilities and their effect on people's lives and experience. The purpose of a Blue Badge, says the Department for Transport is to enable someone to park as near as possible to where they are going, as a Blue Badge gives them access to disabled parking bays next to the entrance of, for example, the supermarket or railway station you were using. Hence, it is given to people who would struggle to physically get from the further end of the car park to the supermarket door. Fair enough: it is definitely needed in these circumstances.

But what about people like Joe? People who do not have a physcial impairment, but who nonetheless have great difficulties using public transport.

Since the Blue Badge was introduced, parking charges have risen and congestion charges been introduced, which means that for people whose disabilities make it hard for them to use public transport, travelling by car to certain venues has become prohibitively expensive. Without the Badge, Joe's life experiences are unnecessarily limited; with it, they will be enhanced. That alone should be reason enough for people with conditions such as his to have the badge.

Betty's Bentley breaks down

I'm sure some on here will gripe about crowded buses, tubes and trains ,or moan about cancellations and engineering works.

Buck up your ideas and follow the example of Betty . Yep, she knows how to roll up her sleeves and make do, even when her £10 million Bentley breaks down :

After her visit to Aldgate and a nice lunch at the Gherkin skyscraper, the Queen's armour-plated Bentley broke down. The vintage motor, presented to her in 2002 to mark her Golden Jubilee, simply wouldn't start.
As she clambered back out, an aide gesticulated to a Metropolitan Police Range Rover escort vehicle and helped the 83-year-old monarch climb inside.
She then drove off to her final engagement of the day just a few minutes away at Tower Bridge.
One onlooker who saw the entire episode said: 'It was all a bit awkward.
'The Queen's obviously never experienced an engine break down before and looked a bit stunned that the car wasn't working.
'She got out and an aide told her she was going to have use a police Range Rover.
'She just hopped in the back and continued on her journey.'


Oh my what a trooper, she knows how to make to do and rough it, puts the rest of us to shame don't it , gawd bless you ma'am .

Next time I am stuck on an overcrowded bendy bus , crawling through the roadworks on the Kingsland High Road, well I'll just hop off and flag down one of the many police cars that speed through with flashing lights and screeching sirens . Well if its good enough for the Queen ...

SOS: Staff Our Stations

London Underground plans to close or cut most of its ticket offices, and to reduce station staffing by over 1,000 staff. To provide customer service and safety, London Underground stations need more staff not fewer. Popular opposition stopped planned ticket office closures in 2008; now we need the same popular opposition to stop them again.

I have set up a petition against the job cuts on the 10 Downing Street website. It will take you just a minute or so to add your name, and give a big boost to our campaign to save jobs.

Click here to sign the petition, which reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop plans to close ticket offices and cut staff on London Underground.

=====

Please feel free to forward this to anyone else who you think might support our campaign.

Free Public Transport

The Scottish Socialist Party are having a week of action around the need for Free Public Transport to reduce CO2 emissions, to deal with rising fuel costs and to reduce pollution. Transportation should be a public issue NOT a private one.

http://www.freepublictransport.org/

As fuel prices soar and the cost of transport continues to increase, the
time has never been better to introduce free public transport across
Scotland.

At a stroke, thousands will benefit by saving hundreds of pounds a year in
transport costs, and thousands more will be given the incentive to cut car
journeys and help reduce pollution.

Roads will be safer, with communities less isolated, as not only will public
transport be free but services will be dramatically improved to make sure
people have access to reliable bus, train and ferry services when they need
them.

Our bus and train services will need to be re-regulated and brought back
into public ownership. This will allow services to be integrated and to make
sure investment is there to improve services, not line shareholders’
pockets.

At a cost of £1billion per year, you may think this is too expensive. But
road accidents alone cost £1.4billion per year, and it is estimated that
traffic congestion costs £15-£20billion a year. Free fares will also
increase the spending power of over a million workers by between £40 and
£100 a month.

It will be the biggest single pro-environmental policy enacted by any
government anywhere on the planet. By dramatically slashing car-use and CO2
emissions it will reduce Scotland’s reliance on depleting oil reserves and
help to reduce levels of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
As it is mainly people on low incomes who rely on public transport,
free-fares will eat into Scotland’s horrific levels of poverty.

Boris Bans Booze: London Gets A Hangover

My contract of employment obliges me to point out whenever I express an opinion about the Tube that these opinions are my own, and should in no way be taken to represent those of London Underground or TfL. So now you know.

A century ago, there were feminists who called for alcohol to be banned because they blamed it for domestic violence. Their view was understandable, as women took regular beatings from men who came home drunk, then as now. It took Prohibition to change their minds, as booze was banned but domestic violence continued.

In 2008, Boris Johnson thinks that banning booze will prevent, or at least reduce, bad behaviour on London's transport. He too is mistaken, and his motives may not be as worthy or understandable as the early twentieth century feminists. He was on a yacht when the booze ban came into force on Saturday night, which, being neither in London nor a form of public transport, was exempted. He has noticeably not called for the banning of alcohol at the Henley Regatta, which, after all, might piss off one or two of his constituents - popping the cork and letting the bubbly flow is part of the event darling, and you'd never catch a Hooray Henry misbehaving under the influence now, would you?

The relationship between booze and bad behaviour is more complex than a simple ban implies. Does alcohol cause aggression, or are people who feel aggressive anyway more inclined to drink? Perhaps aggression and violence fuel each other - but only in some people, not others. Boris' ban is not on disorderly or aggressive behaviour but on drinking alcohol or carrying open containers of alcohol. So someone who is behaving like a tosser, but not in possession of an open can whilst travelling - perhaps having got well and truly tanked up before setting off home - would not be covered by the ban; but on the other hand, a person behaving impeccably and sipping from a can or bottle while minding their own business would fall foul of the new rule.

Those of us who work on the Tube have been dealing with boozy passengers for years. Most are good-natured, some provide us with a right laugh (I particularly remember the pair who missed the last Central line train home because they sat on the station stairs thinking they were in the carriage). I'm always rather pleased that they are travelling on the Tube, rather than driving.

Some, however, can be a problem (as can some sober people). You do get assaults on staff. You do end up calling ambulances when drunk people topple down the escalators. They can be hard work. And the cleaners get the worst deal of all - clearing up cans, spillages and vomit, all on poverty wages that Boris Johnson wouldn't get out of bed for.

But Tube staff have never called for this to be dealt with by banning drinking.

Even if you supported the ban, the way it has been brought in is appalling. I for one do not recall Boris Johnson saying he would do this during his election campaign - it might have cost him votes, after all. Then he announces it days after being elected, imposes it a month later, and expects things to go smoothly! As if. There was no consultation with the trade unions, no extra staff on duty on the night it came in, and a promise of police back-up that was laughable.

Personally, I oppose the ban. And I support people's right to protest against it. But none of this excuses some of the behaviour on Saturday night when Tube workers were assaulted, abused and spat at. Anyone who thinks that's a good way to defend freedom and oppose Mayor Johnson should go home and sleep it off. And when you wake up with a hangover, think about the cleaners wading through broken glass to mop up the booze, vomit and piss.