Christchurch’s disabled asking: ‘Have we missed the bus?’

Press, 1 April 1980, Page 17

Christchurch’s disabled asking: ‘Have we missed the bus?’

Tn August last year, two young girls gave a little over a $1 towards a special bus for the handicapped. Like the many others who have pledged or given money — the largest single donation was $5OOO — they ' must be wondering why the bus is not yet on the road.

Instead, the plan has .been beset by problems; and the final answers to them have still not been given.

In 1974, the co-ordinat-ing Council for the Handicapped first considered modifying a bus, in 1975 it set up a sub-committee to investigate further. It looked to existing systems in Britain, Sweden, the United States, and Canada, and soon became enveloped in a mountain of statistics and information. The idea lapsed

In 1977, the Christchurch branch of the National Council of Women became interested in the same sort of. project, and . over the next few years the dream came a little closer to reality. Preliminary talks were initiated with the Christchurch Transport Board, and the Co-ordinating Council resumed its interest, offering to. assist in raising finance and in ascertaining the need for such a service.

The Transport Board subsequently paid for an advertising agency to design and place an advertisement calling on poten-. tial patrcns to register their names with the board. There are an estimated 15,000 people, in the city who could be classified as disabled. About 760 saw fit to answer.

Nevertheless, the scheme went ahead. In February of 1979, the National Council of Women began an intensive campaign to raise 110,000 — the sum the Transport Board had said would be

necessary to affect alterations to a bus. A written undertaking was received from the board that it would provide the bus, the maintenance, and an appropriate booking service once the bus was in service. The money poured in. In August, the National Council of Women was able to announce triumphantly to the board that it had enough finance pledged for the scheme to go ahead. And that is when the problems surfaced. Mr Max Taylor, manager of the Transport Board, himself holder of a degree in

By

mechanical engineering, approached a local engineering firm. The firm agreed to design- and manufacture a hydraulic unit which could be attached to the side or rear of a bus. That was last September. Two months later the firm admitted the project was somewhat more difficult than they had bargained for.

In his report to the Transport Board yesterday, Mr Taylor outlined his subsequent difficulties. The firm informed Mr Taylor that its managing director was soon to visit America. While there, he would approach the Chi-cago-based- manufacturer of a known unit, to arrange its direct importation into New Zealand.

Failing this, he would seek a licencing arrangement with the Americans whereby their designs could be used in New Zealand. That managing director departed for America two weeks ago.

Last December, another local firm had been approached. This company also expressed interest and actually made contact with the American manufacturer. It had the same solutions in mind.

Three weeks ago, Mr Taylor learned the result of that meeting. The American firm was temporarily involved in a changeover to a new production model. As a consequence, no models were available for export. And the local firm suddenly decided it would not be prepared to work from drawings only. It re-

ALAN SAMSON

quired to see a -working unit “in the flesh” before undertaking local manufacture.

Other firms have since been approached. All have expressed interest in the project. All, for various reasons, have declined to take part. There are many vehicles operating for the handicapped in this country. So what is the difficulty in adapting something for a Christchurch bus?

The problem, Mr Taylor says, occurs precisely because they are talkjng about a bus. The board is committed to adapting a bus for use by disabled people. It is also committed to running a normal service that is as efficient as possible. After careful consideration, Mr Taylor isolated three possibilities. The easist solution was to buy a special van with a simple platform hoist at the rear or the side. The estimated cost for such a

vehicle (including conversion) would be 530.000. And the handicapped would not enjoy full head room when inside. A second solution was to attach a hydraulic platform to an existing bus. A design was readily available for such a platform. Unfortunately, out of use, the ramp in question folded up on a hinge and blocked the . door. And when a door is blocked, not only is normal use restricted, but the legal capacity of the vehicle is reduced.

. Creating a new entrance for the ramp at the rear,

Mr Tayor says, would defeat the ideal of easy access. Putting another door at the side could weaken the bus structurally. The manager of the Christchurch Transport Board has set his heart on the third solution —■ a complex set of hydraulics that not only allows a platform to move up and down, but also to retract into steps for normal use. He has American advertising brochures representing these lifts. They emanate from the Chicago firm in the middle of the production change. “I know there is a commercially viable unit in the States,” he says. “If I didn’t know it bad been done elsewhere, I would have given up.”

It is ironic. New Zealanders traditionally have a reputation for their ingenuity. Yet no local engineering firm seems willing to commit itself to the building of a single hydraulic lift. New Zea-

land industry is capable enough. The problem, however, seems not to relate to ability, but rather ro questions of time and money. A unit has to be de* signed, the designs drawn up. The task might take days or weeks. The unit has subsequently to be built, again a time-con-suming matter, and tested. In a design situation like this, the. completed model might be expected to have teething problems. It might not work. It might have to be rebuilt. If an assembly line of hoists were planned, there would be no shortage of prospective builders.

Mr G. R. Johnson, a technician at Canterbury University, heard about the design problem in a “round-about sort of way.” He began playing around with the engineering department’s meccano set.

The sort of development required in putting out one of these things, he says, would be worthwhile only if putting out hundreds. “I’m .not saying it can’t be done, but it seems ridiculous not to buy one whole, as a package from the States.”

Coincidentally, - ■ final--year mechanical engineering students have been set a design project which in- ' volves working but a means of getting disabled people into a bus while, maintaining normal access. Mr Johnson has not decided whether to develop his ideas further. And the mechanical. engineering class, under Dr K. Whybrew, will be stoppingshort of a final, workable design.

“Assuming they find a solution to their problem, we will still be left with the links, pins, cylinders, and parts that make up the complete design. It is a very complicated mechanism,” Dr Whybrew says.

A special bus for handicapped people? Effectively the reality is no closer than it was in August last year, when the fund target was reached.

A variety of organisations run special vehicles. None are suitable for use on a large' scale by the people of Christchurch. And the public transport fails entirely to meet the needs of the handicapped and the elderly. The Transport Board has come up with a possible solution. In his re- , J port to the board yesterday, Mr Taylor acknowledged his lack of success in instituting the proposed' lift. He said, however, that he had now obtained a “definite answer” on the "importation-local manufacture under licence approach” and. would proceed with urgency. . , ‘ • i Both the National Council of Women and the Coordinating Council for the Disabled have . expressed disappointment about, the lack of action. But both organisations feel the board should have the chance to exhaust its investigations. A combined meeting will be held on April 10. Criticism may be aimed

at various quarters. Why did the board not investigate feasibility before it gave its undertakings? And why has the response of disabled people’s groups been so muted? One of the major problems which face disabled people’s group’s in the city is the provision of and cost of transport. But there has been little publicity over the proposal and nothing seems to have been done towards motivating interest or working out fine details.

If things go on much longer, the National Council of Women will have to give serious consideration to returning donations or the Transport Board will have to consider a less ambitious- lift — even if this detracts from a bus’s normal working capability. , Once, and if, a suitable lift attachment has been built, there will be new problems. How will the service work in a city of Christchurch’s size? In the meantime, one can only wait and hope that interest from disabled people’s groups and others will ensure a constant state of urgency on the part of the scheme’s planners.