Bus operators take a stand over seat cuts

Date: 21/11/1996

TRANSPORT companies and disabled rights groups are at loggerheads over planned EU rules which could reduce the number of seats in buses and coaches.

Disabled groups have long campaigned for a cut in the number of seats together with other design modifications which would make it easier for wheelchair users to gain access to vehicles.

Their efforts appear to have paid off, with the result that a draft directive due to be unveiled before the end of this year now states: “The Commission considers ... that every effort must be made to provide for accessibility within the limits of what is technically achievable within a reasonable time-scale.”

The European Parliament's disability intergroup, which has been at the forefront of the lobbying effort, has welcomed the proposed changes.

“Not only has the Commission, in this draft, recognised that it is right to build accessible transport, it has also recognised that this is in the interests of the single market, because it will result in increased passenger revenue,” says the group.

But transport companies are apprehensive over the approach being taken by the Commission.

“We hope the Commission will concern itself with safety rather than comfort when it presents its proposals. Reducing seat numbers will probably mean fare rises and some companies could be forced out of business,” said Marc Billiet of the International Road Transport Union (IRU), which represents bus operators.

Billiet argues that most bus companies already run a number of specially equipped vehicles for disabled passengers and adds that it is unreasonable to require entire fleets to be redesigned to meet the needs of a minority of fare payers.

“Disabled people can call on the services of specially designed buses or they can use taxis. We do not see the need to alter all buses which are in general service. In any case, would a mobility-impaired person really want to use a normal bus during the rush hour?” he asked.

Seat reduction poses a particular threat to companies who run services using small, minibus-type vehicles. Such operations tend to have low profit margins and any measures which would reduce customer numbers could have detrimental effects.

“Minibuses need a certain number of seats in order to be viable. Reducing those seat numbers means firms could start going out of business,” said Dennis Flower of the London-based Confederation of Passenger Transport.

Such minibus services have become increasingly popular in the UK in the wake of bus market deregulation.

Bus operators also fear the new rules may mean certain specially designed buses - most famously London's distinctive red Routemaster double-deckers - would be forced off the roads. They argue that bus makers must be free to build tailor-made vehicles for a huge variety of markets. The Routemaster, for example, was designed specifically to navigate London's narrow, winding streets.

The Commission argues the industry's worries are largely unfounded.

“We need some sort of standards so that bus and coach makers who want to sell their vehicles across the Union can take full advantage of the single market. There are serious cost implications when vehicle manufacturers have to meet 15 different design specifications,” said one Commission official.

But he stressed: “The proposed directive is not binding. If a member state does not wish to follow the guidelines for a particular type of bus they will not be obliged to.”

Clearly, vehicles which did not meet the Union-wide standard could be refused for sale in other member states. However, given that any such buses would have been, by definition, designed for a specific domestic market, the restriction on external sales would not appear to be a problem.

Even if further legislation calling for compulsory technical specifications is brought in, the Commission is confident that flexibility could always be built into the system.

“If a particular member state wanted to continue building vehicles which did not meet the specifications, they would simply have to discuss the possibility of a derogation with the other 14. I would have thought there would usually be no problem in such circumstances,” said one official.