Morningside station limited mobility access

[CDR]

Tonight I timed a simulated bus and train transfer at Morningside station trying to recreate the experience of a user with limited mobility (young child, elderly, or wheelchair bound user) by walking very slowly.

Here are the results:

Limited mobility user
Waminda Street northbound (stop 002683) to Morningside station platform 2 (wheelchair symbol): 6 minutes 45 seconds
Morningside station platform 2 (wheelchair symbol) to Morningside station platform 1 (wheelchair symbol): 4 minutes 55 seconds
Morningside station platform 1 (wheelchair symbol) to Wynnum Road entrance: 6 minutes 55 seconds
Morningside station platform 1 (wheelchair symbol) to Wynnum Road stop 25 (stop 002691): 13 minutes 5 seconds

Able bodied user (brisk walk with some jogging)
Wynnum Road stop 25 (stop 002691) to Morningside station platform 1 (wheelchair symbol): 3 minutes 10 seconds
Wynnum Road entrance to Morningside station platform 1 (wheelchair symbol): 1 minute 20 seconds
Morningside station platform 1 (wheelchair symbol) to Morningside station platform 2 (wheelchair symbol): 2 minutes
Morningside station platform 2 (wheelchair symbol) to Waminda Street northbound (stop 002683): 1 minute 45 seconds

Discussion
This demonstrates the impact of not having lifts at Morningside station and how bus and train transfers need to consider the user experience of the limited mobility user.

In this case a platform to bus stop transfer to over 13 minutes for a limited mobility user and just over 3 minutes for an able bodied user moving briskly.

When designing bus and train transfers the limited mobility user must be considered.

To not consider a limited mobility user transferring for a low entry bus to a train is an act of discrimination.

Limitations
Walking very slowly is not exactly a scientific way of testing disabled access. I could probably borrow a set of crutches to better simulate a limited mobility user.

[#Metro]

The station access guide does show that it is low platform and someone needs to push wheelchairs along the ramp.

[CDR]

The station is assisted access.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect a limited mobility user to transfer between buses and trains at a station with very limited access.

A limited mobility user should not be reliant on a minder taking them up and down ramps.

My point is that an able bodied user should not make decisions about bus and train transfers without considering limited mobility users.

[James]

The station is assisted access.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect a limited mobility user to transfer between buses and trains at a station with very limited access.

A limited mobility user should not be reliant on a minder taking them up and down ramps.

My point is that an able bodied user should not make decisions about bus and train transfers without considering limited mobility users.

Physically disabled citizens, in most cases, are coverage service passengers. Most are unable to drive (or don't own a car at all) and some (as a percentage, more than abled people) do not have employment, or if they do, already have specific assistance arranged.

I would argue for many routes, disabled pax are able to take alternative disabled-friendly route. For example, with the BulimbaGlider, they can catch the route 'the long way around' to the CBD vs. transferring at Morningside. Looking at RBoT 220/227, transfer to the 210 at Cannon Hill would be an alternative to transfer to rail at Morningside. As long as the new routes provide disabled access to destinations already served by current routes, even if it is via a longer route, I see no issue.
There are also other transit solutions and subsidies available to the disabled too, so it is not as if such changes would be a disaster for the disabled.

The purpose of the RBoT network is to provide a basic coverage function, while at the same time making the network attractive to use for the wider public and take cars off the road. And this is the main purpose - getting people out of cars and on to PT. These 'shortcuts' like transferring at Morningside are to make getting from somewhere on Thynne Rd even more attractive, and provide connections to additional areas which do not exist currently. As long as disabled individuals can access all areas of the network which they already can currently with minimal additional inconvenience, I see no reason to change the status quo.

[#Metro]

The station is assisted access.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect a limited mobility user to transfer between buses and trains at a station with very limited access.

A limited mobility user should not be reliant on a minder taking them up and down ramps.

My point is that an able bodied user should not make decisions about bus and train transfers without considering limited mobility users.

Yes, I agree with you. I was merely describing what the manual said about the station. Description is not prescription.

Requiring somebody to push you along a ramp kind of defeats the purpose of having a ramp. QR may as well have installed lifts there instead.

It surprises me that the station hasn't been fully upgraded to full DDA compliance yet. It is a major station.

Not having proper, independent access is discriminatory and unacceptable.

The station should be upgraded. The land is excellent for a TOD, perhaps 10 story towers and a big podium. Any less than that and the developer should be given transferable rights to build the difference elsewhere in the city. Packaged with that would be conversion of the car park into a bus drop off (bus pulling up right to the front a la Toronto) and DDA upgrade. Would be cost neutral that way.

[CDR]

To paint a limited mobility user as a coverage service passenger is an act of discrimination.

To suggest that a limited mobility user stay on the bus and go out of there was to make the journey is an act of discrimination.

Thinking about mobility for all users is consistent with making a network attractive.

I was appalled by the limited mobility in an out of the station even for a physically abled user. Trying to imitate a limited mobility user by walking very slowly was eye opening. Pedestrian access in an out of the station from Waminda Street is very poor. It is not possible to get from Waminda Street or the pedestrian bridge to platform 2 without crossing the car park with no pedestrian markings. 

Compare and contrast this with Geebung station which has a bus stop 20 metres walk from the outbound platform and a relatively level path of about 200 metres to the inbound platform via the recently completed lifts.

I'm not singling out Morningside station in particular, there are other stations on the network with utterly abysmal access (Goodna) or no access whatsoever for limited mobility users (Wynnum North).

My concern is that forcing transfers at a new location without adequate consideration for limited mobility users is a blatant act of discrimination.

Until such time as Morningside station provides independent access I do not see it as being suitable for feeder buses.

[#Metro]

The New Bus Network is here http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

RBOT 210 Carindale via Cannon Hill would be fine, as that continues to the CBD
RBOT 230 BulimbaGlider might be acceptable if it were to stop at both sides of the station, and it also goes through the CBD (I realise this is not ideal).

There will be problems for pax on
RBOT 227 Lindum
RBOT 220 Wynnum

However, I am confident that station redevelopment would permit the station to be upgraded at neutral cost. Incidentally, the station is located at the bottom of a steep incline, so a taller building can be placed there and still be perceived as having a similar height as surrounding buildings (which sit higher up the slope).

There is also scope to remove the Stanley Street East level crossing by simply closing the intersection there and constructing a panel fence. Not sure about the pedestrian access but I am sure that could be solved perhaps by constructing a path into Milsom Street.

[tazzer9]

What is even the point of having a ramp if someone in a wheelchair can't use it.

[CDR]

Many of the stations with ramps predate the current disability discrimination standards.

My point is not so much that the station is not capable of being used by limited mobility users but that it not reasonably usable for limited mobility users.

A transfer penalty 4 times that of a physically abled person is not reasonable.

I'm going to do similar testing on some of the more accessible stations, such as Geebung or Robina, as a point of comparison.

[Gazza]

I broadly with the thrust of this thread.
All for interchange based networks, but stations like Loganlea and Morning side are abysmal for this purpose.

In the interim, any network redesign should only feed into stations with proper access.

[SurfRail]

Unfortunately many stations which would work reasonably well because they are at junctions or in major centres, like Indooroopilly or Northgate, are abysmally located so it all falls down.

[CDR]

Tonight I tested Robina station:

Platform 1 (wheelchair symbol) to stop C via slow walk (using lift): 3 minutes 5 seconds
Stop C to Platform 1 (wheelchair symbol) via brisk walk (using stairs): 45 seconds

At Robina station the well designed bus and rail interchange with lifts means a transfer between bus and train takes less than 5 minutes for a limited mobility user.

This is the type of performance needed for successful bus and train transfers.