Banyo pedestrian footbridge project

[#Metro]

The overbridge at Banyo being a new build is non compliant and as such breaches the anti discrimination laws as provided for disability access, as such it would be a good starting point for a legal action against the government and make the point that the law is the law and the government is required to comply with it.
A sweetheart deal at this stage over the NGR trains does not solve the problems and an action over the Banyo footbridge would no doubt have some bearing on the Human Rights Commission deliberations on an exemption for the NGR trains given that they have been aware of their non compliance for almost two years and have yet to do anything to rectify that non compliance

I think the HRC will look at the overall demeanour of the government and whether it was acting in good faith when it asked for an exemption from DDA for the NGRs.

If objectors can show that this exemption request is actually part of a long track record of wiggling out of various DDA obligations, and granting an exemption would only facilitate that further, then the HRC may be more inclined to reject the request and indeed any others that follow on.

The HRC is set up precisely to make a public example of situations like these, by rejecting such applications.

[Stillwater]

For the HRC to investigate a breach of the DDA, a person with a disability needs to lodge a complaint and have a reasonable argument to put that they are being discriminated against by virtue of the poor standard of the infrastructure they are required to use to carry out their normal daily lives.

Just one.  Anyone?

[Stillwater]

Planning for DDA compliance at the outset of any new project adds virtually nothing to the overall cost.

[SurfRail]

^ It certainly does if we are talking the difference between a DDA compliant bridge and a set of stairs.

What does the disability community say in Melbourne where so many stations only have ramps and LXs?

[Gazza]

Is it really going to cost 6b to make the system compliant?

I see its roughly 50 stations not accessible.

Lets say $15m for a set of lifts and camel humps at the ends of the platform.

At 50 stations that's $750m... Problem? Just fund it!

Of course things average out....Taringa might  be difficult to fix, but Ormiston isn't.

And in some cases it just seems like stupidity it's not being done...At Banyo why don't they just tack lift shafts onto the new bridge. Should only be a couple of million extra.

[Stillwater]

The point is that all new infrastructure MUST comply with the DDA.

[SurfRail]

Yes, but Banyo isn't a new station and it does have a level crossing.

Very few stations in Melbourne have lifts or overbridges, yet Melbourne is regarded as being 100% DDA compliant within the metropolitan network except Heyington station (which has a footbridge and no LX as I understand it).

[ozbob]

Queensland Rail wants all at grade pedestrian crossings done away with apparently.  Wulkuraka is a good example of an at grade crossing replaced by a monolith.  Melbourne uses ramps very effectively - topography helps a little.  Cardinia Road is a good model for how Elimbah and Beerburrum could have been done, no lifts just ramps and underpass - all compliant.

[InclusionMoves]

Quite right good sir.

Straight out of DSAPT.

Part 32 Adoption
32.1 Effect and application of these Standards
These Standards apply, on and from the date they come into effect under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, to:
(a) public transport services provided with:
(i) newly constructed premises or infrastructure; or
(iii) premises, infrastructure or conveyances that have undergone substantial refurbishment or alteration; or
(iv) additional or replacement equipment in premises and infrastructure or on conveyances;

Geoff

The point is that all new infrastructure MUST comply with the DDA.

[kram0]

Quite right good sir.

Straight out of DSAPT.

Part 32 Adoption
32.1 Effect and application of these Standards
These Standards apply, on and from the date they come into effect under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, to:
(a) public transport services provided with:
(i) newly constructed premises or infrastructure; or
(iii) premises, infrastructure or conveyances that have undergone substantial refurbishment or alteration; or
(iv) additional or replacement equipment in premises and infrastructure or on conveyances;

Geoff

The point is that all new infrastructure MUST comply with the DDA.

So if this is the case, how can the government get away with constructing non DDA compliant infrastructure?

[ozbob]

^ exactly.  That is why it is very concerning.  It does appear to be a general ' get fu%ked ' citizens ...

Coupled with the NGR DDA compliance failure it reflects very very poorly on the bureaucratic culture that pervades the halls of power.

[Stillwater]

DDA compliant infrastructure (ramps etc) have wider benefits, such as for mums pushing prams and strollers and older folk who are a bit unsteady on their feet, or who use walking frames etc.

[SABB]

To those wondering why it would cost so much to become fully DDA compliant, there is more to DDA compliance than just lifts, ramps and stairs. There is also some matters of accessibility. Where you have a station building, you also have to have space for two wheelchairs to pass without going over the yellow safety line. This needs 1.8m to pass the wheelchairs and 1.2m to the edge of the platform cope plus room for other rail travellers to stand. So anywhere that you don't have 3m or more from the building wall to the edge of the cope (most old stations), you either have to remove the building or rebuild the station. Pushing the copes out requires realignment of the tracks and the OHTWS. You also might need to resume some land.

[red dragin]

To those wondering why it would cost so much to become fully DDA compliant, there is more to DDA compliance than just lifts, ramps and stairs. There is also some matters of accessibility. Where you have a station building, you also have to have space for two wheelchairs to pass without going over the yellow safety line. This needs 1.8m to pass the wheelchairs and 1.2m to the edge of the platform cope plus room for other rail travellers to stand. So anywhere that you don't have 3m or more from the building wall to the edge of the cope (most old stations), you either have to remove the building or rebuild the station. Pushing the copes out requires realignment of the tracks and the OHTWS. You also might need to resume some land.

Looking from Google Maps there are a structure on each platform between the wheelchair signs and where the bridge that was removed 11 years ago stood. They appear to be waiting shelters so have enough room to pass.

My questions relate to the mobility devices in service:
* Is there a standard that the mobility must be designed to, in particular negotiating obstacles such as railway crossings?
* And do users have problems with the GLink track design? (perhaps there is a design option for QR to improve crossings)

These are two questions I don't know the answer to, not trying to buck pass.

[dancingmongoose]

Queensland Rail wants all at grade pedestrian crossings done away with apparently.

Explains the Pomona stupidity 

[Derwan]

Wulkuraka is a good example of an at grade crossing replaced by a monolith.

Wulkuraka gets their massive construction for their hourly services... and Banyo gets steps.

Granted there will also be arrivals/departures from the maintenance facility at Wulkuraka - but Banyo will also have stabling with some trains wrong-roading through through the station.