A bugbear of PSVAR for many is how closed-door home-to-school (H2S) services where separate fares are charged fall within its scope. When the passenger manifest is known in advance, requiring every vehicle to be accessible even if no traveller needs it cannot be justified.
That is clear to those who operate such duties. It is reflected in the industry’s position on the review of PSVAR. Less understanding so far is the government. It struggles to reconcile a known-in-advance manifest to its otherwise laudable desire for accessibility and inclusivity on the services concerned.
Nothing concrete is known about any proposed amendments to PSVAR that may be under consideration by Department for Transport (DfT) officials. That is because the government response to the PSVAR review call for evidence is further delayed. It is now expected in the autumn, although that may well be disrupted by general election matters.
The industry waits with bated breath to see what comes forth in that work. But is a teaser around the future of PSVAR on presently in-scope closed-door H2S services given – perhaps unwittingly – by the Accessible Information Regulations (AIR)?
Closed-door H2S work is specifically exempted from AIR. DfT guidance notes how the reasoning for that is founded on the belief that mandating accessible information in audible and visible format would be unlikely to “have a high impact” on those duties.
Also observed is how those services typically transport the same passengers each day, often with the same driver. Needs can thus be communicated, although thought is encouraged on what happens when another driver is utilised and how any information is provided then.
Such a position translates easily to accessibility requirements on closed-door services. If a passenger needs a lift either permanently or temporarily, it is not unreasonable to expect that their parents or the educational establishment will notify the operator in advance.
The “high impact” language in AIR guidance is notable. Permanently mandating PSVAR compliance on all closed-door, in-scope H2S services will highly impact little other than budgets at the organisations that ultimately will pay for it.
And it indeed must be paid for. Lifts, destination displays, testing, training, even the slight fuel penalty that comes with hauling around an additional 500kg or so. That will, or should, be factored into tender prices.
Local authority budgets are hardly overflowing, and in some areas awkward decisions have already been made on closed-door H2S transport. Among them is removal of farepayers, thereby withdrawing services from scope of PSVAR. Failure to maximise usage of spare capacity hardly sits well with environmental aspirations but is an understandable step.
The above is speculation and supposition. But the approach to closed-door H2S in AIR suggests that – finally – a pragmatic approach to some parts of PSVAR may be in the offing. All the industry now needs is publication of the next steps in that work to know what is really being considered at DfT towers.
