Review of DPTAC guidance:
Large passenger ships and passenger infrastructure
(final report)

3. Question 1: How effective is the IMO and DPTAC guidance?

In this section the information obtained from the accessibility assessments of the ships, ports and from the interviews with ship and port managers is used to assess the effectiveness of the IMO and DPTAC guidance.

3.1 Access to the terminals

3.1.1 Arrival by public transport

The assessments found that 10 of the 15 ports had a public bus service. At the time of the assessment, two of these services were operating an accessible bus (in six cases the bus was not considered accessible to disabled people, whilst at two ports a bus was not available to be assessed).

Bus stops were assessed at eight ports: all were conveniently located for the entrance to the terminal.

Taxi provision was considered at 10 ports: accessible taxi services were available at three ports (two international ports and one Northern Ireland port).

3.1.2 Courtesy buses

Three international ports offered courtesy buses between the port and town centre or railway station. In two cases the courtesy vehicle was a low floor, wheelchair accessible bus. The other bus assessed was a double decker and was not accessible to wheelchair users.

Courtesy buses were used within six ports to transfer passengers between terminals (one port) or from the terminal to the vessel or berth (five ports).

At two ports the courtesy buses transferring passengers to the vessel or berth were low floor. At another port a minibus was being used as a replacement for the usual low floor bus. A wheelchair accessible mini-bus was used in addition to a larger bus that was not accessible to wheelchair users at two other ports. At one port a wheelchair accessible minibus was used as the courtesy vehicle.

The courtesy buses were found to meet many, but not all of DPTAC's Recommended Specification for Low Floor Buses (DPTAC, 1997) and the Recommended Specification for Buses Used to Operate Local Services (DPTAC, 1995) referred to in the DPTAC guidance. For example, reviewing the design of handrails, improved colour-contrast of seats and handrails, and improved signage, could enhance accessibility of the courtesy buses.

3.1.3 Approach on foot

A pedestrian route to the terminal was assessed at each port. All were found to be step free, as recommended in the DPTAC guidance.

Two ramps were assessed as part of the pedestrian route to the terminal. Both exceeded the recommended maximum gradient for ramps in usual or exceptional circumstances.

The width of one ramp between the handrails met the DPTAC recommendation for short ramps; the other ramp was wider than recommended and only had a handrail fitted on one side, although this ramp did have a 100mm kerb upstand as recommended by DPTAC.

Both ramps had handrails that were round in profile, avoided sharp bends and both had the recommended minimum clearance between handrail and adjacent surfaces. One ramp was fitted with an additional lower handrail, and one ramp had handrails the recommended diameter that were non-slip and colour-contrasted. Neither ramp had tactile paving fitted as recommended.

Only seven ports provided signage on the route. Where provided, the signage followed most of the DPTAC guidance that was applicable.

3.1.4 Cycle routes

Cycle routes were assessed at five ports. Three ports provided a dedicated route, but none were segregated from other road users, including pedestrians, as recommended by DPTAC.

3.1.5 Approach by car

On domestic island routes, cars drove into the marshalling area on arrival where staff checked tickets. At Northern Ireland and international route ports, car passengers drove on through check-in booths to the marshalling areas in the restricted area to wait for boarding.

Six ports had a self-marshalling system in place. None of the six ports provided clear signage indicating accessible spaces for disabled badge holders as recommended by DPTAC.

Accessible spaces in the marshalling area were available at six ports landside and in the restricted area at eight ports. In ten cases the accessible spaces were located near facilities for customers. However, many ports have wide marshalling lanes (because they have to cater for vans, and coaches as well as cars), so there could be no need for special marking.

There were no differences in levels in the marshalling lanes at the 15 ports which could prevent a disabled person from getting out of a waiting car.

3.1.6 Car parking

Short term car parking was assessed at 11 ports. In seven cases accessible car parking spaces were provided and at six ports these were conveniently located for the terminal entrance. All seven ports offered sufficient free parking time in the accessible spaces for the driver to accompany a disabled passenger to check-in or reception if required.

Two ports had spaces which met all the recommended dimensions for off-street accessible spaces given in Institute of Highways and Transportation guidance (IHT, 1991).

3.1.7 Entrance to the terminal buildings

The terminal building for foot passengers was assessed at each port. Car passengers could also use this building, although separate facilities were provided at three ports landside and within the restricted area at six ports. Therefore, a total of 24 terminal buildings were assessed.

Twenty-three of the terminal buildings had a single entrance and 22 were considered to be accessible to all. One port had a terminal with two accessible entrances (step and ramp, step and lift). The building provided a waiting area, catering facilities, telephone, toilets and baby-care facilities for car passengers. Table 3 shows the number of buildings with a ramp and step at the entrance. All the buildings were step-free because the entrance was level or if steps were present a ramp or lift was provided as an alternative.

Table 3: Access and entrance to terminal buildings

* the numbers do not total 15 as eight ports had buildings in several locations

The assessment found that the entrance to the terminal buildings was clearly identifiable in 21 cases. Eleven entrances had colour-contrasted doors and/or frames, three entrances had colour-contrasted push plates, kick plates and handles, and 18 of the 24 entrances were considered well lit. Sixteen entrances had clear and easy to understand signage.

DPTAC recommends that entrance doors should be automatic and side sliding. Thirteen of the 24 terminal entrances met this recommendation. Nine of the other 11 entrance doors had a clear opening width of 1200mm.

Of the 21 fully glazed entrance doors or side panels assessed, 13 were protected by skirting, dado or handrail. Only three fully glazed doors had manifestations and none of these manifestations were the recommended width or height from ground.

Two of the larger terminals provided transitional lighting at the entrance; eight did not.

3.2 Facilities within terminal buildings

The six domestic island ports typically offered a small single storey building with a few facilities shared by both foot and car passengers.

In the nine international ports and ports serving Northern Ireland, public access areas 'landside' were assessed separately to 'restricted area' facilities provided after security clearance.

Table 4 indicates the number of facilities assessed at the 15 ports.

Table 4: Number of facilities assessed at the 15 ports

3.2.1 Reception, ticket office and check-in

Twelve of the ports assessed had a reception, and in 11 cases this was also the ticket office. Ship operators at four international ports had their own separate ticket offices within the terminal that were also assessed. At nine ports the check-in facility for foot passengers was combined with reception and ticket office, whilst six ports had a separate check-in desk for foot passengers. Each port had a separate check-in facility for cars. Table 5 shows the number of reception, ticket office and check-in facilities assessed that were logically positioned, well sign-posted and wheelchair accessible. It indicates that only four of these facilities were considered accessible to wheelchair users.

Table 5. Number of reception, ticket offices and check-in facilities meeting DPTAC recommendations

The DPTAC guidance includes recommendations for counters and desks in these facilities, see Table 6. The assessments found that only four of the 22 counters/desks assessed had a lower level for wheelchair users^[1] (a lower level counter was not applicable at the check-in booth for car passengers (15 cases)) and only five of the 37 counters/desks assessed had an induction loop fitted for hearing impaired passengers. However, 27 of the 37 counters/desks had adequate lighting to facilitate lip reading.

Table 6. Number of reception, ticket offices and check-in desks meeting DPTAC recommendations

Safety screens were provided at nine of the 37 counters/desks but only one had a non-reflective screen. The DPTAC guidance recommends that if queuing barriers are in use, they should have solid top rails and be highly visible. Queuing barriers were provided at two shared facilities, one ticket office and four check-in facilities. Only one barrier had a solid top rail but five were considered to be highly visible. One of the seven barriers provided a lower tapping rail as recommended.

3.2.2 Waiting areas

Nearly all (25) of the 28 waiting areas assessed had adequate seating, although only six areas provided seating that was designed to meet the safety and comfort of elderly and disabled passengers. Only four waiting areas had seating with the appropriate backrests and armrests; three waiting areas had seating of different heights; none of the waiting areas provided perch seating. However, the majority of seating areas (26 of the 28) did provide sufficient space for wheelchair users and most (21 of the 28) had seats without armrests or seats with moveable/removeable armrests that would enable a wheelchair user to transfer to a seat.

Only one seating area had reserved seating for disabled people, and only two had spaces for wheelchairs as recommended by IMO.

3.2.3 Toilets

Twenty-eight standard toilets and twenty-six accessible toilets were assessed at the 15 ports, as indicated in Table 4. All the ports had at least one accessible toilet; however, two terminal buildings at two different ports were not equipped with an accessible toilet in one location: one landside and one within the restricted area. At another port the accessible toilet in the landside car passenger building was not assessed because it was locked at the time of the visit. All the toilets were unisex as recommended by DPTAC and IMO.

Of the 26 accessible toilets, 17 were adequately signed and 24 had good lighting as recommended in the DPTAC guidance. In 23 cases non-reflective surfaces were used within the accessible toilet, although only two were considered to provide good colour and tone contrast. Many accessible toilets had white fittings on white tiles. All 26 accessible toilets assessed were unisex and all but one could be used at all times. The latter toilet was locked at night due to vandalism but a key was available from reception. Nineteen of the 25 accessible toilet doors assessed had 'L' or 'D' shaped handles on the inside, whilst only nine of the 28 standard toilets had door handles of these shapes on the inside. Despite this, most doors were considered easy to open (19 of the 28 standard toilets and 22 of the 26 accessible toilets). None of the 28 standard toilets met the DPTAC recommendation for minimum door opening width of 900mm.

The DPTAC guidance refers to Building Regulations Parts M (in England and Wales) and T (in Scotland) for more detailed recommendations for accessible toilets (DETR and Welsh Office, 1999; Scottish Executive, 1994). The assessments found that most of the recommendations in Parts M or T of the Building Regulations were met, but found that nine accessible toilets were undersized and five accessible toilets had obstructions such as bins in the areas adjacent to the toilet where a wheelchair user would need to manoeuvre alongside. Only six accessible toilets were found to meet the recommendation to position the washbasin so that it would be within reach while still seated on the toilet.

The assessments also found a lack of handrails in ten toilets or, where present, handrails that were too stiff, insecure or narrower than the recommended diameter. Within eight accessible toilets there was no means for calling assistance (in one case it was out of order). It was not uncommon to find pull cords up tied up, compromising the safety of users should if they fall to the floor.

3.2.4 Baby-care facilities

The DPTAC guidance recommends the provision of unisex wheelchair accessible baby-care facilities.

Twelve of the 15 ports assessed offered 22 baby-care facilities. Eighteen were unisex, while four were located within the ladies toilet. Thirteen of the facilities were separate from the toilets. Nine were wheelchair accessible, and 11 also provided facilities for feeding. Eight baby-care facilities were located within the accessible toilet and were for nappy-changing only. In two cases the facility impinged on the space within the accessible toilet.

The Women's Design Service factsheet, referred to in the DPTAC guidance, was used to assess the facilities. All 22 nappy-changing shelves were assessed to be sufficiently strong and nine of the 22 provided restraining straps. Space, however, was often limited, and only approximately half of the facilities (12) had shelf space for belongings and cleaning materials. In only two cases was the shelf at an appropriate height for a wheelchair user.

3.2.5 Retail sales areas

None of the six domestic island route ports had retail sales facilities and only five of the nine other ports had retail sales facilities in use; one port was awaiting a new concession. Table 7 indicates that nine retail facilities were assessed in total.

The assessments found that five of the eight facilities were fully accessible, and in six of the seven facilities where it was applicable there was adequate space for wheelchair users, those accompanied by an assistance dog or companion, or using a walking aid. Table 7 shows how many retail sales facilities met DPTAC's other recommendations for the facilities. It shows that whilst all avoided highly reflective display surfaces and use of spotlights, three had displays with sharp corners and none provided price lists in large print and Braille.

Table 7. Number of retail sales areas meeting DPTAC recommendations

3.2.6 Restaurants and catering

Ten of the ports offered refreshment facilities, including two of the domestic island ports. Perhaps the simplest facility of all was a mobile snack bar located in the car park. One international port had no refreshment facilities and was awaiting a new concession. In total 15 restaurant/catering facilities were assessed. All permitted assistance dogs in the restaurant or catering area.

Eleven of the 14 facilities offering a seating area met the recommendation to have a proportion of moveable seating. Ten facilities provided a mixture of seating with and without armrests, and 13 facilities had adequate space for manoeuvring around tables.

As with the retail sales areas, no restaurants or cafeterias met the recommendation to provide menus and price guides in both large print and Braille.

3.2.7 Telephones

Public telephones were provided within the foot passenger facilities or restricted areas at 12 ports. A total of 25 public telephones were assessed. None met all of the recommendations from the DPTAC guidance, only three offered a wheelchair accessible height telephone, and only one met the recommendation to provide a text-phone (see Table 8).

Nineteen of the 25 telephones had inductive couplers and volume control, and all had the tactile raised pip to mark the number "5". None followed the suggestion to include a tactile surface to indicate the presence of the telephone.

Table 8. Number of telephones meeting DPTAC recommendations

Four of the telephones were fitted with an acoustic hood and in two cases this was made of transparent material. Neither transparent acoustic hood was considered to be adequately highlighted, so were considered a hazard for visually impaired people who may walk into them.

3.2.8 Information systems

None of the 24 information systems assessed provided all information in a variety of formats: most was visual information. Eighteen of the information systems used visual display units, but only four were positioned at a height where a passenger could get very close. Half of the 12 systems assessed had screen covers with good contrast. Seven of the 14 screens assessed were non-reflective, as recommended in the DPTAC guidance, whilst all ten assessed met the recommendation for character size. Half of the eight dynamic systems had slowly changing or scrolling messages (dynamic systems incorporate signs with text that can be amended or updated, for example giving details of boarding times or relaying messages).

Seven of the eighteen information systems provided all essential and emergency information through audible announcements and clear visual displays.

One port provided induction loops at all appropriate positions within the terminal buildings assessed.

None of the ports provided a special designated area where aids and interpretation facilities might be located as suggested in the IMO guidance and have had announcements preceded by a tone.

3.2.9 Provision for assistance dogs

Only one of the international ports provided a secure area for exercising dogs. This area was landside, for foot and car passengers. The area followed DPTAC's recommendations for a step-free access route to and from the area, size of area, height of fence around the area, concrete floor, and provision of a waste bin. It was not, however, signed 'for assistance dogs only', and did not have a gate with a simple to operate catch.

3.2.10 Routes through the terminal

Twenty-nine pedestrian routes through the terminals at the 15 ports were assessed, 25 of which were through waiting/amenity areas. Of these 25 pedestrian routes, eight were differentiated using differential floor finishes from the waiting/amenity areas. However, 22 of the 29 routes had floor finishes that were non-reflective and 28 routes had flooring judged by the assessors to be slip-resistant.

The assessors considered that 26 of the 29 routes provided barrier-free movement between entrances and exits of the terminal building, as recommended by IMO.

3.2.11 Decorative finish

The decorative finish was assessed in 29 locations within the 24 port terminals (and excludes entrance doors reported in section 3.1.7). In all 29 locations there were no elaborate patterns and deep-pile carpets. High gloss surfaces were absent in 28 locations and stainless steel and other reflective materials were absent in 27 locations, which follows DPTAC guidance. In 21 locations, no grey tones had been used, as recommended in the DPTAC guidance. The use of glass was considered excessive in 5 of the 29 locations, where glass was used (24 locations) it was protected and highlighted in 15 cases.

3.2.12 Doors

Nine doors within the terminals were assessed, and five met the DPTAC recommendation for minimum opening width (900mm). All were fitted with vision panels and push plate or 'D' or 'L' shaped handles where appropriate. Three doors had lever handles, the end of which turned in towards the door, although only one of the three was considered easy to operate.

3.2.13 General lighting

Lighting was assessed in 29 locations. In the majority (21) of locations the lighting was uniformly distributed, pools or light and dark were not present (22 locations) and there was sufficient light to enable passengers to lip read (20 locations). Light fittings and luminaries avoided glare and dazzle in the majority of locations and in all of them light fittings were positioned well above head level. Floor level and low-level lighting was not present in each terminal.

It was less common to find different lighting levels used to differentiate between areas (3 of the 21 locations where it was applicable), or the use of adjustable levels of lighting in transition zones (6 out of 17 locations). Measures such as blinds were introduced to control natural light in four of the 26 locations it was applicable.

3.2.14 Signage

Signage was assessed at entrances, check-in, and within the terminal for a total of 43 locations. The assessments found that signage, where provided, was clear and concise in all instances.

It is good practice to use tactile signage to help visually impaired people identify facilities. Within the terminals, tactile signage was found in one terminal landside on toilet doors. The tactile signs contained an engraved symbol and Braille - no text - but were positioned correctly so they could be comfortably touched.

Twenty-four of the 25 safety signs assessed were logically and consistently positioned.

In 19 of 21 cases where overhead signs were used these were positioned so they were not seen against a background of light fittings.

Most of the signage met DPTAC's recommendations that it should be well illuminated (33 of 43 cases), and glare on the signs was avoided (34 of 43 cases).

None of the ports provided audible and dynamic electronic signs (dynamic electronic signs are part of dynamic information systems. The signs have text which is amended or updated, for example giving details of boarding times or relaying messages).

3.2.15 Access to upper levels

Nine of the terminal buildings were single storey (nine ports) whilst six had an upper level. Three of these upper levels were accessed landside and three were within the restricted area. In four cases (one landside and three in the restricted area) a passenger lounge was provided on the upper level which connected directly to a covered walkway for shore to ship transfer.

All six ports provided a lift and stairs to the upper level. Five ports also had escalators. One port had a short flight of steps from the ticket office to refreshment area, which could make the areas inaccessible to some people, as no lift or ramp was provided as an alternative.

3.2.16 Lifts within the terminal

Four of the six lifts assessed were located within passageways: all had sufficient space for all users, including wheelchair users, to enter and exit the lift. In two of the five locations where it was relevant, seating was provided close to the lift entrance. None of the lifts had colour and tonal contrasted doors or doors with glazing and only one had the minimum recommended door width of 900mm. Only one lift had a door that remained open for the recommended minimum of 20 seconds. Two of the six lifts offered appropriate audible feedback on lift arrival and door closing.

Within the lift cabin, only one of the six lifts had handrails on three sides, as recommended by DPTAC. In one case this was because the lift was walk-through, but this lift still only had a handrail on one side rather than on two sides as would be expected if good practice was followed. Three of the five lifts had a mirror on the back wall, but two were not the recommended size. Only one lift had non-reflective walls; most were stainless steel, and none provided adequate contrast to highlight controls and handrails. Half the six lifts were lit inside to a similar level as the floors it called at so there was no disorientating change in lighting levels when the passenger entered or exited the lift.

Two of the six lifts assessed were less than the recommended width or depth. All the six lifts had automatic floor levelling devices and non-slip flooring.

Only two lifts had controls inside and outside the lift centred at 1050mm from the floor to give easy reach for a person in a wheelchair. However, all the buttons within the six lifts met the DPTAC recommendations for protrusion, size and palm operability. Only two lifts had colour-contrasted buttons, and none had information in both text and Braille, although five of the six lifts had raised characters or numerals on the control panel. Only two of the six lifts had an audible and visual acknowledgement when a call had been registered and when the lift arrived.

The emergency controls were not at the recommended height in four lifts, and none provided a two-way visual and audible communication system.

3.2.17 Steps and stairs within the terminal

None of the stairways met all the detailed recommendations from the DPTAC guidance. The assessments found that none of the seven stairs assessed met the recommendation for tactile surfaces and three of the seven had colour-contrasted nosings to indicate the edge of the step.

The underside of five of the six stairways was enclosed or protected to prevent people walking underneath and only one stairway was found that did not follow the recommendation to avoid open risers which can be a trip hazard.

Four stairways exceeded the recommended rise for a flight of stairs of 1200mm.

Handrail provision was better inside the buildings than outside. Six of the seven locations provided handrails to both sides of the stairs, five used the recommended circular profile, and four used the recommended diameter.

3.2.18 Ramps within the terminal

Only one of the terminal buildings had a ramp within the building on the routes assessed (ramps to entrances are covered in section 3.1.7). This ramp was found to meet the maximum gradient criterion for ramps shorter than 5 metres, and the recommendation for width. Handrails were provided on both sides of the ramp, but no additional lower handrail. The handrails were larger in diameter than recommended, did not provide the minimum clearance at columns, and were not colour and tonal contrasted with the background.

3.2.19 Emergency egress

The DPTAC guidance recommends that emergency alarm systems should be both audible and visual. None of the ports had such a dual system. However, in all but one of the ports a means of egress was designed to at least the same standard as other circulating routes.

3.3 Shore to vessel transition

3.3.1 Arrangements for foot passengers

The assessments found that arrangements for boarding a ship as a foot passenger were dependent on the relationship between portside facilities and ship design, and in some instances arrangements at a port were different for different types of ship.

The following arrangements were identified at the 15 ports assessed (note: multiple arrangements possible at each port):

• Eight ports provided a covered walkway directly from the terminal building onto the ship.
• One port provided a covered walkway from the berth onto the ship (the berth was not connected to the terminal building by a covered walkway).
• Six ports provided a courtesy bus from the departure area (one on request for disabled passengers): at one port the bus dropped the passengers at the foot of the berth walkway whilst, at five other ports the courtesy bus drove onto the car deck.
• One port provided a portable ramp onto the ship.
• Three ports allowed passengers to walk onto the ship through the car link span onto the car deck.

3.3.2 Arrangements for disabled foot passengers

To assist passengers with limited mobility, six ports provided a wheelchair accessible bus or mini bus (see section 3.1.2), and ten ports provided courtesy wheelchairs if required. On one of the island routes, local arrangements could be made for passengers to be dropped off or collected from the car deck by an accessible vehicle or private car.

3.3.3 Arrangements for car passengers

Car passenger access arrangements were more consistent at the 15 ports; the port-side staff would usually identify cars with disabled travellers, and pass them on to the deck crew to arrange parking close to the on board lifts. Disabled car passengers had 'priority' boarding, but were generally called so as to suit the loading of the vessel with respect to lift location (for example, if the lift was in the middle of the vessel the disabled car passengers would not board first). Courtesy wheelchairs were also available at ten ports and on board two ships.

3.3.4 Weather Protection

Nine ports had a covered walkway from the terminal to the ship as recommended in the DPTAC guidance. The four ports with open gangways onto the ship were all domestic island routes.

3.3.5 Queue rails

None of the routes assessed had queue rails for this part of the journey.

3.3.6 Pedestrian Crossing Points

One pedestrian crossing point was assessed as part of the shore to vessel transition, although the transfer was more usually made by bus at this port, and a wheelchair accessible minibus could be requested. None of the other shore to vessel routes assessed had a pedestrian crossing. The crossing was considered well lit and clearly marked for pedestrians and drivers but did not have dropped kerbs or a tactile warning surface.

3.3.7 Pedestrian route or passageway

Twelve of the 13 shore to vessel pedestrian routes or passageways assessed met the DPTAC recommendation for minimum width, and all met the DPTAC recommendations for crossfalls.

3.3.8 Ramps

Eight ramped walkways or passenger gangways were assessed as part of the shore to vessel transition. Three were found to be steeper than recommended (only one ramp met the IMO recommendation of 1:20), and none of these provided an alternative route for wheelchair users, although staff assistance was available. At one port the ramp was stepped (i.e. the ramp incorporated steps), which is against DPTAC guidance.

None of the eight ramps met the DPTAC recommendation for maximum length between landings (5 metres), or maximum length of ramps which need to be steeper than 1:12 due to tidal movement (3 metres). Only one of these four ramps had landings, although all four offered staff assistance to wheelchair users and people with a walking impairment. One of the eight ports had a separate flight of steps as an alternative.

The DPTAC recommendation for minimum width was met in five cases, and in six cases the ramp had handrails on both sides. However, none of three wide ramps had a central handrail. Three of the seven ramps where it was applicable had raised kerbs detectable by long-cane users.

All eight ports provided staff assistance at ramps.

3.3.9 Lifts

Two lifts were assessed at this point of the journey: one at the berth and one that linked upper and lower walkways, which provided access to the ship.

These lifts were similar to those within the terminal buildings in that both had sufficient clear space in front of the lift doors for wheelchair users, automatic floor levelling devices, non-slip flooring and buttons the recommended size and protrusion. Similarly, neither lift had doors with glazing, doors that remained open the recommended minimum of 20 seconds, controls inside and outside the lift centred at 1050mm from the floor, information in both text and Braille or two way visual and audible emergency information. Both the lifts assessed for shore to vessel transition met the recommendation for minimum door width; both had handrails on three sides; and both cabins were the recommended size. The control panels were fitted to side walls within both lifts as recommended by DPTAC.

They were also similar in that not all of the lifts provided seating close to the lift entrance; had a mirror on the back wall; offered appropriate audible feedback on lift arriving and door closing; or had an audible and visual acknowledgement that a call had been registered, and when the lift arrives. One of the two lifts had non-reflective walls and avoided the use of glass but did not provide adequate contrast to highlight controls and handrails. One lift had colour-contrasted buttons and one lift had emergency controls positioned at the bottom of the panel, but this was not at the recommended height. One lift was lit within to a similar level as the areas outside of the lift so there was no disorientating change in lighting levels when entering or exiting.

One of the two lifts used for shore to vessel transfer had doors that were colour and tone contrasted with the surrounding walls, unlike lifts within the terminal. However, the two shore to vessel transfer lifts did not meet the following recommendations met by lifts within the terminal: the buttons within one lift were not palm operable, and one lift did not have raised characters or numerals on the control panel.

3.3.10 Steps and stairs

Stairs were assessed at three ports as part of the shore to vessel transition. These stairs were very similar to those inside the terminal buildings. All the steps were of uniform dimensions with closed risers but none of the stairs had tactile surfaces or colour or tonal change at top/bottom. Only one of the three steps had colour-contrasted nosings to indicate the edge of the step, but all three had step noses that extended the full width of the step and were the recommended depth on the tread. Two of the three stairs also has step noses the recommended depth on the riser.

Handrails were fitted to both sides on all three stairs: two of the three stairs had circular handrails and one was the recommended diameter. Two stairs had handrails the recommended height. One handrail extended beyond top and bottom of steps but only two of the three stairs had handrails that continued across half landings. One stairway had a central handrail as recommended.

The stairs on this part of the route all had enclosed undersides so people with visual impairments could not harm themselves by walking underneath the stairs at a point with insufficient headroom. All the stairs had resting areas the recommended size. One stairway exceeded the maximum rise before a resting area.

3.3.11 Overall accessibility of ports

Table 9 shows the assessment criteria scores for the 15 ports (ACS - see section 2.7.1). The Assessment Criteria Score ranged from 51% to 80%. International route ports offered more facilities and generally scored higher than other ports (see Figure 1).

Table 9. Assessment Criteria Score for the 15 ports

Figure 1: Assessment Criteria Scores for the 15 ports

3.4 On board accommodation

3.4.1 Access via passenger gangway

Nine of the eleven passenger gangways met the recommendation to provide access as near to level as possible on to the ship installations; eight gangways provided a trip free route, and ten had a non-slip surface.

The three ships that did not meet the recommendations for a level and trip free route, were all used on domestic island routes. It was usual practice at the four ports used by these ships to board all passengers via the car deck link span.

Assistance by the crew was available during boarding for all 15 ships.

3.4.2 Access via car deck

None of the 15 ships assessed (see section 2.2.1 for details of the ship selection) provided marked accessible spaces on the car deck as suggested in the DPTAC and IMO guidance. Fourteen ships relied on staff to park vehicles with sufficient space and close to lifts, this meeting the IMO recommendation.

Twelve of the 15 ships provided barrier-free passage for wheelchair users from the parking spaces to passenger facilities.

3.4.3 Lifts on board ship

Eighteen lifts were assessed as part of the 15 ship accessibility assessments. Fourteen carried passengers from the car deck to the passenger deck, and four carried passengers between passenger decks. On one ship there was level access from the car deck to the passenger facilities and a lift within this passenger area. This means all 15 ships met the IMO recommendation that "at least one elevator should lead from the car deck to a deck with barrier-free access to public spaces, cabins and toilets".

Table 10 lists the IMO recommendations and the number of lifts that complied.

Two of the 18 lifts were walk-through, and one was a platform lift. Staff operated two lifts.

Table 10 showed that 12 of the 16 lift interiors offered fewer than three handrails and only one of the 14 assessed provided a drop-down seat to assist ambulant disabled travellers. Eleven of the 17 lifts met the minimum recommended dimensions for floor space and 16 of the 18 lifts offered sufficient clear space in front of the lifts. Only three lifts had colour and tonal contrasted push buttons, five lifts had buttons with large relief letters, and three lifts had a red emergency stop button.

The DPTAC guidance includes further recommendations to assist people with sensory impairments. The assessments found that around half (8) of 17 lifts had non-reflective walls that benefit people with visual impairments. Few of the lifts assessed were found to provide colour-contrast (five of the 18 lifts) or audible and visual information that is particularly useful to people with visual, hearing and cognitive impairments. Only five of 16 lifts assessed had an audible and visual acknowledgement that a call had been registered, and when the lift arrives; three of the 16 offered appropriate audible and visual feedback inside and outside the lift when the floor has been reached; and one of the 16 lifts offered appropriate audible and visual feedback inside and outside the lift on door opening and closing.

Table 10. Number of on board lifts meeting IMO recommendations for elevators

* only includes lifts from the car deck

Where there are three or more floors, DPTAC recommends that an audible announcement of the floor location should be made. Only one of the 12 lifts where it was applicable met this recommendation. Two of the 18 lifts had colour and tonal contrasted doors. Three of 16 lifts had information in both text and Braille on the control panel as recommended by DPTAC. Only one lift provided a two-way visual and audible emergency communication system.

Like the lifts in the port areas, all 18 lifts had automatic floor levelling devices and non-slip flooring. However, only three of the lifts had doors with glazing or that remained open the recommended minimum of 20 seconds. Around half of the lifts had a mirror on the back wall or controls inside and outside the lift centred at 1050mm from the floor. The emergency controls were not at the recommended height for six of the 15 lifts.

3.4.4 Steps and stairs on board

Twenty-eight stairs were assessed: 14 from the car deck to passenger areas, and 14 between passenger areas. All 15 ships had at least one stairway.

The IMO guidance gives some specific recommendations for stairs, as shown in Table 11. The Table does not include IMO recommendations for width of step nose and height of handrails above stair tread because the information was not collected by the assessors as the IMO dimensions were less than those in the DPTAC guidance. The IMO guidance also includes general guidance that "steps should give optimum safety with regard to height, depth, colour, lighting and risk of slipping" but no details on achieving this. The DPTAC guidance covers the IMO recommendations and has supplementary advice.

All 28 of the stairs that were assessed met the DPTAC recommendations to provided handrails on both sides. Sixteen of the 28 stairs assessed had closed risers as recommended in DPTAC and IMO guidance. Eight of the 12 stairs with open risers were located between passenger areas.

Eighteen steps had step nosings, 11 of which were colour-contrasted. Colour-contrasted nosings were provided more often on the stairs from the car deck than those within the passenger accommodation.

Only one ship provided a tactile surface, but this was only installed at the top of the stairs, was the incorrect profile (blister surface rather than the corduroy hazard warning surface), and was not installed following DfT guidance (DETR, 1999).

Eight stairs were found to be too steep, six of which were from the car deck to the passenger area.

The majority of handrails were round in profile and of the recommended diameter. The assessments revealed, however, that opportunities to offer colour-contrasting to help people with visual impairments, or to offer an easy grip non-slip surface for people with arthritic hands, had not been taken up (see Table 11).

Table 11. Number of steps and stairs meeting IMO recommendations for stairs

The DPTAC guidelines on the widths of stairways follow SOLAS regulations (IMO, 2000). Half of the stairs assessed were found to meet the recommendation of at least 1200mm between handrails (increasing by 10mm for every person over 90 passengers carrying capacity), and all but one stairway met the maximum recommended width of 1800mm.

The SOLAS recommendations for the provision of landings were met on all 15 ships, but seven of 27 landings failed to meet the recommendation for minimum dimensions and one exceeded the maximum dimensions specified.

3.4.5 Passageways

It was found that the majority of passageways met the DPTAC recommendation for minimum width where possible, and 11 of the 12 ships met the minimum of 1800mm. Thirteen of the 15 corridors assessed were considered wide enough for wheelchairs to pass other persons, as recommended in IMO guidance.

The IMO guidance includes a number of additional recommendations that are not covered in the DPTAC guidance. All 15 ships provided barrier free routes in public spaces. Thirteen of the 15 ships provided ramps or retractable coamings, but only two ramps and coamings were marked in contrasting colours.

IMO states that door openings to public spaces should be at least 800mm wide. Ten of the 12 doors assessed met this recommendation, while eleven were automatic or held open as suggested.

The provision of handrails in corridors is recommended by IMO and these should be provided on both sides at a height of 900mm from floor level. Four ships complied with this recommendation and only one ship did not provide any handrails in corridors. Thirteen of the 14 ships' corridor handrails were circular in profile as recommended and 11 were the recommended diameter. Only two, however, were colour-contrasted against the background.

The floor within each ship was level and considered by the assessor to be slip-resistant.

3.4.6 General lighting

The IMO guidance does not cover general lighting, so the ships were assessed against the same DPTAC recommendation for lighting within ports.

Lighting was assessed in 15 locations. In 12 of the 15 locations where lighting was assessed, it was uniformly distributed; pools or light and dark were avoided in 11 locations; and there was sufficient light to enable passengers to lip read in 14 locations. Different lighting levels were used to differentiate between areas in 11 of the 15 locations. In all 15 locations light fittings were positioned well above head level. Floor level and low-level lighting was avoided in 14 ships.

The use of adjustable levels of lighting in transition zones was less common (3 of the 7 locations it was applicable), whilst light fittings and luminaries avoided glare and dazzle in 6 locations. Measures such as blinds were introduced to control natural light in 7 of the 15 locations.

3.4.7 Signage

Brief guidance on signage is included in the IMO guidance and is more comprehensive in the DPTAC document. This latter document refers to the Sign Design Guide (JMU Access Partnership and Sign Design Society, 2000) for additional guidance.

Generally, the signage met the DPTAC guidance recommendations for the positioning and content of signage. The IMO and DPTAC recommendations that signs should be clear were met in 14 of the 15 cases; a suitable font size was used in 11 cases. Twelve of the 15 signs had sufficient contrast between text and signboard and nine sign faces were well illuminated as recommended in IMO and DPTAC. All the safety signage on the 15 ships assessed was considered to be logically and consistently positioned with the content clear and easy to understand.

Other recommendations were less well met. Problems with glare on the face of the sign were identified in nine cases, and there was some confusion over the layout and grouping of directional arrows in the signs on 11 ships.

In 7 of the 11 cases where overhead signs were used these signs were positioned so they were not seen against a background of light fittings.

None of the 15 ships provided Braille signage and only 2 offered signs with embossed text. These latter signs were not positioned where they could be comfortably touched but did have characters of the recommended height, spacing, width and raised profile.

3.4.8 Emergency egress

Guidance on means of escape from the large passenger ship is included briefly in IMO and comprehensively in SOLAS regulations. All 15 ships met the IMO recommendation that barrier-free routes to assembly stations are provided. Most of the SOLAS recommendations for stairs (see section 3.4.4) were met. Nine ships met the SOLAS recommendation for the route to be marked by lighting or photoluminescent strip indicators within 300mm of deck level.

Five of the 12 ships did not provide handrails throughout corridors along the entire escape route, and only two of the 13 Ro-Ro ferry escape route plans followed all SOLAS recommendations, although this is probably due to the fact that ships may have been in various stages of compliance with SOLAS amendments at the time of the assessment.

3.4.9 Overall access onto the passenger ship

The IMO guidance includes general recommendations about accessibility of access routes onto the ship. The assessors' opinion of the overall accessibility is shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Assessors' opinion of access onto the ship

As indicated in Section 3.4.3, all 15 ships assessed provided an access route without stairs (by providing a lift), but Table 12 shows that for seven ships the assessors indicated that the ship did not have at least one access to the ship suitable for disabled people, without stairs and appropriately signed throughout the ship. In all seven cases the assessors indicated the route was not signed appropriately.

3.5 Facilities on board the ships

3.5.1 Toilets

Both the IMO and DPTAC guidance recommend that toilets should be provided on each deck level. The assessments found that standard toilets were found on each deck level within the 15 ships but only ten of the 14 ships provided accessible toilets on each level. None of the accessible toilets were located within the standard toilets. All 15 ships had at least one accessible toilet on board.

Table 13 shows the number of accessible toilets assessed that met the IMO recommendations. It does not include the IMO recommendation for minimum space in front of the toilet (110cm), as the higher standard referred to in the DPTAC guidance was used in the assessments (Building Regulations Part M and T).

Table 13. Number of accessible toilets meeting IMO recommendations

Table 13 shows that all ship operators provided a unisex accessible toilet and these were available at all times. All 15 accessible toilets had a means of calling for assistance. Ten devices were button operated, but two of the four pull cords were found tied up, as was the case in the port terminals. It was not noted whether a cord or button was provided in one of the 15 accessible toilets.

Nine of the 15 toilets provided sufficient space for sideways transfer from wheelchair to toilet. The assessments also revealed some potential problems with dimensions and practical details such as reach to the washbasin (only 4 of the 15 could be reached from the toilet), and height of accessories such as soap dispenser, dryer and mirror. In eight accessible toilets the toilet seat was not at the recommended height.

The IMO recommendations differ from the DPTAC guidance in respect of doors and hinged handrails. DPTAC recommends that doors to accessible toilets are outward opening, but IMO also permits sliding doors. The assessments found that ten doors were outward opening and four were sliding. IMO recommends that hinged rails are available on both sides of the toilet, whilst the Building Regulations referred to by DPTAC specify that a hinged rail should be available on the transfer side of the toilet, and additional horizontal and vertical fixed rails should also be provided. The assessments found that four toilets had hinged rails both sides, and ten provided a hinged rail on one side only.

The DPTAC guidelines include additional recommendations to IMO including the provision of non-reflective surfaces, use of colour and tonal contrast and good lighting. Nine of the accessible toilets had non-reflective surfaces but only five had adequate colour-contrast within the cubicle. The lighting was considered good within 13 accessible toilets.

Nine of the 15 accessible toilets had a minimum opening width of 900mm as recommended in DPTAC (though Building Regulations specify 1000mm). Eight accessible toilets had 'L' or 'D' shaped handles on the inside of the door (two additional toilets had automatic doors) and eight were considered easy to open.

3.5.2 Baby-care facilities

Baby-care facilities were available and assessed in 12 ships. Half were located within the accessible toilet and half were separate from the toilets. Five of the six separate facilities were wheelchair accessible, and five provided facilities for feeding. The six baby-care facilities within the accessible toilets were only for nappy-changing. Two of these facilities were considered to compromise the space within the accessible toilet. Four of the 12 facilities had a shelf at an appropriate height for a wheelchair user.

3.5.3 Retail sales areas

Fourteen retail sales areas were assessed on board 14 ships: the retail sales area on one ship was closed at the time of the assessment. The retail sales areas were assessed against the same DPTAC recommendations as for ports.

Less than half of the retail sales areas assessed were considered fully accessible (6 of the 14), although nine offered sufficient space in turnstiles, aisles and checkout. Table 14 shows the number of retail sales area meeting the detailed DPTAC recommendations. It shows that 11 facilities did not meet the recommendations for the visual environment including lighting or highly reflective surfaces. None provided price lists in large print and Braille.

Table 14. Number of retail sales areas on board meeting DPTAC recommendations

3.5.4 Restaurants, cafeterias and other service counters

All but one of the 15 ships offered at least one refreshment facility. Some of the larger ships offered a food complex with multiple franchisers. One facility on each ship was assessed.

The accessibility assessors reported that nine of the 14 facilities permitted assistance dogs within the area, as recommended by DPTAC and IMO. However, 11 ship managers said that assistance dogs were allowed access to all areas on board (see section 3.5.13).

Four of the 14 facilities provided low height counter sections, suitable for wheelchair users. All 10 self-service facilities assessed met the recommendation to offer a continuous self-service system terminating at the cash desk and cutlery rack.

Most of the seating in the refreshment areas was assessed as meeting the recommendation to provide tables that were wheelchair accessible (nine of 13 facilities) and there was adequate space for manoeuvring around the tables in the majority of cases. Eight of the 14 facilities provided handholds as recommended by IMO.

Clear pricing information was usually provided, but no facility to met the DPTAC recommendation to offer menus in both large print and Braille.

3.5.5 Induction Loops

Section 4.14 of the DPTAC guidance states that induction loops "should be fitted and screened to avoid causing interference with the ship's systems." (DPTAC, 2000: 24). It does not specify appropriate locations for the induction loops. The IMO guidance suggests that induction loops should be provided at information counters.

Two of the 14 ships, where it could be determined, were found to have an induction loop system fitted for audible announcements. None of the 14 ships' information counters were fitted with induction loops (there was no appropriate signage indicating its presence).

3.5.6 Telephones

None of the domestic island ships offered public telephones, of the other routes, five offered telephones on board. The only IMO recommendation for telephones was that at least one should be accessible for wheelchair users. Only one was found that offered a low height telephone for a wheelchair user, and none provided text-phone facilities as recommended in DPTAC guidance. In considering the acoustic environment, three telephones offered acoustic hoods of which two were designed so as not be present a hazard.

None of the telephones offered inductive couplers, although two provided volume control. All five had a raised pip to mark the number '5'. None of the telephones used the 'information' tactile flooring surface to highlight the location of the telephone.

3.5.7 First Aid

Only one ship was found to openly display the name of the Duty First Aider as suggested in the DPTAC guidance. One ship manager reported that all customer service staff had first aid training.

3.5.8 Safety announcements

The DPTAC guidance includes recommendations for safety announcements and offers additional general recommendation for announcements. Some guidance is also included in the IMO document.

All 15 ships provided safety announcements prior to leaving port, including identifying the location of other safety information. Fourteen of the announcements also included detail of emergency arrangements such as donning lifejackets. Two-thirds also offered a simultaneous video display.

DPTAC suggests that in the event of weather giving rise to danger for wheelchair users appropriate announcements should be made. The assessments found that on seven ships announcements would be made to transfer wheelchair users into secured seats and on another ship wheelchair restraining systems were available.

Audible announcements were found to meet all recommendations for volume, diction, well-structured messages, plain language and being preceded by a tone to attract attention, thus meeting all IMO recommendations for announcements.

3.5.9 Information

Visual information systems were available on 11 ships. Six were positioned at a height where a passenger could get very close, and half had non-reflective screens. All the eight systems that could be assessed used text that had a clear font, seven used large print, and six used light coloured text on a dark background. Six of the seven dynamic systems had slowly changing or scrolling messages (dynamic systems incorporate signs with text that can be amended or updated to relay messages).

The provision of information desks is recommended in the IMO guidance. Fourteen ships provided such a desk, and six were the recommended height from floor level. None had an induction loop installed at the desk.

On one ship information was available in alternative formats such as Braille, audio tape and tactile.

None of the 12 ship managers interviewed said that their staff carried a deafblind alphabet card as recommended by DPTAC.

3.5.10 Maps

No ship offered tactile maps, as suggested in the DPTAC guidance.

3.5.11 Seating

All 15 ships offered passenger seating, which complied with general safety recommendations that there should be one seat for every passenger.

The DPTAC guidance makes a number of general recommendations on the combination of fixed and moveable seating, armrests and suitable heights. As summarised in Table 15, the assessment found that nine of the 15 ships offered a combination of fixed and moveable seats, 13 of the 15 ships provided seats with and without armrests, and all 15 seating areas assessed provided seats of suitable height. Those ships that did not offer a mix of fixed and moveable seats included the three HSC.

Only one of the ships provided at least one reserved wheelchair space per 100 passengers as recommended by IMO. However, nine ships provided seats suitable for disabled travellers near evacuation routes and toilets.

Table 15. Number of seating areas meeting IMO recommendations

3.5.12 Cabins

Seven ships assessed offered accessible cabins, and six of these were on ships with long overnight routes. The DPTAC guidance is less detailed than the IMO guidance and highlights two IMO recommendations. The first is to provide a proportion of accessible cabins (proportion unspecified), and the other is to ensure each cabin is equipped with a means of calling assistance. All seven accessible cabins met this latter recommendation.

One ship met all the IMO guidance recommendations for cabins. Two of the seven cabins did not provide the minimum clear door width. All seven had either a sliding or outward opening door as recommended, and six had beds of the appropriate height. Two cabins did not provide the minimum recommended space in front of the bed. All seven cabins were found to meet the recommendation that light switches should be within easy reach of the bed, but only two met the recommendation to provide handholds next to the bed. All seven cabins met the SOLAS recommendation to have doors that could unlocked from the inside without the use of keys.

3.5.13 Carriage of assistance dogs

The rules covering the carriage of assistance dogs vary depending on whether the ship is making an international journey or a domestic one. If the vessel is making an international journey the dog will be carried under the Pet Travel Scheme (also known as The Pet Passport) that was introduced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The scheme allows certain animals, including dogs, to travel certain routes and on certain carriers (including large passenger ships) without quarantine, provided the animals conform to regulations under the scheme. No preparation or documentation is necessary for the movement of dogs directly between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles, which are rabies free.

The DPTAC and IMO guidance recommend that assistance dogs should be able to accompany their owner to all areas of the ship, including catering areas, as required. Eleven of the 12 ship managers interviewed believed assistance dogs were allowed access to all areas^[2], whilst one manager said the dog must remain in the vehicle. Kennels and toilets were provided on board two ships.

The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has worked with some ship operators to help them become aware of the need for blind and partially sighted guide dog owners to have their dogs with them in all areas of the ship to assist with their mobility and orientation.

3.5.14 Overall accessibility of ships

The assessors indicated their overall opinion of the accessibility of each ship in their summary reports. In all cases the assessor said the ships had not met the recommendations of the guidance, but that this was largely in the detail.

The Assessment Criteria Score, as described in section 2.7.1, ranged from 57% to 77% for the 15 ships, and the mean was 66%. Figure 2 shows the ACS for the 15 ships by passenger capacity as measured by registered passenger numbers. It indicates that there is a slight relationship between passenger capacity and ACS.

Figure 2: Assessment criteria scores for the ships by passenger capacity

Figure 3 shows the ACS by year of registration for the eleven ships registered since 2000, the year the DPTAC guidance was published.

It can be seen that the spread of scores (57-77%) is greatest for the UK registered ships, with the highest scoring ship having been registered in 2001 and the lowest scoring ship registered in 2003.

Figure 3: Assessment criteria scores for the ships by year of registration

The ACS for IMO guidance for the 15 ships ranged from 55% to 84%. The mean was 58%.

3.6 Management and training

3.6.1 Awareness of the guidance

Managers at each port and on board 12 ships were interviewed. Nine of the 15 port managers and six of the ship managers were aware of the DPTAC guidance. Of these, four port manager and two ship managers said they were familiar with the DPTAC guidance. There was a greater awareness of the IMO guidance among ship managers (nine were familiar with the IMO guidance and one was aware of it). Only one port was familiar with the IMO guidance.

3.6.2 Company policies

Managers were asked whether they had a policy statement or in-house guidelines on disability access. Six ship managers and five port managers stated that they did. Two additional ports stated that their operational manual covered disabled passengers but had no direct policy. In some cases the policy statement or guidelines appear to be localised, as two ports operated by the same company and the ships operated by the three different companies gave different responses. It may also be because the interviewee was not aware of any company policies.

More ships and ports appeared to have a policy statement or in-house guidelines on the emergency evacuation of disabled people. All 12 ship managers and 8 port managers stated they had such a policy or guidelines.

The managers of the 15 ports and 12 ships reported that seven ports and two ships had had an access audit or survey since 2000 (not including the assessment carried out for this study).

3.6.3 Design of vessel or terminal

Design issues are covered under Question 2 (see section 4 of this report).

3.6.4 Disability awareness training

Section 7 of the DPTAC guidance stresses the importance of disability awareness training, and suggests the appropriate content of training courses to raise awareness, encourage problem solving and communicating to those with hearing impairments or learning difficulties.

The interview with port and ship managers revealed that not all operators met the DPTAC suggestion to ensure all staff receive disability awareness training. The interviews showed that senior managers in particular had not received such training.

More port staff received disability awareness training than did staff working on ships. Around half of the 15 port managers stated that customer service staff received disability awareness training, but only two of the 12 ship managers stated that their customer service staff underwent such training.

None of the 12 ship managers interviewed had received disability awareness training from their current employer, whilst five of 14 port managers interviewed had completed such training.

The availability of training appears to be local as four ports operated by two different companies gave differing responses; one port in the group provided training, one port did not. Another company trained customer service staff at all three ports it operated in this study, and appeared to have a standard course.

At two ports and on one ship the training provided varied depending on the position of staff, with members of staff offering wheelchair assistance received more specialised training. Six respondents said the courses covered "general disability awareness". Wheelchair handling was covered by three ports, and the staff at four ports and one ship were trained in communicating with deaf people. One port said it used the MIDAS programme. This course is for mini bus drivers and covers how to restrain wheelchairs and customer care.

Five port managers and six ship managers said that the training was offered as part of an induction course, and at four ports the course was repeated annually or bi-annually. Two ports said wheelchair handling training was on going. One ship manager said customer service training was reviewed every three months. Another ship manager and one port manager said that they offered refresher training on demand.

3.6.5 Staff assistance

All the ship and port managers interviewed stated that staff assistance was available for disabled passengers, and their staff did all that they could to help.

The DPTAC guidance encourages disabled passengers to notify operators of their needs in advance so that operators can make appropriate arrangements and warn passengers of any practical difficulties they may encounter. Only one of the 15 ports did not offer assistance without advance notification. Some of the ship managers and some of the port managers stated that they would prefer to be notified in advance of any passengers' special needs, but passengers would still be able to travel whether or not they had and be able to request assistance on arrival at the port. It is at the check-in that passengers with any mobility problems have to make their requirements known to the staff and the staff have to ensure that this information is passed on to ensure that suitable assistance is offered. In some cases, failure to identify a passenger's needs has meant a passenger has not been parked near to a lift or given extra space around the vehicle.

The respondents described some of the types of assistance provided at the port or on board ship. Courtesy wheelchairs were available at ten ports and on board two ships. Two ports said that they would escort passengers with visual impairments onto the ship, and two ports and one ship manager said staff would read out information and menus to assist disabled passengers.

3.7 Discussion and conclusions

The assessments made in this study have shown that whilst the ports and large passenger ships meet the majority of the DPTAC and IMO recommendations for the facilities they provide, they often fail to meet the recommendations in detail. In some cases this makes a facility difficult or impossible to use, where the wrong shaped door handle on a toilet door may mean someone cannot access the toilet. Following the detailed recommendations could often improve accessibility and comfort for a wider range of passengers. For example, the provision of ramps is important for wheelchair users, but improvements to the design of handrails to ramps would help older users and those with less severe mobility impairments who need extra support. Additional attention to details affecting colour-contrast, lighting and some aspects of signage would particularly benefit people with a range of visual impairment, and could benefit those who find the experience of being in an unfamiliar place stressful.

Ramps and lifts have been provided where a change of level is required, but often the angle of the ramp is too steep. This makes it difficult for wheelchair users and those with mobility impairment. Physical access recommendations appear to be better addressed than those affecting the design of facilities and interior fittings.

It should be noted that in some cases the facilities provided in the port or ship did not meet the DPTAC guidance, but may have had an acceptable alternative. For example, it may be acceptable to provide an automatic door to an accessible toilet operated by a highly visible and easy to use push button; IMO recommends sliding doors but DPTAC only covers outward opening doors.

One area of concern was a lack of provision of information about emergency egress in alternative formats at ports and on board ships. It is very important that safety and emergency information is provided in alternative formats for people with sensory impairments, and that it is easy to understand by people with learning disabilities. It is further necessary that the physical constraints of people with mobility impairments are taken into account when designing emergency escape routes.

The provision of staff assistance can help overcome many obstacles or difficulties that disabled passengers could encounter. All of the managers at the ports and on board ships said their staff could provide assistance and were willing to offer help. However, not all staff had been given disability awareness training that could help staff offer the most appropriate assistance.

A number of operators appeared aware of the difficulties that disabled passenger may encounter when boarding at the port as a foot passenger, and offered courtesy buses to board the vehicle as an alternative. Ten of the 15 ports offered courtesy wheelchairs to disabled foot passengers.

Overall, the accessibility criteria scores for the DPTAC guidance ranged from 57% to 77% for ships, and 51% to 80% for ports. The ships' scores for the IMO guidance were similar. This shows that the DPTAC guidance is only being partially observed. Its effectiveness could be enhanced, and the large passenger ship travel of disabled people improved, if it was better used by vessel and port builders and operators.

1. At some ports lower desks may not be provided for the protection of employees against aggressive customers, although some alternative arrangements could be considered.
2. Section 3.5.4 noted that assistance dogs were not allowed into the restaurant or catering outlets on board two of the 11 ships.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

Published: 14 June 2006 | Copyright disclaimer | Content disclaimer | © Crown copyright 2008