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

4. Question 2. How has the guidance influenced the design of new ships and investment in the infrastructure?

This section of the report considers how the DPTAC guidance has influenced the design of new ships and investment in infrastructure. It uses data gathered from the five UK large passenger ship operators whose 11 ships were selected for the accessibility assessments, and interviews with the managers of the 15 ports assessed. Information gathered from naval architects and the Scottish Executive is also included.

4.1 Design of large passenger ships

4.1.1 Responsibility for design of new ships

The responsibility for the design depended on whether the ship was owned by the company concerned and whether the ship was designed by an in-house design team or by an external consultancy.

Three of the five respondents said they referred the designers of their ships to the DPTAC guidance in the tender specification, for example:

"The actual design of the vessels is the responsibility of the shipyards who are awarded the contract. In the tender specification for the new building contract we refer them to the DPTAC guidelines".

One operator also consulted with a disability transport group on one of the islands they served, which resulted in some modifications being made to the design specification. Ten of the port managers and three ship managers said that the company had links with disabled groups.

The Scottish Executive does not commission ships itself, but recommends that its large passenger ship operators follow the DPTAC guidance. They currently issue the DPTAC guidance with tender documents for the operation of routes and include:

"a request that the guidance should be applied to the design of all vessels where applicable".

They also refer to the following good practice guides published by the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS):

• 'Recommended minimum training standard for staff assisting disabled people' and
• 'Valuable for anyone, valuable for everyone - providing accessible information about travel'.

The researchers had difficulty identifying a member of staff within the five companies who was responsible for ensuring the DPTAC guidance had been followed, in this respect.

4.1.2 Design of the ships included in the accessibility assessments

The 15 ships assessed as part of the accessibility assessments were built at shipyards around the world. Six of the ships, including two of the high speed craft, were built at a shipyard in Finland, two ships were built in Poland, and two of the domestic island ships were built at shipyards in the UK. Of the rest, one each was built at shipyards in Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and the Netherlands.

Three respondents believed that the contractors responsible for the design had used the DPTAC guidance when designing their six ships, but only one operator could provide examples of its use. This respondent said the DPTAC guidance had influenced the provision of tactile surfaces, passenger lifts, high visibility step treads, disabled toilet facilities on board and trip hazards on board their two ships that were assessed.

From the information provided by the interviews it does not appear that the DPTAC guidance influenced the design of the other five ships, possibly because the DPTAC guidance was not available at the time the ship was commissioned, designed or built.

The building of large passenger ships is a lengthy process. The year of registration indicates when the ship came into to service but the design and build programme can take two years. For example, the order for one EU operated ship was signed in 2002; construction officially started in April 2003, she came into service just under a year later in 2004.

The interviews indicated that other guidelines influenced the design of these ships. Two operators stated that they followed IMO guidelines relating to safety and access, for example:

"MSN 1789 (M) - Safety Requirements for Persons of Reduced Mobility on Domestic Passenger Vessels' (to be read in conjunction with MGN 31 (M)), and in particular to Annex.111 - Guidelines for Safety Requirements for Passenger Ships and High Speed Craft for Persons with Reduced Mobility."

There was no relationship between ACS scores for ships that were believed to have used the DPTAC guidance in its design and those that had used IMO guidance.

4.1.3 Use of guidance by naval architects

The information provided by the eight naval architects that responded to the request for information suggested that the DPTAC guidance is not widely used. Two of the five naval architects contacted had used the DPTAC guidance: one for a review of standards and guidelines and another used it to help design a cruise ship. The author of the review commented that he:

"did not find it as useful as I would have hoped."

Rather than reference other documents, this respondent would have preferred a single document containing detailed information on dimensions that could be used to produce a specification for a ship builder.

The designer of a 200 passenger vessel stated that he followed the IMO guidance in Sweden. The IMO guidance was used by other designers but was felt to be vague, so some of the naval architects used the US Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee's 'Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels'. This document supports the American Disability Act Legislation. One designer of small vessels (under 24m) explained that she:

"had difficulty finding UK or European guidelines which would define adequate space, turning spaces, accessible corridors etc."

4.2 Design of ports and port infrastructure

4.2.1 Investment in port infrastructure

As with ship-building, the major refurbishment of a port can take several years between project approval and project completion. A press release from a port (not included in the accessibility assessments) reported that a major port development for roll-on freight and passenger services to Ireland cost £25 million and took four years to complete from initial approval in 1998 to its opening in 2002 (see Figure 4). The press release states that the terminal has been "designed to be friendly to people with disabilities" and illustrates the type of investment that has been made into port infrastructure.

Figure 4: Press release from Port of Liverpool website

In Scotland, the Scottish Executive operates a Piers and Harbours Grant scheme with up to 75% grant available for eligible piers and harbours work. The Scottish Executive reported a recent amendment made to the grant scheme to include as a condition of the grant, the use of access consultants in the design work of any piers and harbour development work. This amendment was included following a recommendation by the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS).

However, in following up an assessment of a port by an architect who was employed as an access consultant to assess a terminal building (not assessed as part of this project) the architect reported:

"Our brief for the access audit at [name of port] was for the passenger building only, and we were informed by the client that they were attending to the accessibility of the passenger ships and means of access separately. Consequently, we did not refer to the 2000 DPTAC Guidance."

This respondent did not appear to be aware that the DPTAC guidance covers the port terminal in addition to the ship and access to the ship.

The DPTAC guidance was also used by another group to assess the services on a number of Northern Ireland routes. The group found that none of the ports or vessels assessed complied with the DPTAC guidance in full, which made it difficult for some disabled people to use services, and that levels of staff training was poor. The audits led to a number of alterations to the design, practice and staff training at the ports and on board vessels. The group commented that the DPTAC guidance was easy to use and saw it "as the benchmark for us and operators".

The DPTAC guidance has also been used by one ship operator during the development of new infrastructure at ports from which they operated. The respondent said that:

"We ...used the guidance in our discussions with Port Authorities to ensure we got the necessary infrastructure to match the ships' disabled friendly facilities."

The managers responsible for three ships reported that arrangements were compromised by mismatches between the design of new ships and the existing port side arrangements.

4.2.2 Design of the ports included in the assessments

The interviews with the 15 port managers sought information about new design and refurbishment of the ports.

Eight ports had made changes to the passenger facilities since 2000 (see Table 16).

Table 16: Recent and planned building and refurbishment of port facilities

Seven building programmes had included a minor change to ramps, signage, car parking facilities, or to meet changes in security regulations that had come into force in 2004. Five ports had engaged in major design or refurbishment of the terminal or berths. Three of the eight operators said that the DPTAC guidance had influenced the design of these changes, and two stated they had also consulted IMO guidance. The following comment illustrates how the guidance was used:

"Our latest major project at the Ferry Terminal, the construction of two new berths... with an associated new passenger services building cost in excess of £35 million. The foot passenger access to the ferries at ...[the] berths was designed to ensure suitable access for disabled passengers. Lift access on the shore side has been provided at both berths for passengers not travelling in vehicles. Similarly the adjacent passenger services building was designed to the standards contained in the guide."

When the ACS scores for the ports that had made changes since 2000 were compared against the other ports, it was found that ports that had made changes did not always score higher than those who had not. In two ports, changes were still in place at the time of the assessment.

4.3 Conclusions

This section shows that whilst operators have incorporated the DPTAC guidance in their tender specifications for new building works, it has not necessarily followed comprehensively by designers, naval architects or builders. The overall implication is that some elements of good practice described in DPTAC guidance are not being addressed, especially at the detailed level of design. No differences were found between ports and ships that were believed to have been designed using the DPTAC guidance and those that had not. It appears that naval architects are not always familiar with the DPTAC guidance, or felt that it did not meet their needs when they consulted it. The DPTAC guidance needs to be recognised as a relevant resource by all the people who need to use it.

This section has raised questions of who the DPTAC guidance should be addressed to and whether the content is perceived as relevant.

If operators wish to ensure that the DPTAC guidance is followed it may be necessary to introduce a procedure to authorise new building works from an accessibility viewpoint.

Examples of effective use of the DPTAC guidance were identified: an operator used the guidance to ensure shore to vessel infrastructure is suitable. To overcome the problems of a mismatch between facilities, it is advisable that those responsible for new ship design work together with those responsible for the port side facilities to jointly arrive at an accessible boarding arrangement for foot passengers, especially where the facilities are operated by different organisations.

The DPTAC guidance has also been used by a disabled group to audit a route and provide feedback to the operators. One operator has demonstrated that involving disabled people at the design stage of a ship is helpful. Operators who are not already doing so may find it useful to establish links and consult with disabled people. Ideally, people or organisations covering a range of impairments should be consulted.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

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