26 April 2013
Disabilities Transport Access Secretariat
Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: DSAPT 2012 Review
We appreciate the opportunity to make a submission as part of the DSAPT 2012
Review.
Our submission is based on experience of progress or inactivity evident in Brisbane and
South East Queensland (the Gold Coast, Toowoomba, Sunshine Coast triangle),
regional Queensland and some national observations.
Yours sincerely,
John Mayo
General Manager – Community Development
Spinal Injuries Association
DSAPT 2012 Review Submission
The following has a Queensland focus, though it touches upon national issues.
1. Has your accessibility to public transport improved since the
commencement of the first Transport Standards review in 2007?
How has your accessibility to conveyances (e.g. trains, buses and coaches,
trams, ferries, wheelchair accessible taxis and aircraft) changed? Can you
provide examples?
Buses
The percentage of low floor buses in the various fleets has increased. More than half of
buses are low floor and accessible. These are not distributed uniformly in Queensland,
as some operators are behind schedule.
Direct Assistance
Assistance from drivers in deploying the boarding ramp and of informing vision impaired
passengers of their stop is generally good and is improving. Failures do occur on
occasion.
Movement of mobility aid in allocated space
No safe and nationally uniform means of securing mobility aids in allocated spaces has
been developed. Some operator specific solutions have been attempted but these all
fail to meet the approval of other operators and fail to satisfy the travelling public. The
insecurity of mobility aids when cornering, through round-a-bouts, braking and
acceleration is a great disincentive to using low floor accessible buses. The DSAPT
requirement in Part 9.11 has a 55% compliance requirement by December 31 2012.
This target has not been met in Queensland and probably not nationally.
9.11 Movement of mobility aid in allocated space
An allocated space must contain movement of a mobility aid towards the front or sides of
a conveyance.
Conveyances
* Buses, except dedicated school buses
* Trams
* Light rail
A nationally applicable solution for this failure to comply is urgently required.
2|Page
Manoeuvring area
Floor layout seems to be fixed in the pattern of an access path commencing at the front
door and terminating at two allocated spaces immediately behind the wheel arches.
This obliges a person using a mobility aid to turn it through 180 degrees to exit. This is
quite difficult to achieve for some powered mobility aids. Some larger aids also struggle
to turn into the spaces from the access path. Part 3.2 of DSAPT (below) requires a
performance outcome where mobility aids must be able to enter, exit and manoeuvre in
the bus.
3.2 Access for passengers in wheelchairs, etc
(1) Passengers in wheelchairs or mobility aids must be able to enter and exit a
conveyance and position their aids in the allocated space.
(2) If this is not practicable, operators must provide equivalent access by direct
assistance.
Note See sections 33.3 to 33.6 in relation to equivalent access and direct assistance.
Conveyances
* Buses, except dedicated school buses
* Ferries
* Accessible rail cars
* Accessible tram cars
* Accessible light rail cars
No dimensions are given to permit the required actions. Since the envelope of a bus’s
width and length is strictly limited, an alternate layout where mobility aids enter by one
door and exit by the other needs to be investigated.
Rail
Refurbishment of the Queensland Rail City Train fleet is ongoing, with most six car sets
now having 12 allocated spaces. Assistance from guards and platform staff is adequate
to good.
The majority of City Train rail car sets have a compliant number of allocated spaces;
however, the majority of allocated spaces are operationally unavailable. In a six car set,
guards will deploy ramps only to the three allocated spaces in car 4. The nine spaces
spread across cars 1, 3 and 6 (three per car) are not utilised. This is a QRail policy.
Priority seating is present in cars 1, 3, 4 and 6 of a six car set but is not necessarily
enforced. Passengers disinclined to surrender seats usually face nothing worse than
censure via stares from other passengers.
Ferries
The Brisbane ferry fleet is undergoing a substantial refit that will give a high degree of
accessibility.
Deployable boarding ramps require further design consideration. It is acknowledged
that the deployable boarding ramp must function in a dynamic environment, bridging
between two moving surfaces – pontoon and vessel – and that this will influence its
3|Page
profile. However, its design must first and foremost permit people with disabilities and
others with diminished functionality to travel safely between ferry and pontoon.
Assistance from deck hands and ticket sellers remains excellent, with direct assistance
overcoming many access obstacles. The removal of obstacles will of course create a
safer workplace for staff, through making direct assistance redundant.
Taxis
Wheelchair accessible taxi numbers remain static, whilst the population that needs them
grows. As a result, accessing a wheelchair accessible taxi service during peak times is
still more difficult than it is for standard taxis. Response time after a booking call still
lags standard taxis at any hour. Assistance from drivers ranges from poor to excellent.
With the introduction of the Amind maxi taxi modification, substantial progress has been
made towards rolling out a fleet of universally accessible maxi taxis.
Wheelchair users are increasingly indicating their preference to be located in the middle
of maxi taxis near the centre of gravity to avoid the stressful, bumpy, sometimes hurtful
ride when located in the rear tie down area due to the mathematics of side slip or slip
angle that occur naturally when cornering.
A continual complaint is that maxi taxi windows are not large enough for users in
mobility devices to see out of, which is a poor experience compared to users seated in
fixed seating who are able to visually experience the passing landscape and know what
stage of the journey they are at.
Compared to maxi taxis with two wheelchair spaces, modified MPV single wheelchair
taxis receive less patronage by wheelchair and scooter users.
Coaches
Accessible coach numbers are static. Few coaches are accessible with at least one
company, Murrays, admitting in the Federal Court to not having any accessible coaches
(Haraksin versus Murrays Australia Limited, March 2013 FCA217).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/217.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(haraks
in%20)
Courtesy coaches, such as those connecting airports to hotels, are uniformly
inaccessible. These must be made DSAPT compliant, and if outside the current scope
of DSAPT, must be brought within it. The social and economic impact on Australia’s
tourism alone demands it.
Aircraft
Aircraft accessibility is static. The Jet Star two wheelchair policy is viewed as
discriminatory, and therefore the Australian Human Rights Commission investigation
into the effects of the policy is welcome. Assistance from staff is poor to excellent.
Cabin wheelchairs are poorly designed and usually lack any heel / calf restraint.
4|Page
Assistance animal policy varies between airlines, creating confusion. A nationally
agreed assistance animal policy is needed. Complaint about airlines and airports by
people with a disability is non stop.
Trams / Light Rail
Light rail is yet to be introduced in Southeast Qld but purportedly will be DSAPT
compliant.
How has your accessibility to information (e.g., maps, timetables,
announcements, etc) changed? Can you provide examples?
Audio announcements
Service and next stop announcements vary between modes.
Buses
Some bus stations have next service announcements but most do not. No bus stops
have audio announcements of next service.
A limited number of buses are involved in a trial of next stop announcements. The
effectiveness of these announcements has yet to be evaluated.
Private industry is providing accessibility applications for smart phones. An example is
Next Stop (http://nextstop.me/) which alerts passengers with vision impairments (and
others) traveling on a bus that they are approaching the bus stop at which they intend to
alight. This app is used successfully by a number of people who have vision
impairments and should have been produced by Translink rather than an entrepreneur.
As the product of an individual entrepreneur rather than a State or National authority, an
innovative piece of work risks being isolated in its point of origin rather than being rolled
out state-wide or nationally.
Rail
‘Next Train Information’ consoles are ubiquitous in the Queensland Rail City Train
network and generally reliable. Many platforms have next train arrival PA
announcements, though these do not operate at all hours at every platform, making it
an unpredictable service for customers to place reliance in.
Platform staff are usually quite helpful, though very few stations are continuously
staffed.
New and refurbished trains have automated audio announcements of next stop and
other service information, but some older trains rely on guards to make announcements.
While some guards are quite good with announcement volume, punctuality and
coherence, some are quite poor, which results in a service of unpredictable quality.
5|Page
Ferries
CityCat and City Ferry services announce next stop and in the case of CityCats either
forward or aft boarding gate is also nominated. No announcements of next service are
made or available on ferry terminals. A ‘Next Service Information’ console should be
developed similar to that used by Queensland Rail. CityCats also feature audio
induction loops for hearing aid users.
Printed Information
No real change in the quality or type of printed information has been noted. Text can be
poorly contrasted with its background, and inappropriate font types can be employed.
Large print copy is rarely provided.
Electronic Information
Timetables, and other information for bus, ferry and rail services, are available online at
the Translink site. Frequently this material is in PDF format and not particularly
accessible. A timetable for the Caboolture line serves as an example:
http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/network-information/trains/caboolture
While HTML timetables exist they are far from equivalent in scope to the PDF editions,
requiring a degree of navigating between pages, and are somewhat difficult to locate on
the Translink site.
http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/network-information/trains/caboolture
Translink are trialling a real time on-line / smartphone product called Trip Tracker, which
gives arrival times of Blue City Glider and Clarks Logan City services at bus stops. If
successful it will enable people waiting at bus stops to know the arrival time of their
services at the stop at which they are waiting. How well this information functions for
people using screen narration software is unknown.
http://translink.com.au/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/triptracker
Information on websites is not always accurate. For example, during the Australia Day
2013 floods all ferry services on the Brisbane River were cancelled. Despite no ferries
running the Translink website continued to give “real time” updates on arrivals and
departures at each ferry terminal. Had a person checked the timetable without first
checking media news updates they would have been under the misapprehension that
the ferries were in service.
How has your accessibility to infrastructure immediate to boarding a
conveyance changed? (e.g., any structure or facility that is used by
passengers in conjunction with travelling on a public transport service).
Can you provide examples?
6|Page
Bus stops
Bus stops are being upgraded steadily. However, upgrade will usually not make a bus
stop DSAPT compliant. Factors such as road gradient, footpath crossfall, footpath
width, location of underground services, above ground infrastructure, location of street
trees, proximity to driveways, impracticability of stop relocation and lack of alternate
sites in generally hilly suburbs will all prevent full compliance at a large proportion of bus
stops.
Rail stations
Existing Queensland Rail City Train stations (Nambour, Gold Coast and Ipswich
triangle) are either listed for upgrade, have already undergone upgrade or were
constructed new to compliance. As such, the accessibility of the network is gradually
improving. It remains to be seen whether the December 2017 deadline will be met.
Bus stations
All new bus stations constructed in the period have largely met DSAPT. New stations
such as Stones Corner, Lutwyche, Kedron Brook have few issues with noncompliance.
Existing stations also largely meet DSAPT.
For people who have mobility or vision impairment, boarding buses at bus stations can
be challenging at busy times. Several buses may pull in at random points at any time
and the challenge is to identify and reach a bus before it departs. This is an issue
facing all passengers, but for passengers who have vision or mobility difficulties it is
often a deciding factor in discouraging use of bus stations. A boarding procedure that
ensures that no passengers with disabilities are left behind needs to be developed by
Translink.
Ferry terminals
Terminals are undergoing upgrades, but this has suffered setbacks following disastrous
flooding in January 2011. While terminals are upgrading to compliance, their
surroundings within the precinct often present accessibility challenges. It is critical that
the precinct surrounding the ferry terminal is accessible to people with disabilities if they
are to access the terminal from other transport modes. Topography is often a problem
however, with short, steep escarpments between roads and riverbank creating an
environment unfavourable for low-cost engineering work. Some of these accessibility
challenges will be defended, possibly legitimately, as unjustifiable hardship cases.
Others, particularly at busy terminals such as North Quay, would be harder to defend
and could be overcome if sufficient funds were available for works. If this approach to
connecting terminals to onshore facilities to a radius of at least 150 m is disregarded,
many terminals will be DSAPT compliant, but isolated due to not being connected to
shore based facilities by an accessible path of travel.
Pontoon ramps can be quite steep at low tide. While they may fully comply with Part
6.5 they are not particularly accessible at gradients exceeding 1:14 over distances of
>20 m.
6.5 Slope of ramps connected to pontoon wharves
7|Page
The slope of a ramp connected to a pontoon wharf must comply with section 6.1 for at
least 80% of the high and low tide levels listed in standard tide charts.
Direct assistance could overcome the gradients, but without some guidance as to how
this could be provided in a manner that is safe for passengers and staff it is unlikely to
be provided.
Airports
Airports vary considerably in their accessibility. They frequently lack accessible drop off
and pick up locations that are in proximity to the principal entrances. As per taxi ranks,
no technical specification for an accessible pick up / set down facility is referenced in
DSAPT. This omission needs to be rectified.
As a policy, some airlines will leave customers with mobility impairment sitting in cabin
aisle chairs for extended periods. We know of one woman who was left for four hours
unattended. This is unacceptable as these customers lose all mobility and are not able
to visit toilets, check luggage, obtain food or drink or any other normal activity.
Access paths, circulation spaces, waiting areas and sanitary facilities vary in their
compliance between and within airports. It is unclear if any significant effort to meet the
DSAPT schedule of compliance is being made at airports. For example, at Brisbane
airport the aerobridges are too steep and lack landings at compliant intervals. While
this can be overcome through direct assistance, the different airlines’ policies vary on
what will be provided. Compliant aerobridges will overcome the vagaries of airline
direct assistance policy.
Travellers with disability and diminished functionality who complain about their poor
experiences almost universally report airlines and airports blaming each other for the
problem experienced. What is urgently required by airlines and airports is recognition
that the customer experience is from the airport kerb to the airline seat and vice versa.
Tram light rail stops
Tram stops are not yet constructed but are purported to be compliant when constructed.
It remains to be seen how track flange-way gaps located in the access path to the tram
stop will be addressed. It is an underlying assumption of the DSAPT that mobility aids
can address horizontal gaps in an access path of up to 40 mm. If the track flange gap
exceeds 40 mm it will challenge many mobility aid users.
Taxi ranks
Taxi ranks located at kerbside almost universally lack any means by which a mobility
aid user, who must board or alight via the rear lift platform of the taxi, can negotiate the
kerb. Lack of a safe connection between maxi taxi rear entrance and footpath places
people using mobility aids in the unsafe situation of having to travel between the rear of
the taxi and the footpath via the carriageway. A technical specification for taxi ranks is
required similar to or an improvement on:
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/documents/building_development/subdivision_developm
ent/ums%20265.pdf
8|Page
What do you currently see as the greatest areas of need with regard to
accessibility of public transport for people with disability? Can you provide
specific examples?
Transport network dysfunction
While technical compliance, or the lack of it, is an issue for people with disability, it is
not the critical issue. In the fullness of time, probably well after the compliance
deadlines are past, most conveyances, infrastructure and premises will be as compliant
as practicable. Unfortunately this will most likely involve protracted battles such as
Haraksin versus Murrays Australia Ltd. Non-compliance will diminish in future however,
and then cease to be an issue, as access and information solutions are developed,
whether willingly or not. However, fully compliant conveyances, infrastructure and
premises are only as useful as the systems, networks and landscapes of which they are
a part permit them to be.
Unless the pedestrian and transport connections between transport nodes are fully
accessible, transport nodes risk being no more than accessible islands in an
inaccessible ocean. Large areas of both urban and rural landscape currently feature
these archipelagos of accessibility, with their scattered stops, stations and terminals
embedded in a matrix of difficult access paths and poorly coordinated multimodal
transport routes. Specific examples include:
* compliant bus stops are sometimes built into grassy road verges that lack concrete
footpaths,
* ferry terminals are often isolated from access paths by unfavourable topography,
* few rail stations or ferry terminals are the focus of bus feeder routes,
* different modalities operated in isolation from each other with little attempt to
coordinate timetables,
* footpaths are poorly maintained in some jurisdictions,
* Local authorities have not constructed concrete footpaths in road verges or have not
constructed them to Australian Standards,
* street crossing points lack kerb ramps or kerb ramps do not meet Australian
Standards,
* wayfinding cues for people with vision impairment are almost non-existent,
* transport modality change required to complete journey where onward modality is not
accessible.
Unless timetables of intra and intermodal services coordinate, valuable time is wasted in
waiting for the next service. Time is a valuable resource and its loss is a great
disincentive to using public transport.
9|Page
A concerted effort is required to ensure that wherever practicable, every front door is
within range of an accessible entry point into the public transport system. Once in this
system, travel and transport must be continuous, accessible and convenient. For
example, intramodal changes between routes and services and intermodal transfers
must be quickly and safely executed, using accessible paths of travel carried out in an
easy and seamless manner. The password is ‘seamless connections”.
Out-dated technical specifications
The DSAPT primary referenced standards are all at least 12 years old, with the
AS1428.2 being 21 years old. While some specifications, such as infrastructure
dimensions, are unlikely to change over time, many do. In particular, references and
specifications for wayfinding products and designs, electronic information and other
information formats require updates.
New technologies such as those that permit use of the near ubiquitous smart phones
need to be incorporated into the DSAPT. For example, by using the ‘Next Stop’ app
(http://nextstop.me/), people with vision impairments travelling on buses can be
informed of their stop over their phones - provided that the bus is being tracked by GPS.
A nationally coordinated strategy to ensure that conveyances, infrastructure and
premises interact successfully with emerging technologies is required.
A working group should be established to address technological changes that are
applicable to DSAPT.
2. As a public transport user, are there areas of the Transport
Standards where you consider that a more specific requirement
for compliance would improve accessibility?
The following sections of DSAPT require far more specific technical specifications or
lack specifications entirely:
* Mobility aid restraints in buses, trams, light rail; type of restraints and required restraint
performance require specifications.
* Next stop / next service announcements and displays, upgraded to contemporary
specifications.
* On conveyances; circulation / turning space dimensions, passing areas, access path
surface texture / dimensions require technical / dimensional specification.
* Taxi ranks, passenger set down / pick up zones to have specifications included.
* Location and alignment of grab rails in allocated spaces have no specifications.
10 | P a g e
* Design, operational requirements and placement of accessible controls (other than
door controls) have few specifications or specifications impracticable for conveyances.
* Clarification on the design of pontoon ramps and definition of which tidal ranges are
involved (astronomical, neap, spring, mean?).
* Vertical space above allocated spaces in conveyances other than taxis.
* Minimum length of accessible toilet circulation area on a conveyance not specified.
* Wayfinding signs for people with vision impairment have no specification.
* Tactile Ground Surface Indicators lack technical specifications for layout at bus
stations, bus stops and tram stops.
* Specifications for emergency egress and emergency wayfinding require updating.
* Lighting levels are often unrealistic and require greater clarity over which standards
are to be met and under which circumstances.
3. To what extent do you feel that the requirements in the
Transport Standards address all of the accessibility requirements
for people with a disability? Are there gaps in the coverage of
requirements?
Wayfinding for people who have vision impairments
The DSAPT dates from a time when wayfinding design for people with vision
impairments was in its infancy. The science has matured somewhat and wayfinding
needs to be covered comprehensively in the DSAPT. This must not be limited to TGSIs
and Braille / tactile signs, though these have their place. Smart phone technologies
need to be fully exploited with apps and information provided to allow passengers with
vision impairments to determine that they are at the correct boarding point, moving
along the correct path, within the vicinity of a service or information node, and so on.
Taxi rank and passenger set down design
The DSAPT contains no technical references for the design of taxi ranks. This is a
major oversight and needs to be addressed. Wheelchair accessible taxis are usually
accessed from the rear, so that a wheelchair user must be able to access the
carriageway behind the vehicle. To accomplish this, the wheelchair user must either be
able to negotiate the kerb or the rank has a kerbless design. Brisbane City Council
does have specifications but these have no scope outside Brisbane and are limited to
kerbside ranks:
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/documents/building_development/subdivision_developm
ent/ums%20265.pdf
11 | P a g e
Just as taxi ranks require technical specifications to allow boarding of wheelchair
accessible taxis so the set down area for passengers using wheelchairs must also be
included. Disembarking from most wheelchair accessible taxis will place the wheelchair
user on the carriageway, often in designated passenger embarkation zones. To reach
the footpath from the carriageway, the wheelchair user must either negotiate the kerb or
the passenger pick up/set down zone must be of kerbless design. These passenger set
down / pick up zones are as important to wheelchair accessible taxis passengers as are
bus stops to accessible bus passengers. Any designated passenger pick up/set down
zone must be considered a potential pick up or destination area for a wheelchair
accessible taxi and therefore must be covered by DSAPT. Once again, the Brisbane
City Council specification is the only one known.
4. Do you find that the current processes with regard to making
a complaint or seeking information are sufficient or sufficiently
responsive?
Complaint has always proven time consuming, difficult and unpredictable. Many people
will not make the huge commitment of lodging a complaint and seeing it through
conciliation and possibly court. Complainants are simply worn down by the heavy
artillery of big organisations defending their position rather than fixing the problem.
When matters proceed to the Federal Court, the verdicts sometimes shake the
confidence of a person with a disability, e.g. when a Court agrees the complainant has
been discriminated against but they lose the case and are faced with the defendant’s
costs (as well as their own)!
The arduous process of lodging complaints is well covered in a media article:
http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2013/02/28/3700346.htm
While the public are put in the position of being the only DSAPT inspectors, and via their
complaints the regulators, this situation will not change. A government or industry
inspector / regulator with the power to compel compliance and issue fines is required.
This might be achieved in either a co-regulation model or within the current jurisdictional
framework. Human Rights are as important as workplace safety and so deserve equal
funding for regulation and to ensure compliance with legislation.
5. As a body representing the views of people with a disability,
do you have any specific responses or perspectives with regard
to the issues raised in the questions above?
The Exemption process can be divisive to the sector as submissions, often poorly or
only partly informed, sometimes contradict each other. Conference and group
discussion with sector representatives, either electronically or in person, would allow a
considered consensus position to emerge. Better outcomes and more harmonious
12 | P a g e
relations within the disability sector would result from the AHRC taking the facilitator role
in group discussions over Exemption applications.
It must also be recognised that since many of the sector representatives are employed
either professionally or as volunteers they are time poor. They must therefore obtain
approval to rearrange their diaries and must often seek funds to cover costs in order to
participate in conferences and discussions. Some recognition of this by way of
assistance and support would make their participation easier.
6. Other key issues you would like to see addressed?
Performance criteria for Mobility Aids not in DSAPT
Mobility aid suppliers frequently fail to inform purchasers of mobility aids of the
dimensional and weight restrictions inherent in the DSAPT and listed as assumptions in
the DSAPT Guidelines. People who purchase larger aids in all good faith are then
surprised and disappointed when the aid will not fit or manoeuvre in a conveyance.
Further, Department of Transport and Main Roads policy is that mobility aids exceeding
to the dimensions of the footprint and with no restraint tie down points are not to be
carried in maxi taxis. The performance requirements should be moved from the
Guidelines and listed in the DSAPT. Aids supplied through programs such as the
Queensland Medical Aids Subsidy Scheme and its equivalents in other jurisdictions
should all be marked to indicate that they meet the performance requirements of
DSAPT, and private suppliers confronted with disincentives for not confirming that the
aid has the required performance to be operable in DSAPT compliant environments.
Text of DSAPT encourages minimum compliance
The DSAPT text and the text of the referenced Australian Standards fail to advocate for
maximum practicable dimensions in conveyances, infrastructure and premises. Rather,
they use terms such as “not less than 1200 mm” or similar. Under these circumstances
the minimum dimensions permitted become the maximum provided, even when greater
circulation space could be easily provided. For example allocated spaces are ‘defined’
in Part 9.1 at 1300 x 800 mm when they could be larger. The text reads “The minimum
allocated space for a single wheelchair or similar mobility aid is 800 mm by 1300 mm.”
It would be better to state preferred or optimum dimensions rather than the minimum
permissible. The 1300 x 800 mm is the least possible provision before an allocated
space becomes non compliant, and yet because it is quoted it becomes the default
measurement for an allocated space.
It would be better to state clearly that the greatest dimensions practicable should be
provided with nothing less than 1300 x 800 mm permitted. This is only one of many
instances where the text of the DSAPT should be promoting maximum practicable
dimensions.
13 | P a g e
Technological Changes
The DSAPT is a product of the mid 1990s. It has entirely failed to remain current with
the technological changes that have taken place within society and the economy.
Smart phone apps, QR codes, GPS and other innovations were not in existence when
the first draft of DSAPT was tabled.
A report from Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) gives a
summary of the uptake of smartphone products.
Smart phones and tablets: take-up and use in Australia
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) 1 February 2013
Almost half of Australia’s adult population now own a smartphone. Take-up soared by
104 per cent to 8.67 million units over the 12 months to May 2012, according to research
released today by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
The report also found that 9.2 million Australians went online via their mobile phone and
4.4 million accessed the internet using a tablet in the six months to May 2012. The
number of mobile internet subscribers increased by 22 per cent to 22.1 million
subscribers at June 2012.
The report notes that continued rollout of mobile network upgrades, growth in 4G
coverage and the increased use of WiFi hotspots are key drivers for the increase in
smartphone ownership. In the June 2012 quarter, over two million Australians used a
WiFi hotspot, 32 per cent up on the previous year.
In addition, the huge range of apps available for smartphones and tablets has increased
their ease of use and functionality. The number of applications downloaded by
smartphone users increased by 85 per cent during 2011–12, with over 4.45 million
smartphone users downloading an app during June 2012.
http://apo.org.au/node/32808
The ubiquity and capabilities of the new technologies needs to be captured in DSAPT,
which is currently rather out dated and limited in terms of its requirements for
information, timetabling, wayfinding, service announcements and so on.
14 | P a g e