The City of Cape Town’s changes to its Dial-a-Ride service means people with disabilities won’t have transport to any other place than work during peak hours. Photo: File
At the beginning of September, the City of Cape Town will “realign” its Dial-a-Ride service so that only eligible wheelchair users and people with severe walking impairments are transported, primarily between home and work, during peak hours.
Thousands who relied on Dial-a-Ride, a service for people with disabilities who are unable to access mainstream public transport services, for education, healthcare, civic life and basic errands will be stranded. This is framed as fiscal prudence. It is social disinvestment with long-term costs that the city will pay many times over.
We are told Dial-a-Ride is “oversubscribed” and too expensive — an annual budget of R28.2 million against operating costs of R40 million, hence the cutback to “core” users and trips. But budgets are moral documents that reveal priorities. What does it say about a city when the “first” line item trimmed is the one service that enables people with disabilities to move, to work, to learn, to live with dignity?
South Africa’s workplaces remain largely inaccessible — only about 1.2% of reported employees are persons with disabilities, stuck far below even the modest “prescribed” target of 2%. Transport is a well-documented barrier. When you can’t get to an interview, a learnership or the job site, you’re excluded before merit has a chance.
I make this point for those who like to talk about meritocracy without considering the lived realities of others. Cutting Dial-a-Ride trips will depress labourforce participation and retention, not just for those excluded by the new criteria, but also for those whose routes and hours no longer align with peak-only commuting. That reduces household income today and tax revenue tomorrow. Surely, the leadership must connect these dots? Or is all the accounting leaders do on paper instead of to the people?
For learners and students with disabilities, transport is the bridge to inclusion. When that bridge narrows to “work-only” trips, it effectively blocks school attendance, college classes, skills programmes and medical or therapeutic appointments that underpin study success.
The Western Cape hosts a significant share of special-needs schooling nationally. Reducing accessible transport capacity in this province will be felt in attendance, completion and progression. The research is clear — transport barriers derail participation and completion in training for students with disabilities.
Tell a blind commuter to “just use e-hailing” and you outsource risk. Women and persons with disabilities face elevated safety concerns on mainstream public transport and in some e-hailing environments, particularly off-peak and in poorly lit areas. Any “replacement” for Dial-a-Ride must be at least as safe, affordable and predictable or it is not a replacement at all. We cannot, with a straight face, cut a safeguarded, kerb-to-kerb service and route people into modes we know many experience as unsafe and not universally accessible.
South Africa ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which binds the government, national and local, to enable the right to work (article 27) and inclusive education (article 24). The convention’s committee’s General Comment No 8 clarifies the duty to remove barriers to employment, including transport barriers.
Closer to home, the city’s own Universal Access Policy for Accessible Transport, approved on 28 May 2025, sets a vision that “all people, regardless of ability, will be able to travel independently, safely and in a dignified manner” across an integrated system. Realigning Dial-a-Ride in ways that shrink access collides with both the city’s policy ambition and the country’s international obligations.
Yes, Dial-a-Ride has a gap between its budget and operating costs but the real question is what the full cost of not moving people will be. When workers with disabilities are forced to resign or are dismissed for “attendance” issues that are, in truth, transport failures, the city loses wages and enterprise productivity.
Missed medical or therapeutic appointments lead to higher health and social welfare costs as disability-related conditions worsen or isolation deepens mental-health struggles. Learners and students who cannot attend classes reliably see their education disrupted, resulting in foregone qualifications, diminished future earnings and lost opportunities for social mobility. These are not abstract concerns but predictable consequences created by a narrow and shortsighted view of “savings”.
If Dial-a-Ride is oversubscribed, that is evidence of unmet need, not a justification to ration dignity. A serious and caring city would:
- Stabilise Dial-a-Ride while expanding mainstream accessibility. Ringfence bridging funds to maintain current users through 2025-26 and accelerate universal access upgrades on the MyCiTi bus service and at interchanges, as per the city’s new policy. Every accessible bus, stop and pathway today reduces pressure on Dial-a-Ride tomorrow. Take a look out your window — there’s plenty still to be done.
- Target funding creatively. Combine municipal allocations, conditional grants and corporate social investment tied to disability employment targets to co-finance Dial-a-Ride for education, healthcare and civic trips, not only work commutes. (Employers stuck at 1% to 2% disability representation should be queuing to help fix the transport bottleneck that blocks their own pipelines. It’s time for business to step up.)
- Protect safety and predictability. Where e-hailing is proposed as a supplement, require vetted drivers, disability-awareness training, auditable pick-up zones and agreed pricing, then publish performance dashboards. Anything less is offloading risk onto the very people Dial-a-Ride exists to protect.
- Co-design, don’t decree. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities guidance is explicit — decisions must be taken with organisations of persons with disabilities, not simply communicated to them. Reverse-engineer the service from lived reality, school hours, clinic days, night classes, religious and community life, not just peak-hour spreadsheets.
What kind of city are we building if people with disabilities can only move when it’s profitable for the timetable or only to the places able-bodied planners deem “essential”? Mobility is not a luxury add-on. It is the precondition for work, learning, safety and citizenship.
A budget can show discipline without disciplining the already marginalised. Revisit the Dial-a-Ride decision. Keep people moving now, while you build the accessible system you’ve promised. That is not generosity. That is governance. That is leadership.
Professor Armand Bam is the head of social impact at Stellenbosch Business School.