Needs of PRM and frequent barriers for...

Working paper: Needs of PRM and frequent barriers for PRM

Deliverable no. D2.4 of the project ISEMOA

Date of finalisation of this document: December, 14, 2011

Project Coordinator:

Michaela Kargl

Austrian Mobility Research

[email protected]

+43 316 810451 - 15

Authors of this document:

Text: Torsten Belter, Annett Finster (TUD)

Pictures: Stephanie Mühlbacher (FGM-AMOR)

Quality Control: Catriona O’Dolan (ENU)

Start date of the action: 18/05/2010

End date of the action: 17/05/2013

Project website: http://www.isemoa.eu

Grant agreement no. IEE/09/862/SI2.558304 – ISEMOA, Improving seamless energy-efficient

mobility chains for all

Legal disclaimer:

The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with the authors. It does not

represent the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not

responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

ISEMOA is co-funded by the European Union under the IEE 2009 STEER programme.

Intelligent Energy – Europe STEER

Needs of PRM and frequent barriers for PRM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 About the project ISEMOA........................................................................................... 5 2 About this working paper ............................................................................................. 7

2.1 Aim of this working paper .................................................................................... 7 2.2 Approach taken for compiling this working paper................................................ 7

2.2.1 Structure of this working paper........................................................................ 7 2.2.2 Scope of this working paper ............................................................................ 9 2.2.3 Special groups of PRM.................................................................................. 10

3 Introduction: importance of accessible public space and public transport services... 11 4 Stations and stops as interface between public space and public transport.............. 14 5 People with physical / Motor / Limb Impairment ........................................................ 23

5.1 People with walking and standing impairment (unable to walk) ........................ 23 5.1.1 Public Space ................................................................................................. 23 5.1.2 Public Transport ............................................................................................ 34

5.2 People with walking and standing impairment (able to walk) ............................ 41 5.2.1 Public Space ................................................................................................. 42 5.2.2 Public Transport ............................................................................................ 49

5.3 People with upper limb impairment ................................................................... 51 5.3.1 Public Space ................................................................................................. 52 5.3.2 Public Transport ............................................................................................ 53

6 People with sensory impairment ................................................................................ 55 6.1 Visual Impairment.............................................................................................. 55

6.1.1 Public Space ................................................................................................. 55 6.1.2 Public Transport ............................................................................................ 63

6.2 Blind people....................................................................................................... 69 6.2.1 Public Space ................................................................................................. 69 6.2.2 Public Transport ............................................................................................ 74

6.3 People with hearing impairment ........................................................................ 78 6.3.1 Public Space ................................................................................................. 79 6.3.2 Public Transport ............................................................................................ 80

6.4 Deaf people ....................................................................................................... 82 6.4.1 Public Space ................................................................................................. 83 6.4.2 Public Transport ............................................................................................ 84

7 People with cognitive impairment .............................................................................. 86



7.1 Public Space ..................................................................................................... 87 7.1.1 Needs ............................................................................................................ 87 7.1.2 Barriers.......................................................................................................... 89

7.2 Public Transport ................................................................................................ 89 7.2.1 Needs ............................................................................................................ 89 7.2.2 Barriers.......................................................................................................... 91

8 People with other mobility impairments ..................................................................... 92 8.1 Public Space ..................................................................................................... 92

8.1.1 Needs ............................................................................................................ 92 8.1.2 Barriers.......................................................................................................... 92

8.2 Public Transport ................................................................................................ 93 8.2.1 Needs ............................................................................................................ 93 8.2.2 Barriers.......................................................................................................... 94

9 People with Temporary mobility impairments ............................................................ 96 9.1 Public Space ..................................................................................................... 96

9.1.1 Needs ............................................................................................................ 96 9.1.2 Barriers.......................................................................................................... 97

9.2 Public Transport ................................................................................................ 98 9.2.1 Needs ............................................................................................................ 98 9.2.2 Barriers........................................................................................................ 100

10 Further needs and barriers.................................................................................. 103 11 Conclusion and outlook ....................................................................................... 107 12 References.......................................................................................................... 111 13 List of pictures ..................................................................................................... 117



1 ABOUT THE PROJECT ISEMOA

ISEMOA - Improving seamless energy-efficient mobility chains for all – started in May

2010 and is a 3-year project supported by the European Commission within the IEE-

programme.

ISEMOA aims to help local and regional authorities in Europe to increase energy-

efficiency in transport by improving the accessibility of door-to-door mobility-chains and

thus enabling all citizens and visitors (including people with reduced mobility (PRM)) to

adopt a less car-dependent life-style. Furthermore, improving the accessibility of public

spaces and public transport will increase the quality and attractiveness of public transport,

and contribute to increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

In order to achieve this goal, ISEMOA develops tailor-made quality-management-

schemes for continuous improvement of the accessibility of the whole door-to-door

mobility-chain in European municipalities, cities, and regions (in the following text these

schemes are called ISEMOA-schemes). These ISEMOA-schemes are a standardised

quality management process based on the successful BYPAD, MaxQ and MEDIATE-

schemes. At the core of the ISEMOA-schemes is a moderated audit process that helps

local and regional stakeholders to assess together with an external auditor, the state of

accessibility of public space and public transport in their area and to develop strategies

and measures to continuously improve the quality of accessibility.

The ISEMOA-schemes apply a holistic approach by taking into account;

• the needs of all categories of PRM (i.e. people with disabilities, people with heavy /

bulky luggage, people with small children, people with temporal impairments, people

with non-average stature, elderly people,…)

• the whole door-to-door mobility-chain with sustainable transport modes, including

walking, cycling, public transport, multi-modal mobility

• all kinds of barriers (i.e. barriers related to physical conditions, organisational

aspects, attitudes of people,…)

In order to elaborate these ISEMOA-schemes according to the needs of the stakeholders,

the project sets a strong focus on continuous involvement of all relevant stakeholder-

groups (PRM, city-consultants, local / regional authorities,…) from the very start of the

project. The development of the ISEMOA-schemes is an iterative process, as they are first

implemented in 15 test-sites all over Europe, and then improved according to the

feedback of the test-sites’-stakeholders.



The implementation-process of the ISEMOA QM-schemes raises awareness among the

local and regional decision-makers of the correlation of accessibility and energy-efficiency

in transport, initiates communication among all relevant local and regional stakeholders,

and helps to bring forward a local / regional strategy for improvement of accessibility.

Consultants, agencies, and organisations working with municipalities, cities, or regions all

over Europe are invited to attend the ISEMOA training-workshops for external auditors.

These training-workshops are implemented in 15 European countries in order to enable

consultants, agencies, and city-advisors to use the ISEMOA QM-schemes in their daily

work with local and regional authorities.

The ISEMOA consortium

Coordinator:

FGM-AMOR (AT)

Partners:

AGEAS (IT) NP (CZ)

BSRAEM (BG) SECAD (IE)

Ecuba (IT) Sinergija (SI)

Edinburgh Napier University (UK) TAS (UK)

Energy Agency of Plovdiv (BG) Technical University Dresden (DE)

ETT (ES) Trivector (SE)

IEP (CZ) UIRS (SI)

ITS (PL) University of Zilina (SK)

Mobiel 21 (BE) URTP (RO)

Subcontractor:

MOBIPED (FR)

Advisory Committee:

Adolf Ratzka, Christa Erhart, Graham Lightfoot, Jarmila Johnova, Petra Lukesova,

Tomasz Zwolinski



2 ABOUT THIS WORKING PAPER

“If it is good for the mobility impaired, it is good for everyone”

(ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 194).

2.1 Aim of this working paper

The aim of this working paper is to give a comprehensive overview of the specific needs

of, and frequent barriers for, different categories of people with reduced mobility (PRM) in

public space and public transport, and to illustrate the importance of the accessibility of

the whole mobility chain. As such, it provides background information which serves as a

sound basis for the development of the ISEMOA QMS.

Additionally this paper may assist public transport operators and public space planners in

making public transport and public space more accessible for PRM. It demonstrates what

can be expected from accessible transport solutions today.

2.2 Approach taken for compiling this working paper

This working paper has been compiled by TU Dresden (texts) and FGM AMOR (pictures).

The content is based on a review of approximately 70 publications and project findings. In

order to illustrate the needs of and barriers for PRM in a clear and effective format, a

series of pictures of typical/frequent barriers are included.

2.2.1 Structure of this working paper

Accessibility is commonly associated with people using white canes or wheelchairs.

However, the group of people with reduced mobility (PRM) is not limited to blind people or

wheelchair users. It comprises people with disabilities, elderly people (especially those

older than 75 years), children, people accompanying small children, people with learning

difficulties, people carrying heavy bags or bulky luggage, people with non-average stature,

people with little knowledge of the local language, people with orientation problems,

people with mental/psychological problems, colour-blind people, people who have

difficulties with reading or understanding written texts, people with arthritis, hip problems

or coronary problems, people recovering from surgery or illness, and people with

temporary impairments such as broken legs, etc. Thus, as PRM do not constitute a

homogenous group, their specific needs and the barriers they face in public spaces and



public transport also vary significantly. Nevertheless some “common” needs and barriers

can be identified for each sub-group of PRM.

Existing literature shows in principle two different approaches to structuring the needs of

and barriers for PRM. The first approach, used by most related EU projects1 is to structure

needs and barriers alongside the different kinds of personal restrictions. The second

approach, applied very rarely in the reviewed publications and projects2, is to analyse the

needs and barriers alongside the travel chain.

Within this working paper, the needs and barriers are structured according to the first of

these approaches alongside the different personal restrictions of PRM. This enables the

information from the reviewed literature to be presented in a comprehensive but easily

intelligible way.

However, the authors of this working paper are well aware of the fact that this approach of

assigning certain barriers to specific impairments carries the risk of creating the

impression that only small groups of people are affected by a specific barrier. In the past

this often led to a situation where decision-makers refused to remove barriers as they

claimed that such barriers affected only a very small number of people and their removal

would be excessively costly. In order to avoid such misunderstandings, it should be noted

that although needs and barriers are described in this working paper alongside the

different personal restrictions experienced by PRM, most of the barriers mentioned affect

many user groups. For example, steps are identified as a barrier for wheelchair users, but

many other people also are affected by steps. Removing steps helps not only wheelchair

users but also people with walking impairments, elderly people, people with wheeled

luggage, people with pushchairs, and people carrying groceries.

As described above, in this working paper the needs and barriers are outlined alongside

the different impairments. However, there is one exception to this general structure. As

the literature review generated a lot of information regarding requirements at stops and

stations, an extra section on that part of the mobility chain is included. Nevertheless,

where special requirements for specific user groups appear, these are also mentioned in

the respective sections.

1 for example ASK IT, TELSCAN, ACCESS2ALL, NICHES+, PTACCESS 2 for example UNIACCESS, COST 349



Naturally, barriers and needs are related to one another. In many cases, barriers may be

ascertained from specific needs, and from the existing barriers in public spaces and public

transport, different needs are developed.

Overview of the structure of this working paper

The main part of this paper starts with an introduction (Section 3) to the importance of

accessible public spaces and public transport services (especially for PRM). As indicated

above, the needs of PRM at stations and stops as an interface between public space and

public transport are then summarised in Section 4. Sections 5-9 give an overview of

needs of and barriers for different PRM groups. Each section focuses on one specific kind

of mobility impairment and addresses public space and public transport separately. In

Section 10, further needs and barriers that are not only related to a single impairment but

are common to all PRM groups are elaborated. The final section (Section 11) is dedicated

to conclusions and outlook.

2.2.2 Scope of this working paper Within the ISEMOA project different levels of accessibility are analysed. ISEMOA applies

a comprehensive view of accessibility, which ranges from (geographical) accessibility of

day-to-day services and availability of infrastructure for sustainable transport to standards

for barrier-free environments. The focus of this working paper is on barrier-free

environments (“micro level accessibility”). However, when working on the improvement of

accessibility, it is important that in addition to removing/avoiding the barriers identified in

this working paper, the wider meaning of accessibility is also taken into account in order to

enable all people to reach their day-to-day services without the use of a car. This means,

for example, guaranteeing that accessible public transport stops are distributed in the area

in such a way that all citizens have a stop nearby in their neighbourhood (e.g.

UNIACCESS 2005, p.3).

It is important that the whole mobility-chain is accessible, and therefore this working paper

focuses on barriers not only in public transport, but also in public space. Public space and

public transport are strongly related to each other. Public space is always part of a travel

chain, even if public transport is the main transport means of that chain. “Public space is

like a big transport interface. The comfort and the safety of the pedestrian environment

are fundamental to promoting public transport. There is a tendency for more and more

public transport authorities to consider public transport also to cover the whole mobility

chain including cycling and walking” (VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 37). Thus, the

condition of public space also influences the usage of public transport.



2.2.3 Special groups of PRM Elderly people

It is difficult to say that elderly people (generally seen as people aged 60 years upwards, in some cases only from 75 upwards) usually experience barriers in public space and public transport. The younger people in this group (those <75-80 years) are very often fit and healthy and do not face barriers related to the natural physiologic ageing process. However, people at the top end of this group (>80 years), commonly termed people in the “fourth age”, usually face many barriers in public spaces and public transport. Specifically, they tend to require more time to process information and then to decide what they should do; they are often overstrained when they face new or complex requirements (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 58); and they often have walking, visual and hearing impairments. People in the “fourth age” are the fastest growing and at the same time the most vulnerable segment of the European population. For this reason, elderly people are increasingly becoming a focus of political attention, with many projects promoting active ageing and participation. Accessibility is crucial for such people, who wish to remain as independent and self-supporting as possible, to participate in society and to continue to live their lifes as usual. Thus for our ageing society this growing group of people in the “fourth age” can be used as a basis for discussions on the necessity of infrastructural changes. Although elderly people are an important group of PRM, in this working paper there is no special section dedicated them. Since elderly people can be regarded as facing multiple restrictions, their needs and barriers are identified in the sections dedicated to other groups who share the same needs and barriers, such as people with walking impairments and people with hearing impairments.

Children

Children have another special role among the groups of PRM. Children are considered to

be PRM because they experience difficulties when walking or cycling in public spaces and

using public transport. Specifically, children cannot see some hazards such as an

approaching car because of their height and low horizon; some cannot read or have

difficulties reading or understanding information; they are still learning how to estimate

speed or distances correctly; and they may have problems recognising some kinds of

sounds and their source. In fact, in relation to adults, children have cognitive, visual and

hearing impairments. No special section in this working paper is dedicated to children.

However, as they face similar barriers as people with cognitive impairments or small

stature, the sections on these groups are considered to be applicable to children.



3 INTRODUCTION: IMPORTANCE OF ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC SPACE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES

“Transport is an essential prerequisite to enabling people with disabilities to participate in

normal activities of daily living, i.e. work, education, leisure and social activities. [...] The

principle of equal treatment is particularly relevant to the public transport sector as it has

the ability to enable people to gain access to all that society has to offer” (KOORNEEF ET

AL. 2005, p.3).

As the population ages, the proportion of people with impairments and mobility problems

will increase in scale (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 136). Accessibility is a key issue of quality in

public space and public transport. It should guarantee that every person is able to plan

and do a trip without requiring the aid of an accompanying person (e.g. UNIACCESS

2005, p.1).

The importance of accessible public transport and space is highlighted by Koorneef et al,

who state that “It is now accepted that it is barriers in the transport system that prevent

people with disabilities using transport services, not their impairment. For example, it is

the lack of audible announcements informing passengers where they are and what the

next stop is, and inaccessible signage, that disables a visually impaired person and

prevents them using public transport with confidence or at all” (KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005,

p.11).

Around 20% to 40%3 of the population have problems accessing public transport due to

temporary or permanent disabilities. This means that people with disabilities travel less

often than nondisabled people. On the other hand, they use public transport more often

than the general population. Almost all PRM could access public transport if the right

measures were put in place, and there are indications that PRM will use public transport

even more if improvements are made. Thus, there is a great potential for public transport

operators if they ensure that their services are accessible. The same is true for the

improvement of public space conditions. Improvements will have a positive impact on

quality of life of PRM and others (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 8, 11).

3 depending on the PRM definition; in the UK, it is around 33%



In many EU member states transport issues are today very high on the agenda for PRM,

especially for people with disabilities. The most dissatisfaction is generated by public

space issues like pavement and road maintenance, and access restrictions to public

transport vehicles (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 8).

In recent years improvements have been achieved in many countries, including:

• New buses and trams are usually low floor and often equipped with ramps or lifts to

facilitate the access of wheelchair users and elderly people who have difficulties in

walking up steps;

• Suburban trains are often equipped with ramps that bridge the gap between platform

and vehicle and toilets that can be used by people in wheelchairs;

• Stations are equipped with guidelines for blind people and with lifts with acoustical

announcements;

• Information on access for different user groups is enhanced with the possibility of

online sources (e.g. DAHME 2002, p. 5).

Nevertheless, measures are usually selective and there is no city or region that shows

good practice in the whole field of accessibility. For this reason it is important to present a

holistic view of the needs of and barriers for different groups of PRM.

Operators and planners should improve accessibility for a number of reasons: to comply

with legislative and regulatory frameworks, to benefit business and to give equal

consideration to all citizens (e.g. KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p.9).

The expectations of PRM regarding public space and public transport are in many aspects

very similar to those of the general public (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 58). PRM “expect to be

able to leave the house, get to the station or stop from which they are catching the bus,

light rail vehicle or train, board the vehicle, travel in reasonable safety and comfort, alight

from the vehicle and get to their destination without any difficulties. Passengers with

disabilities, in particular, need to be confident that every stage of a journey will work

effectively and consistently. If even one component of the journey presents a barrier, then

the journey cannot be undertaken” (KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p.11).

Although the transport priorities of people with disabilities differ very little from those of the

general population, there are a number of specific priorities relating to, for example, the



design of vehicles and access to public transport. What is for one PRM group a

demanding barrier may not be considered a barrier at all by other PRM groups. For

example, visual information with no audible backup might present serious difficulty to a

person with a visual impairment, whereas a person who is deaf or hard of hearing might

not find it a problem. A flight of stairs is a barrier to a wheelchair user, whereas a person

with visual impairment might have less difficulty, depending on the design of handrails and

the appropriate use of tactile warnings and colour contrast. These different requirements

are outlined in detail in this working paper.



4 STATIONS AND STOPS AS INTERFACE BETWEEN PUBLIC SPACE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Stations and stops are the interface between public space and public transport. In this

section, the key factors that must be considered when designing stations and stops as

one element in the mobility chain are summarised. Many literature sources were

consulted for the analysis of the requirements of different PRM groups at stations/stops.4

The needs of and barriers for diverse PRM groups at stations and stops can be

summarised as follows:

The entrance access should be at street level. If this is not the case, a ramp with a gentle

slope must be installed. Platform lifts are also suitable, especially if there is no room for

the installation of a ramp. Alternative entry points should be avoided as far as possible.

The place of the front doors should be marked with a tactile sign to enable access for

blind people. Guidelines and handrails with tactile signs allow better orientation.

Lack of visual information is a problem for both passengers who are deaf or hard of

hearing and passengers with intellectual disabilities.

Poor quality audible information is a barrier for people who are hard of hearing, especially

where there is significant background noise. It is also a barrier for people with visual

impairments who rely solely on audible information.

Excessive walking distances within stations should be avoided. Stairs and obstacles

should be marked to help people with visual impairment identify them.

A confusing station layout is a problem for people with walking difficulties, who may as a

consequence walk further than is necessary. It is also a barrier for people with intellectual

4 e.g. BUILD FOR ALL 2006, p. 49; COST 1999, pp. 116, 121, 126, 131; COST 2005, pp. 39, 44; DAHME 2002, pp. 4, 21, 30; ECA 2003, pp. 55, 70, 74; FGM 2008, p. 14, 18-23; KLIEMKE (ed.) 2004, pp. 65, 80; MAPLE 2003, p.13; NICOLLE 1997a, p.34; OXLEY 1997, pp. 10f.; SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. (ed.) 2008, p. 19; TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003, p. 46; UNIACCESS 2005, p.3; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL., 2009a, p. 77; WIJK 1996, p.17; ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, pp. 44, 67



disability, who may lose the way. There should be a map showing the layout of the

building, including one’s present location, the number of floors, and the location of

platforms, lifts, stairways, ramps, emergency exits, etc. The station layout should be

logical. This will assist all passengers, but especially people with visual impairments. The

main facilities should be located in step-by-step progression, with each facility visible from

the previous one. For example, the ticket office should be visible from the station

entrance. Secondary facilities (such as shops) should not intrude upon the main

circulation space.

Information signs, including traffic signs and direction signs, should be placed at a height

that allows all people to read them but without posing a risk of injury to blind people (see

Figure 1). Poor signage, especially signage without appropriate pictograms, is a barrier for

those who have difficulties in reading and understanding written texts, such as people with

learning difficulties or people with little knowledge of the local language.

Figure 1. Requirement: information signs should be placed at a height that allows all people to read them

Information about temporary risks, such as slippery surfaces, danger of falling material,

wet paint, etc., should be provided in visual, acoustic and tactile formats so as to be

comprehensible to all.

Space within the station/terminal must be wide enough to enable the various users,

including wheelchair users and people with pushchairs and small children, to pass one

another. Doors should be wide enough to enable anybody to pass through them, and their

position should allow wheelchairs to be manoeuvred. Revolving doors must be avoided;

two sets of double sliding automatic doors with a short distance in between can provide



equal weather protection. Particularly for people with upper limb impairments access is

easier if the doors open smoothly or automatically (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2. Barrier: narrow, difficult to handle gates

Figure 3. Good example of accessible doors

Lifts must offer sufficient space for various users (see Figure 4). They should be designed

to match the needs of people who suffer from agoraphobia or claustrophobia; a glass

construction is best in this respect. Lifts should provide visual, acoustic and tactile

information, both for the normal operation and in case of emergency. Such information

must be designed for ease of use by every user and positioned at the right height in the lift

car (tactile floor numbering on the right hand side of the lift door at a height of 100cm) and

on landings. The gap between the floor and the lift car should be as small as possible.

There should be alternative escape routes and fire shelters for when lifts cannot be used,

either because it is not advisable (fire) or because they are not working (power cut).



Figure 4. Good example: lifts offering enough space for people with pushchair or wheelchair

The information/ticket desk must include a low-level counter (approx. 760mm high) for use

by wheelchair passengers and people of short stature. Glare from the glass screen at a

ticket counter is a problem for passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing because they

cannot see the other person’s face for visual clues or lip-reading. This is also a problem

for passengers with visual impairment because it makes use of their residual vision more

difficult. Ticket and information offices should have an inductive hearing loop which is

branded with a pictogram for people with hearing aids. Additionally, inductive receiver with

headphones should be provided on loan for people with hearing impairment without a

suitable hearing aid. The information/ticket sales window should be at a height that

enables everybody to use it. Timetables should be available in large print. The computer

screen of the counter staff should be used as a reading or writing aid for customers if

required, or notepads provided on which people can write their questions. The positioning

of displays should consider the different anthropometry of travellers, for instance those

with short arms or small stature. The display should be easily adjustable vertically and

horizontally to meet individual needs.

The manner of the staff at the counter is especially important in enabling people with

impairments to feel secure and welcome. People with hearing impairment often use lip-

reading. Service personnel should consider the following in their style of communication:

• slow and clear speech, which also requires patience

• quiet position (no gross head movement)

• sufficient light

• face addressed to the eye of the conversational partner

• no distracting backgrounds like shadows striking colours and moving objects



• full beard or lip piercings can impede reading.

Ticket vending machines are often difficult to use for passengers with disabilities. The

buttons may be set too high, be too small for those with limited manual dexterity, or be

difficult for people with visual impairments to see. In order to be accessible to all, they

should be set at a height that enables passengers of all heights to reach the highest and

lowest buttons (see Figure 5). The buttons must be large enough and sufficiently spaced

for people with limited manual dexterity. The machine interface should be usable by

people with visual impairments, such as by contrasting the colour of the buttons from the

machine background, displaying information in a large size text or using readily

recognisable symbols. The addition of speech output will help people with visual

impairments and learning difficulties. Touch screens should never be used exclusively for

any of the functions; there should always be an alternative way of selecting options so that

people who cannot see the screen are not disadvantaged (see Figure 6).

Figure 5. Good example: ticket vending machine accessible for wheelchair users and people with small stature



Figure 6. Requirement: ticket vending machines should be easy to use by all people

There are decorative elements that turn out to be dangerous if they are not well designed,

installed or indicated. These can include large mirrors or glass windows that give the

space a sense of continuity, waxed floors which are easy to slip on, infra-red doors which

do not function unless the person is of a certain height, and rugs which are not fixed to the

floor.

Waiting rooms have to be accessible and equipped with visual and audible information

facilities (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Requirement: waiting rooms should be equipped with accessible information facilities

Benches at stops or stations are very important for PRM. They should be designed in

such a way that people are able to sit comfortably and get up without difficulty. This

requires a suitable height and arm rests.



At simple public transport stops seating and weather protection must be provided,

including for wheelchair users. Movement areas at stops should not be crossed by cycle

paths.

In the case of an emergency, everybody should realise that there is an emergency,

regardless of their capabilities and location within the stop/station. Alarm signals must

always be presented at least to the two-sense principle. In some cases it is necessary or

at least helpful to use the three-sense principle. For example, smoke and fire detectors

and alarm sirens should issue warnings with acoustic signals in multiple frequency ranges

complemented by unequivocal flashing or strobe lights. In case of an evacuation, voice

messages must be simultaneously indicated on visual displays. The establishment of an

audible emergency escape system, a so-called "Way Guidance", also allows people with

visual impairments a safe and rapid self-rescue in case of an evacuation. It enables

people to find the right exit from the danger zone even at very low or no visibility

conditions. The system emits acoustic signals which people follow and this enables them

to save themselves from the danger zone. Studies have shown that under this system the

time for escape, even in the case of smoke emission, can be reduced significantly. The

audible emergency escape system should be complemented with conventional fire alarm

signals and illuminated emergency exit signs. Escape routes should also be labelled by

special light bands and cutting-edge lighting as well as sound signals. In the case of an

emergency, people with cognitive impairment need to know where and how to get out. A

special wall strip can help them. It glows in dark or smoky conditions and uses wedge-

shaped sections which give clear tactile clues as to which direction people have to go.

While heading in the right direction, the strip feels smooth but while going in the wrong

direction the person will come up against the thick end of the wedge.

A rolling conveyor belt at the side of a flight of stairs can assist people carrying luggage,

but the speed should be appropriate for people with walking difficulties. It should be

installed so that it does not impede those using the handrails or cause a hazard for

people with visual impairments.

There should be sufficient accessible, well maintained and open toilets with space for

wheelchair users (see Figure 8). These should be installed with alarm systems and all of

the devices should be accessible for people of different height and manoeuvre capacities

(for detailed standards, see COST 335, p. 175). All amenities, such as wash basin, soap

dispenser, toilet paper etc., should be readily accessible to wheelchair users. The



arrangement of operating elements should be standardised in order to facilitate the finding

of these elements.

Figure 8. Requirement: there should be accessible toilets at stations and in public transport

Filters in well maintained air-conditioning systems should help to reduce the presence of

allergens and bacteria in station buildings. Smoking areas must be separated and

“airtight”.

At regular stops, public transport has to have the right of way over individual motorised

traffic. Cars should wait at traffic lights so that wheelchair users and other PRM can (de-)

board calmly and without moving between cars. The design of stops in a way that

prioritises public transport is very helpful in this respect. For example, stops can be

designed to prevent cars from passing when the public transport vehicle stands in the

stop. This kind of stop design prevents car drivers from rushing through tram/bus stops

and reduces the likelihood and danger of passengers getting in the way of the tram/bus.

Elevated platforms should be installed to prevent a vertical gap between platform and

vehicle (see Figure 9). These must be of correct width, height and ramp of access, and be

installed in combination with other measures such as pedestrian paths and adjacent easy

road crossings, etc.



Figure 9. Good practice: adjusted platform-height and ramps provide access to public transport vehicle



5 PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL / MOTOR / LIMB IMPAIRMENT

This part of the report deals with the needs and barriers of people who have physical,

motor or limb impairment. The category includes PRM with walking and standing

impairments who are unable to walk, those who are able to walk, and people with upper

limb impairment.

5.1 People with walking and standing impairment (unable to walk)

This category of impairment typically includes wheelchair users. People who are unable to

walk usually use different types of wheelchairs based on the degree of disability and

corresponding needs.

5.1.1 Public Space

5.1.1.1 Needs

The needs of people with walking and standing impairments in public space include:

• Movement and meeting areas that are easily and safely accessible, vibration-free

and with plain, smooth surfaces, regardless of the weather (e.g. GRÜNE REÌHE

Nr. 39, 1997, p. 11f.; KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78). People with walking impairments

need pavements without steep gradients and/or with resting surfaces in slopes

(e.g. WENNBERG 2009, p. 36);

• Movement areas that are sufficiently large to enable movement of wheelchair

users, people with crutches and other PRM. These should meet a certain minimum

standard (see Figure 10). The space requirements for wheelchairs act as a

reference for all PRM. The clearance height above pavements should be at least

225cm and above channels and doors at least 205cm. Traffic zones must have a

width of at least 150cm, with a minimum space for meeting of 180x180 cm, for

shunting of 150x150 cm and a width in passages of 90cm. Operating controls have

to be at a height of 85-105cm (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78; SOZIALVERBAND VDK

DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008 p. 21-23; TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003,

p.44);



Figure 10. Requirement: minimum standard of height and manoeuvring space in movement areas

• Streets and pavements wide enough that all users, including people with

wheelchairs or bulky luggage, can pass one another (see Figures 11 and 12);

Figure 11 and Figure 12. Requirement: walkways should be wide enough that people can pass by another

• Even levels in footpaths and roads. It is particularly important for wheelchair,

pushchair and walking frame users to be able to travel their route at an even level.

Therefore, differences in height at crossing situations, gradients in the route and

sharp slants and slopes must be kept to a minimum (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 86ff.). A

solution suitable for wheelchair users and blind people is to ensure that the level

difference between streets and pavements (important for orientation) is always

3cm. (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 63)

(see Figures 13 and 14);



Figure 13 and Figure 14. Requirement: no high kerbstones at crossings

• Appropriate inclines on footpaths. The longitudinal incline of footpaths must be no

more than 3%. If the incline is too strong, it will be impossible for wheelchair users

to use the footpaths because either the force for moving the wheelchair is too

great or the acceleration is too strong (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 79;

SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 36). Therefore, if the

incline is between 3% and 6% due to local conditions, a platform should be

provided for reposing at intervals of a maximum 10m with a gradient of less than

3% (see Figure 15);

Figure 15. Requirement: slopes must not be too steep

• Footpaths free of parked cars, bicycles, roller skaters, construction work and any

free standing barriers (e.g. BUILD FOR ALL 2006, p. 37; UNIACCESS 2005, p. 2;

ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 194) (see Figures 16 and 17);



Figure 16 and Figure 17. Requirement: footpaths and movement areas should be free from obstacles

• The effective enforcement of parking restrictions at and around stops. This is

necessary to guarantee the benefit of low-floor and step-free access. Stringent,

consistent and enforced policy at the local authority level is required (e.g. ECMT

2004, p. 59);

• The provision of benches on sufficiently large fixed surfaces to allow manoeuvring

and parking of wheelchairs (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V.

2008, p. 37f.);

• Sufficiently large traffic islands as crossing facilities. These must include a waiting

area with a length of 2.0m for pedestrians and 2.5-3.0m for cyclists and wheelchair

users. The space must be large enough for a wheelchair and a pushing person

(e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 53f.) (see Figure 18);

Figure 18. Requirement: waiting areas on traffic islands have to be sufficiently large



• Crossings that are as short as possible. For example, elongated pavements have

become standard in Vienna (see Figure 19). Here, the pavement at intersections is

drawn towards the central point of the intersection. This produces several

advantages: wheelchair users and all pedestrians are more visible to drivers and

crossings are much shorter, making their usage more attractive (e.g. ZAKOWSKA

ET AL. 2003, p. 45);

Figure 18. Good practice: crossing with “elongated” pavement to minimise the walking distance for pedestrians

A sufficiently long green phase of lights at pedestrian crossings. This must be calculated

so that even people with a lower walking speed (about 1m/s) than average can cross the

road (see Figure 20). They should have reached at least the second half of the

intersection before the pedestrian traffic lights turn red again (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK

DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 62);



Figure 19. Requirement: sufficient release time of the green signal to cross the street

• A clear orientation system for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

When information displays are installed too high, wheelchair users have difficulties

reading them (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 82) (see Figures 21 and 22);

Figure 20 and Figure 21. Requirement: clear orientation system for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users

5.1.1.2 Barriers

The barriers in public space for people with walking impairments are subdivided into the

four categories of existing barriers on pavements, while crossing the street, during

orientation in public space and other existing barriers.

Existing barriers on pavements

The most common barriers for wheelchair users on pavements are:



• Kerbs, thresholds, steps, stairs, steep ramps, long paths and detours (e.g. EURO

ACCESS 2008, p. 39; FGM 2010, p. 7). Small steps and landings can make an

otherwise clear path unusable for people in wheelchairs. Avoidance opportunities or

technical help to overcome the height difference are not available in all places (e.g.

KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78);

• The encounter with other participants and traffic (including the high speed of cyclists,

the difficulty of responding quickly and missing borderlines to other paths) and the

increased risk of collision on shared pavements (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 8; RAU 1997, p.

4) (see Figures 23 and 24);

Figure 22 and Figure 23. Barrier: shared pavements with cyclists pose a risk, especially for PRM pedestrians

• Blocked pavements, for example due to construction, without safe crossings to the

other side of the street and without dropped kerb/ramp (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 58; FGM

2010, p. 7f.) (see Figures 25 and 26);

Figure 24 and Figure 25. Requirement: construction sites should allow safe and barrier-free passage

• Unsuitable surface material of pavements (slippery, uneven, with gaps/not

seamless, poorly maintained) (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7; RAU 1997, p. 11f.) (see Figure

27). Some wheelchair users may have problems with tactile surfaces. For this



reason, a tactile stripe should not be used on the whole footpath width (e.g. TU

DARMSTADT 2003, p. 15).

Figure 26. Requirement: walkways should have a smooth and non-slippery surface

• Excessively narrow pavements impeding the access of wheelchair users (e.g. FGM

2010, p. 6). Pavements may be narrowed by street furniture and infrastructure,

including benches, bicycle stands, newspaper stands, art work, fountains, street

lamps, information signs, advertising boards, traffic lights, litter bins, bus shelters

and plants/plant pots (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 55; FGM 2010, p. 6; RAU 1997, p.12;

KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 35f) (see Figures 28 and

29). They may also be narrowed by the loading operations of vehicles (e.g. FGM

2010, p. 7), parked cars (e.g. GRÖNVALL ET AL. 2006, p.15; TRANSPORT

RESEARCH CENTRE 2003, p. 74; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 15), garage

entrances and drain openings (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 55) (see Figure 30).

Figure 27, Figure 28 and Figure 29. Barrier: Pavements narrowed with street furniture or constricted by parked vehicles

Existing barriers while crossing the street

The most common barriers for wheelchair users while crossing the street (e.g. FGM 2010,

p. 9f.; ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 45) are:



• High kerbs in crossing areas that make crossing impossible (see Figures 31 and 32);

Figure 31 and Figure 32. Requirement: no high kerbs at crossings

Source (right picture): http://rosenheim24.de

• Pedestrian crosswalks at a second level (such as subways or footbridges) without a

lift or adapted ramp, which are inaccessible for wheelchair users (see Figures 33

and 34);

Figure 33 and Figure 34. Requirement: pedestrian crosswalks below or above street level should have elevators in addition to stairs

• A very short green phase at traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings, which is very

stressful for wheelchair users (see Figure 35);

Figure 35. Requirement: the “green phase” of traffic lights should be long enough for PRM pedestrians to cross the street safely



• Vehicles parked in the crossing areas, forcing pedestrians to “squeeze” through the

parked vehicles to get to the other side of the street. This makes the crossing

impossible for wheelchair users (see Figures 36 and 37);

Figure 36 and Figure 37. Requirement: crossing areas should be kept clear of parked vehicles

Source: www.adac.de

• No possibility of using pedestrian islands as means for safe street crossing due to

high kerbs or an excessively narrow island surface (see Figure 38);

Figure 38. Requirement: pedestrian islands at street crossings should be sufficiently wide and barrier-free

• Difficult-to-reach or inaccessible buttons on demand-controlled pedestrian lights (see

Figures 39, 40 and 41);



Figure 39, Figure 40 and Figure 41. Requirement: demand controlled pedestrian lights should be easily accessible

Sources: www.wien.gv.at, www.ka-news.de

• Railway and tram tracks which pose a danger for wheelchair users of getting stuck

or tipping over (see Figures 42 and 43);

Figure 42 and Figure 43. Barrier: crossing railway and tram tracks is challenging for people with walking impairments

Source (right picture): www.bliba.de

• Blind spots at street crossings, such as when the view is limited by parked vehicles

etc (see Figure 44);

Figure 44. Requirement: pedestrian crossings should be kept clear of parked vehicles

Source: www.adac.de

Existing barriers during orientation in public space



Common barriers for wheelchair users when planning a route and finding the “right” way

are:

• Lack of detailed, up-to-date information on accessibility. It is important for wheelchair

users to have access to information for planned routes, including details such as the

nature of the surface of the path, steps and stairways, and the location of elevators,

construction sites and blocking of pavements, before they start their journey (e.g.

FGM 2010, p. 11);

• Lack of information regarding the accessibility of recreational areas, such as

playgrounds, beaches and gardens (e.g. ECA 2003, pp. 59-63);

• Lack of guidance systems to “points of interest” for wheelchair users. Guidance

systems for vehicles may inappropriately orientate wheelchair users and create

unnecessary and problematic detours (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11) (see Figures 45 and

46);

Figure 45 and Figure 46. Requirement: guidance system to “points of interest” should include specific guidance for pedestrians and cyclists

Source: http://alyoung.org

Other existing barriers in public space

Barriers in addition to those identified above that prevent wheelchair users from using

public space include:

• Lack of weather protection, and;

• Lack of availability of accessible toilets (e.g. RAU 1997, p.27).

5.1.2 Public Transport

5.1.2.1 Needs

The needs of people with walking impairments in public transport are subdivided into the

two categories of before the trip – information and during the trip – on board.



Before the trip – information

Information about the level of accessibility of public transport (fully/not accessible or help

needed for wheelchair users) before the trip (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.1). This

information should include the following details:

- Whether the mode of transport is accessible to wheelchair users;

- Whether assistance from staff is available on board;

- Whether stations and terminals (and their facilities) are accessible;

- The costs of the journey, including availability of reduced fares for people with

disabilities and/or their companion;

- Information about how to book a ticket or reserve a seat and method(s) of payment

(ticket purchase, smart card, etc.);

- Information about the types of wheelchair that will be accepted on the mode of

transport, for example maximum dimensions/weight of the wheelchair (e.g. OXLEY

1997, p.10f.) (see Figure 47).

Figure 47. Requirement: detailed pre-trip information about accessibility

During the trip – on board

People with walking impairments have specific needs during the trip on public transport,

including:

• Confirmed availability of wheelchair spaces (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 58). There should

be specific spaces for at least two wheelchairs (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.6),

marked clearly and located near to the doors (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 63). Each space

should be at least 1.4mx1.1m, including security belts (e.g. DAHME 2002, p. 29)

(see Figures 48 and 49);



Figure 48 and Figure 49. Requirement: clearly marked and easily accessible wheelchair spaces on board

• Supporting bars that facilitate getting on and off public transport vehicles and

protective fastening systems inside (e.g. MTC 2007, p.29);

• An anti-sliding floor surface inside the vehicle (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.6);

A specific stop button at the correct height to signal to the driver that a wheelchair

user wants to get off. This indicates to the driver that the doors may need to be open

longer than usual (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.6) (see Figure 50);

Figure 50. Requirement: specific “stop-demand” button for wheelchair users on board

• An appropriate gap width and height between the ground and the vehicle floor (e.g.

KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81) (see Figure 51). The difference between the ground and the

vehicle should not exceed 3cm (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR

STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 63);



Figure 51. Requirement: gap between the vehicle floor and the ground station should not be too large

• Wide doors for wheelchairs (with a minimum width of 900mm), ramps available to

bridge any gap, and outside manual door opener at a convenient height (e.g.

DAHME 2002, p. 25; KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81) (see Figure 52);

Figure 52. Requirement: wide doors for wheelchair users

• The introduction of accessible vehicles on a route-by-route basis. This enables

wheelchair users to rely on accessible routes, whereas a casual mix of vehicles on

the same route creates uncertainty. An alternative is the mixture of vehicles with

indications of accessible services on the timetable (e.g. KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005,

p. 42);

• Accessible toilet facilities in the vehicle (e.g. KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p. 39) (see

Figures 53 and 54);



Figure 53 and Figure 54. Requirement: accessible toilet facilities in the vehicles are necessary

• Smooth and calm operating of the vehicle by the driver;

• Smooth corners in the interior of vehicles and the guarantee of an easy exit in the

event of emergencies (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 95) (see Figure 55);

Figure 55. Requirement: easy exit of vehicles should be guaranteed

• Access to operating elements. The lateral distance between operating elements

(such as onboard ticket vending machines) and walls or on-site facilities must be at

least 50cm in order to allow wheelchair users or people with walking frames to use

these elements (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 23).

5.1.2.2 Barriers

The barriers in public transport for people with walking impairments are subdivided into

existing barriers at public transport stops and at public transport vehicles.



Existing barriers at public transport stops

Frequently occurring barriers at public transport stops for wheelchair users (e.g. ECMT

2004, p.33; FGM 2008a, p. 31ff.; RAU 1997, p. 27) include:

• Lack of reserved parking space for wheelchair users near the stop;

• Limited pavement near the stop due to the ticket machine/information box or dustbin,

making access to the stop difficult for wheelchair users (see Figure 56);

• Access to the stop via high kerbs only;

• Insufficient movement space at the stop for safe and easy (de-) boarding;

Figure 56. Requirement: sufficient maneuvering space at public transport stops

• Pavement that has a steep incline and/or is uneven and insufficiently firm;

• Bus stops not adapted to the low-floor entry. These make the entry level very high

despite the low-floor access of the bus. To overcome the horizontal gap and

guarantee the use of the ramp, it is important to prevent illegal parking at bus stops;

• A strip of roadway between the passenger waiting area and the public transport (see

Figure 57). This is often the case at tram stops where the rails are in the middle of

the road. It is problematic for wheelchair users if there are vehicles which constrain

safe access to the public transport;



Figure 57. Requirement: safe access to the public transport stop and to the public transport vehicle

• Large crowds at the bus or tram stop (see Figure 58);

Figure 58. Crowded bus or tram stops are a significant problem for wheelchair users

• Lack of weather protection or insufficient space for or access to existing weather

protection for wheelchair users;

• Lack of a clear path of vision to approaching public transport by the waiting

passenger. This is primarily problematic for wheelchair users, who are slower on the

road;

• Timetables that are installed too high, badly lit, have no direct access for wheelchair

users or are presented in a font that is too small to be read by wheelchair users;

• Ticket machines that are not accessible for wheelchair users;

• Too low a concentration of stations in any given locale.



Existing barriers at public transport vehicles

Frequently occurring barriers at public transport vehicles for wheelchair users include:

• A vertical gap when (de)boarding, for example when buses do not use the kneeling

function (e.g. VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009a, p. 69) (see Figure 59);

Figure 59. Requirement: buses should use the kneeling function to ease access for PRM

• Lack of provision of ramps on board. This sometimes occurs because public

transport operators think that deploying ramps will have a negative effect on

timekeeping and scheduling. Public transport operators also sometimes believe that

an unsecured wheelchair on board a bus is unsafe (e.g. ECMT 2004, p.31);

• Lack of multi-purpose areas usable by wheelchair users (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81).

5.2 People with walking and standing impairment (able to walk)

This category includes people with walking and standing impairments who are able to

walk with or without walking aids (such as walking frames, crutches, etc.) and people with

reduced muscular strength, arthritis, etc. (see Figure 60).



Figure 60. Good practice: “rollator training course” in Bonn, Germany

Source: http://www.polizei-nrw.de/bonn/Start/Termine/article/mobile-senioren-termine.html

5.2.1 Public Space

Pedestrian facilities are of greatest importance in transportation as everybody makes use

of them. Public transport use always includes a walking trip. However, in many cities

public space is dedicated to motorised transport with little provision for pedestrians (e.g.

VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 61).

5.2.1.1 Needs

In general, pedestrian provisions must be comfortable to use and free from major

irregularities which might cause one to fall (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 86).

Many literature sources were consulted to develop an overview of the needs of people

with walking impairments in public space5. The following needs were identified:

• Lowered curbs or raised street levels at crossings (see Figures 61 and 62);

5 e.g. AVV 2003, p. 89; BUILD FOR ALL 2006, p.37; COST 1999, p. 118, 201; ECA 2003, p. 55, 70; GRÖNVALL ET AL. 2006, p.18, 29, KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78, 79; SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 59; SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. (ed.) 2008, pp. 36-38, 62; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL., 2009, p. 36; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL., 2009a, p. 23, 32, 34, 71; WENNBERG ET AL. 2009, p. 36, 283.



Figure 61 and Figure 62. Requirement: people with walking impairment need lowered curbs or raised street levels at crossings

• Even footpaths with a maximum gradient of 3-4%. If this is not possible then a

gradient of up to 6% with even areas every 10m;

• Easily accessible and well-lit level crossings. Subways and bridges should be

avoided;

• Corridors wide enough (at least 1.50m) to enable the various users (for example two

walking frame users) to pass one another. Trees should not be planted in narrow

streets;

• Public walkways free of barriers, such as branches;

• Movement and meeting areas that are safely and easily accessible, vibration free,

and with plain, smooth surfaces, regardless of the weather;

• Pavements maintained and adapted to weather conditions in order to prevent

accidents. For example, snow should be shovelled in winter, fallen leaves should be

removed and general repairs of broken pavement or lights should be done;

• Drainage grooves can be easily crossed and facilitates walking for people with

impairments on pavements.

• Resting points at regular intervals, in parks and along streets (see Figure 63).

These are particularly important for people with walking impairment because of

limited particular movements and enable them to walk larger distances. Resting

points may include benches/chairs with handles, seating at bus stops or

“alternative" resting facilities such as appropriate walls to lean against. For ease

of getting up and sitting down, a horizontal seat height of 48cm (slightly higher

than the usual 45cm) as well as arm and backrests, are recommended. Additional

seating for children and people of small stature, with a seat height of 30cm should

also be provided. This can also be used as a storage facility for bags, etc.;



Figure 63. Requirement: people with walking impairment need accessible resting possibilities

• Information, signposting and orientation, for finding the shortest and most

appropriate routes (Figure 64);

Figure 64. Requirement: people with walking impairment need information for finding the shortest and most accessible route

• Exclusion of cyclists from the footpath. This is especially important as it is unsafe for

people with walking impairments when sharing the footpath with cycles;

• Safe footpaths beside roads outside of built up areas;

• Sufficient density of available public toilets, particularly due to the time it may take

people with reduced mobility to make their way to such facilities;

• Traffic calming and speed enforcement in restricted speed zones and on main

roads;

• Monitoring of parking (particularly cars blocking footpaths, bike paths and pedestrian

crossings);

• Minimal crossing distance at intersections, sufficiently long green phases that take

the speed of the people with walking impairments into account (about 1m/s), zebra



crossings/crossings equipped with traffic lights on the same level as the foot path,

and traffic islands;

• The guarantee of a clear line of sight for the pedestrian and the driver;

• Over- and underpasses at railway lines;

• Good quality street lighting;

• Safe stairs with handrails and facilities such as handrails, ramps and steps, and

dropped kerbs to aid transition at level changes (see Figure 65);

Figure 65. Requirement: safe stairs with handrails

• Detailed information appropriate to people with walking impairments about

distances, footpath conditions and any seating/rest facilities, in order to allow them

to plan their routes efficiently;

• Clear markings on the pavement to avoid uncertainty about where it is allowed to

walk;

• Security of public space;

• Shopping facilities in close proximity to domestic dwellings and the availability of

home delivery services for groceries.

5.2.1.2 Barriers

The barriers for people with walking impairments in public space are subdivided into the

four categories of existing barriers on pavements, while crossing the street, during

orientation in public space and other existing barriers.


The most common barriers on pavements for people with walking and standing

impairments who are able to walk are:



• The encounter with other pedestrians, cyclists and traffic and the increased risk of

collision. The main problem is narrow pavements, as people with walking aids

require more space (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 6);

• Stairs, small steps and landings, which cannot be used by people with a walking

frame (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7). Avoidance opportunities or technical help to overcome

the height difference are not always available (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78);

• Long ramps. For people with walking impairments, these are harder to manage than

stairs (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7);

• Ramps and stairs without a handrail (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7);

• Uneven or slippery surface material, poorly maintained asphalt surface and the

presence of snow on the ground (see Figure 66). Such factors prevent access of

people with walking frames and increase the risk of stumbling (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7,

VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 69; WENNBERG ET AL. 2009, p. 284);

Figure 66. Requirement: walkways need to be maintained and cleaned regularly to decrease the risk of stumbling

• Blocked pavements, for example due to street maintenance, (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 58)

without safe crossings to the other side of the street and without dropped kerb/ramp

(e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7f.) (see Figures 67 and 68);

Figure 67 and Figure 68. Requirement: safe alternative routes for pedestrians at construction sites



• Increased risk of collision through shared pavements (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 8);

• Fallen leaves in autumn and snow and ice in winter, making the pavements

dangerous for all users but especially for people with walking impairments (e.g. AVV

2003, p. 134; TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003, p. 74) (see Figure 69);

Figure 69. Barrier: snow and ice make the pavements dangerous for people with walking impairments

• Insufficient light from street lamps (e.g. TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003,

p.71);

• A lack of accessible toilets.


The most common barriers for people with walking and standing impairments while

crossing the street are:

• High kerbs and cobblestones in crossing areas, particularly for people with walking

frames (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 9; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 35f.);

• Extensive crossings, such as over six traffic lanes (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG

FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 59, TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE

2003, p. 69);

• Pedestrian crosswalks at a second level (such as subways or footbridges) without a

lift or adapted ramp, which are inaccessible for people with walking frames (e.g.

FGM 2010, p. 9);

• A very short green phase at traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings, which is very

stressful for people with walking impairments (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 9; TRANSPORT

RESEARCH CENTRE 2003, p. 74; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 35f.);



• Too few traffic lights (e.g. TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003, p. 74);

• Vehicles parked in the crossing areas, forcing pedestrians to “squeeze” through the

parked vehicles to get to the other side of the street (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 9) (see

Figure 70);

Figure 70. Barrier: parked vehicles in crossing areas

• No possibility of using pedestrian islands as means for safe street crossing due to

high kerbs or an excessively narrow island surface (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 9);

• Blind spots at street crossings, such as when the view is limited by parked vehicles

etc. This is particularly challenging for people of short stature (e.g. FGM 2010, p.

10);

• Lack of opportunities for crossing the street safely. It is difficult for people with

walking impairment when crossing is only permitted at intersections and relatively

long detours have to be made to cross, as for instance, at roundabouts (e.g. AVV

2003, p. 134; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 35f.);

• Excessive speeding and ruthless driving of other road users (car drivers and

cyclists) (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 59;

TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003, p. 74).

Existing barriers during orientation in public space

Common barriers for people with walking and standing impairments when planning a

route and finding the “right” way are:

• Lack of guidance systems to “point of interests” for people with walking impairments.

Guidance systems for vehicles may inappropriately orientate people with walking



impairments and create unnecessary and problematic detours (e.g. FGM 2010, p.

11);

• Lack of detailed, up-to-date information on accessibility, including on the surface of

the path, steps and stairways and the location of elevators, construction sites and

blocking of pavements, etc. (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11).

Other existing barriers in public space

Barriers in addition to those identified above that prevent people with walking impairments

from using public space include:

• Inappropriate design of benches to rest, such as being too low and lacking arm

rests;

• Inadequate access to information, such as when text on walking guide signs is too

small and or signs are placed too high (e.g. VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 69).


5.2.2.1 Needs

In this subsection, the needs of people with walking and standing impairments in public

transport are summarised in the two categories of the interior of urban transport and the

design of public transport interchange.

Interior of urban transport

The needs of people with walking and standing inside transport include:

• Appropriately signalled stairways with double handrails and a non-skid edge (e.g.

UNIACCESS 2005, p.6);

• Door opening buttons, call bells and ticket machines at an accessible height,

particularly for people of non-average stature (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81;

UNIACCESS 2005, p. 6; ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 51);

• Vehicles fitted with an anti-sliding floor (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.6);

• Vehicles free of obstacles that prevent the mobility and circulation of passengers

(e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.6);



• A specific stop button at the correct height to signal to the driver that a person with

walking/standing impairment wants to get off. This indicates to the driver that the

doors may need to be open longer than usual (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.6);

• Clearly indicated number, location and signalling of high-priority seats (with movable

armrests) for the use of people with walking/standing impairment (e.g. COST 1999,

p. 48; UNIACCESS 2005, p.6; ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 51);

• Space reserved for people with walking frames that is clearly marked and near to the

doors (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 63; KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81) (see Figure 71);

Figure 71. Requirement: reserved space for people with walking frames in public transport

• Easily accessible vertical and horizontal bars and handles in corridors (e.g.

UNIACCESS 2005, p.6);

• Vehicle-bound entrance aids and wide doors for walking frames (e.g. KLIEMKE

2004, p. 81).

Design of public transport interchange

In the transport interchange, people with walking impairments require:

• Sufficient connection time, due to a lower walking speed (e.g. BMVBS 2010, p.70).

5.2.2.2 Barriers

The barriers in public transport for people with walking impairments are subdivided into

existing barriers at public transport stops and existing barriers at the vehicle.

Existing barriers at public transport stops



Frequently occurring barriers at public transport stops for people with walking and

standing impairments (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 31ff.) include:

• Lack of reserved parking space for wheelchair users near the stop;

• Limited pavement near the stop due to the ticket machine/information box, making

access to the stop difficult;

• Access to the stop via high kerbs only;

• Pavement that has a steep incline and/or is uneven and insufficiently firm;

• Bus stops not adapted to the low-floor entry of a public transport vehicle, which

impedes the one-level access;

• A strip of roadway between the passenger waiting area and the public transport.

This is often the case at tram stops where the rails are in the middle of the road. It is

problematic if there are vehicles which constrain safe access to the public transport;

• Large crowds at the bus or tram stop;

• Lack of a clear path of vision to approaching public transport by the waiting

passenger. This is primarily problematic for people with walking impairments, who

are slower on the road;

• Ticket machines that are not accessible;

• Lack of seating possibilities and weather protection.

Existing barriers at the vehicle

Frequently occurring barriers at public transport vehicles for people with walking

impairments include:

• Lack of multi-purpose areas usable by people with walking frames, luggage, bikes or

prams (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81).

5.3 People with upper limb impairment

People with upper limb impairment often have:

- Grip problems, for example, due to muscular dystrophy causing a loss of

muscular strength, arthritis, missing fingers, palsy, etc.;

- Co-ordination problems and limited dexterity, for example, due to shaking

palsy, spasm, neuropathy, etc., or;



- Limited reaching and stretching ability, for example, due to missing or

malformed arms or fingers, arthritis, complaints of the nervous system, etc.

5.3.1 Public Space

5.3.1.1 Needs

Anything that people have to touch, push, turn or pull to be able to move in public space

(such as door handles and control-buttons for opening doors or requesting a green light

for pedestrians at a crossing, etc.) must be within comfortable reaching distance and

designed in such a way that it can be operated with an elbow or shoulder instead of

fingers/hands.

It is particularly important for people with upper limb impairment that handrails are easy to

reach and grip. Thus it is essential that handrails are offered at different heights on both

sides of stairs and ramps (see Figure 72).

Figure 72. Requirement: easy to reach and grip handrails are essential for people with upper limb impairment

5.3.1.2 Barriers

It can be difficult for people with upper limb impairment to operate the button of demand-

controlled pedestrian lights with manual request of the green phase (e.g. FGM 2010, p.

10).

If there are handrails available on only one side of stairs or ramps, this causes problems

for people who can only use one arm/hand for holding onto the handrails.




5.3.2.1 Needs

Because of reduced physical strength and problems gripping handles, people with upper

limb impairments need to have access to a seat or, at a minimum, bars and handles (e.g.

UNIACCESS 2005, p.6) (see Figure 73).

Figure 73. Requirement: people with upper limb impairments need to have access to a seat in public transport vehicles

5.3.2.2 Barriers

The barriers in public transport for people with upper limb impairments can be

characterised as follows:

• Lack of seating on public transport vehicles. This is particularly difficult when the

vehicle is moving, particularly for people with grip problems who cannot hold on

tightly to the grip bar;

• The use of overhead bins in trains and buses. This is very difficult for people with

upper limb impairments because they do not have the strength to elevate their

luggage (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 86);



• Flip-up seats in public transport. These can be an impediment for people with upper

limb impairment because they do not have the strength to push the seats down (see

Figure 74);

Figure 74. Barrier: flip-up seats are often a problem for people with upper limb impairments

• Poor driving behaviour, including rough starts and brakes, too high speeds around

corners/bends and not waiting for passengers to be seated before moving off (e.g.

ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 66).



6 PEOPLE WITH SENSORY IMPAIRMENT

This part of the report focuses on the needs and barriers of people with sensory

impairments. This group includes people with visual impairments and blind people, people

with hearing impairments and those without hearing. It is estimated that the number of

people who have problems in traffic as a result of a visual or auditory impairment will

double over the next 20 years (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 136).

Another form of sensory impairment is mutism. This is not regarded as a central issue in

this report because mute people can normally use public transport without problems,

although they can have difficulties if they must seek help in a way that requires verbal

communication.

6.1 Visual Impairment

Examples of visual impairments are hyperopia and myopia, colour deficiency such as red-

green colour blindness (protanopia), glaucoma and cataract, macular degeneration and a

limited field of vision.

6.1.1 Public Space

The conditions of public space are of greatest importance for the freedom of movement of

people with visual impairments. They are more likely to be dissatisfied with roads and

pavements than other PRM groups (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 17).

6.1.1.1 Needs

People with visual impairments have the following needs in public space:

• Acoustic announcement systems to enable partially sighted (and blind) people to

locate the pedestrian crossing and the signal transmitter mast at traffic lights. This

sound should preferably audible within a radius of at least 4 to 5 metres. The

signal for the red light must clearly differ from the one for the green light (rattle-

ticker). A tactile signal can be installed in addition to the acoustic signal if this is

not reliably discernible, for example because of too closely spaced signal

transmitter masts or because a mast emits the acoustic signals for two directions.

The tactile signal transmitter is installed at the bottom or top of the request device.

The direction of travel is shown by a tactile arrow. The transmitter communicates



the beginning of the green phase with the help of vibration for about 5 seconds

(e.g. AVV 2003, p. 86; BUILD FOR ALL 2006, p.37; PTACCESS 2008, p. 37;

SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 59,

SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 58, 62);

• A sufficiently long green phase of lights at pedestrian crossings. The release time

of the green signal must be calculated so that even people with a lower walking

speed (about 1m/s) than average can cross the road. They should have reached

at least the second half of the intersection before the pedestrian traffic lights turn

red again (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 62);

• Traffic signs that are clearly legible, highly colour contrasted and sufficiently

illuminated to allow people to read them in all conditions (BUILD FOR ALL 2006,

p.49). Traffic signs require an adequate combination of text and graphics and

possibly audio elements. They must be simple and meaningful (e.g. VAN

BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009a, p. 49);

• Warning notices that are conspicuous enough to catch the attention of even people

with high visual impairments. It is easier to notice a warning sign when it is

flashing;

• Use of clarity, colour and contrast standards in public space (e.g. EURO ACCESS

2008, p. 31). For example, pale colours like white, yellow or lime show up well in

contrast to a dark background; capital and lowercase letters in heavy type and

sans-serif fonts can be easily read by people with visual impairments. Red-green

combinations should be avoided because people with red-green colour blindness

are not able to discern them. Red-blue colour combinations should also be

obviated (e.g. FGM 2008. p. 10). Figure 75 shows colours which create good

visibility for displays;



Figure 75. Pale colours which can be easily read by people with visual impairments

Source: (COST 1999, p. 83 / 150)

• A clear orientation system in public space (see Figure 76). Small font or icons

cause problems for people with visual impairments. Font size should be at least

2cm in height per 1m distance. For displays which are installed overhead (max.

3m high), character height should be at least 6cm (e.g. FGM 2008. p. 11). When

information displays are installed too high, people with visual impairments have

difficulties reading the information (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 82).

Figure 76. Requirement: accessible orientation system for people with visual impairments

• Displays and screens that are non-glare, non-blinding and non-reflecting to

facilitate visualisation for people with visual impairments. Reflections can also be

reduced with higher luminosity (e.g. FGM 2008. p. 11);

• Information displays that are relatively constant. The use of tickers to display

information should be avoided because they are difficult for people with visual



impairments to see. Alternating displays must have a minimum holding time of 5

seconds per 30 signs (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 11);

• Staircases that have well-contrasted steps or are signed with a coloured stripe at

the end of every step. There must be handrails on stairs. Single steps should be

avoided. In case of poor visibility, for example, in often foggy towns, street furniture

should be fitted with fluorescent markings (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 56; Wennberg 2009,

p. 36);

• Doors/facades incorporating glass or any other transparent material highlighted

with clearly visible features which contrast with the surrounding area (such as

coloured strips, logos, emblems or decorative features, adhesive labels or glass

screen partitions). These should be at eye level (about 1500mm–2000mm) and

preferably at lower eye level too (about 900mm) for children, small passengers

and wheelchair users. Glass should be at least break-proof (e.g. COST 1999, p.

43f., p. 171);

• The standardised arrangement of operating elements, for example in rest rooms,

in order to facilitate the finding of these elements (e.g. FGM, 2008, p. 19);

• Information about temporary risks such as slippery surfaces, danger of falling

material, wet paint, etc. that is comprehensible to anybody, with warnings in visual,

acoustic and tactile formats (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 55);

• Guiding lines and markings to enable people with visual impairments to better

perceive their physical surroundings. Whereas height differences in the route

should be kept to a minimum for almost all other public space users, this is not

desirable for people with visual impairment. Without being able to make use of

natural guiding lines, they run the risk of ending up in the roadway, which is

extremely dangerous. To prevent conflicts with motorised traffic and bicycles,

guiding lines and warning markings are required. Such route markings are

especially necessary in the vicinity of public transport stops and stations. It is

advisable to make cycle paths recognisable by means of red surfacing material. In

case of separated pedestrian and bicycle paths, a boundary between footpaths

and adjacent bike paths is necessary. However, bicycle paths should always be



separated in a visually contrasting manner and footpaths should be clearly

perceptible by tactile means (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 88; AVV 2003, p. 88;

SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 38f.);

• Restricted speed zones, traffic calming, traffic islands, crossing facilities,

pedestrian zones and monitoring of parking (blocked footpaths and pedestrian

crossings) (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p.

59).

6.1.1.2 Barriers

While the roadway is generally kept free of obstacles and litter for cars, this is not always

the case for cycle paths. The pedestrian domain is also full of obstacles: abandoned

bicycles, rubbish bags, displays and boards, cars parked or (un-)loading on the pavement.

For people with visual impairment this is not only inconvenient but also dangerous (e.g.

AVV 2003, p. 55).

The condition of public space is of highest importance for people with visual impairments.

According to DPTAC (2002), people with visual impairments are significantly more likely to

rate streets and pavements poorly (73%) compared to wheelchair users (67%), those with

an ambulant disability (63%), those with a learning disability (48%) and those with a

hearing impairment (47%). Studies show that most concerns relate to street furniture,

uneven and cracked surfaces, lack of tactile surfaces, road crossings and overhanging

vegetation and litter as problems (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 21).

The barriers for people with visual impairments in public space are subdivided into

existing barriers on pavements and existing barriers while crossing the street.


The most common barriers on pavements for people with visual impairments are:

• Excessively narrow pavements due to different barriers such as overhanging

hedges, dustbins, planters, street lamps, bicycle stands, art work, benches,

information signs and cigarette machines (see Figure 77). Pavements may also be

narrowed by the loading operations of vehicles. These barriers are considerable



threats for people with visual impairments as they pose the risk of collision (e.g.

FGM, 2010, p. 6f; KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78);

Figure 77. Pavement constricted by obstacles poses considerable risks for people with visual impairments

• Holes and bumps in the pavement caused by trees and tree roots (e.g. VAN

BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p. 69). These are dangerous as they create the risk of

falling (see Figure 78);

Figure 78. Narrowed pavements with trees leads to a risk of falling

• Obstacles on the pavement that are not visually high-contrasted (e.g. FGM 2010 p.

7). For example, dark-green pollards used to delimit the pavement areas cannot be

seen by people who have visual impairment (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 48);

• Stairs and escalators without high-contrasted and tactile markings at the top and

bottom. This increases the risk of falling or stumbling for people with visual

impairments (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009a, p. 69).

• Ramps and stairs with no handrail. Handrails are necessary for all people in bad

weather conditions like rain, fog or twilight (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7);




collision on shared pavements. People with visual impairments are particularly at

risk in these environments because they can hardly see and cannot hear quietly

approaching cyclists (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 8) (see Figure 79);

Figure 79. Shared pavements for pedestrians and cyclists endanger people with visual impairments

• Pavements that are only visually separated from the road or cycle way. Pavements

that have no tactile delimitation, for example level difference or tactile cognisable

difference of the surface structure, are dangerous for people with visual impairments

as they may easily and unintentionally end up walking into the road (e.g. FGM 2010,

p. 7);

• Uneven surface material and/or poorly maintained asphalt surface, for example with

frost or plants (see Figure 80). This increases the risk of stumbling for people with

visual impairments (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7). Many different types of surface are also

difficult for people with sight impairments (e.g. VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009, p.

69);



Figure 80. Barrier: uneven surface of the walkway increases the risks of stumbling for people with visual impairments

• Warning notices about potential dangers that are only provided in a visual format

(see Figure 81). People with high visual impairments cannot discern such

warnings and may be at risk of exposure to danger (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 8);

Figure 81. People with visual impairments cannot discern visual warning notices

• Guidance systems that are unusable as the text on walking guide signs is too

small and the signs are placed too high (VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009a, p. 69).


There are additional barriers for people with visual impairments when they leave the

pavement and cross the street:

• Demand-driven pedestrian-lights with manual demand for the green phase. It is

particularly difficult for people with visual impairments to notice that the pedestrian



light needs to be demanded manually. The push-button is often hard to locate for

people with visual impairments (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 10);

• Unclear crossings which do not clearly indicate to people with visual impairment

where the crossing begins and/or whether pedestrians have priority (e.g. VAN

BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009a, p. 69) (see Figures 82 and 83);

Figure 82 and Figure 83. Barrier: no tactile indication of the border between streets and pavements

• Estimating the speed of vehicles, thus making it difficult and sometimes dangerous

to cross the street (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 147).


6.1.2.1 Needs

The needs of people with visual impairments in public transport are subdivided into those

regarding stops and stations and those relating to the public transport vehicle.

Needs at stops and stations

The needs of people with visual impairment at stops and stations include:

• Tactile and visually contrasting entry points. Seating and weather protection must

be provided. Movement areas at stops should not be crossed by cycle paths (e.g.

KLIEMKE 2004, p. 80);

• An acoustic announcement of the trams and/or buses arriving at the station or stop

(tram x with direction y). This announcement has to be clear and easily

understandable;



• Acoustic information at the station, in lifts and in vehicles, and acoustic feedback at

vending-machines. Ticket machines should have an automated speech output or

be able to establish a voice communication to a call centre where the agents can

set the desired ticket, so that the customer only has to handle the payment

process (FGM 2008, p. 10);

• A tactile paving surface at the front door of the bus (ECMT 2004, p.38). Colour

contrasted safety lines help partially sighted people to keep clear of the bus’ side

mirror, which sticks over the edge of the platform;

• Shelters at stops with colour-contrasted glass screen partitions in order to reduce

the risk of people with visual impairments colliding with the shelter;

• Operating elements of ticket machines that are findable and usable through

contrasts and tactile design. People with visual impairments need additives for

enhancement and clear lettering;

• Visual information at the stops and in the vehicle that is proximate, written in large

font with a good level of contrast and broadcast through speakers. Standardised

design is desirable for easy recognition (e.g.EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 42;

NICOLLE 1997a, p. 14; NICOLLE 1997b, p. 28; VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009a,

p. 69). The most important factors in facilitating visual recognition are size,

form/style, layout, colour and light density contrasts (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK

DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 19). For the marking of operating elements at

auxiliary and emergency devices, barriers and blockades, and displays of

information which consist of characters and icons, a contrast of at least 0.7 is

required. For the identification of other operating elements, guidance and control

systems, a high contrast of at least 0.4 is required (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK

DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 20);

• Technological systems at stations. These “enable visually impaired people to

navigate around a station on their own. These systems are triggered by smart

cards and provide the visually impaired person with spoken information either to a

headset, or aloud” (COST 1999, p. 128).

Needs outside and within the vehicle

The needs of people with visual impairment in relation to the vehicle include:



• An appropriate ticket vending and validation system. Because of the vehicle’s

movement, ticket vending machines within the public transport vehicle are more

difficult to read and handle than fixed machines at the stations/stops (e.g. FGM

2008, p. 9) A tactile ticket validation enables people with visual impairments to

discern how many rides are still possible with a ticket (if the ticket includes several

rides) (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12);

• Clarity, colour and contrast standards in the internal and external features of public

transport (e.g. EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 31). When a bus/tram is printed with an

overall picture, it is very difficult for people with visual impairments to make out the

location of the doors. It helps if the outside door opener is positioned at a

standardised convenient height (0.85m) (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81). The optical

destination information on the bow, tail and side of the vehicle must be designed

with contrasts to be identified by people with visual impairments. The glass should

not reflect and the background of the signs should be illuminated at night. The

route number and destination should be easy to read at a distance (number:

>200mm in height on the front and rear of the vehicle and >70mm on the side;

destination: >125mm in height on the front and >70mm on the side of the vehicle)

(e.g. COST 2005, p. 22f ; FGM 2008, p. 13). Inside the vehicle, displays should

use high contrast between background and character or symbol. There should be

no use of reflective materials. The lighting must be bright, glare- and shadow-free

and there should be an audio and visual closure signal. A high-contrasted

distinction of the door area is required. Where transparent panels such as glass

are used other than for external windows, they should be clearly identified by a

band of colour or other highly visible means (e.g. COST 1999, p. 42; DAHME

2002, p. 25; FGM 2008, p. 13f.; KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81; KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005,

p. 39; NICOLLE 1997a, p.34);

• Holding facilities throughout the vehicle in contrast with the background (see

Figures 84 and 85). There should be no protruding angles or feather-edged brinks,

especially near handrails (e.g. EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 27);



Figure 30 and Figure 31. Requirement: holding facilities have to be in visual contrast to the background

• Clearly marked rest rooms. The states “free”, “occupied” and “out of order” must be

recognisable for people with visual impairments (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 14);

• Reserved seats close to the entrance/exit with a backwards-facing direction (see

Figure 86). This seating position has the advantage that in the event of

unexpected braking they are pressed into the seat, which is important because

they cannot reach for a possible grip as easily as sighted people can (e.g. TU

DARMSTADT 2003, p. 33);

Figure 32. People with visual impairments should be seated in a backwards-facing direction

6.1.2.2 Barriers

Among all PRM groups, those with a visual impairment are the most likely to say they do

not feel well informed (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 21).

People with visual impairments are faced with many problems when using public transport

services. There are barriers in using timetables, and differences in station environments

(e.g. platform length, positioning of ticket machines/windows) and vehicle design (e.g.



number of steps, location of doors) that can cause problems. Thus, as for many other

PRM groups, standardisation of stations and vehicles is the most helpful solution for this

group (e.g. NICOLLE 1997a, p. 15; NICOLLE 1997b, p. 29).

The barriers for people with visual impairments in public transport include:

• Warning notices at the station, for example informing people about alternative

routes due to construction works, that are predominantly visual in form and

therefore imperceptible to many passengers with visual impairments (e.g. FGM

2010, p. 11);

• Touchscreen interfaces (on vending machines or information points) which lack

tactile or audible feedback and are therefore difficult to use or unusable (e.g. FGM

2008, p. 7);

• Computer displays, which are generally more difficult to read than printed

information and for which it is usually not possible to adjust lightness/luminosity or

contrast;

• The use of colours for information in ticket information and route maps. Such

information cannot be discerned by people with visual impairments involving a

limited colour vision (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 9);

• Timetables that are not readable because they are not sufficiently illuminated, the

font is too small, the colour contrasting is minimal or the paper is dirty, yellowed or

mouldy (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 33);

• Adhesive advertisements covering the areas of the vehicle surrounding the doors,

and/or lack of contrast of the doors to the surrounding areas of the vehicle. These

features make it almost impossible for people with visual impairments to find the

door or the door opener (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 10);

• Too large a gap between the vehicle floor and the ground (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p.

81). People with visual impairments do not see this gap and can be injured by

stumbling (see Figure 87);



Figure 33. Barrier: people with visual impairments can easily stumble over large gaps between the vehicle floor and the platform

• Lack of handrails at the entry/exit of the vehicle for use while (de-)boarding and

lack of handrails on seats (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 11f.);

• Inadequate ticket purchasing facilities. If people with visual impairments want to

buy a ticket in the vehicle, it can be difficult to access the bus or tram driver. The

purchase of a ticket at a vending machine is complicated when there is no speech

output and when information and buttons are too small (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12).

Some ticket vending machines require a four-digit target number as input and are

equipped with a long list of destinations in small print which is hard for people with

visual impairments to discern (e.g. BMVBS 2010, p. 80). People with visual

impairments (and people with Parkinsons) in particular find it very hard to use

these facilities (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 51);

• Ticket validation machines which require the ticket to be inserted into a slot. It is

difficult to insert the ticket exactly into the slot, particularly while the vehicle is

moving (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12). People with visual impairments cannot see which

part of the ticket has to be stamped. If one ticket includes several rides, they may

be not able to prove how many rides can be made with this ticket (e.g. FGM

2008a, p. 12);

• Flip-up seats. These can be dangerous for people with visual impairments

because they see the seat but do not realise that they have to push down.



6.2 Blind people

This section covers the needs of and barriers for blind people. In a report by the UK

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the problems faced by blind people are

described as follows:

“We have problems with travelling because we can’t see the bus numbers. Also, the

buses are all different designs. This is my third guide dog, and we used to get on the bus

and get the seat behind the stairs. My guide dog knew where to find it, and got on. Now

the design of buses are all different because they need to get wheelchairs on, and that’s

brilliant, they should do. But the seats are in different places, they tip up some seats,

facing different directions. I get on the bus and can’t find a seat, and it’s very

embarrassing and there’s no handle to hold on to. There’s a wide space for wheelchairs,

but for a blind person a big wide space is frightening” (DPTAC 2002, p. 67).

This example shows that the needs of different PRM groups do not always fit with each

other and must all be considered at different stages of the mobility chain.

6.2.1 Public Space

6.2.1.1 Needs

Blind people’s needs in public space include the following:

• Accessible and barrier-free walkways (e.g. BUILD FOR ALL 2006, p. 37; EURO

ACCESS 2008, p. 27). There must be no protruding angles or feather-edged

brinks, especially near handrails;

• Broad pavements. The minimum breadth must be 1.20m to facilitate the use of a

white cane (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78);

• Well maintained pavements and streets in winter. Sand should be used rather than

salt because guide dogs’ paws are sensitive and salt can be painful for them;

• Tactile floor guide lines, particularly if there is no “natural” guidance provided by

kerbs, walls and fences (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11). Tactile guidance must be used

sparingly/with caution in order to avoid confusion and stimulus saturation (e.g.

FGM 2008, p.13). Tactile floor guide lines must be free of barriers, which present a

high risk of physical injury (see Figures 88 and 89);



Figure 34 and Figure 35. Requirement: tactile floor guidance for blind people

• Guiding lines and warning markings in places where there is a chance of conflicts

with motorised traffic and bicycles. Such route markings are especially necessary

in the immediate vicinity of public transport stops and stations (e.g. AVV 2003,

p.88);

• Suitable design of public space, including speed enforcement in restricted speed

zones and on main roads, footpath noses, speed bumps, crossing facilities,

sufficiently long green light phases, acoustic signals at traffic lights, good quality

footpaths, pedestrian zones, etc. (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR


• Monitoring of parking (particularly cars blocking footpaths, bike paths and

pedestrian crossings) (see Figure 90);

Figure 36. Requirement: enforcement of parking prohibitions on pedestrian infrastructure

• A level difference between streets and pavements of 3cm (a suitable solution for

wheelchair users and blind people) (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR




• A boundary between footpaths and adjacent bike paths in the case of separated

pedestrian and bicycle paths (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V.

2008, p. 38f.);

• A beeper at the signal transmitter mast of pedestrian crossings, which produces a

ticking sound during the operation of the traffic lights and allows blind people to

locate the crossing safely. The sound should be audible within a radius of at least

4m (e.g. BUILD FOR ALL 2006, p.37);

• Acoustic announcement systems at pedestrian lights, to indicate when the lights

turn from red to green and vice versa. The waiting signal (red light) must differ

clearly from the enable signal (green light) (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK

DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 58). ). A tactile signal can be installed in addition to

the acoustic signal if this is not reliably discernible, for example because of too

closely spaced signal transmitter masts or because a mast emits the acoustic

signals for two directions. The tactile signal transmitter is installed at the bottom or

top of the request device. The direction of travel is shown by a tactile arrow. The

transmitter communicates the beginning of the green phase with a vibration for

about 5 seconds (e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 62);

• A sufficiently long green phase of lights at pedestrian crossings. This must be

calculated so that even people with a lower walking speed (about 1m/s) than

average can cross the road. They hould have reached at least the second half of

the intersection before the pedestrian traffic lights turn red again (e.g.

SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 62);

• GPS navigation systems equipped with a voice synthesiser. This system should

have a special interface which enables it to receive information concerning location

and mode of the cross-way (cross-walk, traffic lights with /without audio guidance,

underpasses, etc.), the position of bus stops and the departure times of all

possible public transport vehicles (e.g. EDAD 2005, p. 39);

• Protection at construction sites with the help of solid barriers. Unsecured

construction sites represent a great source of danger for people with reduced

mobility. Footpaths should be protected by 10cm high shut off devices at a 100cm

height with additional contact strips of 10cm, attached at a height of 25cm height at

the top edge. Walkways at construction sites should have a width greater than

120cm and a height of at least 230cm (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 83).



6.2.1.2 Barriers

The barriers for blind people in public space are subdivided into existing barriers on

pavements and existing barriers while crossing the street.


• Excessively narrow pavements due to different barriers such as overhanging hedges, dustbins, planters, street lamps, bicycle stands, art work, benches, information signs and cigarette machines. These barriers are considerable threats for blind people as they pose the risk of collision (e.g. FGM, 2010, p. 6f; KLIEMKE 2004, p. 78). Pavements may also be narrowed by the loading operations of vehicles. The loading ramp is a considerable threat for blind people (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 7);

• Ground level installations which protrude more than 15cm and therefore interfere with use of the white cane. Normally, a white cane can only enable detection of obstacles directly over the ground, so the head and body are not protected. For example, safeguards of road works and other shutoff devices cannot be identified in a timely manner, Non-tactile recognisable barriers should be installed at a height of 210cm. The exception is the presence of a tactile guidance system which conducts the blind person over the barrier (e.g. FGM 2008. p.17);


collision on shared pavements. Blind people are particularly at risk because they can

neither see nor hear the quietly approaching cyclists (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 8);

• Warning notices about potential dangers that are only provided in a visual format (see

Figures 91 and 92). Blind people cannot see such warnings and may be at risk of

exposure to danger (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 8);

Figure 37 and Figure 38. Barrier: blind people cannot discern warning notices if they are given only visually



• Lack of, or discontinuous, orientation guides for blind people. If there is no “natural”

guidance, such as kerbs, walls and fences, and no tactile guidance on the ground, it is

very difficult for blind people to orient without help (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11);

• Plans of the region/city that are only provided in a visual format. Blind people cannot

use these and require tactile plans (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11).


There are additional barriers for blind people when they leave the pavement and cross the

street:

• Kerbs lowered to street level in crossing areas. If the street is not detectable, it is

dangerous for blind people as they may end up in the street unintended (e.g. FGM

2010, p. 9);

• Light signal systems pedestrian crossings without acoustic or tactile signals (see

Figure 93). Blind people are not able to see the traffic lights and so cannot cross the

street without risk (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 9);

Figure 39. Requirement: light signal systems must be equipped with acoustic or tactile signals on traffic light controlled crossings

• Demand-driven pedestrian crossings with manual demand for the green phase. It is

particularly difficult for blind people to discern that the pedestrian light needs to be

demanded manually. The push-button is often hard to locate for blind people (e.g.

FGM 2010, p. 10).




6.2.2.1 Needs

The needs of blind people regarding public transport services are subdivided into specific

those regarding stops and stations and those relating to the public transport vehicle.


The needs of blind people at stops and stations include:

• Tactile and visually contrasting entry points;

• The provision of seating and weather protection (see Figure 94);

Figure 40. Requirement: public transport stops should provide accessible weather protection and seating possibilities

• Movement areas at stops separate from cycle paths (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 80);

• An acoustic announcement of the trams and/or buses arriving at the station or stop

(tram x with direction y) (see Figure 95). This announcement has to be clear and

easily understandable. Audible information must be spread evenly over the entire

area, including passenger platforms and toilets. An automated voice digitally

generated text system is preferable. In addition, voice announcements should be

enunciated by an introductory attention signal; a 2-tone chime is recommended. All

audible information such as release signals, alerts and announcements on public

transport and platforms must stand out from the background noise of the

environment be issued on time and repeatedly (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 16);



Figure 41. Requirement: blind people need acoustic passenger information at public transport stops and stations

• A tactile and visual field on the platform or bus stop at the position of the driver's

door. This should measure120cm x 120cm (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 17);

• Tactile platform edges. Tactile boundaries such as curbs, steps, surface changes

and protecting strips enclose the safe walking area and serve as a guide for blind

people (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 17);

• Easily locatable vending machines and ticket validators which allow blind people to

validate their ticket in the correct way. Such machines should be set at a height that

enables all passengers to reach the highest and lowest buttons and be equipped

with speech output (e.g. COST 1999, p. 131). A tactile ticket validation enables blind

people to feel how many rides are still possible with a ticket (if the ticket includes

several rides) (FGM 2008a, p. 12). Multi-ride tickets should be provided with probing

points on the back so that blind passengers can scan how many trips are still

available (FGM 2008, p. 19);

• Bus stop indications in Braille and provided by speakers (e.g. VAN BEMMELEN ET

AL. 2009a, p. 69).


The needs of blind people in relation to the vehicle include:



• An acoustic announcement of the name of each approaching station to know when

they have to get off the tram/bus, for example: “Next station: …, exit on the left / right

in direction of travel”;

• Elevated and distinguishable control and communication elements. For example,

door opening and stop request buttons must have a noticeable pressure point in

order to stand out and not activated unintentionally when feeling the environment. A

standardised position of these controls is preferable. The door opening and stop

request button should have an acoustic confirmation (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 19);

• The provision of special seats for blind people, preferably near the entrance to the

vehicle and equipped with a stop request button. These seats must be tactile and

visually recognisable and there should be enough space for guide dogs (e.g. FGM

2008, p. 19). These seats should have a backwards-facing direction. This seating

position has the advantage that in the event of unexpected braking they are pressed

into the seat, which is important because they cannot reach for a possible grip as

easily as sighted people can (e.g. TU DARMSTADT 2003, p. 33);

• Standardised arrangement of the controls so that they can be easily located (e.g.

FGM 2008, p. 14). There should also be guidance to the toilet (e.g. DAHME 2002, p.

30);

• Smooth and calm operating of the vehicle by drivers. They should not move off until

everyone is seated and if necessary help the user boarding or disembarking the

vehicle;

• Contrasting door design, audio and visual closure signal and, if applicable, the

outside door opener at a convenient height (0.85m) (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81);

• A maximum vertical gap of 200mm between the ground and the vehicle and an

acoustic alarm when the doors close (e.g. DAHME 2002, p. 25).

6.2.2.2 Barriers

The barriers in public transport for blind people are subdivided into specific barriers at

stops and stations and existing barriers at the vehicle.

Barriers at stops and stations

• Inadequate ticket purchasing facilities. If blind people want to buy a ticket in the

vehicle, it can be difficult to access the bus or tram driver. The purchase of a ticket at

a vending machine is complicated when there is no speech output to indicate which

button has to be pushed for the desired ticket (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12). Touch



screen interfaces are not suitable for blind people because of the lack of tactile

feedback (e.g. FGM 2008. p. 7);

• Entrance doors or door openers that cannot be located acoustically (e.g. FGM

2008a, p. 10);

• Warning notices at the station, for example informing people about alternative routes

due to construction works, that are predominantly visual in form and therefore

imperceptible to blind people (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11);

• Lack of a tactile guidance system and/or display panels with announcements to

indicate which station platform is the right one (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 34) (see Figure

96);

Figure 42. Requirement: tactile guidance system for blind people to find the right platform

• Trams that cannot be detected aurally. This can be dangerous for blind people when

crossing the street or rails and is also problematic at stops with a high noise level

(e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 19);

• Large crowds at bus stops, inhibiting blind people’s ability to use the white cane

when boarding or alighting a vehicle (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 32);

• Too large a gap between the vehicle floor and the station ground (e.g. KLIEMKE

2004, p. 81).

Barriers in public transport vehicles

• Ticket validators that are hard to find because they are installed at a different

location in every vehicle (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12) and difficult to use, particularly

when the vehicle is moving (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12). The correct validation of the

ticket is a problem for blind people because they cannot see which part of the ticket



has to be stamped. If one ticket includes several rides, they may not be able to

prove how many rides can be made with this ticket (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12);

• Vehicles that move off before the passenger has sat down. It is difficult for blind

people to find a seat quickly because vehicles have different internal design (e.g.

FGM 2008a, p. 11);

• Seating that does not have a tactile identifier for row/number and reservation status.

Blind people cannot see the seat numbers and do not know if the seat is reserved or

where they can find their own reserved seat (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 37);

• Insufficient space for guide gods in public transport vehicles, which poses the risk of

dogs being kicked by other passengers (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 12);

• Lack of audible announcement system or inaudible announcement system for

upcoming stops and/or interchanges (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 13f.);

• Grid stairs at the entrance or exit of the vehicle (see Figure 97). These can be

dangerous; the white cane can get entangled in the grid (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 26).

Figure 43. Barrier: grid stairs at the entrance or exit may cause people to stumble and fall

6.3 People with hearing impairment

Hearing impairment refers to partial or complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both

ears. The level of impairment can be mild, moderate, severe or profound. This category

includes hardness of hearing, phonophobia (hyperacusis), tinnitus and hearing loss.

Since hearing impairment is not "visible" and people with hearing impairments are usually

not identified as having an hearing impairment by other people in public space and public



transport systems, they are vulnerable in particular ways. Acoustic information cannot be

perceived by deaf people, so they are severely limited in their communication (e.g. FGM

2008, p. 20).

6.3.1 Public Space

6.3.1.1 Needs

The needs of people with hearing impairments in public space include:

• Short reverberation times for announcements (see Figure 98). These are

necessary for people with hearing impairments because long reverberations

derange audio transmissions. Walls and floors should be noise reducing, for

example with the use of carpets, curtains or plants;

Figure 44. Requirement: short reverberation times at public transport stations are necessary for people with hearing impairments

• Inductive loop systems in public space. These assist people in making use of

remaining hearing capability by passing the audio signal directly to the hearing aid

(e.g. FGM 2008, p. 20);

• Training. People with reduced hearing have to make their diagnosis and prognosis

on the basis of limited input. In general, they are fairly aware of their limitations

and wide safety margins are built in. However, they are still more likely to make

mistakes in diagnosis and prognosis than able-bodied people. Training in the

context of rehabilitation can help, albeit in a limited way, to improve diagnosis and

prognosis to some extent (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 69).



6.3.1.2 Barriers

Barriers for people with hearing impairments in public space include:

• Problems distinguishing specific desired sounds. Acoustic announcements are

often not understandable because it is difficult to screen voice from noise. There

may not simply be difficulty hearing things at a low volume; certain frequencies can

be indiscernible. Other people may be hard to understand if there is no inductive

hearing loop. This is even worse where cross-talk effects and superfluous

background noises appear. This can often be avoided by a careful assessment of

the acoustics and absorption factors of a space (e.g. WIJK 1996, p.14);

• Lack of lighting. This is problematic for people with hearing impairment because

they rely on interpersonal communication, including the recognition of facial

expressions and lip movements of their interlocutor (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 36);

• Cyclists and other inaudible vehicles such as electric cars, particularly when

approaching from behind (see Figure 99). These are sometimes seen as being

even more dangerous for pedestrians than car drivers (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL.

2003, p. 48).

Figure 45. Barrier: people with hearing impairments cannot recognise vehicles approaching from behind


6.3.2.1 Needs

In general, public transport including stops, stations and the vehicle interior should offer

appropriate and clear audio and visual information concerning line terminus, next stop and



transfer connections. Extraordinary information on break, malfunction and delays are also

required in both audible and visual formats (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 21; UNIACCESS 2005, p.

3).

The needs of people with hearing impairments in public transport systems are subdivided

into those regarding stops and stations and those relating to the public transport vehicle.


• Comprehensible announcements via speakers (see Figure 100). Even non-

impaired people often have difficulties understanding announcements at stations

(e.g. FGM 2008, p. 21);

Figure 46. Requirement: comprehensible announcements are very important for people with hearing impairments

• Acoustic announcements with an inductive hearing loop (indicated easily with an

icon) at places where many passengers are waiting for information, such as the

central display area, waiting rooms and lounges (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 21);

• Visual displays or flashing light alarms indicating threats that are commonly

perceived acoustically, for example the retraction of a train at a railway station

(e.g. FGM 2008, p. 23).


• Visual announcements of breakdowns (e.g. EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 31);

• Automatic door locking systems with a visual and acoustic warning shortly before

the closing of the doors (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 24);



• High-priority seats for people with hearing impairments. These seats should be

clearly indicated and positioned in close proximity to monitors with visual

information (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.6). The use of an inductive hearing loop in

the vehicle is advisable so that people with hearing impairments are able to hear

all announcements;

• Information in visual formats with clear signs (e.g. KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p.

27, 39). LED displays (information boards) need to be accessible to people who

are deaf and hard of hearing and people who have visual impairment (e.g.

KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p. 24).

6.3.2.2 Barriers

People with hearing impairments encounter many of the same difficulties as other groups.

However, they experience additional problems in hearing and comprehending

announcements, both at stations (particularly during poor weather conditions) and whilst

travelling on vehicles (e.g. NICOLLE 1997b, p.30).

Specific barriers for people with hearing impairments when using public transport services

include:

• Breakdown information that is only announced acoustically (e.g. NICOLLE 1997a,

p.14);

• Lack of display panels with visual announcements (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 34).

6.4 Deaf people

Deafness refers to the complete loss of ability to hear from one or both ears. People can

be without hearing by birth but it is also possible to become without hearing as a

consequence of hearing loss.



6.4.1 Public Space

6.4.1.1 Needs

People without hearing have specific needs when moving around in public space,

including:

• The availability of information that is easy to understand via visual

announcements. As many people without hearing have limited literacy, texts in a

simple form are preferable. These should be characterised by (e.g. EURO

ACCESS 2008, p. 47):

− short sentences and paragraphs

− short words (e.g. “buy” instead of “purchase”)

− avoidance of jargon

− clear headings and bullet points

− diagrams replacing long written descriptions

− explanatory images and photographs (real people, not models, in action)

• The provision of videos with sign language on internet sites equivalent to text-

based information (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 23);

• Consideration by service personnel of the fact that people without hearing often

use lip reading. Service personnel should consider:

− speaking clearly and slowly

− taking a quiet position (no gross head movement)

− ensuring that there is enough light

− addressing the face to the eye of the conversational partner

− full beard or lip piercings impede reading

− the removal of distracting backgrounds for example shadows, striking colours, moving objects (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 20).

• Use of the computer screen at the staff counter as reading support for customers if

required, for example, for quote requests or inquiries about the train departure

times (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 21).



6.4.1.2 Barriers

Barriers in public space for people without hearing are very similar to those for people with

other impairments. However, they also specifically include:

• Lack of lighting. This is problematic for people without hearing because they rely on interpersonal communication, including the recognition of facial expressions and lip movements of their interlocutor (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 36);

• Impatient responses from people from whom they have requested information or help.


6.4.2.1 Needs

The needs of people without hearing in public transport are very similar to those of people

with hearing impairments. They include:

• Visual announcement of breakdown information (e.g. EURO ACCESS 2008, p.

31);

• Use of the computer screen at the staff counter as reading support for customers,

if required (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 21);

• Acoustic announcements accompanied by a video with sign language at places

where many passengers are waiting for information, for example a central display,

waiting rooms and lounges;

• Automatic door locking systems with a visual and acoustic warning shortly before

the closing of the doors (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 24).

6.4.2.2 Barriers

Barriers in public transport for people without hearing are also in many aspects similar to

those of people with hearing impairments. They include:

• Lack of display panels with visual announcements (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 34)

• Breakdown information that is only announced acoustically (e.g. NICOLLE 1997a,

p.14) (see Figure 101).



Figure 47. Breakdown information must be given in audible and visual format



7 PEOPLE WITH COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT

The cognitive abilities of humans cover attentiveness, memory, learning, creativity,

planning, orientation, imagination, reasoning, the will and so on. Some people have

different kinds of deficits in their cognition, such as difficulties in understanding

complicated information or in using complex structures, learning difficulties, an inability to

read or write, problems with communication, psychological impairments, lack of sense of

orientation, agoraphobia/claustrophobia and dementia. Children are also less cognitively

developed than adults.

People with cognitive impairments also include people with mental health problems who

may “suffer from relationship, experience, recognition, orientation, concentration, attention

or memory disorders. Internal or external processes may cause anxiety and panic attacks,

resulting in loss of control and avoidance behaviour as for example nervous hart,

perspiration, dizziness or hyperventilation” (EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 51).

The causes of cognitive impairments differ. The difficulties may exist from birth be age-

related or result from stroke, brain tumours or a traumatic head injury. In the case of

psychiatric disorders, they can also be the result of a long term abuse of alcohol or other

drugs (e.g. MAPLE 2003, p. 5).

Consideration of cognitive impairment is increasingly important in the design of public

spaces and transport: “With increasing complexity of traffic, reduced mental capabilities

have more serious consequences: people can react to the risks that occur (even) less

well. Because people are becoming older, in thirty years’ time the number of Alzheimer

patients will have doubled. Not only will the number of Alzheimer patients increase, but

also other forms of brain damage, such as cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Due to

improving medical technology, people stay alive for longer. In addition, there are also

groups such as whiplash patients” (AVV 2003, p. 136).



7.1 Public Space

7.1.1 Needs

The needs of people with cognitive impairments in public space include:

• More time than the average population to make decisions about behaviour and

assess situations in public space. Designers of public space usually do not know

the extent to which vulnerable groups can be considered capable of using the road

safely. In situations where vehicles are travelling fast, where a great deal of traffic

has to be taken into account and where traffic is coming from different directions,

the complexity is so great that people need more time to make the right decisions.

Comparatively small problems for an ‘average’ road user can be more serious for

someone with limited task competence who is not able to recognise dangers

accordingly. In general they have considerable difficulty with estimating speed of

traffic and what others can and cannot do. Moreover, the speed of their information

processing is relatively low (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 50, 56, 69).

• Consideration of the capabilities of people with cognitive impairments in the design

of public spaces. People with reduced mental capabilities are in general not

capable of choosing a route. Their ‘mental map’ of their surroundings is limited.

(e.g. AVV 2003, p. 49);

• Calmness, kindness and consideration of the general population in social

interaction. In public space, mental health problems may cause anxiety,

restlessness and even panic attacks. Medications to treat such conditions may

produce drowsiness and slower actions. (EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 53);

Further, people with cognitive impairments specifically need:

• Suitable design of public space, for example restricted speed zones, traffic

calming, footpath noses, speed bumps, traffic islands, narrowing, crossing

facilities, sufficiently long green phases, visual and acoustic signals, traffic lights,

pedestrian zones, etc. (see Figure 102);



Figure 48. Requirement: suitable design of public space for people with cognitive impairments

• Speed enforcement in restricted speed zones and on main roads (e.g.

SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 59);

• Informative signs like logos or direction arrows that clearly and simply describe the

service which they represent. A variety of designs should be avoided as this can

create confusion (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 73) Symbols are preferable to words or

abbreviations but the number of symbols should be manageable and easy to learn

(e.g. NICOLLE 1997a, p.36);

• Information about temporary risks, for instance slippery surface, danger of falling

material, wet paint, etc. in a format that is comprehensible to everybody, including

people with learning difficulties or those who have problems understanding complex

information (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 55);

• The provision of guardrails to help prevent pedestrians, especially people with

cognitive impairments, accidentally walking into areas used by vehicles (e.g. COST

2005, p. 43);

• Where used in public space, transparent panels that are clearly identifiable by a

band of colour or other highly visible means at eye and at lower eye level (e.g.

COST 1999, p. 42f.);

• Straightforward and clear routes (grids), lines of sight without any obstacles, dead

ends open to pedestrians and cyclists, if applicable;

• Structural measures such as uniform pavement surfaces that are different from the

driving surfaces;

• Use of lighting for orientation (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 82).



7.1.2 Barriers

There are a number of barriers for people with cognitive impairments in public spaces,

including:

• Demand-controlled pedestrian crossings with manual request of the green phase

for pedestrians (see Figure 103). It is difficult to see, especially for people with a

learning disability, that this light system requires a manual request of the green

phase (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 10);

Figure 49. Barrier: demand-controlled pedestrian crossings with manual request may be a barrier for people with learning disabilities

• Hazards and clutter in streets and footpaths. People with cognitive impairments

may have a limited perception or a reduced responsiveness. They often lack the

ability to quickly perceive and orientate themselves to risks (e.g. TU DARMSTADT

2003, p. 17);

• Unclear texts or symbols. The style of and language used in signs may be difficult

to understand for people with cognitive impairments.

7.2 Public Transport

7.2.1 Needs

The needs of people with cognitive impairments in public transport include



• Simple and understandable displays and route maps in public transport vehicles,

at stops and in terminals. All operating controls, for example at ticket vending

machines, should feature clear and easily memorable pictograms. The equipment

should be comfortable and safe to use and not provoke anxiety (e.g. EURO

ACCESS 2008, p. 48);

• A key fob or travel wallet with photographs of the user’s home and key

destinations, local landmarks and emergency contact details. (e.g. MAPLE 2003,

p. 9);

• The use of internationally approved signs or pictograms in public transport service

announcements. Simple illustration of a well-known landmark which can be

associated with a particular destination can help people with cognitive impairments

or for whom the written word is a barrier to locate the right bus or tram (e.g.

KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p. 26; MAPLE 2003, p. 15);

• Fewer and simpler fares (e.g. BMVBS 2010, p.60);

• Control elements with a self-explanatory design at ticket vending machines. For

example, slots for coins, bank notes and cards should not be "scattered" around

the machine (e.g. BMVBS 2010, p. 80) (see Figure 104);

Figure 50. Requirement: self-explanatory design of the control elements at ticket vending machines

• Travel awareness training to assist people to travel independently;

• Technical aids for travellers, such as devices which help people to find their way;

• Staff training to assist people on modal interchanges;



• Travel assistance from transport operators and/or travel companions. This

assistance accompanies people who are reliant on help so that they can arrive at

their destinations safely (e.g. EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 52; PTACCESS 2008, p. 51).

7.2.2 Barriers

The use of all modes of transport can be particularly difficult for people with cognitive

impairments. Individuals may encounter specific barriers in various aspects of public

transport, including:

• Trip planning (e.g. deciding when to travel, what bus/tram changes are required,

understanding timetables);

• Ticketing (e.g. using machines, communicating with the driver);

• Access (e.g. locating correct stop and incoming bus);

• Trip information (e.g. identifying the correct stop, dealing with changes in the

bus/tram schedule) (e.g. NICOLLE 1997b, p.29);

• Orientation at large public transport interchanges. It can be particularly difficult for

people with cognitive impairments to know which tram/bus they need to take and

where to get on it. People with cognitive impairments need more time to treat

information and then to decide what they should do and are often overstrained when

facing new or complex requirements (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR

STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p.58). If a journey is interrupted, or if an unexpected

change to scheduling occurs, the problem may be one of disorientation, confusion or

even panic (e.g. OXLEY 1997, p. 8)

• A confusing fare system, such as combinations of price levels and ticketing. It is not

uncommon for there to be up to 200 tariff combinations (e.g. BMVBS 2010, p.60);

• The pervasiveness of technology which is difficult to use, for example, electronic bus

passes that need to be recharged at the cash dispenser and digital informative

panels (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p.192).



8 PEOPLE WITH OTHER MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS

Other mobility impairments include allergies (for example to pollen or animal hair) and

environmental sensitivities. People with a stature higher or lower than average (including

children), people with Parkinson’s disease, people with incontinence and those who need

to take medication at an exact time can also have a mobility impairment.

8.1 Public Space

8.1.1 Needs

The needs of people with other mobility impairments in public space include:

• High quality of air in enclosed public spaces. There is an increasing number of

people with allergies that are unable to breathe in areas that are contaminated by

smoke, dirt or animal hair. It is crucial for such people that high air quality filters

are installed in air-conditioning systems to prevent the circulation of allergens and

germs. There should be separate smoking and non-smoking areas or the

prohibition of smoking altogether (e.g. COST 1999, p. 123; ECA 2003, p. 74);

• Avoidance of the use of materials which may cause an allergic reaction (nickel,

artificial and natural rubber) in buttons, controls, handles, handrails and seating.

Surface materials such as wall-textiles or vinyl wall coverings with raised patterns,

thick carpets etc. should not be used in enclosed spaces because they collect dust

and can cause allergic reactions in people with allergic asthma (e.g. COST 2005,

p. 45).

8.1.2 Barriers

Barriers for people with other mobility impairments in public space include:

• A lack of orientation system. When information displays are installed too high,

people of short stature have difficulty reading the information (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004,

p. 82);



• Lack of a clear field of vision. People of short stature have a limited field of view

due to their size and often perceive dangerous situations too late (e.g. TU

DARMSTADT 2003, p. 16). Children are also smaller than the ‘standard person’.

Their peripheral vision and detection of noise sources are not yet strongly

developed (e.g. AVV 2003, p.53). They have a 35 % smaller field of vision at the

age of 5-6 years. Girls (10-17 years old) have less stereoscopic vision than boys at

this age (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 49,

71) (see Figure 105);

Figure 51. Children face various barriers in public space


8.2.1 Needs

The needs of people with other mobility impairments in public transport include:

• Monitoring of the substances which cause the most allergic reactions in public

transport vehicles and terminals. There should be designated spaces with climate

control (e.g. EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 54);

• The prohibition of smoking at stops, in terminals and in vehicles (e.g. EURO

ACCESS 2008, p. 54);

• Seats and flooring in vehicles and terminals that are made from approved material,

cleaned efficiently with approved technology and replaced regularly (e.g. EURO

ACCESS 2008, p. 54);



• The prohibition of animals, except guide dogs, in transit systems or designation to

special, well-marked areas (e.g. EURO ACCESS 2008, p. 54);

• The provision of seating in a forwards-facing direction for people with

environmental sensitivities (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p. 2);

• Easy to use and accessible ticket machines. It should be possible for people with

non-average stature to adjust such machines to the required height (e.g. ECA

2003, p. 67; KLIEMKE (ed.) 2004, p. 81). The size of the letters and buttons

should be large so that as many people as possible are able to use them without

assistance (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 51);

• Placement of the door opener at a convenient height (0.85m), particularly for

children and people of small stature (e.g. KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81);

• Visual and audible information on any unexpected changes to the service,

including significant delays or the non-availability of interchange services (e.g.

OXLEY 1997, p.8).

8.2.2 Barriers

Barriers for people with other mobility impairments in public transport include:

• Too large a gap between the vehicle floor and the station ground (e.g. KLIEMKE

2004, p. 81). This may result in serious difficulties accessing vehicles for short

statured people.

• High-lying control elements, such as light switches and door and window handles,

and high seating (e.g. TU DARMSTADT 2003, p. 16);

• Low clearance height of doors and ceilings and limited leg room. This is

particularly a problem for people of above average stature. (e.g. TU DARMSTADT

2003, p. 17) (see Figure 106);



Figure 52. People with non-average stature may have problems in public transport vehicles

• Delays in services. People suffering from incontinence or and people who need to

take medication at a specific time may become anxious when the bus or tram is

not on time (e.g. OXLEY 1997, p.8);



9 PEOPLE WITH TEMPORARY MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS

People with temporary mobility impairment include those carrying heavy/bulky luggage

and bikes, people with prams/small children, pregnant women, people who are

temporarily injured, and people who are unfamiliar with the locale such as

newcomers/visitors.

Many of the needs and barriers of these groups are similar to those of people with

permanent mobility impairments. In this section, such common needs and barriers are not

repeated but rather characteristics specific to these groups are highlighted.

9.1 Public Space

9.1.1 Needs

The needs of people with temporary mobility impairment in public space include:

• Streets and pavements wide enough to allow all users to pass one another (see

Figures 107 and 108). To ensure that people with bulky luggage and other PRM

can move and meet in public space there must be a certain minimum standard of

the movement area. The space requirements for wheelchairs work as a reference

for all PRM;

Figure 53 and Figure 54. Requirement: pavements should be wide enough for people with bulky luggage and other PRM

• The provision of resting places at regular intervals (at least every 300m) on

important footpath connections. This could include seating such as benches or



chairs or alternative resting facilities like walls that can be used to lean against

(e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 37;. TU

DARMSTADT 2003, p. 17);

• Traffic islands as crossing facilities with a minimum waiting area of 2.0m-3.0m

(e.g. SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 53f.);

• A sufficiently long green phase of lights at pedestrian crossings. This must be

calculated so that even people with a lower walking speed (about 1m/s) than

average can cross the road. They should have reached at least the second half of

the intersection before the pedestrian traffic lights turn red again (e.g.

SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 62);

• Elongated pavements at intersections (pavements drawn towards the central point

of the intersection) to enable better visibility and shorter crossings for pedestrians

(e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 45).

9.1.2 Barriers

Barriers for people with temporary impairment in public space include:

• Lack of guidance systems to point of interests for pedestrians and cyclists (see

Figures 109 and 110). This can lead newcomers and visitors to use the guidance

systems for vehicles to reach their destination, causing unnecessary detours (e.g.

FGM 2010, p. 11);

Figure 55 and Figure 56. Orientation barrier in public space for people with temporary mobility impairment

• Location and access information that is difficult to understand, unclear and

confusing. The name of the same location can vary depending on the information



system, making it harder for newcomers and visitors to obtain information and

orientation (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11);

• Warning signs and similar reports only in the national language. This is

problematic for newcomers and visitors with little or no local language knowledge

(e.g. FGM 2010, p. 12);

• Excessively speeding cars, wide streets, lack of crossing facilities and non-existent

or poor quality pavements (e.g. SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR

STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 59) (see Figure 111);

Figure 57. Narrowed pavements can become a problem for people with temporary impairment and other PRM

• Long distances and high stairs. This is particularly difficult for pregnant women,

who have a reduced walking speed (e.g. TU DARMSTADT 2003, p. 17).


9.2.1 Needs

The needs of people with temporary mobility impairment in public transport include:

• Pre-trip information on luggage services and on-trip information about the location

of spaces for the placement of luggage, prams and bikes (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005,

p.1, 6) (see Figure 112);



Figure 58. Requirement: accessible spaces for the placement of luggage in public transport vehicles

• Clear announcements of upcoming stops in buses and trains, both in audio and

visual systems (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.5);

• Ticket machines accessible for all passengers. It should be possible to change the

language in order to enable people who do not know the local language to use the

ticket machine (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 67) (see Figure 113);

Figure 59. Requirement: ticket machines should be accessible for all passengers

• Stops that prioritise public transport, i.e. cars cannot pass when the public

transport vehicle stands in the stop. This reduces danger to passengers getting in

and out of the vehicle and is particularly important for people with prams or small

children (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 44).



9.2.2 Barriers

Barriers for people with temporary impairment in public transport include:

• Difficulty locating the right bus/tram stop or stop area, especially at public transport

hubs. This is particularly a problem for newcomers and visitors (e.g. FGM 2008, p.

31) (see Figure 114);

Figure 60. Barrier: finding the right public transport vehicle at the interchange station

• Limited pavement space near the bus stop due to the ticket machine/timetable. This

makes access to the stop particularly difficult for people with prams and luggage

(e.g. FGM 2008, p. 31);

• High kerbs at stops and large gaps between the ground and the vehicle floor. This

makes access to the stop and the vehicle particularly difficult for people with prams

and luggage (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 31; KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81) (see Figures 115 and

116);

Figure 61. Barrier: access to the bus or tram stops only possible over high kerbs



Figure 62. Requirement: platform height should be adapted to the entry level of the public transport vehicles

• Insufficient space at bus and tram stops to enable safe and easy boarding and

alighting (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 31);

• A strip of roadway between the passenger waiting area and the public transport.

This is often the case for tram stops when the rails are in the middle of the road. It is

problematic for people with prams if there are vehicles which constrain safe access

to the public transport (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 32) (see Figure 117);

Figure 63. Requirement: safe access for people with temporary mobility impairment to the public transport

• Weather protection at stops which is too small to be used by people with prams (e.g.

FGM 2008a, p. 32);

• Lack of seating possibilities. People with small children in particular depend on

seating (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 32) (see Figure 118);



Figure 64. Requirement: seating facilities for people with small children in public transport vehicles

• Ticket machines that are not accessible for newcomers and tourists, for example

because their operation is too complicated or because it is not possible to select

alternative languages (e.g. FGM 2008a , p. 33);

• Lack of passenger information in foreign languages (e.g. FGM 2008a, p. 33;

KLIEMKE 2004, p. 81);

• Doors that are too narrow to pass through with bulky luggage or large prams (e.g.

UNIACCESS 2005, p. 4);

• Lack of multi-purpose areas for people with luggage, bikes or prams (e.g. KLIEMKE

2004, p. 81).



10 FURTHER NEEDS AND BARRIERS

The main part of this paper addressed needs and barriers that are directly related to the

different kinds of restrictions. However, there are many other needs and barriers that

influence the use of public space and public transport by PRM groups. These barriers will

be summarised in this section. There tend to be no great differences between the groups

of PRM in terms of the needs and barriers analysed.

Knowledge about these more attitude-related needs and barriers is as crucial as

knowledge about “hard” infrastructural issues as they play a key role in the (non) use of

public space and public transport by PRM. This is illustrated by the “Attitudes of Disabled

People to Public Transport” (DPTAC 2002, p. 59) report, which found that although

wheelchair access is the top priority for wheelchair users, for all other disability groups

service frequency is the most important aspect of public transport. Many other stated

important priorities are not directly related to specific types of impairment:

• Access to public transport (those with ambulant disabilities);

• Improving transport in general (those with visual impairments);

• Punctuality (those with hearing impairments);

• Free/cheaper transport (those with learning difficulties).

This shows that it is not only specific infrastructural concerns that are most important for

PRM when using public transport services.

In general, the following issues are the greatest concerns for public transport users

besides infrastructure: high fares, inappropriate time schedules, poor level of cleanliness,

overcrowded vehicles, ruthless drivers, dangerous journeys to stops, lack of punctuality,

insufficient routes, and sloppy or uncomfortable design of stops. For public space users,

the greatest concerns are infrastructural and relate to traffic lights (time cycles), the height

of kerbs and the light of the street lamps (e.g. TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003,

pp.71, 74; GRÖNVALL ET AL. 2006, pp. 25, 46; ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 122).

Many barriers are also the result of policies such as insufficient legal status of PRM

needs, and lack of financial resources of PRM to enable them to use public transport.



Where public transport services are considered to be poor, there is more social exclusion

(e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 74).

In the following section, some more common needs and barriers which are not only

directly related to single impairments are discussed.

Staff created barriers / barriers in customer relations

People with walking impairments are often unsatisfied due to the attitude of many of the

drivers. Some drivers are unfriendly, impatient and irritable when they have to get out of

the vehicle to move the ramp out for wheelchairs (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p. 5).

The style of driving can also be a problem. “The driving behaviour of public transport

vehicles (both busses and trams) cause great annoyance: Rough starts and brakes, or too

high speeds in curves for example. Furthermore it was criticised that drivers often do not

wait for elderly people to be seated before they drive on and doors are closed in spite of

elderly people not having completely entered or exited.” (ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 66)

It is stated that “Transport staff are not sufficiently trained about disabled people’s needs”

(DPTAC 2002, p. 61) and “Improving the attitudes of transport staff (particularly bus

drivers and train station staff) is a key priority and would encourage greater use of public

transport” (DPTAC 2002, p. 58). Consequently, drivers should improve their knowledge

about PRM and their needs and reconsider their behaviour. They should be trained in how

to use ramps and other facilities, such as the guidance and docking systems, in the

correct way. Without this, some of the advantages gained by improved vehicles and

infrastructure will be lost (e.g. ECMT 2004, p. 45; SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR

STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003, p. 59; TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003, p. 75;

UNIACCESS 2005, p.5).

Safety

The fear for personal safety while travelling among people with disabilities is higher than

among the general public. There are many concerns about safety with regard to both

using public transport services and the technical state of public spaces, in particular of

pavements and cycle paths. For many pedestrians, poor quality of footpaths is not a great

problem, but for people with a functional limitation it is (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 54; DPTAC



2002, p. 74). There can be a conflict between pedestrians and cyclists when both use the

same pavement; the sometimes aggressive and ruthless behaviour and high speeds of

cyclists can produce anger and fears for people with mobility impairment and those who

cannot react quickly (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 48).

Further criticism of public transport services relates to staff reductions that lead to a loss

of contact people in vehicles or at stations (e.g. ZAKOWSKA ET AL. 2003, p. 47). And

there are safety concerns about darkness: “At train and underground stations pedestrian

underground crossings and tunnels are seen as a threat. Stations were often considered

as being places of fear: dark, narrow, with bad lighting and bad smell, no social life.

Generally darkness (or lack of daylight) is connected with fear and anxiety” (ZAKOWSKA

ET AL. 2003, p. 47).

GRÖNVALL ET AL. (2006, p. 23) describe very similar fears of seniors: dizziness/ vertigo,

victimisation, falling, vulnerability, loss of control, vehicle drivers and loss of abilities. The

elderly citizens interviewed in VAN BEMMELEN ET AL.’s (2009, p. 15) study considered

parked vehicles on pedestrian routes and unrestrained animals to be the most important

barriers related to walking.

Information

Information is one of the greatest problems for PRM when using public space and public

transport. In public space, information signs should be placed at a height that allows

people to read them but without posing a risk getting injured (e.g. ECA 2003, p. 55).

Clear, concise, accurate and timely information is crucial to allow people to make journeys

by public transport. For passengers with disabilities, good information can be the

difference between being able to make a journey or not. At stations for example, the

public transport operator needs to ensure that the LED displays at information boards are

accessible to people who are deaf and hard of hearing and people who suffer from visual

impairment (e.g. KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p. 24). Information is also required during

journey stages, especially to keep people informed of delays (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 57).

There must be enough information about accessibility (fully/not accessible or help needed

for different PRM groups) before the trip. Leaflets and brochures or access guides to



public transport facilities for people with disabilities should be available in large prints and

accessible formats (e.g. UNIACCESS 2005, p.1, 3). These should include advice on

planning a journey, concessionary travel and details of access at stations etc. Information

of this kind must be kept up-to-date to be useable for both residents and visitors with

disabilities (e.g. ECMT 2004, p. 44).

A positive example of such information is the mobility concept “Tailored Traveller

Information for Users with Reduced Mobility”. This provides information on barrier-free

travel options via the internet and telephone for planning a trip in advance. It includes

static traveller information on the accessibility of public transport systems as well as

dynamic routing information, for example on barrier-free travel chains (e.g. BÜHRMANN

2010, p. 2). The barrier free information and guidance system will only be of benefit to

people with impairments if a complete travel chain without any gaps is also provided (e.g.

SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008, p. 19).

Written documents like timetables must be available in large print (18 point or larger) or

Braille, or in audiotape format, for people with visual impairments (e.g. DAHME 2002, p.

21). Information provided on the internet should be accessible for people with visual

impairments (e.g. KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p. 26). This is often not the case. Many

people with disabilities experience difficulties with conventional website design. People

with visual impairments use a screen reader for using a computer and the internet. This

device transforms the information into a non-visual output, such as acoustic speech

synthesis or Braille “display”. However, many websites are not designed with accessibility

in mind and so screen reader users cannot access their content (e.g. FGM 2010, p. 11;

KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p. 27). Moreover, many people with hearing impairments have

limited reading and/or writing skills and therefore require texts in a simple form. Videos

with sign language should be provided on internet sites with equivalent content to text

based information (e.g. FGM 2008, p. 23).



11 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

The aim of this working paper was to give a comprehensive overview of the specific needs

of different categories of people with reduced mobility (PRM). Further, frequent barriers for

PRM in public space and public transport were analysed.

The paper serves to provide a strong foundation for the development of the ISEMOA

quality management systems (QMS). It will serve as the basis for an illustrative brochure

on the importance of the accessibility of the whole mobility chain, the specific needs of

PRM and the frequent barriers they face.

Many diverse needs and barriers in accessing public space and public transport were

shown. Consequently, this paper might also assist and support public transport operators

and public space planners in making public transport and public space more accessible

for PRM. A clear summary of what can be expected from accessible transport solutions is

also provided.

The paper has demonstrated that there are still many deficiencies in public space and

public transport, particularly in relation to infrastructure. Some of these include:

• Too narrow dimensions;

• Too complex situations .confusing road markings/signs or illogical crossing points);

• Careless colour use;

• Lack of suitable landmarks;

• Uncomfortable and/or unsuitable paving;

• Lack of resting points;

• Parked cars obstructing the view and passage;

• Bad location or lack of bicycle racks;

• Unfavourable traffic light regulation that requires red-light discipline or allows too

little time for crossing

(e.g. AVV 2003, p. 51).

From these deficiencies, a number of requirements for planning of public space can be

drawn.



First, the pedestrian wishing to cross the street requires an unrestricted view of the traffic,

as well as vice versa. Therefore it is advisable to ban parking in crossing situations and

within close proximity of schools (for example, for some 100m). Crossings must be

appropriately marked for blind people and people with visual impairments.

Crossing situations must be designed so as to enable crossing without hindrance. This

means that waiting and crossing time must be kept at a minimum, and that sufficient time

must be given to cross the road. Large crossings must be avoided or divided into phased

crossings. Blind people and people with visual impairments need a sound signal, for

instance a rattle-ticker, which identifies the green phase at traffic lights.

Gradients in the route and sharp slopes must be kept to a minimum for the benefit of

people with pushchair, wheelchair and walking frames. The difference in height at

crossings must be adjusted to the needs of blind people and people with visual

impairments.

The traffic environment must be accommodating to pedestrians. There has to be enough

time and space to allow pedestrians to react in an adequate way after having made a

mistake. This is particularly important in school areas and residential streets. Speed limits

and obstacle free-grass verges are crucial in these areas.

Adequate provisions during construction work are required to avoid the dangerous

situation in which pedestrians and cyclists are forced to use the roadway (e.g. AVV 2003,

p. 86).

The paper has shown that attention to detail is important. Many building activities have

had to be re-worked because of poor design. Expensive overhauls can be avoided by

using appropriate design standards in their entirety and by auditing designs before

implementing the task (e.g. KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005, p.13).

Furthermore, many more needs and barriers than the core (mostly infrastructural) ones

are pertinent in the (non) use of public space and public transport. An important issue is

the question of how to reach PRM, such as through marketing activities, and how to



seriously take the mobility needs of PRM into account, such as through mobility

management measures, mobility trainings, etc.

Another aspect that plays a key role is safety. The paper has shown that this is of special

importance for PRM.

Some public transport operators offer special trainings where people can learn in a quiet

atmosphere without any stress how to use public transport (e.g. PTACCES 2008, p. 42).

Others offer travel assistance in public transport for PRM. This assistance accompanies

people who are reliant on help so that be more comfortable, arrive at their destinations

safely and at least in some cases, finally travel independently (e.g. PTACCESS 2008, p.

51).

Improvements in the quality and performance of public space conditions and public

transport services are expected for the near future (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 12, 77). To

improve the situation of PRM in public space and public transport, their needs should be

considered from the beginning and their participation ensured at different planning stages.

However, many people believe that those responsible for planning and development of

public transport and the pedestrian environment pay too little attention to the needs of

PRM when designing and operating services. Furthermore, the lack of politicians with

disabilities and decision-makers is regarded as indicative of the marginalisation of the

needs of people with disabilities (e.g. DPTAC 2002, p. 81). To guarantee that the views of

people with disabilities are taken into account, they should be active participants in

committees, boards and pressure groups.

The design of all approach measures must be intelligible, low-threshold and attuned to

use. Everyone has a right to safe mobility yet some groups, such as people with walking

impairments, are often not encouraged to use public transport because they are afraid of

being dependent on other people’s help and getting lost. Independent mobility must be no

more restricted than absolutely necessary (e.g. AVV 2003, p. 82).

Generally it is advisable to develop an access guide to public transport facilities for people

with disabilities. The guide can include advice on planning a journey, concessionary

travel, and details of access at bus, tram and railway stations. The information included

must be kept up-to-date in order to be useful for all users (e.g. ECMT 2004, p. 44).



Finally, the accessibility gap should be measured on a regular basis to determine whether

equal opportunities are reached in public space and public transport. That involves

undertaking a comparison between the access opportunities for those with special needs

and for those without special needs (e.g. DAHME 2002, p. 5). In this process it is of

greatest importance that the points of view of different stakeholders are incorporated. This

is the central aim of the ISEMOA scheme.



12 REFERENCES

AVV 2003

Methorst, R.; AVV Transport Research Centre (ed.) (2003): Vulnerable Road Users.

Report on the knowledge base for an effective policy to promote the safe mobility of

vulnerable road users

BMVBS 2010

BMVBS – Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (ed.) (2010): ÖPNV:

Planung für ältere Menschen. Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis. BMVBS-Online-Publikation,

Nr.09/2010, ISSN 1869-9324

BUILD FOR ALL 2006

Build for All (2006): The build-for-all Reference Manual, in: http://www.build-for-

all.net/en/documents/, 22.12.2010

BÜHRMANN 2010

Bührmann, S. (2010): Guidelines for implementers of tailored traveller information for

users with reduced mobility. Innovative concepts to enhance accessibility, in:

http://www.niches-

transport.org/fileadmin/NICHESplus/G4Is/21582_policynotesWG1_3.indd_low.pdf,

07.03.2011

COST 1999

European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (1999): COST

335. Passengers’ Accessibility of Heavy Rail Systems. Final Report of the Action

COST 2005

European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (2005): Cost

Action 349. Accessibility of coaches and long distance buses for people with reduced

mobility. Final Scientific Report



DAHME 2002

DAHME, K. (2002): Citizens' Network Benchmarking Initiative Report, Citizens' Network

Benchmarking Initiative Report, European Commission DG Energy and Transport,

Brussels, 2002

DPTAC 2002

DPTAC (Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee) (2002): Attitudes of Disabled

People to Public Transport, in:

dptac.independent.gov.uk/pubs/research/apt/pdf/questionnaire.pdf

ECA 2003

ECA European Concept for Accessibility (2003): Technical Assistance Manual, in:

http://www.eca.lu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=13&dir=DESC&or

der=name&Itemid=26&limit=5&limitstart=5

ECMT 2004

ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT 2004), International

Association of Public Transport (UITP) (2004): Improving Access to Public Transport.

ISBN: 92-821-1323-X OECD Code: 75 2004 08 1 P

EDAD 2005

Europäisches Institut Design für Alle in Deutschland e.V., Fürst Donnersmarck-Stiftung zu

Berlin (2005): Europäisches Konzept für Zugänglichkeit. Handbuch, in:

http://www.fdst.de/w/files/pdf/eca_deutsch_internet.pdf

EURO ACCESS 2008

Euro Access (2008): User needs and expectations relative to accessible transport.

Framework for mobility planning, 6th framework programme “Integrating and

Strengthening the European Research Area”, Scientific Support to Policies SSP - 5A, in:

http://www.euro-access.org/deliverables.php

FGM 2008



FGM (2008): Anforderungen der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer an barrierefreien Öffentlichen

Verkehr

Projekt: Leitfaden für barrierefreien Öffentlichen Verkehr.

Autorinnen: Karin Ofenbeck, Michaela Kargl, Ursula Witzmann

FGM 2008a

FGM (2008a): Häufig auftretende Barrieren im ÖV

Projekt: Leitfaden für barrierefreien Öffentlichen Verkehr.

Autorinnen: Karin Ofenbeck, Michaela Kargl, Ursula Witzmann

FGM 2010

FGM (2010): Häufig auftretende Barrieren im öffentlichen Raum

Projekt: ISEMOA

Autorin: Michaela Kargl

GRÖNVALL ET AL. 2006

Grönvall, O., Ståhl, A., Berntmann, M. (2006): Life quality of senior citizens in relation to

mobility conditions. Summary of the results of Area 3. SIZE Deliverable D14 and 16.

Public paper from WP8 & WP9, in: http://www.size-project.at/results/D14_D16_final.pdf

RAU 1997

Rau, A. (ed.) (1997): Mobilitätsbehinderte Menschen im Verkehr. Forschungsergebnisse

und Planungsempfehlungen, in: Grüne Reihe, Nummer 39 (1997), Kaiserslautern

KLIEMKE 2004

Kliemke, C. (ed.) (2004): Barrierefreies Planen und Bauen als interdisziplinäres

Handlungsfeld. Symposium. Heft 1. Berlin. ISSN 1613-5059

KOORNEEF ET AL. 2005

Koorneef, E.; Cummins, D.; Masterson, C.; Maynard, A. (2005): Recommended

Accessibility Guidelines for Public Transport Operators in Ireland, in:



http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/C0DBA1BA241FB9398025710F004D8EAA/$File/Tra

nsport_Guidelines_01.htm

MAPLE 2003

Maple (2003): Improving Mobility and Access for People with Learning Disabilities and

Cognitive Impairments, in: http://www.maple-eu.com/Reports/MAPLE-pages.pdf,

07.03.2011

MTC 2007

Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland (2007): Ministry of Transport and

Communications’ research and Development Programme for Accessibilty “ELSA”. Final

report of the working group, in:

http://www.lvm.fi/fileserver/ministry%20of%20transport%20and%20communications%27%

20research%20and%20development%20programme%20for%20accessibility%20%E2%8

0%9Celsa%E2%80%9D..pdf, 14.03.2011

NICOLLE 1997a

Nicolle, C. (ed.) (1997a): Draft Guidelines Concerning E&D Issues: The TELSCAN

Handbook of Design Guidelines for Usability of Systems by Elderly and Disabled Drivers

and Travellers. Deliverable 5.1. Version 2, Transport Telematics Project No.: TR 1108, in:

ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/telematics/docs/tap_transport/telscan_d5.1.pdf

NICOLLE 1997b

Nicolle, C. (ed.) (1997b): Inventory of ATT System Requirements for Elderly and Disabled

Drivers and Travellers. Deliverable 3.1, Transport Telematics Project No.: TR 1108, in:


OXLEY 1997

Oxley, P. (ed.) (1997): Preliminary and organisation of TELSCAN Pilots. Deliverable 8.1.

Version 2. Transport Telematics Project No.: TR 1108, in:


PTACCESS 2008



PTaccess (2008): D.2.1. Report on good Practice Examples of accessible Public

Transport, in: http://www.ptaccess.eu/Downloads.phtml?id=4

SENATSVERWALTUNG FÜR STADTENTWICKLUNG 2003

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung – StEP Verkehr (Entwurf) (2003): Energieplanung,

Verkehrsplanung, Wasserwirtschaft, in:

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/stadtentwicklungsplanung/de/verkehr/downlo

ad/Kapitel_V_Juni.pdf

SOZIALVERBAND VDK DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 2008

Sozialverband VdK Deutschland e.V. (ed.) (2008): Handbuch Barrierefreie

Verkehrsraumgestaltung, Bonn, ISBN 978-3-929069-21-1

TU DARMSTADT 2003

TU Darmstadt: Becker, J.; Schramm, E. (2003): Barrierefreier

Schienenpersonennahverkehr. Beschreibung und Bewertung der Anforderungen

mobilitätseingeschränkter Menschen, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Verkehr, Fachgebiet

Bahnsysteme und Bahntechnik, Heft B2, ISSN 1614-9300

TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE 2003

Transport Research Centre (2003): Life quality of senior citizens in relation to mobility

conditions. State-of-the-art report. SIZE Deliverable D3. Public paper from WP2, in:

http://www.size-project.at/results/Deliverable3-StateofArt.pdf

UNICACCESS 2005

Uniaccess (2005): Task 2.1. Current situation and constraints of means of transport and

infrastructures (END USERS VIEW). State of the arts and requirements, in:

http://w3.euve.org/uniaccess/documents/WP2/Task%202-1.pdf

VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009

VAN BEMMELEN, M.; FIEDLER, M. (2009): AENEAS D2.3.1 Understanding Mobility of

Older People, Report on AENEAS Training Workshop, 17 and 18 June 2009, City of

Kraków, Quelle



VAN BEMMELEN ET AL. 2009a

VAN BEMMELEN, M.; FIEDLER, M. (2009a): AENEAS D3.2.2 Walking and Traffic Safety

in an Ageing Society, Report on AENEAS Training Workshop, 28 and 29 October 2009

City of Donostia – San Sebastián,

http://www.aeneas-

project.eu/docs/2th_workshop_donostia/D3_2_2_AENEAS_TrainingReport_Donostia.pdf

(16 Dec 2010)

WENNBERG 2009

Wennberg, H. (2009): Walking in old age: A year-round perspective on accessibility in the

outdoor environment and effects of measures taken, doctoral thesis at Lund University,

Department of Technology and Society, Traffic and Roads, Bulletin 247, ISBN 978-91-

628-7925-9

WENNBERG ET AL. 2009

Wennberg, E.; Ståhl, A.; Hydén, C. (2009): Older pedestrians’ perceptions of the outdoor

environment in a year-round perspective, European Journal of Ageing (2009) 6:277–290,

DOI 10.1007/s10433-009-0123-y, Springer Verlag

WIJK 1996

Wijk, M. (ed.) (1996): European concept for accessibility, EGM onderzoek bv, The

Netherlands

ZAKOWSKA et al. 2003

Zakowska, L.; Monterde i Bort, H. (2003): Results of focus-group interviews and in-depth

interviews with senior citizens and experts. SIZE deliverables D5 and D6. Internal paper

from WP3 & WP4, in: http://www.size-project.at/results/SIZE_D5-6_complete.pdf,

22.02.2011



13 LIST OF PICTURES

Figure 1. Requirement: information signs should be placed at a height that allows all people to read them .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2. Barrier: narrow, difficult to handle gates ............................................................ 16

Figure 3. Good example of accessible doors.................................................................... 16

Figure 4. Good example: lifts offering enough space for people with pushchair or wheelchair ......................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 5. Good example: ticket vending machine accessible for wheelchair users and people with small stature................................................................................................... 18

Figure 6. Requirement: ticket vending machines should be easy to use by all people..... 19

Figure 7. Requirement: waiting rooms should be equipped with accessible information facilities ............................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 8. Requirement: there should be accessible toilets at stations and in public transport ............................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 9. Good practice: adjusted platform-height and ramps provide access to public transport vehicle................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 10. Requirement: minimum standard of height and manoeuvring space in movement areas ............................................................................................................... 24

Figure 11 and Figure 12. Requirement: walkways should be wide enough that people can pass by another ................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 13 and Figure 14. Requirement: no high kerbstones at crossings......................... 25

Figure 15. Requirement: slopes must not be too steep .................................................... 25

Figure 16 and Figure 17. Requirement: footpaths and movement areas should be free from obstacles................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 18. Good practice: crossing with “elongated” pavement to minimise the walking distance for pedestrians.................................................................................................... 27

Figure 19. Requirement: sufficient release time of the green signal to cross the street ... 28

Figure 20 and Figure 21. Requirement: clear orientation system for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users................................................................................................. 28

Figure 22 and Figure 23. Barrier: shared pavements with cyclists pose a risk, especially for PRM pedestrians ......................................................................................................... 29

Figure 24 and Figure 25. Requirement: construction sites should allow safe and barrier-free passage ..................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 26. Requirement: walkways should have a smooth and non-slippery surface ...... 30



Figure 27, Figure 28 and Figure 29. Barrier: Pavements narrowed with street furniture or constricted by parked vehicles.......................................................................................... 30

Figure 30 and Figure 31. Requirement: holding facilities have to be in visual contrast to the background ................................................................................................................. 66

Figure 32. People with visual impairments should be seated in a backwards-facing direction ............................................................................................................................ 66

Figure 33. Barrier: people with visual impairments can easily stumble over large gaps between the vehicle floor and the platform ....................................................................... 68

Figure 34 and Figure 35. Requirement: tactile floor guidance for blind people................. 70

Figure 36. Requirement: enforcement of parking prohibitions on pedestrian infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................... 70

Figure 37 and Figure 38. Barrier: blind people cannot discern warning notices if they are given only visually ............................................................................................................. 72

Figure 39. Requirement: light signal systems must be equipped with acoustic or tactile signals on traffic light controlled crossings........................................................................ 73

Figure 40. Requirement: public transport stops should provide accessible weather protection and seating possibilities ................................................................................... 74

Figure 41. Requirement: blind people need acoustic passenger information at public transport stops and stations.............................................................................................. 75

Figure 42. Requirement: tactile guidance system for blind people to find the right platform.......................................................................................................................................... 77

Figure 43. Barrier: grid stairs at the entrance or exit may cause people to stumble and fall.......................................................................................................................................... 78

Figure 44. Requirement: short reverberation times at public transport stations are necessary for people with hearing impairments................................................................ 79

Figure 45. Barrier: people with hearing impairments cannot recognise vehicles approaching from behind .................................................................................................. 80

Figure 46. Requirement: comprehensible announcements are very important for people with hearing impairments .................................................................................................. 81

Figure 47. Breakdown information must be given in audible and visual format ................ 85

Figure 48. Requirement: suitable design of public space for people with cognitive impairments....................................................................................................................... 88

Figure 49. Barrier: demand-controlled pedestrian crossings with manual request may be a barrier for people with learning disabilities ........................................................................ 89

Figure 50. Requirement: self-explanatory design of the control elements at ticket vending machines........................................................................................................................... 90

Figure 51. Children face various barriers in public space ................................................. 93



Figure 52. People with non-average stature may have problems in public transport vehicles ............................................................................................................................. 95

Figure 53 and Figure 54. Requirement: pavements should be wide enough for people with bulky luggage and other PRM........................................................................................... 96

Figure 55 and Figure 56. Orientation barrier in public space for people with temporary mobility impairment ........................................................................................................... 97

Figure 57. Narrowed pavements can become a problem for people with temporary impairment and other PRM ............................................................................................... 98

Figure 58. Requirement: accessible spaces for the placement of luggage in public transport vehicles.............................................................................................................. 99

Figure 59. Requirement: ticket machines should be accessible for all passengers.......... 99

Figure 60. Barrier: finding the right public transport vehicle at the interchange station .. 100

Figure 61. Barrier: access to the bus or tram stops only possible over high kerbs......... 100

Figure 62. Requirement: platform height should be adapted to the entry level of the public transport vehicles............................................................................................................ 101

Figure 63. Requirement: safe access for people with temporary mobility impairment to the public transport................................................................................................................ 101

Figure 64. Requirement: seating facilities for people with small children in public transport vehicles ........................................................................................................................... 102

Needs of PRM and frequent barriers for...

Documents

Transcript of Needs of PRM and frequent barriers for...