Page Index.
The need for common sense
not "politically correct but brain dead" rule following!
Quite rightly special needs accessibility is about empowering people who for whatever reason have special needs to lead full and productive lives in the same way as the rest of the population. Sometimes people have special needs because their eyesight is less than "20/20", and this restricts their mobility and choice of travel options. (For instance: these people would not normally be allowed to drive a motor vehicle)
To assist people with less good eyesight there are regulations regarding certain visual elements of transport design. For instance, train doors should be painted in different colours so that they stand out, making it easier to see where to board. All this is well and good.
However, in 2006 a decision was taken regarding the way in which regulations for the needs of people with visual impairment are implemented that actually resulted in severe disbenefit - to ALL passengers, whatever their physical capabilities.
Apparently the internal passenger information screens on a fleet of trains used text which was 3mm smaller than the minimum specified in the regulations. The fact that the information displays were installed a year before the regulations were created seems to count for nothing, even though usually "grandfather rights" usually mean that what is permitted before a change will still be permitted afterwards too.
The net result of this is that because the letter size is 32mm instead of the required 35mm in height so the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has ruled that the trains must not be used to carry passengers. It is estimated that changing the font size will cost £750,000, which because the trains were scheduled for withdrawal in 2007 would represent a severe wastage of money.
With a shortage of alternative trains all this means is that the trains which can be used will either be cancelled or shorter. Either way overcrowding will result, with more passengers being forced to stand too.
It is crazy to the point of being farcical that in the name of special needs access actions are taken from which ALL passengers must suffer. The people who stand to disbenefit the most from the overcrowding are other disabled people.
As the title of this section suggests, there is a need for common sense - and not "politically correct but brain dead" rule following!
Buses And Coaches.
There are various ways in which buses can be made more accessible.
One of these involves kneeling technology whereby the driver temporarily lowers the vehicles' suspension by a few inches to reduce the gap between the kerb and the buses' floor. This only takes a second or so, (as does raising the bus afterwards) so should not delay the normal smooth running of the service.
For buses with just the one set of passenger doors at the front only the front of the vehicle needs to 'kneel', while for buses with several sets of doors along the vehicle's side (in some places buses can have as many as four sets of passenger doors along the side) the vehicle will 'kneel' along the whole kerbside (see picture).
There are two short video clips showing kneeling buses in action...This link is for a 41 second video clip named 'Schaffhausen-1-Kneeling320.mpg' which was filmed from directly in front of the bus.
This link is for a 62 second video clip named 'Schaffhausen-2-Kneeling320.mpg' which was filmed from the side of the bus. Also note how the passengers use the centre and rear doors only - and that the doors automatically close after about five seconds without passengers having passed through them.
Whilst kneeling technology helps people who can walk they will still need to climb several steps to enter the bus, so the benefits of kneeling technology can be somewhat limited.
In addition, although the technology may benefit some passengers it is not universally welcomed. Especially on longer journeys some passengers complain that the constant 'up / down' of the kneeling suspension gives rise to feelings of seasickness!
To further improve access many modern bus designs feature low floors along part or all of their length, the idea being to create a fully accessible vehicle that can be used by almost anyone - including parents with children in pushchairs and people who use wheelchairs (although due to space limitations within the vehicle most buses can only carry one wheelchair at a time).
To further help these two groups of passengers some low floor buses will also feature driver-controlled retractable ramps.
Low floor technology is compatible with kneeling technology and together they considerably enhance the accessibility of buses. However, also of extreme importance is the vehicle's ability to 'dock' at the correct position at the bus stop. Both technologies are designed to reduce the gap between the buses' floor and the kerb, so if the buses cannot get to the kerb then they are compromised. The situation is most severe for wheelchair users because if the ramp has to extend onto the roadway (instead of the footpath) then the angle may become too steep and this could create a safety hazard. As a result the passenger would then be unable to board / alight at that stop.
For single-deck coaches low floors are less practical as the luggage compartments are usually located under the seats. (A few coaches sometimes haul luggage trailers but that is an expensive option). For people who use wheelchairs most new single-deck coaches will soon start being fitted with some means of admittance - most likely a wheelchair lift - and restraints / locking devices inside the vehicle to hold the chair in position once on board. People with special needs who can walk will either have to climb the steps to board or enter in a wheelchair, even if - once on board - they can then walk to a 'normal' seat. For double-deck coaches the chances are that there will be a passenger saloon on the lower deck so it should be possible to provide a wheelchair ramp.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to allowing wheelchairs on coaches is the large variety of wheelchair shapes and sizes, the challenges being two-fold:-
- Large electric wheelchairs can be awkward to manoeuvre, requiring plenty of space to move about, (I know this as I regularly visit an elderly persons residential home) and the only way to make the necessary space available is to reduce the vehicle's seating capacity for other fare-paying passengers.
- Once on board safety dictates that wheelchairs MUST be restrained, otherwise they will move about during the journey. But wheelchairs come in so many different types and sizes that it is not easy for coach manufactures to make suitable restraints that are compatible with every wheelchairs' anchor points. (Assuming that is, the wheelchair has some anchor points!)
Railways.
Nowadays most new rail systems are built with accessibility as part of the design criteria. Many transport operators would also like to upgrade their older facilities to similar standards but it is not always easy.
Heavy Rail.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle for heavy rail is finding the money as station upgrades can be very expensive. For some stations the sheer practicality of how to upgrade will also be a significant challenge.
Most stations have steps in the passageways which link the platforms to the ticket halls & street exits and it may be possible to replace these steps with ramps or put in chair lifts. Other options also include replacing the whole passageway with a long ramp or creating brand new routes between the street & ticket hall and ticket hall & platforms so as to completely bypass the steps (horrendously expensive for underground stations which may require new tunnelling). Naturally these new routes must not provide the opportunity for passengers to enter the system without buying a ticket.
It is also important that any works which improve accessibility do not in the process create safety hazards for the 'able-bodied' passengers. This especially applies to busy stations with platforms and passageways which often become crowded and where reduced space could create a safety hazard due to overcrowding.
See text (below) for more information.
In the view (above right) taken from my local suburban railway station (Ilford) the chairlift can just be seen in the folded upright position on the left wall. (It has a black and yellow striped edge). A sign on it advises that the safe working weight limit is 330lbs / 150kg. Incidentally the sign on the awning above the stairs reads Please do not run on the stairs. It is better to miss your train than break your leg. As there was a train in the platform when I took this picture (it was fast train too - which at the time only came every half hour) I did make sure that I caught it!
See text (below) for more information.
The view (above left) shows an angled lift with glass see-through walls that shares the stairwell. (The lift is at the upper level with the doors open). The idea of the see-through walls is that the visibility increases personal safety for lift users and deters those who might commit a crime if it had opaque walls
The view (above right) shows a special ramped section located within the stairwell that allows parents with children in pushchairs to use the steps. Note the twin ramps (for the pushchair's wheels) and steps between them. This facility is also of use for cyclists. Elsewhere on the platform there is also a glass lift up to street level.
The view of the stairway baggage belt was included because it is important to remember that sometimes even otherwise fit able-bodied people join the ranks of the "special needs access".
Having reached the platform level boarding is also desirable (even able-bodied passengers find it faster - reducing the station dwell time; and safer - no 'step' to trip over) but this will only be possible where all the trains that use the platform have the same floor height.
On some sections of London's rail system the small profile 'tube' trains share tracks with the larger profile trains. As the floor heights on the different types of train varies quite considerably the only solution would be to invest in separate platforms. Involving at least 17 stations this will be expensive!
In some countries low platforms are seen to be an advantageous design feature because it saves commuter rail operators from having to spend scarce funds on building high level platforms; which are often seen to be a costly luxury.
Although seen on a Canadian "GO" (Government of Ontario) service similar trains serve many conurbations within the USA and Canada.
These images (which were sourced from the free online "Wikipedia" encyclopædia) show this feature on Transperth trains which serve the West Australian city of Perth and its hinterland (links open in new windows).
Left: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Priority_Seat.jpg
Right: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:TransperthTrains-A1Gen-Priority.JPG.
Double-deck (bi-level) trains.
These trains usually come with two variants - either with entrance doors which lead to an intermediate level (with steps up/down to the main passenger saloons) or with entrance doors at the lower level and steps up to the upper level passenger saloon.
Either way level access is best described as "variable" and "depending on individual station platform heights" - so for wheelchairs ramps etc; may sometimes be required.
Once on the train then facilities will depend on the train's configuration - generally passengers will travel at either the intermediate or lower level, as per the passenger door positioning.
Double deck / bi-level trains are looked at on the
On-train Refreshment Facilities, Double-Deck Trains, & Taking Bicycles On Trains page.
Light Rail.
Newer light rail systems almost always have level boarding and other accessibility features designed as part of the system. To achieve this they will adopt one of two variables --
- Low floor vehicles calling at kerb height platforms.
- High floor vehicles calling at high level platforms.
Examples of accessibility for new light rail systems.
Low Floor.
Left: In addition to having all its doors open the centre two doorways also have their wheelchair ramps extended. (Also seen in picture at the top of this page).
Right: This view shows how easily and unobtrusively the system's low floor 'platforms' (literally raised kerbs) can be fitted into the general streetscape.
High Floor.
Both the Tyne & Wear Metro and Manchester's Metrolink systems were based on pre-existing high-floor railway services, and feature high floor LRV's.
The Tyne & Wear Metro is nearer the 'top' end of the spectrum for light rail, and its vehicles do not enter the street domain.
As a contrast the Metrolink system does include some sections of street operation, and in an attempt to avoid installing high level platforms within the urban street scene some stops feature unique 'profiled' platforms which offer easy access at the centre two doorways only. Despite being an excellent innovation it seems that they are not universally liked - although (as the pictures from Stuttgart several images down, below right demonstrate) it could be asked whether full-length high platforms would have been any less visually intrusive.
Accessibility on older, historic systems.
In many conurbations the older historic systems are also being upgraded to improve accessibility and for these the solutions can involve either of the two above options, which - on larger systems - can vary according to each route's topography.
Examples of how older, historic systems have been upgrading.
1) Converting to low-floor.
This solution is [typically] being adopted at times of fleet renewal, a process which sometimes is spread over many months / years and can lead to services of mixed easy-access and older inaccessible LRV's.
Left: A lady carefully descends the steps whilst alighting from an older high floor vehicle.
Right: As a contrast the new low floor vehicle offers a single step. Note the wheelchair and pushchair symbols on the glass of the right-hand door.
Examples of how older, historic systems have been upgrading.
2) Mixed high / low floor.
Basle, Switzerland.
Converting older vehicles to low floor.
A not articulated high-floor trailer rebuilt with extra doors and a new low floor section.
Below:
A new low floor section inserted into an existing articulated high-floor vehicle, thereby transforming it from a two section to a three section vehicle (and increasing overall passenger capacity in the process).
Some trams were even designed - right from the outset - in this way, with low floor accessibility at only some of the doorways. There are some advantages in this - especially where the bogies / wheel units can be of the traditional type with full-width axles (and not stub axles) as these are generally considered to provide a better ride "quality".
This specific Amsterdam, Holland tramcar has entrance doors on both side, however this is a different issue, (related to some tramstops on route 5 having platforms on the "other" side) and indeed other "high floor with low floor section" tramcars within the fleet only have doorways on one side.
Clicking any of these four images will open a larger version in a new window.
Examples of how older, historic systems have been upgrading.
3) Converting to high-floor.
Traditionally most trams and streetcars were of the 'high floor' type, with internal steps leading from street level up to the vehicle's floor which was well above the wheels, motors and other electrical equipment.
To achieve accessibility at this level the options include converting every stop to have high level platforms that match the floor height or use wheelchair lifts or ramps to a specific doorway. (See pictures at bottom of page).
Sometimes accessibility will only be available at some stops along the route, whilst this will regrettably inconvenience some people the other option - completely closing the stop - cannot be a better solution.
Generally systems will only choose the high floor option when the other two solutions are not seen to be viable alternatives. This is to avoid having to install the somewhat visually intrusive high platforms on urban streets throughout the town / city.
Stuttgart's modern light rail system evolved out of a traditional street tramway, and the planners have worked hard at eradicating situations where services stop in the middle of the road with passengers having to walk out in the path of oncoming traffic. The long-term plan is to make as much of the system accessible as is possible, either by high level platforms or 'dipping' the tracks slightly below ground level so as to mimic the type of level access which is more commonly found with low floor vehicles.
It could be said that the way in which Stuttgart has slowly (over 20+ years) invested in and upgraded its trams into modern light rail points to what should have been done in British cities too.
Examples of how older, historic systems have been upgrading.
Interim / trasitional solutions.
Where high and low floor vehicles share tracks and call at the same stations the platforms are frequently split into two sections.
As of December 2007 Stuttgart's last traditional tram service was converted to light rail, however it is still retaining a capability for part of its system to be used by older historic tramcars, so some stops / stations still need to retain the dual height capability seen here.
Special solutions for where light rail shares track with mainline freight trains.
At the time of writing these solutions specifically apply to the German city of Kassel, on two routes in different parts of the city where trams have been extended over pre-existing single track heavy rail freight branches. On both routes the freight traffic is fairly light - at most just a handful of trains per day - plus there is the occasional leisure-orientated steam hauled passenger train. There is no reason why similar solutions could not be adopted elsewhere as well.
Although two different solutions have been adopted both address the same central issue - this being that the mainline trains are significantly wider than the trams, which in Kassel are mostly of the low-floor "easy access" design.
Mainline trains need a clearance width of 3.29m, this being considerably wider than the trams, which were designed for use over narrow inner-city routes and are just 2.3m wide. Another issue to be resolved was / is that to provide for easy access with low floor trams (which - when new and empty - have an internal doorway floor height of about 30cm) tramstop platforms are usually about 18 - 20 cm high, and located about 48cm away from the nearest rail, whilst (in Germany) for mainline railways the minimum platform height is 38cm and average distance from the inner rail is 97cm.
The difference between the tramstop platform height and the tramcar floor height [at the doorway] of about 10-12cm allows for door mechanisms to operate without fouling the platform - or the feet of any passenger standing very close to the platform edge! - and for varying actual tramcar heights depending on passenger loads, wheel tread depths, etc. This is still considered to "level access".
What was deemed to be "totally unacceptable" would be to simply locate the platforms in the correct position for the mainline railway loading gauge, as this would have resulted in large vertical and horizontal gaps between the tramcar and the platform, creating a potential hazard for able-bodied passengers and making access for wheelchairs virtually impossible. The alternative scenario of locating the platforms at the correct "tramcar" positions was equally unacceptable as it would have seen them fouling the mainline railway's loading gauge.
In the end two solutions were adopted:-
- "Gauntleted" tracks.
- Protruding platforms.
On the Baunatal route to the south-west of the city only one station uses gauntleted tracks - and here trams travelling in one direction have their own dedicated track - with the mainline railway trains and trams sharing the other track. Consequently it only needs four tracks. (Not shown here - for image see the Track & Route Sharing page).
"Gauntleted" tracks.
This solution sees the trams using extra tracks that diverge slightly from the tracks used by the mainline trains. In Kassel this effectively sees the trams moving to one side (edge) of the mainline railway's loading gauge, however (if space permits) it would be relatively straightforward for the tram tracks to diverge slightly further out.
The advantage of this solution is that with the tramstop platforms being outside of the mainline railway's loading gauge they can be the correct location (relative to the tram) for low floor easy access. Gauntleting the tracks in this way was significantly cheaper than full separation - which would have required the acquisition of land alongside the railway.Protruding platforms.
This solution features platforms which are slightly lower than usual (11.5cm instead of 18-20cm) and mostly outside of the mainline railway's loading gauge - but has small protrusions that extend toward the tracks and align with the tram's doors. The reduced platform height is necessary to avoid fouling the mainline railway trains.
Unfortunately the lower platform height makes wheelchair access "less easy" and one of the three stops where this solution was adopted has a wheelchair ramp fitted into one of the platform protrusions. This was done because it is close to a housing area for disabled people. Experience however has shown that frequently a helping hand from a second person is equally effective.
To advise passengers waiting on the platform that they should not stand on the platform protrusions special signs such as this are used at stations with protruding platforms.
The protrusions are only long enough to match up with the tram's doorways, although there is a little leeway to give the tram driver a stopping range of about a metre. These views were sourced at the Albert-Einstein-Strasse stop, which is on the route towards Baunatal.
Interim / other options.
