by Philip Barharn, Philip Oxley, Tony Shaw and Christine Gallon (Cranfield University)
Project Report 83 ,. S308E/DP The Transport Research Laboratory is an executive agency of the Department of Transport. It provides technical help and advice based on research to enable the Government to set standards for highway and vehicle design, to formulate policies on road safety, transport and the environment, and to encourage good traffic engineering practice.
TRLalso sells its services, acting as contractor, consultantor providing facilities and staff ona fee-paying basis for customers in the private sector.
TRUs expertise ranges from the constructionof highways, bridges andtunnels, to all forms of road safety, traffic control and driver behaviour.
For instance, highways and structures research at TRL develops improved materials and methods which enable earthworks, roads and bridges to be designed, built and maintained more cost-effectively. New ways of reinforcing earth can cut construction costs, while bridges can be modified to reduce corrosion. Road surfaces developed at TRL can reduce noise and cut wet-weather road spray from lorries by 90 per cent.
Safety research varies from monitoring the incidence of drinking and driving and devising ways of reducing it, to improving junction designs and cooperating with European partners on new standards for improved impact protection in vehicles.
Traffic research seeks to make the most of existing roads by, for instance, improving traffic signal coordination and devising systems which help drivers avoid congestion. Other research looks at the effectiveness of parking controls and improved crossings for pedestrians.
TRL research also informs Government transport policy by studying, for example, the effects of bus deregulation and how land use interacts with the road and rail transport system.
TRL employs around 600 scientists, engineers and support staff. Its headquarters are at Crowthorne, Berkshire where its facilities include a 3.8km test track, a structures hall where bridge structures can be stressed to breaking point, a facility for carrying out accelerated tests on road structures, and advanced computer systems which are used to develop traffic control programs. TRL Scotland is situated in Livingston, near Edinburgh, where the staff are concerned mainly with research and advisory work in the fields of ground engineering, bridges and road pavements. This unit has responsibility for all TRL work in Scotland.
A large proportion of the research is sub-contracted to industry, consultants and universities. The Laboratory also collaborates with local authorities and other organisations within Europe and elsewhere. In addition, TRL expertise is provided to developing countries as part of Britain’s overseas aid programme.
For more information: TRL Public Relations, 0344770587 TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY An Executive Agency of the Department of Transport +Zakm
PROJECT REPORT 83
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE - TECHNICAL REPORT
by Philip Barham, Philip Oxley, Tony Shaw and Christine Gallon
Prepared for: Project Record: S308UDP Terminal Design Customer: Mobility Unit, DOT (Miss A Frye)
Copytight Controller of HMSO 1994. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of HMSO. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Department of Transport, The Transport Research Laboratory is no longer an Executive Agency of the Department of Transport as ownership was transferred to a subsidiary of the Transpoti Research Foundation on 1st April 1996.
Environment Resource Centre Transport Research Laboratory Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG11 6AU 1994
ISSN 0968-4093 ABSTRACT
This technical report is a compdation of information gathered for a project commissioned by the Transport Research hboratory on behalf of the Department of Transport Mobility Unit, the Passenger Transport Executives Group and the London Transport Unit for Disabled Passengers. The objective was the production of guidelines for the design of accessible public tlanspolt infrasm]cture: “Accessible Pubfic Transport hfrmtructure - guidelines for the design of interchanges, terminals and stops”. The aim WM to provide architects, planners and designers with guidance on how to design public transport buildings and other features of the physical environment to be accessible to passengers with all kinds of mobfity and sensory imptien~
As well as physical accessibility the guidelines cover signage, street furniture, off vehicle ticket sales facilities, pubhc conveniences, waiting and refreshment facilities, security issues and lighting and heating s~dards. A broad definition of mobility impairment considers ambulant disabled passengers, wheelchair users, and those with sensory impairments and learning difficulties.
A literature search provided information on rese:lrch on which guidelines and standads could be breed. Use was dso made of existing guidehnes and design standards issued by government departmen~ in Europe md North herica, including those published by the British Standards Institute in the UK. Examples of good and bad practice are given to illustrate the recommendations for good design. Questionnaire surveys of transport providers were undetien to obtain information on cul~ent policies on signage and vanddism.
As well as specifying dimensions for vmious aspects of tie physical environment, the report discusses the generdprinciples ofaccessibledesign, and concllldes that it israre fora single design to represent the optimum solution in M situations; since site-specific considerations often come into play, it is important to understand the tiade-offs that we involved. Emphasis is also placed on the need for staff to be trained to provide for the needs of trave~ers with mobility or sensory impairments. and on the importance of providing a safe, clean comfortable and ultimately fliendly environment for passengers. CONTENTS Page
AC~OWLEDGE~NTS
PART A : ~TRODUCTION
1. The Ati of the Report 1
1.1 Background to the report 1.2 Objwtives 1.3 Mobility impairment - general statement of the problem
2. Methodology 4
3. Design Guidelines Currently Avatiable 5
PART B : ACCESS~~ITY ISS~
4. Layout and Design of Bus Stations 7
4.1 Bus stations : lomtion 7 4.2 Bus stations : layout 7 4.3 Interchanges 14 4.4 Railway stations 14 4.5 Design principles 15 4.6 Provisions for “Orange Badge” holders 16
5. Accws To, and Within, Bufldings 17
5.1 The general accessibility of transport-relatd buildings 17 5.2 Doors 17 5.3 Stirways, ramps and lifts 25 5.4 Lifts and esdators 36 5.5 Platforms and tunnels 46 5.6 Footbridges and underpasses 49
6. Station Furniture 50
6.1 Ticket barriers, counters and machines 50 6.2 Telephones 57 6.3 Lamp columns, bollards and similar objects 60 6.4 Guard rails 60 6.5 Other obstructions 61
PART C : ~E PROVISION OF FAC~IT~ AND-~ORMATION
7. Seating and Waiting Areas 63
7.1 Smts 63 7.2 Priority seating 70 7.3 Waiting rooms 70 7.4 Catering and refreshments facilities 70 CONTENTS (Cent’d~ m
8. Signage 71
8.1 Basic principles 71 8.2 Size of lettering 74 8.3 Use of colour md contrast 77 8.4 Dirwtiond arrows 78 8.5 Pictograms 82 8.6 Typeface 83 8.7 Location of signs 83 8.8 Type of display 87 8.9 Results of survey on transport providers ad signage 8.10 Provisions for people with sensory impairments E 8.11 Provisions for people with lining difficulties or other cognitive impairments 91
9. Sanitiry Convenience 96
9.1 Toilets 96 9.2 Babycare and childcare facilities 99 9.3 “Dog 100s” 100
PART D : ISSU~ OF SAFETY AND PERSONAL SECURITY
10. Health and Safety ksues 103
10.1 Lighting 103 10.2 Glass windows, doors and shop fronts 103
11. Personal Security, Vandalism and Graffiti 105
11.1 Personal security of passengers 105 11.2 Vanddism and graffiti 106
PART E : OTHER ISS~
12. Consultation and Training 110
12.1 Consultation with groups representing people with disabilities 110 12.2 Disability awareness training 110
13. Bus Stops and Bus Shelters 111
13.1 Bus stops 111 13.2 Bus shelters 114 13.3 Bus-friendly traffic engineering m=sures 117
PART F : CONCLUSION AND RECOWNDATIONS
14. Conclusion 118
15. Itemised L~t of Recommendations 120
REFERENCES 127
APPE~~ 130 1. The Ati of the Repoti
1.1 Back~round..to the .rewrt -
In recent y- there has been an increasing awareness that a substantial proportion of the population find traveling by public transport difficult or impossible. Considerable resmch has b~n tied out on the design of public transport vehicles - particularly buses - aimed at producing design standards that m=t the nds of many mobility impaired people. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee @PTAC) producd the “Recommended S~ification for Buses Usd to Operate bd Bus Services”, which provided design guidelines which, if followed, would enable the grwt majority of ambulant disabled paple to use ordinary buses. More r=entiy consideration is being given to the introduction of new, low-floor buses which can be used by- passengers in wheelchairs. Other public transport services, including British Rti, either have drady developed, or are considering the development of, fully accessible vehicles.
Mile an accessible vehicle is obviously a key component in making travel ~sier, or even possible at dl, for people with a mobility impairment, it is only one part of the transport system . If people are to use new generation accessible vehicles, they must dso be able to gain access to the infrastructure that enables them to use those vehicles. The term “infras~cture” in this context refers to the terminals, stations and interchanges that form a major part of any -sport system, and to dl of the components of a system that enable members of the public to use the transportation facilities provided - these include mahanisms for moving people within terminals, boarding facilities, mas of disseminating information to passengers about services, methods of enabling passengers to purchase tickets and other essential facilities such as toilets, refreshments, sating etc. Again, in recent yms, some of the designers and providers of transport infrastructure have paid attention to the n~s of the mobility handicapped and have made significant improvements in the s~dard of fixed facilities. There is a considerable body of reswch on some as~ts of infras~cture design, and guidelines w,d design advice are available from a number of sources, notibly “Revised guidelines for reducing mobility handimps : towards a barrier-free environment”, produced by The Institution of Highways and Transportation.
1.2 Obimtives
In essence, the purpose of this report is to provide, for public transport infrastructure, guidelines analogous to those produced for local buses by DPTAC. The work was commissioned by the Transport Resmrch hboratory on behalf of the Department of Transport Mobility Unit, the Public Transport Executives Group and the bndon Transport Unit for Disabled Passengers. The intention is to provide advice on the design of road and rail infrastructure, based on a combination of reswch and experience, which will help to ensure that designers mmt the n~s of mobility handicapped passengers. The guidelines set out below are intended to be relevant to retrospwtive changes to transport terminals and interchanges, as well as to the design of new ones: The’current report provides a literature review of empirical resach, and of existing design guidelines; on the basis of these findings, recommendations for good design practice will be made and be set out in a separate document. Mere more than one source is quoted here, however, the preferred standard or dimension will be highlight in bold type, as will dl other dimensions that are deemd by the authors to be suitable. In particular the research was rquired to cover the following items: Provision and position of information for dl travelers, signing, directions, travel information etc. All aspects of information provision, spoken or written, as well as textural surfaces and tactile maps, should be includd. Off-vehicle ticket des facilities.
1 Refreshments. Toilets and baby changing facilities Lighting Waiting and refreshments ar~s, including sating, heating etc. Swunty issues, ie avoidance of crime, violence and intimidation, presence of staff Movement, to include lifts, escalators, doors, footway surfaces, ramps, steps, crossings etc Str@t furniture, footway surfaces, safety, litter, md other h=ds. I 1.3 Mobilitv impairment - ~enerd statement of the Droblem Mobility impairment, (often referral to as “mobility handicap”), is conventionally thought of as a result of a mis-match betw~n the n~s md abilities of paple with a disability and the designs of the transport systems available. In fact it is of much wider importance. People who are traveling with small children or who are carrying havy shopping or luggage can be just as impaired at the time as those with a permanent physical disability. All travelers, even those who would conventionally be regardd as non-handicappti, can face problems if information on services is not available or is badly presentd. There is, therefore, a very broadly-basti requirement to ensure that trmsport infrastructure , md dl that it contains, meets the n~s of dl travelers.
That said, it is the needs of paple conventionally considered as mobility impaird which should be treated as the first priority, and the following definitions from the IHT guidelines will be adoptd :- &abfity : rduction in the ability of the body to q out its functions; tiabled people : people with a physical, sensory or menti impairment which affects their mobility; mbulant &abled people : people who are able to walk, but often with severe pain and discomfort, some of whom may dso depend on artificial limbs, cdlipers, sticks, crutches, or walking aids; wheelchah users : people who depend on a wheelchair for mobility, whether independent or assisted.
In this context the following figures, basal on the OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain, should be borne in mind. ■ Among adults (16 yas and over) in Great Britain living in households 13.5 per cent have some form of limiting long-term disability ■ Within that large group, impairment of locomotion is by far the most frquent problem: almost 70 per cent of dl people with disabilities have difficulties with wdting and/or climbing steps ■ Sensory impairments are dso frquent: 41 per cent of dl disabled people have a hting disability; 24 per cent have a seeing disability ■ Other disabilities that have particular relevance to transport infrastructure include problems with r~ching and stretching, which affects 19 per cent of dl people with disabilities, and manual dexterity, which affmts 27 per cent. ■ Many people have more than one type of disability.
2 Problems of locomotion are of particular importance in the design of ~sport infrastructure. In a rment survey [1] mounted in bndon it was found that, among ~ple with disabilities who were still able to use ordinary public transport, 16 per cent could not wdk more than 50 yards without severe discomfort and/or stopping for a rest, and a further 22 per cent could only manage up to 200 yards. Among disabled people who were using fully accessible services like Did-a-~de and Taxicard, the percentages were respectively 51 and 24.
The problems that some people have with walking distances are underlined by resach that has been carrid out by %rrett et al [2]; the percentage of subjects representing different impairment groups that could manage given distances without a rest are shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Percentag~ of sub.iecti representing different impairment grouDs able. with ass%nce, to ‘wa~ a given dti-nce without a“rest - “ ‘
Impairment Group DisMce 18m 68m 137m 180m 360m
~~lchair users 100% 95% 95% 40% 15% Visually impaired 100% 100% 95% 59% 25% . .,- Stick users 90% 75% 60% 20% 5% Ambulatory without walking aid 95% 85% 75% 30% 20%
(Source: Berrett et al [2])
Standing dso causes pain and discomfort for many pmple with disabilities. Among public transport users with disabilities, 20 per cent could not stand without discomfort for more than four minutes and another 14 per cent could not stand for more than nine minutes. Among the generally more severely disablti pmple who were using fully accessible services the majority (61 per cent) could not stand for longer than four minutes, with a further 16 per cent able to mmage no more than nine minutes.
Climbing and descending steps and ramps is difficult for many people with disabilities. From the same Undon survey [1] it was found that hdf of the disabled public transport users could not manage more than two or thrm steps without difficulty. For the accessible transport users the percentage rose to 80.
Difficulty gripping handrails presents problems to over one-third of disabled public transport users. Many people have problems with balance. Approximately a quarter of dl the disabld people in the survey had some degree of visual impairment and a similar proportion had problems with hting. Eight per cent had some menti impairment.
These figures serve to outiine some of the problems that face many people with disabilities when they use public transport. Many of them are dso experienced by other passengers from time to time. People encumberd with luggage or shopping, or escorting small children have similar problems to those with ambulant disabilities; people with children in prams or buggies need the same easy access as people in wheelchairs. The advice contained in this report will be of benefit to dl such passengers.
3 2. Methodology
There is a considerable amount of research that is relevant to the objmtives of this report, and there are examples of road and rail infrastructure built with the nds of mobility impaired people in mind. The report is based, therefore, on a combination of an international literature swch and visits to a number of bus and rail stations, many of which were suggested as examples of good or bad practice by the sponsoring organimtions. These two pnncipd sources were supplemental by a posti questionnaire, which was sent to 65 major transport operating companies, 52 in the UK, 13 elsewhere in Europe and which sought information on: ■ Incidence of violence and vmddism at interchanges and terminals ■ Wether the organisation had carriti out any surveys of the attitude of the public towards personal saurity at interchmges and terminals ● mat types of security pr~utions were tien, for example closed circuit television, extra light or extra staffing.
The main obj~tive of carrying out this questionnaire survey was to assess the nature of the relatd problems of violence, vmddism and graffiti, which dl have a detriment effect on passengers’ feeling of security when using a trmsport system, (and play a significant part in deterring those who are not users), so that appropriate counter-m~sures might be suggested. An important “spin-off’ from this survey was the discovery of transport authorities who have dr~dy successfully ~en steps to combat these problems, and whose methods are described in Section 11.2 as examples that might be followed by other providers of ~sport facilities.
In addition, the results of a questionnaire survey of the standard of signage that is currentiy provided by transport authorities and operators, carried out in 1991, are summarised in Smtion 8.9.
4 3. Dwign Guidelin& Currently Available
In the UK some guidelines as to minimum standards and dimensions of buildings and facilities that are intendd to be usd by the public are containd in Part M of The Building Re~ulations (1991) [3], which specifically dds with access for disabled people. This document is supplemented by a number of British Standards Institute publications; the most important of these for the purposes of this report is British Standard BS 5810, which makes more specific recommendations about the design of accessible buildings than either the Building Regulations or other British Standards [4]. Although providers of such facilities are under no legal obligation to abide by these regulations, the Chronically Sick and Disablti Persons Act. (1970\ states that dl newly-erectd public buildings are rquird by law to be accessible. The nd to provide accessible sanitary facilities is covered by both the Public Hdth Act (1936) and the Building Act (1959J.
Despite the existence of the above statutory documents, the guidelines that are most often consulted by architects and planners are those published by the Institution of Highways and Transportation ~HT) entititi Reducing mobilitv handicaps : towards a barrier-free environment, [5]. These guidelines were producd by members of a working party drawn from the Department of Transport Disability Unit, London Regional Transport, the Transport Reswch Laboratory and other res~ch organisations, a number of lod authorities and representatives of organisations for disabled people. Many of the tmhnicd details containd in the IHT’s document, particularly anthropometric data referring to wh~lchair users, walking frame users etc, were derived from Selwyn Goldsmith’s exhaustive catiogue of technic~ information for architects, entitld Desi~ninz for the disabled, [6]. It should be pointti out, however, that some of Goldsmith’s work, which was first pubfishd in 1963 and most recenfly revised in 1976, is inevitably now out of date.
A number of other organisations in the UK have producd guidelines in a similar vein to those of the IHT, notably the Royal National Institute for the Blind [7], Centre for Accessible Environments, (with Access for disabld Deo~le : design Euidance notes for develo~ers [8~, and the Manchester Disability Forum in conjunction with the Community Tmhnid Aid Centre, whose Planning for disablti paple [9] dso makes reference to the earlier work of Selwyn Goldsmith. Both British Rail [10] and ~ndon Underground Ltd [11], have dso produced guidelines for accessible station design, in collaboration with the British Rail Advisory Group on Tmsport for Disabled People and the London Regional Transport Unit for Disabld Passengers respectively. Both documents describe preferred, or further, design requirements, and are supplementary to existing regulations and British Standards.
The Women’s Design Service has dso publishti material which highlights the particular requirements of women when traveling; particular emphasis is placed on the design implications of catering for a parent with a double pushchair or buggy, and on the fact that women often have to travel with h~vy shopping bags, and/or with small children and babies. For example, the WDS has published a detilti handbook on the design of women’s public toilets [12], and has in conjunction with me Daily Telegraph’s “Parent Friendly Campaign” produced factsheets on access to buildings [13] and on the design of babycare facilities [14].
The Department of Transport dso publishes guidelines on particular aspwts of infrastructure design; examples of such documents that have been consultd during res~ch for the current report are the Traffic Sizns Manual [15] and the DoT Disability Unit’s circular on the use of dropped kerbs and tactile surfaces at pedestrian crossing points [16].
An Information Sh~t @o. 1-93) produced by the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People, in collaboration with the Centre for Accessible Environments, contains details of the main legislation and guidance documents publishd in the UK since 1970.
5 Guidelines produced by oversas governments have dso b=n available, the most comprehensive being those published by the Transport Policy Department of Germany [17], and those appting in the United S@tes’ Federal Register [18]. Other overs~s documents consultd include an accessibility handbook produced by the Federd Trmsit Administration (USA) [19], and r~omm~ndations for the design of new transport infras~cture published by the French Conseil National des Trmsports. 4. hyout and Design of Bus Stations
Aspublic ~spofim seldom provide through door-to-door se~ices, manyjoumeys will involve passengers transferring between buses, tiis, coaches, trains, ships or planes. The =se, convenience, comfort and safety of these stops, stations and interchanges will be essential fatures in the attractiveness of public transport and the passenger’s ability to make the journey.
4.1 Bus station : location
Iddy, interchanges and bus/coach stations should be located at - or immediately adjacent to - the other transport services and to lod shops and passenger destinations. Distances of a quarter of a mile or more betw=n a bus station and the shops or tilway station will be impossible for mmy disabld and elderly passengers (SEE Smtion 1.3), difficult for passengers with luggage, shopping or small children, and unattractive for everyone, especially in poor weather or in hilly areas.
A centrally-located bus station on a “less than idd” site may therefore be preferable to, a superb interchange which many potential passengers find difficult or impossible to reach. If the interchange is not centi, suitable stopping points and shelters, etc will dso be needed adjacent to shops, offices and other passenger destinations.
4.2 Bus stations : lavout
The size and layout of the interchmge or bus station will be dictatd by the frequency and pattern of services, including the maximum number of vehicles and their layover times, but should rdso reflect the length of time passengers will be waiting. Frquent, lod through buses should not require passengers to wait for long periods, but for longer-distance services passengers will tend to arrive early and n~ more facilities.
It is important to avoid long walking distances (such as those found in airports) and a compact layout on two levels with adequate stirs, escalators, ramps md lifts may be preferable to an extensive one-level site. The two-level bus station at Middlesbrough, built in 1982, shows how a compact layout can be fittd into the centre of commercial activity (SEE Figure 4.1). A compact layout with passenger facilities concentrated in one area will dso be easier to supervise (SEE Section 11.1, below) and rduce the fear felt by passengers waiting in quiet and isolatti areas.
Bright, colourful and well-lit premises will encourage the use of public transport, although pde colours which attract graffiti and are difficult to clm should be avoided, and terrazzo floors are hard, noisy and potentially slippery. There is too often a sharp contrast between attractive shopping areas md the dark and dismd bus stations below them. Disabld and elderly passengers fel particularly vulnerable in such surroundings, and will be discouraged from using public transport. Bus stations under car parks or other buildings fu~a~s be particularly well-lit, free of fumes and provided with elm, non-slippery .
There is a potential conflict between the movement of passengers and vehicles in the design of most interchmges and bus/coach terrninds. Schematic diagrams of the main dtemative layouts are shown in Figure 4.2. hvout A, with buses stopping head on or, most often, at a sharp angle to the loading areas, has the advmtage that dl queuing areas cm be grouped together with the terminal facihties and circulating area in a roofd and covered space. Huddersfield Bus Station (although too far from the railway station and shopping centre) is a good, well-lit and generally attractive example, (SEE Figure 4.3). —
—
—
= Pri”.iD.l shooPing lro.,age
S Coverec shooptng cenlre m Pedestrian ways
■ Imlm Buses and access only
~ Dislrtbutor roads - )/ — -—— — .,, . 9 FiWre 4.2 Schematic reprwentation of Iayouk A, B and C
hyout A ,
byout c
I 10
Hgure 4.3 ObBqueangled bus bays at Huddersfield bus station, (layout A)
Hgure 4.4 An exmple of saw-tooth bays at Barnsley interchange, (layout B) I
‘ri[
7 - /’ . . . .. ------“. The major disadvantage is that buses loaded with passengers have to back out into the stream of other arriving md departing vehicles; a potentially dangerous fmture. Passengers (and the building) nd to be prot=ted from a bus accidentily over-shooting its corrwt stopping point. Furthermore, it should be noted that this layout is only suitable for buses with a single entrance/exit ahead of the front axle, and is therefore not suitable for a number of vehicle types, (including minibuses and those with wheelchair access at a centi doorway).
A similar layout but with buses reversing onto the stands is more dangerous md inconvenient, except for rw-entrance buses. hvout B dso avoids the need for passengers to cross the path of moving vehicles, and have the advatage of enabhng them to board and alight directiy from the kerb with dl types of bus. It can be provided along a continuous pavement, which may be L-, U- or “horseshoe’’-shaped, to rduce the ovedl site ara and walking dis~ces. Compared with a straight pavement along which buses may stop, the saw-tooth layout rduces the space n~ed betwen stands for full-length buses from 21 metres to 18 metres and is more likely to ensure that bus drivers stop p~lel to the kerb with access to dl doors without the need for passengers to step down into the roadway. It does, however, rquire a slightiy wider lane width (9 metres instead of 7 metres) for buses to pass one another. One of many examples of the saw-tooth layout is Barnsley interchange, whose bays are shown in Figure 4.4. Continuous and enclosed passenger pathways and waiting areas can be provided to serve dl boarding points without the need for an ovetil roof.
Lavout C Where the site limitations or the number of bus ad coach movements make a continuous boarding platform impracticable, some form of separate island platforms will be n~ed, although a series of island platforms open at both ends increases the dis~ce to passenger facilities such as information offices or toilets, and supervision and passenger safety are more difficult. To avoid the inconvenience and delay of subways and over- bridges passengers will nd to cross the path of moving vehicles. This can be controlled by providing fixed crossing points, clearly marked for both passengers and bus drivers, which provide a rasonably dir~t route for pedestrians and reduce the temptation for them to cross at other points. A good example is provided at Meadowhdl Interchange, Sheffield (SEE Figure 4.5), md at Elgh bus station, (SEE Figure 4.6).
An L-, U- or horseshoe shapd bus station with some island platforms may be the best design, as it will enable the facilities needed by passengers waiting for longer-distance or less frquent services to be provided on the outer Wge of the site, with island platforms for those needing fewer facilities. An example of a station with island platforms is the burent Bonnevay site in Lyon, Frmce, which is both an interchange and a terminus for the city’s metro and bus systems, (SEE Figure 4.7).
If separate alighting points are provided for terminating journeys these should be immediately adjacent to boarding points, clmly marked and provided with sating for people waiting to meet incoming passengers.
Layouts with buses stopping around a central island site are not recommended, as dl passengers have to cross the path of buses or negotiate a change of level. Where such a layout is usd, however, (and such a configuration is attractive bause it is compact and easy to manage), dl pedestrian crossing points should be very clearly defind.
Enough clear space should be provided on the platform, or on the pavement where passengers get off a vehicle, to enable a wheelchair user to turn; the IHT guidelines [5] r~ommend that a person using a non-electric wheelchair should be considerti to need a turning circle of at lM 1575m diameter, but add that electrically-powered whmlchairs in particular may rquire more space. In the future low-floor buses are likely to bmome commonplace. When knelt, the step height onto these buses will be around 250mm. The future n~ to raise the station platforms to give near-level access with a minimum horizonti gap, to the buses, should be borne in mind.
11 “ 12
Rgure 4.5 Warnple of fued crowing pointi at MeadowhaU hterchang ~eSheffield, (layout C) ,
Hgure 4.6 Wmple of freed crowing poinfi at high bm *tion, (layout C) 13
Hmre 4.7 Plan of me Laurent Bonnevay titertiange, Lyon, France, (layout D)
(Source: [21]) 4.3 Interchanges
Forinterchanges at railways stations or airportsit may bepossible toavoid duplication of f~tures such as waiting rooms, information offices, toilets and refreshment facilities so long as they are available to ~ passengers. The move towards “open” BR stations may assist in such arrangements, and lod authorities may dso liaise with transport operators to share the cost of joint facilities (eg public toilets at railway stations).
4.4 Railwav s~tions
British Rail and bndon Underground Limited &UL) have their own codes of practice and guidelines for facilities at their stations, designd to help passengers with mobility handi~ps. Copies can be obtained from the Unit for Disabled Passengers, London Transport, 55 Broadway, hndon SWIH OBD. The BR code is at present under review by the British Rail Advisory Group. This report endorses those guidelines where appropriate but recommends improvements in some arms.
Where local authorities, PTEs and other bodies fund improved facilities on BR or LUL lines - in some cases paying for the construction of new stations - they will wish to ensure that the nds of mobility handicapped passengers are fully considerd, md that these needs are met within the limits of the funding available. This is particularly important where no staff are available to assist passengers.
As it is now not usually possible in the UK for railway passengers who cannot negotiate stairs to cross to other platforms at track level, one of the main problems is access to platforms on til through stations. At larger stations lifts were, in the past, usually provided for goods and parcels, and these may be reinstated or adapted for passenger use where the cost of providing new lifts may be difficult to justify at smaller stations.
The cl-cc necessary for trains and overhead quipment mms that footbridges over the tracks involve many steps, while ramps for passengers using wheelchairs or with pushchairs or suitcases with wh~ls, might prove excessively long and tiring, (even with resting places providd - SEE dimensions in Section 5.3). Well-1it and monitord subways with ramps and stirs will provide a shorter and sheltered route.
At many smaller stations the best solution may be to provide separate road and pdestrian access to both sides of the station from a naby road crossing the railway. Unless passengers nd to cross the line to interchange with other services, the increased use of “open” stations now avoids the need to have one station entrance, ticket office and btier. In such cases adquate information, ticket machines and waiting shelters will be necessary on ~ch platform.
In other respects the design principles and specific features and dimensions at railway stations should be the same as for bus smtions and stops, as set out below.
Three other specific problems may be found at existing railway stations and should be avoided in future:-
Platform d~es
Blind md partially sightd passengers are at particular risk of falling over the dge of platforms onto the track. In addition to the normal white-painted platform edge (which n~s to be regularly repaintd) a continuous textured strip about 1000mm from the platform edge, preferably in a contrasting colour such as yellow, should be fitted along the whole length of dl platforms, with a further narrow strip where yellow lines are used on platforms where fast trains travel through. The issue of providing a tactile warning strip for passengers with impaired vision is covered in Swtion 8.10.
14 Platform surfaces
Temzo surfaces can bmome slippery under certain conditions (even when undercover) and are dso extremely hard and unyielding and tend to be shiny. There is some concern that many elderly pmple who fdl on such surfaces suffer greater injuries than on a “softer” surface such as tarmac or rubber. A dark tarmac surface has been found to be popular with passengers because it feels softer and is quieter; it is dso more rosily repaird and provides a better colour contrast with platform edge strips and painted markings.
Glass arms
Widespread use of glass @lain or low contrast) for station shops, offices, doors etc. provides a major h-d to many passengers; SEE Section 10.2 for a full discussion.
4.5 Design ~rinciDles
The design of terminals and interchanges should provide for unimpded access for disablti passengers.
Key fmtures include the avoidance of steps or steep ramps @oth at entrances md within buildings), the provision of clmly marked and dirat routes without obstructions, adequate s=ting md waiting ar~s, good lighting and a “friendly” ambience. Materids and finishes should be chosen to maximise ase of clming md minimise vanddism. Cleaning and maintenance schtiules should ensure that graffiti, spilt oil and litter are removal quicUy md the damage causal by vmddism is repaired before it encourages more vanddism.
Good design is an essential ingredient if passengers are to find travel by public transport both convenient, safe and enjovable : and architecture and interior design should always give priority to the passengers’ needs. Bright, ch=rful, ~sily-claed features will help dl passengers, while large areas of stainless steel, glass and blending colour schemes will provide unnussary hazards, especially to the million or so people in the UK who have a visual handicap of some sort, (SEE Section 8.10).
Littie detiled resach has been carried out on the reasons (often psychological and difficult to define) why passengers fail to use - or stop using - public tisport. Clwly the service frequency and reliability, fare levels, the accessibility of vehicles md stiff attitudes are dl involvti, but the gened ambience, clarity of design and information, and the comfort found at stops and bus stations are dso major factors. Fear of missing the bus and of being attackd in poorly-lit areas aff~t many passengers, but those who are frail, elderly or disabld feel particularly vulnerable. The aim should be to combine efficiency in services with a friendly environment and staff to reassure passengers. The level of facilities and the design and choice of materials - basal upon the following recommendations - will meet many of their n-s.
The incorporation of small shopping units in the bus station/terminal will enhance its ovedl attractiveness and bring commercial activity to the site. Preference should be given to occupants such as caterers, newsagents and florists who will provide services of direct relevance to passengers’ n~s. Litter and stock from such ouflets must be tightiy controlld, and the use of concourse space in this way rquires proper supervision to avoid clutter and obstruction of walkways.
Although priority should be given to interchange with other public transport services to ensure that the network is as comprehensive as possible, consideration should be given to the needs of passengers, especially those with mobility impairments who need to use adapted transport services (Did-a-Wde, etc), &is or ws to rach the interchange. Adaptti parking and loading/dighting arrangements should be made for these passengers.
15 4.6 Provisions for “Oran2e Badge” holders
As well as users of taxis and spwid transport services, disabled drivers who are entitied to parking concessions under the “Orange Badge” scheme should dso be considered in the overall design of a terminal or interchange.
The Orange Badge scheme was introduced by the Government in 1971, and was intendd to enable eligible people to park their vehicle, or vehicle to which they have access, at l~tions where waiting restrictions are in force and in parking spaces designatd for disabld people. Chapter 5 of the IHT guidelines [5] is devoted to rmommendations for the provision of parking spaces for badge holders in both on-street and off-street locations, and includes detaild specifications for the design of the orange badge themselves and of parking discs to be displayed in-vehicle when parking on single or double yellow lines, as well as dimensions for parking spaces. hndon Underground’s guidelines, [11], dso include spwifications for reserved car parking spaces for orange badge holders; some of the dimensions quotd in this publication are taken from guidelines set out in [5], but London Underground’s additiond rmommendations for reservd parking spaces are as follows, Lines marking spaces should be 75m wide and in “15 ym yellow paint”. In addition to the “Disabled badge holders only” plate which is described in the IHT guidelines, ach reserved space should have a second sign, of identicd size, asking wheelchair users to contact London Underground staff before traveling; in automatic car parks, ach space should have a third sign, again of the same size, indicating that it may be usd by a driver who does not hold an orange badge if no other space is available. Posts for signs should be yellow, tubular, 75H in diameter and extend to 2030~ above ground-level; signs on these posts should be at least 1650m above the ground, whilst signs on walls should be positional at a minimum height of 1220m.
16 5. Acc~ To, and Within, Buildings
This swtion considers fundamenti design aspats of transport terminals and interchanges which must be considered by dl providers of public facilities. These considerations include lighting, toilet facilities, h=ting and ventilation, as well as the accessibility of a facility to dl people who might wish to use it. Many of the topics ddt with in this s~tion are discussd in the IHT’s guidelines [5] under the hading of “Movement - Design Standards”; this is quite appropriate, since it is the safe and wsy movement of passengers within transpo~tion terrninds that is of prime impotice here.
5.1 The ~ened accessibility of trans~ort-relatd buildings
The extent to which an interchange or terminal is accessible to dl those who might wish to use it is not governed entirely by the number of architwturd barriers within the facility that may hinder the movement of some passengers; it is just as impotit for there to be an accessible entrance, and approaches, to the facility. A single step at the entrance to a station, or kerb without a ramp in the road outside, w render the most carefully-designd terminal inaccessible to people with certain disabilities.
The id= that a terminal may be “out of bounds” to an elderly or disabled person might, however, exist in the mind of that person before they have come across a rd barrier to movement, since perception plays a major role in an individud’s dwision as to whether to embark on a journey. A person limitd in the distance that he or she is able to walk, for example, might be deterred from using a large station or interchange bmause of the walking distances that might be involvd and the belief that help within the facility will not be available, nd a lack of confidence that safe, hygienic and accessible toilet facilities will be available may discourage others. Although such fears might be groundless, an elderly or disabled person would naturally tend rather to err on the side of caution than to set off on a journey and come across a problem later. Furthermore, a previous discouraging experience with a transport system, due to an archit=turd barrier or to a lack of adquate basic facilities, could reinforce this doubt, thus further inhibiting mobility. Buuse of the importance of perception in a potential passenger’s decision to travel by public ~sport, transport providers should not only mde their system accessible to everyone, but dso publicise the fact that the system is barrier-free, and that help is available, as widely as possible.
5.2 Doors
As a general principle, doors should be avoided, both at the entrance to, and within, a terminal. In practice, however, doors may sometimes be desirable, particularly at an entrance, in which ~se automatic doors should be used. The control mechanism for automatic doors must safeguard against someone being hurt by closing doors, and hinged doors must indicate which way they open so that people do not collide with a door as it opens. The most convenient form of automatic door is one linked to weight sensors in the floor, or sensors that are wall-mounted or positioned above the door which detmt an approaching pedestrian, with doors operated by a push-plate or pressure-pad representing a next-best option. Pressure pads, if used, must be located well beyond the “sweep” of the door. Both types of door are currentiy widely used. A fact-sheet [13] produced by the Women’s Design Service, on behalf of me Daily Te/egraph’s “Parent Friendly Campaign”, does, however, warn that doors operated by weight sensors should be sensitive enough to det~t the weight of a small child, and that wdl-mountti sensors should be placd low enough to detwt the presence of a fallen child. This publication dso spuifies that the minimum open~ width requirement for a doorway should be 900m, to allow enough room for a double pushchair, and that a door, on its opening side should have adequate CIW space for manoeuvnng. Although these raommendations are made with the needs of parents with young children in mind, there are obvious analogies with the nds of wh~lchair users. The IHT guidelines [5] agree that the minimum width of both doors and corridors should be 900m but state that 1100mm is preferred to accommodate M adult
17 with a child, with a minimum of 1200mm requird for an adult with a helper. Although these dimensions may be adequate for internal doorways, more space should be provided, perhaps using double doors, at least at entrances to buildings and terminals. These rwommendations go considerably further than British Standard BS 5810, the BSI’s code of practice dding with the design of accessible buildings, which suggests 800mm as the minimum cl= opening width for entrance doors, [4]. The WB’s Mobility Unit suggests that, when double doors are instil~, each door should be a minimum of 800mm, but preferably 830mm, in width, and emphasises that both doors should be free to open, [7]. The IHT publication goes on to recommend width requirements for pmple with various types of mobility aid; for example, the minimum passage width for a double crutch user is set at 900mm, whilst m adult with a guide dog requires a width of at last 1100mm. A diameter of 1575mm is suggested as an adquate size of turning-circle for manual, and small electridly-powered, wheelchairs, but the IHT points out that space requirements for larger electridly-powerd whmlchairs will depend on the particular model. (SEE PP. 8-9 of [5A. Advice from Bmstead Mobility Centre suggests that the largest of the most commonly-used powered whmlchairs rquires a turning circle of 2295mm, but the IHT states that a turning-circle of 2420mm is n~d for an “outdoor electric wh=lchair”.
The Women’s Design Service fact-sheet [13] dso recommends that doormats should only be usd if they are flush with the floor, but where they are instild they can act as a useful cue for visually impaired people; in the interests of wheelchair users, however, mats should not be too soft. Doors according to the Women’s Design Service, should be designd so that they stay open at 90°; doors which close themselves by a spring closure device should be avoidd, but where they are d~md to be necessary they should be fitted with a delay mechanism.
The location of doors should be emphasisd by mas of a tend contrast between doors and their frames. Door knobs and handles which require a turning motion should be avoidti, sinw many people find them hard to grip. If it is not feasible for a door to be operatd automatidly, then it should be able to be opend and closd with a simple push and/or pull action. The door handle should preferably be of the long, vertical type, extending from 400mm to 1400mm from the floor so that it may be usti by people of smaller stature. Such a handle should be round in section, and of 30mm to 35mm diameter, and beat 1- 45mm clear of the door itself.
The whole question of the ability of the population at large to use doors and other typid features of the transport infrastructure was restiched in some detail by Flores and Minaire in 1985, [22]. Almost the entire population of a small village in the Rhone-Alpes region of Fmce, (504 of the 532 inhabi~ts of dl ages), participate in a series of laboratory experiments designti to test subjects’ ability to negotiate steps ramps and slippery surfaces, and to masure their r~ch, pushing and pulling ability, manual dexterity and grip. Figure 5.1 compares the age profile of the sample population with the population of France as a whole, nd revds that the older age-groups (from the age of 55 yas and upwards) were slightiy under-representd, with m over-representation of subjects agd between 25 and 54. A questionnaire was dso administerti to assess the extent to which subjats had impairments which might affect them when traveling; Figure 5.2 shows that roughly a quarter of the sample had some sort of problem with communicating, (most of whom reported some degree of visual impairment or hearing deficiency), whilst 19.6% indicated that they had a “motor function” problem, (most often a bad back, but reducd mobility in the upper or lower limbs was dso includd in this category). Subjmts were dso questioned on whether they usually use an aid of some sort. Whilst 41% claimd that they usd an aid for communication purposes, (such as glasses, a hting aid etc), only 3.2% claimed that they used a mobility aid; the number of wh~lchair users among these is not spaifid, nor is there any evidence that wh~lchair users were represent in the sample at dl. The conclusions drawn from Flores and Minaire’s experiments should, therefore, be regardd as referring to ambul~t people only. A number of mock-ups of ramps, stairs md paths were creatd for these experiments, and strength and grip etc were mechanically mmsurd. Subjects were dso asked ~o rep~t tasks in order to te~t ~hereproducibility of t~e results; in most tests a good correlation was found between m individud’s first and second
18 performance of a task, which suggests that the results of these experiments are quite valid. Btiuse this research is dso rather unusual in the way in which it masures the fundamenti functional capabilities of a population, its findings will be referred to seved times in this report.
The performa~ of the sample population in tasks involving pushing on a door-handle from a front-on s~ce are summarised in Figure 5.3(a); without prompting from the experimenters, 67% of subjects performed the tisk using just one hand, but performance was apparently affwted very fitfle by the use of two hands. The curve in Figure 5.3(a) is rather s=p, and shows that, although nmly dl of the sample population can exert a force of 5kg, the per~ntage of subjmts able to cope d~lines rapidly as the force rquired ‘to push open a door incrmses. The diagram shows that Flores and Minaire highlight the permntage of the sample population that could exert a push force of 10kg onto a door handle - 80% were capable of this, still lwving one fifth of the sample who would not be able to open a door requiring this level of force. From these findings a force of 5kg would ap~ to represent a threshold after which any grater r~uirement of strength begins to prwlude an ever-increasing percentage of the population and even more people would be unable to grip and push a handle with such force. The preference for the “nil force” option, (ie no doors or automatic doors), has already bwn stated above. An important obsticle to this “idd” situation, however, is the necessary requirement for some doors to be self-closing to conform with fire regulations, but such fire doors should dso be designed so that people with disabilities can open them and escape.
Similar results were obtaind when subjects were asked to push a door by its handle from a side-on stance, but with just 71% of the sample population able to exert a force of 10kg. Figure 5.3@) summarises the performance of subjwts when asked to @ on a door by its hmdle from a front-on position, and indicates that pulling presents more problems than pushing, with only 76% of subjwts able to pull with a force of 10kg. It is notic~ble from this graph that the curve begins an even slier downward turn than the move in Figure 5.3(a), sin~ 3kg ap~s to be the threshold amount of force rquirti for pulling a door handle; 4% of the sample population was unable to pull with a force of 5kg, and 10% was unable to exert a force of 7kg.
A further interesting finding from Flores and Minaire’s experiments is the distance from the ground at which subjects, unprompted, held the vertical door handle, when pushing on it from a front-on stance. All grip-heights varied betw~n O.6m and 1.5m; this represents quite a wide range of values, which are presented in the form of a cumulative percentage in Figure 5.4. From this graph it is possible to estimate that 88% of the sample gripped the door handle at a height of betw~n 0.86m and 1.36m, whilst 69% held the handle at between 0.96m and 1.26m. Similar results were obtained when subjects were asked to pull on the handle.
All of the above experiments were conducted using a fixed vertical bar as a handle, which has drady been mentioned as being preferable to one that rquires a turning movement, but it is still worthwhile reviewing the findings of Flores and Minaire from their experiments with the latter type of handle. The force that subjects were able to exert on a handle when turning it both up and down, at three different heights, was mwsured. Although the precise m=surements of turning strength are not impotit, Figure 5.5 clmly demonstrates the rate at which an incrmsing percentage of the population becomes unable to open a door as the handle becomes harder to turn. It is important, however, to avoid turning handles. An example of a door handle that is of particularly poor design is shown in Figure 5.6. This type of handle, which ironically is used for a facility for disabld passengers in this instance, r~uires that this hwvy glass door is opened by pulling with the finger tips; clwly this may be impossible for a frail elderly person and painful for anybody with arthritic joints. Figure 5.6 dso shows a fire extinguisher that is positioned in such a way as to make it difficult for a wheelchair user to r~ch the help button.
There should dso always be a tend contrast between the door handle and the door itself, for the benefit of visually-impaired passengers.
19 20
Figure 5.1 Comparison of age distribution of sample used by ~or~ and Mnaire, with i~ of French population
4?.3
24.S ‘ M Sample pol~aklon
~ All at Frame
15.6 m
10.2
+ t + + 0-14 19-24 =-94 55-64 6S-74 75 aM over Age group (Source: Q2])
FiWre 5.2 SeM-reported hnpairmenfi of sample used by Norm and Mlnaire
25.2
19.6
14.3
, Wtor ?uwt;om Gtip Visceml “ Communication Type of impairment (Source: [22]) 21
Fl~re 5.3(a) me mpacity of ~ora and ~aire’s sample to push a door, by iti hande, from a front-on stance
g 100 .3~ a 90 – o
70 I
60 -
50\
30 - 1
kg force
(Source : [22])
5.3@) me mpacity of Hors and Maire’s -pie to pu~ a door, by ik hande, from a front-on stance
70
60
50
40
30
:Lr05101520253035401- kg force
(Source : [22]) 22 Hgure 5.4 Referred height of gripptig door handle for the purpose of pushkg door open, accortig to Flor~ and ~aire’s ~ple
100
90 —
80 —
70 —
60 —
50 —
40 —
30 —
20 — \
10
0 6 I 70 80 90 100 110 120 130L140 150 (mm)
(Source : [22]) YOpop~ation 0/0population 24
Hgure 5.6 Door handm which require that doom are opened by pu~ng with the fmger-ti~, which would awe problem for many people
I1, I
I 5.3 Stairwavs md ramps
IdAly, dl essential services should be provided on one level, (ie the ground floor), of an interchange or terminal, and there should certainly be no changes of level within floors. In practice, however, this is not always f=sible, and so recommendations should be made concerning steps and ramps.
Specific maimum and minimum dimensions for dl elements of stairways appear in most published guidelines. Those issued by the IHT [5] closely resemble the dimensions laid down in both the part of the building regulations that dds with means of access, [3], and British Standard BS 5810, which is a code of practice for the design of accessible buildings, [4]. A full explanation of the IHT’s recommendations appas in Section 2.5 of [5], and the relevant diagram is reprodud, for reference, in Figure 5.7. There are, however, some differences in detail between the aforementioned publications; whilst the IHT guidelines suggest that step nosings should have no overhang, Part M of the Building Regulations states that nosings may overhang by up to 25mm, providd that the mgle between the underside of the nosing and the step riser is at least 60 degrees. This is so that people who have a tendency to drag their feet behind them do not catch their foot on the nosing. Another difference is that the Building Regulations stipulate that steps should be of a minimum of 10IOmm in width, whilst the IHT guidelines suggest a minimum width of 1200m.
The rwommendation of the IHT is that risers should be between 100rnrn and 150mrn high, with a prefemed height of 130~; British Standard BS 5810 merely states that the height of risers should not exc~ 150mm, [4]. The height of risers that presents a problem to transport users is one dimension of a transport system that was resached by Flores and Minaire [22]. A number of wooden stairways were construct, each consisting of three steps, for the purpose of these laboratory-controlled experiments, with riser-heights ranging from 50mm to 350mm. Observations were made as to whether each subject found the steps possible, possible but with some difficulty or impossible; the experiment was conductd with two handrails in place, with just one handrail and without a handrail. The results of this part of the research, for ascending and descending steps, are reproduced in Figures 5.8 and 5.9; the first pair of graphs shows the percentage of the sample population to which ach flight .of steps was possible and without difficulty, whilst Figure 5.9 indicates the percentage of the sample that could negotiate the steps but with difficulty. Both sets of graphs indicate a significant fdl in the number of people to whom the steps are accessible when riser height increases from 200mm to 250mm, suggesting that 200mm should be the maximum height of steps’ risers. This appws to be the case regardless of whether a handrail was built into the apparatus, but the addition of a handrail had an incr~singly marked effect on the percentage of the sample to whom the steps were accessible as riser height incr~sed; the inclusion of a second handrail further increased this percentage. Figure 5.9 confirms these findings, showing an even bigger difference in the results obtained using 200mm risers and 250mm risers. In fact, almost four times as many pple had difficulty with a height of 250mm, (21 % of the sample), as had difficulty with risers of 200mm, (5.4%), in the absence of handrtils; with one or two hmdrails instild this ratio was approximately 3:1. Flores and Minaire dso report that female subjects genetily had greater difficulty with the grater step heights than their mde counterparts, and suggest that this may be due as much to clothing and footwear characteristics as to physiological differences between the sexes. These experiments did not include any tests of what tread depths are most appropriate.
25 Fi*re 5.7 Recowended tiemiom for a fight of steps with a handnfi
(Source : [51) Percentage
o +0
w
am+
N 4 28 fi~re 5.9 me relationship between steps’ riser height, and whether ~or~ and ~aire’s subjecti found some difficulty in using them
(a) kcending
0+ I 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 (mm)
b) D~cending F 70
60
50
20
10
o I 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 (mm) (Source : [22]) The most impo~t points of good practice mentioned in the IHT publication are that, where there we stairs, a complementary ramped route with a gradient of no more than 5% (1 k 20) should be provided, and that step nosings should be colour contrastd with the rest of the step; furthermore, both the top and bottom of a flight of steps should be markd by mms of a tactile red/or a colour change. It is dso recommendti that handrails should be providd on both sides of a flight of steps, and these should be round in profile for the benefit of pple with frail or arthritic hands in particular, (a summary of the IHT’s rwommendd dimensions for handrails is given in Figure 5.7). The IHT dso suggests that a second, lower handrail positioned at a height of 600mm from the ground, may be useful for children; similmly, a study of railway facilities commissioned by the German Ministry of Trmsport, [17], r=ommends the provision of a second rail for children at a height of 500mm from the ground.
Standards set out in the USA’s FdeA Register [18] suggest that the ends of a handrail should either be roundd, or be returned in a smooth arc to the floor, md that rails should be securd so that they do not roate in their fittings. These regulations dso demand that steps should be designd in such a way that water will not collect on them.
Guidelines publishti by bndon Underground in 1988 [11] specify preferrd step dimensions of 152mm for risers and 280mm for tr=ds, and suggest that ach flight should consist of no fewer than thrm and no more than twelve steps. As a gened r~ommendation, it is pointd out that step dimensions should at l=st be uniform, and that flights of steps should be well-lit with a white riser on the top and bottom steps. The same publication includes very detailed preferred spwifications for handrails, as follows, Diameter : 45mm to 48mm Distance from wdl : 45mm Dis~ce above stir nosing : 900mm Dis~ce betw=n rails : 1200mm to 1800mm Extension at top and bottom of stairs : 600mm.
Penton, who carried out an in-depth study of the hndon Underground as wly as 1976, [23], suggestd that the top and bottom of a flight of stairs should be marked with a stud on the hmdrail, in order to help visually impaired travelers.
One mms of illustrating what is rquird for stairway design is to quote examples of good and bad practice. Figure 5.10, for instance is a picture of an open trad staircase; such structures are not only physically very dangerous but dso very difficult for visually impaird pmple to SW. It should be added, however, that open tread stairways such as this are nowadays comparatively rare in public transport-related environments.
In contrast, m example of generally good practice regarding the provision of steps and hmdrails is providd at Mytholmroyd railway station, in West Yorkshire, where the railway runs on a high embankment and is shown in Figure 5.11. In this example, handrails run parallel to the pitch of the steps, and are providti along the whole length of the stairway and along adjoining footpaths. All fittings are paintd in a bright, contrasting colour, which aids visually impaired travelers. Step nosings are paintti white so that they may be s~n more easily, although in this case the paint is b~oming worn and does not contrast particularly well with the surface colour. An dtemative route to these steps is providd by means of a ramp, (SEE Figure 5.13), thus making the station, on this rather hilly site, as accessible as possible. Figure 5.12 shows an example in which aesthetics app~ to have been given priority over the needs of travelers who might have a mobility impairment. Although the curvd staircase is plasing to the eye, it could provide a considerable h-d for someone who is visually impaired, and the subtle tend blending of stainless st=l railings with the pde stone used for the steps is of no help to a person with poor vision. It is tiso notic~ble that the step nosings are unmarked. The railing in the
29 centre of this picture represents particularly bad design. The fact that it ends with a downward curve in the middle of the flight suggests that the steps end here - a visually impaired person is likely to either take this cue and trip over the next step, or be completely confused as to why the rail should end. Furthermore, someone who r~uires the assistance of a handrail in order to climb steps such as these would not be able to proceed further. This railing might dso be dangerous for people coming down the stirs, especially if the obstacle is not visible to them, either bwause they have a visual impairment or bause there are many people using the stairway.
The importance of always providing an dtemative ramped route to stairs has already b~n mentioned, but it should dso be acknowledged that a ramp might, for some, present a more formidable obstacle than a shorter flight of steps. Therefore, wherever a pdestrian route constitutes a ramp, (defind in the IHT guidelines [5] as any slope with a gradient of more than 1:20), an dtemative steppd route should be provided nearby. A ramp is most likely to cause problems to wheelchair users, the frail and elderly or people with pushchairs when the slope is not periodically broken with horizonti landings; for people traveling up the ramp such landings may be used as resting places, whilst wheelchair md pushchair users may find difficulty with braking when traveling down a continuous slope. It should dso be noted that people with arthritis in their an~es, kn=s or hips often experience grater difficulty, and more pain, when descending ramps than when walking up them. Figure 5.13 shows an example, again taken from Mytholmroyd railway station, of an unbroken ramp whose gradient and excessive length combine to cause such a hazard. A helpful f~ture of this particular ramp, however, is that there is a handrail on either side, which may help ambulant people traveling along it in both directions; handrails are, or course, as important for ramps as they are for stairs, and a central rail should be provided on wider ramps. Penton [23] suggests that the instigation of a h~drail might usefully play the s~ondary role of warning people of a ramp’s presence, and recommends that such a rail should extend for a few yards beyond each end of a ramp. The guidelines contained in the United States’ Feded Register [18] state that a continuous handrail should dso be provided on the inside of a ramp where there is a “switchback” or dogleg.
As with stirways, dimensions for the minimum width and maximum length of ramps are set out in some detail in British Standards documents. British Stidard BS 5810 states that a ramped approach should be at least 1200mm wide, and that ramps wider than 2000mm should have a centrtiy-located handrail. No ramp should have a slope of more than 1:12, and any slope that is st=per than 1:15 should be accompmied by a hmdrail on =ch side; furthermore, any slope with a gradient excding 1:20 should have a platform at 1- 1200mm x 1200mm in size at the top, [4]. Part K of the Building Regulations, which d~s with stirs and ramps, states that ramps no wider than 1000mm should have a handrail on at least one side, whilst wider ramps should have a handrail on both sides. Part K dso specifies that ramps should have a CIW headroom throughout of at leti 2000mm, [24]. The IHT guidelines [5] suggest that no ramp should in fact be steeper than 1:20, and that such a slope should not in any case extend for more than 6m without a lmding. The IHT dso considers 1:12 to be the absolute maximum slope of a ramp, and suggests that, if a st~per slope is unavoidable, then its muimum length should be 3m. United States regulations [17] agr~ that a slope of no more than 1:12 is desirable, but suggest that a ramp of between 1:12 md 1:16 gradient should not extend for more than 9m, and that a shallower ramp of between 1:16 and 1:20 gradient may continue for up to 12m. Guidelines publishd by the (then) West Germm government, in 1986 [16], however, put forward a different view, stating that wheelchair users are able to cope independently with a 1:16 continuous slope for up to 15m.
30 31
HWre5.10 Anopentreadtiir_, which may bedangerow, andk therefore not acceptable
(Source: tiwahire Coun~ Council)
,. 32
Hwre 5.11 Steps and handrak at Mythohnroyd ratiway station, West Yorkhire
HWre 5.12 An exwple of poor step and handrati provision In Britain, the Building Regulations [3] suggest a minimum width of ramp of only 1200mm, but IHT guidelines insist that the minimum should be 2000m, to enable two wheelchairs to pass, with a width of 1350u permissible for short distances; similarly, the Women’s Design Service guidelines dl for a minimum width of 1800mm, to enable two double pushchairs to pass, [13]. One mmure that is absent from the IHT’s list of rmmmendations is the requirement for ramps with a drop-off on one or both sides to be dged with a kerb as well as a raiting; the Building Regulations [3] suggest that such a kerb should be of a minimum height of 100-, whilst the quivdent Uniti States regulations suggest that a 50mm kerb is adquate. The ramp shown in Figure 5.13 is drady enclod with a fence on both sides.
An interesting idea from the German publication [17] is that a sign indimting the availability of a whmlchair-accessible ramp should dso state both the gradient of this ramp and whether it slopes uphill or downhill; an example of such a sign is given in Figure 5.14.
It should be noted, however, that the description of a slope in percentage terms will mm litde to many pple, and the more familiar ratio-based mas of expressing slope might be more appropriate, (6%, for example, is roughly quivdent to 1:16).
33 34
Fl~re 5.13 Pedwtrian mp at Mythohnroyd ratiway ~tion, W- Yorkhire
Hwre 5.14 ~mple of a directional sign indicating the slope of a wheelchair- accmible -p
(Source: [17]) Table 5.1 The relationship between a ramp’s gradient, and whether ~or~ and Mnaire’s mainly ablebodied subjects found some difficulty in using it
(a) Axending
I ~ether subject can use ramp (%) I I slope I Hadrails I Yes Yes, but with difficulty No none 82.3 15.9 1.8 =100% 2070 one 88.7 10.3 two 88.3 9.5 ;:;
none 95.0 3.2 1.6 15% one 95.6 1.0 two 95.2 ::: 1.6
none 97.8 0.8 10% one 97.8 1.0 ::: two 97.0 1.0 1.6
none 98.4 0.2 5% one 98.0 0.8 ::; two 97.2 0.8 1.6
@) D&ending
I ~ether subj~t can use ramp (%) I I slope I Handrails I Yes Yes, but with difficulty No I none 50.8 46.4 2.8 = 100% 20% one 73.0 25.4 two 75.0 22.8 ;:;
none 86.7 10.9 2.2 15% one 92.9 5.6 two 92.1 5.6 ;:;
none 97.0 1.2 1.4 10% one 97.4 1.0 1.2 two 96.8 1.2 1.6
none 97.8 0.6 1.2 5% one 97.6 1.0 two 97.0 ;:! 1.4
(Source: [22])
For empirid evidence of the difficulty that pwple might have with ramps of given gradient, it is neces~ to turn again to the experiments conductd by Flores and Minaire in 1985, [22]. As well as testing subjwts’ capacity to climb flights of stairs with different riser heights, Flores and Minaire carried out similar trials using ramps of differing gradient - 5% (ie 1:20), 10%, 15% and 20% (ie 1:5). Again, the experiments were conducted with
35 a handrail on either side, with a handrail on just one side and without handrails. Their results are summarisd in Table 5.1, and strongly suggest that the ability of pple to cope with a ramp changes significantly when the ramp’s slope is increasd from 10% (1:10) to 15% (approximately 1:6.7), and that there are far more people who find it difficult to go down a ramp st~per than 1:10, than there are who have difficulty in going up. To illustrate this point, 82.3% of the sample were able to climb the steepest ramp used (20%, or 1:5) without a notic~ble change in gait md without the help of handrails; this applid to only 50. 8% of the sample when subjects were asked to come down the ramp. With a slope of 10% or less, there was littie differenw in subjects’ performance when going up or going down tie ramp. Of those who experien- problems when attempting to wdk down the steeper gradients (15 % and 20%), approximately 74% of them were female; the authors made the observation that this difficulty was often ~used by their choice of footwear.
Although this series of experiments suggests that a slope of 1:10, or 10%, poses problems for very few people, it should be pointed out that the vast majority, if not dl, of those ting part were ambulant, (SEE Figure 5.2), so that wheelchair users in this sample were, at best, numerically insignificant. Flores and Minaire’s findings should not, therefore, be used to undermine the IHT’s recommendation that the maximum slope should be 1:12, @referably 1:20), since these standards were basal on consultation with wheelchair users. The experiment results reported in Table 5.1 do, however, underline the importance of providing a handrail alongside ramps, esp~idly for the benefit of people walking downhill.
“Stepped ramps”, structures that are intended to be usd as ramps but whose surface contins one or more steps, should not be used.
?5.4 Lifts and esdators
Part 5 of British Stidard BS 5655 contains a range of intemd dimensions for “intensive passenger traffic el~tric traction lift instigations”. These dimensions vary according to the load-bearing characteristics of the lift, and hence the number of passengers that can be carrid. The smallest of these, for example, is a lift designed to carry a load of up to 1000kg (13 people) - the Standard suggests that such a lift should be at last 1600mm wide, 1400m d~p and 2300m high, with a minimum entrance space of 1100m in width and 2100- h height, [25]. The British Standard that refers to the general minimum level of accessibility rquired for people with disabilities, however, is BS 5810: Code of practice for access for the disabled to buildin~s, which goes further in its rmommendations than both the standard Building Regulations and other British S~dards. BS 5810 states that a lift should have, as a minimum, a CIW space of 1500m x 1500m in front of the door(s) [4].
A particularly useful set of figures appears in another British Standards Institute publication - PD 6523 : Information on access to and movement within and around buildings and on certain facilities for disablti ~eoDle [26]. These data, which provide guidelines on both “asy rach” and maximum rach distances for wheelchair users, are reproducd in Table 5.2.
I 36 Table 5.2 Guidelines for reach distances of wheelchair users, (mm)
I Man Woman Child I fisy side reach 505 439 300 fisy forward reach 541 513 389 Maximum forward reach 922 869 668 High rach (forward) 1410 1308 965 High r~ch (side) 1641 1506 1237
(Source : [26])
The ~ dso gives dimension information on, for example, the typid width of a double crutch user, or of an adult with a guide dog, as well as the eye level of a whmlchair user and the turning circle of a number of different types of wheelchair; these are summarisd in Figure 2.3, on page 9 of the IHT’s guidelines [5].
Rwommendations on lift design are dso provided in the United States Fderd Register, [18]. Included in these is the recommendation that enough space should be provided in the lift to permit a 180-degr~ turn within a circle of 1525mm diameter, (which compares with the IHT’s suggestion of a 1575mrn diameter), for a manual wh=lchair. The United States publi~tion dso estimates wheelchair users’ “maximum forward r~ch” and “maximum side r=ch”, (1220mm and 1370mm, respmtively). These mmsurements are useful when mnsidering the optimum height of controls inside and outside of a lift. The lower limits of a wh~lchair user’s forward and side reach are dso includd, (and are 380mm and 230mm, restively); these reach limits are illustrated in Figures 5.15 and 5.16. Using these data, the US guidelines r=ommend that dl buttons on the outside of lifts should be central at 1065mm from the floor. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, in Britain, suggests that an idd height range for control buttons is 1150mm to 1350mm, with minimum and maximum heights being 900mm and 1400mm, respectively, [7]. British Standard BS 5655 @art 7) dso recommends a mmimum height of control devices - 1800mm - but goes on to state that, to be accessible for wheelchair users, they should be located at between 900mrn and 120ti from the floor. The same dmument is sp~ific about control devices inside lifts, suggesting that they should be lmtd on a side wall, at least 400mrn from the front and back wdl [27].
The US Federd Register states that the buttons themselves should be at least 19mm in their smallest dimension, and protrude from the wall. No fittings or other objmts between the dl buttons and the floor may protrude by more than 100mm from the wall. To help visually impaired travelers, buttons should be labelled with raised characters, in both braille and text, and, for dl users, there should be a visual acknowledgement that a cdl has been registered and when it has been answered, [18].
37 38
FIWre 5.15 Forward rmch tifi, and tintium floor space requkemenk, of a wheelchak user
...... - . —: m— .m;...... ,-...—:.--...... i,...... —:: & 1220
(a) High Fo-rd Rach Umit IF---2---1 —-.
—.
I -z—l
b i 1220
(b) M~imum Fo~rd Reach over an Obsbction
Note : x shall&at l-t 635mm; z shall k at l-t qual to x. Wen x is lMSthan 510mm, then y shall k 1220n2m maximum. Men x is510 to 635mm, then y shall k 1120mm maximum. (Source : [18]) 39
FIWre 5.16 Side rwch ~ti, and minimum floor space requirement, of a wheelchair user
(a) (b) Cl=r Hmr Space PamllelApproach Iiign and bw Side R=ch UmiU
_~-_n,6_ Areo
(c) Maximum Side Rcach”over Obstmction
(Source : [18]) The US Fderd Register dso states that the standards it lays down regarding button height should apply to control panels within lifts, and emergency controls, including the alarm and emergency stop buttons, should be positional at the bottom of the pmel; the centre line of these emergency controls should be no lower than 890mm from the lift’s floor. A two-way communication system between the lift and a point outside must be providd for use in case of an emergency; the highest operable part of such a system must be positioned at no gr=ter height from the lift floor than 1220mm, the system’s quipment must be claly identified by signs, and an emergency dl should not be limit~ to voice communication done. A vision panel allowing two-way vision should be inco~orated into the lift door; this is both for security reasons and for giving passengers a visual cue that the lift is in motion. The floor at which the lift tives should be identifid with an audible announcement which may be had by pple inside and outside the lift. As a gened principle, a lift must be fully automatic, and be fitted with an automatic floor-leve~ing device; lift doors should remain open for at la 20 seconds, and in dl other respects should comply with the standards for automatic doors outiind in Section 5.1 of the current report. Lift floors should be coverd with an appropriate non-slip material. A summary of the r~ommended dimensions for lifts contained in the United States Federd Register appears in Figure 5.17 [18].
One aspwt in which the Department of the Environment’s Building Regulations are more stringent than the Americm quivdent is in the requirement for control buttons to be no lower than 1000mm from the floor [3]. British Standard BS 5655 (Part 7) stipulates that, when handtis are providd inside a lift, at least one should be fixed on a side wall, and that such a rail should be at least 20mm from the wall, and be approximately 900m in height, [27].
The guidelines issued by the Manchester Disability Forum [9] dso suggest the inclusion of a handrail in lifts, and add that it should be positioned no higher than 1000m from the lift floor. Other useful suggestions from this publication are that s=ting should be providti close to a lift entrance for the benefit of those who cannot stand for long periods, that a mirror should be provided on the back wdl of a lift to enable wheelchair users to view the floor number display above the door (if appropriate), and that the lift’s two-way communication system should be linked to an induction loop system.
The Women’s Design Service dso expresses the nd for a two-way communication device on each floor, mainly so that a parent may se to a child who has b=n shut in a lift, and give instructions for opening the door. The service’s factsheet on access [13] goes on to suggest that a door opening device should be providd outside a lift, in case of such a situation. The same publication goes further than the Building Regulations by suggesting that the minimum door width of a lift should be 900mrn instad of 800mm, to cater for a person with a double pushchair; this suggested width is still, however, less than the United States minimum requirement of 915mm, (SEE above).
40 FIWre 5.17 Reco-ended dbemiom for Ufk and Uft entranc~
(a) Lift entrance
m) Ltit
min
m
11 ‘in 9/5 L k
(Source : [18]) 42
Rgure 5.18 An ex~ple of a tiect, accmible fink between Sreet level and an underground platfom
longitudinal setiion
I H II I I 1 4 .—. — .—. — .—. — —.— .—. — .—. — .—. —.—. _.—. - r b ,
site Plan
+._._._.—. _._. _. —. —._. _._. _. —. —. —._. —.+ .—. .--. — .— ...— .“
I I t i h. —’—’—’—” —” —--- ‘—. —. —- —. —. —. —-. —“—. —’4
,—— — I
L I -.. —_ — — —— —— — J } I I +———— 1 I I
(Source: [17]) Dimensions for lifts recommended by the Transport Policy Department of Germany [17] are similar to those publishd in the Building Regulations of the British Government [3], although the former does specify that dl control buttons should be arrangd horizontily rather than vertidly. A novel feature of the German guidelines is the encouragement for fiffi which directiy link underground platforms with the street level; an illustration of this is given in Figure 5.18. A direct, accessible link such as this to an underground network is clearly preferable to the use of esdators, which completely excludes wheelchair users and guide dog users and poses problem for many other pple with disabilities. Of course, for a syskm like hndon’s Underground, where platforms may be 20 metres or more below the surface, and often by no means vertidly beneath the corresponding surface station, there is littie scope for instiling this type of lift. In Germany, however, U-Bahn lines often follow the path of the surface street network, so that such a system is feasible. In Hamburg, for example, both vertid and diagond, or inclind, lifts are currentiy being ins~d (diagond lifts are being fittd where esdators might otherwise have been used, but vertid lifts are prefemti whenever technidly possible), [17]. An interesting feature of recent developments in Hamburg is the widespr~d use of transparent safety gluing for both lifts and lift shafts. As well as being aesthetically plasing, the city’s recenfly- instiled s~-through lifts have been associatd with a markti dmrase in graffiti and vanddism. Even though the glass used for such projects may be shatter-proof, it should still be clearly marked using banding or a similar method.
The preference for lifts over escalators as a mms of providing for the mobility imptirti has drmdy been mentiond; the Women’s Design Service confirms that they consider the latter both dangerous and inconvenient for people with children, [13]. On the London Underground, where the widespread use of esdators is almost unavoidable, given the distances that are frquentiy involvti between surface stations and platforms and the system’s high ndership, it is not uncommon for children in pushchairs to be transport on esdators, despite official warnings to the contrary. Visually imptird people may be unable to judge the direction in which an esdator is traveling, unless signs or colourd lights are situated at the top and bottom of each escalator, and can be changed if the direction of the esdator is reversal. A common complaint about escalators is that it is difficult for many paple to judge the position of the join between treads when they first get on, or are about to get off, an escalator; a bright light (usually green) underneath the tr=ds at =ch end of an escalator or contrasting nosings can ease this problem. The moving handrail on esdators is ~so very difficult for people with arthritic hands to grip.
British S~dard BS 5656 specifies that steps on escalators should have a minimum tread depth of 380m, a width of between 580m and 1100rnrn and a muimum height of 240m, (although step height should not exceed 210m if the escalator is intended to be used as an emergency exit when not in service). Moving handrails adjacent to the escalator should be between 70m and 100mrn wide, and should be at a height of between 900m and 1100m above the step nosing. Handrails should extend horizontily at least 300rnrn beyond the end of the esctiator’s steps. The overall angle of inclination of the escalator should not exceed 30°, @ut this angle may incrwse to 350, for a maximum rise of 6 metres, if the escalator’s spd is 0.5 metres per second or slower). This standard dso specifies minimum lighting levels; these are 50 k for indoor esdators and 15 k for those locatd outdoors [28].
The dimensions usd on bndon Underground provide for a step width of 1 metre, a front to rear depth of 400mm and a riser height of 200mm, giving a 30° angle of slope. A spa of 0.75 metres per second is needed to maximise passenger flow on the Underground, but slower S*S would be preferable for less busy locations. LU’s guidelines dso state that step tiges should be clearly defined in a contrasting colour (eg yellow) to help users locate the points where the steps will form, and the flat sections at the top and bottom of an esdator should be at least 2000rnrn and 1600m long respectively to give users enough time to get on and off safely. Handrails should move at the same speed as the escalator and be rounded in section to provide adquate grip [11].
43 44
[email protected] ~mpleof kclhed Mtibetween *reetand underground platfom
Inclined Iifi, Metropolitan Railway, Stockholm
\ . ‘..
/’+ 200 1 “200 .., I , 5-
*.
* ‘. ‘, ./’ I
= ‘p , J escalator i I down ------Ill ——- .. .— ___ ._..___ .—
(Source : [1 7]) 45
Figure 5.20 A *airMt in operation
(Source: RatcllfTail L@s Ltd)
Figure 5.21 Typ= of stairway on which a stair~t tight be used — L Straight staircase ml Staircase with a cume
— &i Straight staircase Staircase with a with a change of change of gradient gradient and cume
(Source: RatcllfTail L@s Ltd) As an dtemative to an esdator, an inclind lift may be instiled along the same shaft; s~ifications for such a lift, along with the dimensions of an inclined lift currenfly being used on the Stockholm Metropolitan Railway, are includd in the German Transport Policy Department’s guidelines [17], and are reproduced in Figure 5.19.
Another form of mechanised pedestrian movement is the passenger conveyor, or “travelator”. Travelators are usually instil~ along flat, or nearly flat, routes, although the aforementioned German publication [17] stites that a travelator operating on a slope may be safely used, by a person in a wh~lchair providd that the m~hanism’s gradient does not ex~ 13% (ie approximately 1:8). The attitude of the Women’s Design Servi~ towards travelators is that they are safe providd that they are accompanied by CIW safety instructions ad an emergency stop button. They do, however, present problems to many disabled people, particularly to those who are unst~dy on their f=t, and cannot be used at dl by guide dog users. When travelators are instiled, therefore, there should always be an dtemative route.
A future means of making public stairways accessible to wheelchair users, (and other mobility-impaired travelers), may be the “stairlift”, an example of which is shown in Figure 5.20. This type of lift is currenfly manufactured in Itiy, where it is quite widely usd, and is being introduced into the UK. A stairlift runs on a wall-mounted double rail which follows the contours of a flight of steps, and is driven by a platform-mounted electic motor; it is operated by mas of push buttons, which are dso situatd on the platform, and is dso equipped with an emergency stop button and a swurity key switch to minimise misuse. When not in use, the lift platform is foldd away. The two major advantages of such a device are that a wheelchair user may use it independently, and that he or she may gain access to facilities by traveling along the mainstr~m corridor of pedestria movement - the impotice of independence and integration to mobility impaird passengers should not be underestimated. A stairlift may be instild alongside any public stairway or ramp, including curved routes, (SEE Figure 5.21).
5.5 Platforms and tunnels
The surface of platforms should comply with dl aspwts of good practice associatd with flooring, in as much as it should be even and have a non-slip qutiity. The surface should dso be level with cross falls not exc@ing those required for drainage purposes, (which are typidly 1:30 or 1:40). Such drainage slopes should run down from the front edge to the rear edge of the platform, to prevent “roll-away” accidents with pushchairs and baggage trolleys etc; this arrangement will dso prevent water and ice from colluting at the platform edge. Penton [23] points out, though, that where platforms are exposed to the weather, it is inevitable that there will be some rippling or cracking of the surface; similarly, there will dso be some expmsion of joints with the subsequent growth of moss and weeds, which might cause some people to trip or slip. The answer to such problems is regular maintenance of the platform.
Penton dso emphasises the impotice of having a kerb or “kicking board” along the back dge of a open platform, stating that open railings, such as those shown in Figure 5.22, are not enough to prevent the existence of a h-d. Such a kerb might dso be us~ as a tapping rail by long cane users; for this purpose the bottom edge of the board should be no more than 200mm above ground level, and should have a depth of 150mrn. hndon Underground, in its publishd guidelines for the design of accessible stations, suggests that dl platforms should have grooved nosing stones at their edge whenever possible, with the edge of every platform being highlightti with a 100mm-wide white strip, [11]. Preferably, a tactile warning strip in a tonally constasting colour should dso be provided nw to the edge of every platform; the distance that such a strip should be from the dge of the platform is currently the subject of research funded by the Department of Transport, (SEE Section 8).
46 47
Figure 5.22 Open ratigs at the back of a platfom with no kerb or “kicking board”, which is unacceptable on safety grounds ..’”
(Source: [23]) 48
Fi~re 5.23 T~-stop platfom with shaUowrarnp, Grenoble, France
,, All platforms should have a level or ramped access. All ramps leading to platforms should conform to the guidelines set out in Section 5.3 of this report, and an dtemative stepped route should be provided md handtils should be instiled on both sides. For a system with low-floor vehicles, however, the provision of handrails is less of a priority, since ach platform will be correspondingly lower and the slope of the ramp less. An example of such a system is the Grenoble tramway, whose platforms may be accessed by mas of very shallow ramps, as Figure 5.23 shows.
In dl Mses, there should be enough room betw~n a vehicle standing adjacent to a platform ad the nwest obstruction to enable a wh~lchair user to turn fully. The IHT guidelines [5] state that the minimum space that is rquired to turn a manual wheelchair may be defined as a circle of 1575m diameter; the diameter of this circle incrases to 2420mm for m “outdoor el=tric wheelchair”, but this may vary according to which particular model is considerd, and 170ti would be adquate for most powered wheelchairs.
Pdestrian tunnels, which are most commonly found in the larger underground systems, should conform to dl standards relating to ramps and flooring. Penton [23], however, offers the additiond suggestion that, in long tunnels, consideration should be given to the provision of “pause places”, with handrails, out of the main flow of pedestrian movement, at which elderly and disabled people can rest a while. Care must be taken that such resting places do not provide hiding places for muggers.
5.6 Footbridges and undemasses
Wth road- and rail-related footbridges are ddt with in Swtion 4.5 of the IHT guidelines [5]; their design, and dso the design of underpasses, is largely govemd by good practice concerning stairs, handrails and ramps. It should be reiteratd, however, that stairlifts, such as those described in Smtion 5.4 of the current report, could have an impo~t role to play in making footbridges accessible to wheelchair users in the future, particularly at railway stations where there may be no dtemative accessible means of crossing the lines. Another, non-mechmid, mas of achieving the same god is to provide a ramp @ossibly spitiled) at either end of a footbridge, when space permits, as this will provide the wheelchair user, and the parent with a pushchair, with a shallow enough gradient, although the necessity for including resting places on such a ramp should not be overlookd, (SEE S=tion 5.3). As pointed out in Swtion 4.4, ramped underpasses can be shorter, and provide wmther protection.
49 6. Stition Furniture
Whilst the previous Section has ddt with the fundamenti aspects of interchanges which dictate whether or not they are ac~ssible to mobility-impaired passengers, such as stairways and doors etc., S&tion 6 now focuses on items which ari less ~errnanent and which, if poorly located, might be a nuisance, or maybe present a considerable h-d, to those who are visually-impaired. The term “station furniture” is analogous to “street furniture”, and refers to many of the same elements, such as lampposts, litter bins, telephone kiosks etc.
As a gened principle, stition furniture, like street furniture, should be kept to a minimum, md should be designed to cause as Iitfle obstruction to the main flow of pedestrian movement as possible. It is very important that a clutter-frw, litter-free passage should be maintaind. Furthermore, facilities such as telephones, vending machines and sating should not cr=te a conflict between users and other pedestrims. The challenge for designers is to position such facilities so that they are unobstructive, and even visually unobtrusive, whilst at the same time locating them so that they are both within ~sy r~ch of wheelchair users md passengers of lesser snture, and seen to be available for dl to use.
The IHT guidelines [5] include detild recommendations for the siting of most types of street furniture, often quoting direcfly from the Traffic Si~ns Manual [15], (SEE Smtion 2.7 of [5fl. As well as upright obstructions such as lampposts, signs and telegraph poles, the IHT covers waste bins, bollards, sating, guard rails and bus shelters in this section, giving advice on minimum had cl-ces, minimum heights of free-s~ding objects md minimum spacing betwwn sets of bollards etc.
There is no mention in the IHT publication about specifications for ticket machines or for ticket barriers and counters, and these aspwts of station design are ddt with in the following section.
6.1 Ticket barriers. counters and machines
The point of Me of tickets and ticket barriers are crucial elements in the chain of accessibility of a transport system, particularly where only one means of purchasing a ticket is available. Penton, in his review of the accessibility of the London Underground, [23], points out that a standard, non-automatic ticket barrier on the network might even pose problems for a passenger with hand luggage who is otherwise able-bodied, (although most ticket barriers on bndon’s underground system are now automatic). He dso suggests that the very fact that ticket barriers and ticket offices cause passengers to queue makes them a potential trouble-spot for those who cannot stand for more than short periods, particularly during pd periods when a large crowd can form at manned ticket barriers, with no dtemative route available for s~son-ticket holders. Penton is dso critical of the approach to staffed ticket barriers in some parts of the Underground, and his recommendation is that there should be a gap of at last 8m betw~n the end of an escalator, or flight of stairs, and a ticket barrier. The same “minimum approach distance” is contind in the guidelines that were published by bndon Underground in 1988, [11], except that the rwommended minimum distance is extendd to 10m at escalators. The more recent LUL guidelines mentiond above, [11], add that, at mch ticket barrier, the availability of assistance for mobility-impaired travelers should be cl~ly signed, as should an dtemative, accessible route through the ticket chinking and collation ara.
One solution to the problem of queues at ticket points of sale which has been adopted on the London Underground is the siting of handrails against which waiting passengers can support themselves or lm in dl locations where queues regulmly form, but this would not be very satisfactory for pple who cannot comfortably stand for more than, say, ten minutes, particularly when the queue is slow-movin~: fixti handrails would dso not be practicable where the location of a mannd ticket b=er is not fixed, or where handrails ‘might interfere with the movement of other @estrians. In new facilities, however, the latter problem may be avoidd with thoughtful design.
50 Se-through swurity panels at ticket des points are dso criticised by Penton, who points out that they form a particular barrier to visually-and audly-impaired travelers, whose biggest problem is with communication. It is raommended that an amplification system is instild whenever such a screen is used, and induction loops are now quite a common f~ture of transport terminals and interchanges. Penton dso revds that visudly- impaired travelers often have trouble distinguishing between the outward and return portions of return tickets - this problem could be overcome by adding a nick, or other tactile cue, to one of the tickets, although latest BR machines which issue singles and returns could not asily mark return halves in this way.
Guidelines published by the German Transport Policy Department, [17], express the view that conventional ticket points of We, with a high counter and a pane of glass separating staff and public, are simply unsuitable for most mobility-impaired travelers, and make detailed recommendations for the design of accessible counters. These recommendations are reproduced in Figure 6.1, which shows recommended dimensions for counters manned by both sated and standing members of staff. Lower counter heights such as those illustrated in this figure will benefit both wheelchair users and people of short stature. It is suggestti that mch terminal should have at least one ticket des point which complies with these standards.
Automatic ticket vending machines are b~oming an increasingly common feature of transport systems, and this trend is likely to continue in the UK with the introduction of Light Rapid Transit systems in Britain’s cities. British Rail, too, is instiling ticket vending machines at many stations as an dtemative to conventional ticket offices; an example of such a machine is shown in Figure 6.2.
Although it is important for such machines to be physically accessible to dl passengers - the German guidelines [17] that have dr~dy been mentioned in this Section suggest that none of the operating elements of the machine, or the coin slot, should be positioned higher than 1050mm from the ground. This is particularly important for people who are short of stature and/or have difficulty in rmching out with their arms; such difficulties are often associated with ~ple who have rheumatoid arthritis. The main barrier to their use, by elderly passengers in particular, is their complexity of operation. Since elderly pmple make up a significant proportion of any public transport system’s ridership, it is especially important for this new twhnology to be as simple as possible to operate, and for instructions to be clwly presentd; even today, many elderly pmple are intimidated by machines, and there is a danger that they might f~l excludd if purchasing a ticket becomes, to them, too complicated. Modem-day vending machines are capable of complex ticket-production tasks, which makes it dl the more important to solve such elderly person- machine interface problems.
Verhoef [29], an ergonomist working for Netherlands Railways, compared two fundamenti strategies for the operation of automatic ticket machines, as part of an evaluation of a machine capable of producing no fewer than 800 different types of ticket and of accepting dl kinds of payment. These two basic strategies were the “one button to press” system and the “several buttons to press” system; the corresponding button lay-outs are shown in Figure 6.3. The advantage of having to press only one button is that, for those familiar with the system who know which button to press, the vending process is quicker which reduces delays to passenger throughput. The problem for the less mentily agile, however, is that the d~ision-making process prior to pressing the button is more complicated; furthermore, many elderly passengers would be completely nonplussed at being presented with information in matrix form. From his experiments, Verhoef concludes that a “several buttons to press” system is preferable, particularly for passengers who are unlikely to bwome expert users of the system, and this preference for more than one button is incr~sed as the complexity of the system increases and under conditions of stress. A number of r~sons are given for not recommending the use of a one-button system :- 1. Information md instructions cannot always be positioned close to relevant buttons, which incr~ses the chances of information not being seen.
51 52
Hgure 6.1 Specified dmensions of accwsible ticket counters
(Source: [17])
Hgure 6.2 A British Rati automatic ticket vending machine, New Street Station, Birmingham)
I 53
Figure 6.3 Alternative button lay-outi used by Verhoef for his evaluation of ticket machine operations strategia
(a) “One button to pr=” system
“Several buttons to pr~” system
(Source : [29]) 2. Bause there is no nd for the user to go through the complete list of tickets available, simply bmuse of being unaware of dl the options to them. Having observd 428 passengers using the machine described above in three Dutch cities, Verhoef noted that 30% of them bought a “day return” ticket when a chaper “evening return” ticket was available to them. A multi- button system would have the capacity to “ask” the user which of the two tickets is requird, thus avoiding this particular error. 3. The relatively complex decision-making that is required puts a load on the user’s short-term memory, between absorbing information and exwuting a choice. 4. A user must understand the system. 5. Tests by psychologists using similar situations, (eg Wright [30fl, have shown that taking four binary decisions one after the other, (using a sequential dmision-mting strategy), is quicker and less error prone, than Mng two binary decisions simultaneously, (using a matrix structure). 6. Research carried out bv Bartram in 1984. [317. demonstrate that approximately 60% of the-population does not und~rsbd timetables that are presentd in two-dimensiond form, which tends to emphasise the inappropriateness of conveying information in matrix form.
Whilst it might therefore be concludd that a “more than one button” system is preferrd, it is stil important that the user should make as few decisions as possible; obviously, the simpler the transport system in terms of fare structures etc, the more the task of purchasing a ticket is simplifid. Figure 6.4 shows a ticket vending machine in Beme, Switzerland. This machine fatures a very simple three-step procdure for obtaining a ticket : select ticket, tender fare, coll=t ticket. In this particular case, there is a fourth produre, as users are required to stamp their own ticket using the slot in the bottom left-hand comer of the machine, a practice that is far more common on the Continent thm it is in the UK. The three steps to obtining a ticket are explained in an instructions panel, and the location of the relevant buttons and slots are claly labelled; good use is made of pictograms, but what text there is on the machine appms to be in rather small print. One criticism that might be made of the Beme machines, from m ergonomics point of view, however, is that the numbered activities do not physidly follow a logid sequence, since the coin slot for activity “2” is locatd above the ticket-selection buttons (activity “1”), whilst the figure “3” indi~ting the dish to which the ticket is sent is at the other end of the machine (though right next to the ticket stamping slot). A more user-friendly design would be for activity points on the machine to be spatially sequential, but there might be t~hnicd obs~cles to achieving this.
Another good example of a decentrdised ticket vending facility is providd by the Grenoble tramway, (SEE Figure 6.5), whose tram stops offer a range of facilities. As well as providing shelter for wtiting passengers and displaying the name of the stop, the structure houses a ticket vending machine, a VDU screen for up-to-date information, a map of the network, a noticeboard nd a ticket stamping machine, (the (orange) box on the left of the picture). The large button (which is red) in this photograph is for the use of mobility imptird passengers who wish to alert the tram driver to the fact that the on-vehicle retractable ramp is rquird. Figure 6.6 gives a close-up view of the ticket machine at this stop. This photograph revds that the machine itself is not particularly “friendly” towards visually-impaired people, with instructions being given purely in text form, (with no pictograms used), and there is a “one button to press” procedure for obtaining a ticket. In the case of the Grenoble tramway, however, the latter comment need not be regardti as a criticism, since, at the time this photograph was taken, the system was a simple one, with one line and a flat fare system. A good aspect of the machine’s lay-out is the fact that the string of functions that the user must carry out begins at the top of the machine and continues in squence down to the bottom, (unlike the Beme facility fatured in Figure 6.5).
54 55
Hgure 6.4 An automatic ticket vending machine, Berne, Switzerland 56
Figure 6.5 Tram stop shelter incorporating an automatic ticket vending machine, Grenoble, France
Figure 6.6 Automatic ticket venting machine at a tram stop, Grenoble, France Figure 6.7 shows an example of an automatic ticket machine used on a British light rapid transit network, namely Manchester’s new Metrolink system. This machine is operated using a four-step procdure : select destination zone, select ticket type, pay fare and collect ticket and change. Instructions for these four steps are very claly set out, with unambiguous illustrations, (the drawing of a hand pressing the corrmt button and putting a coin in the slot etc, is preferable to the use of arrows or pictograms to convey abs~ct messages), and the main text accompanying these drawings is quite large and clwly legible. There is no logid spatial sequencing of the four activities that are required for obtaining a ticket? but the display indicating the location of each successive activity lights up at the appropriate moment in order to attract the user’s attention to the next step in the ~uence. The main obstacle for an elderly, or cognitively impaired passenger, however, is the quite complex dwision that must be made before the first button is pressd; this consists of having to d~ide which type of ticket is required. The relevant information required for this decision is contained in the two panels shown on the right of the photograph in Figure 6.7; Figure 6.8 is an enlargement of these two panels, and revds the complex nature of this information. Not only is the information presentd using very small print, but matrices are dso used, which might completely confuse an elderly passenger. The root of this problem is probably the complexity of the fare structure itself, but this style of presenting information should nevertheless be avoided.
As well as simplicity and clarity, reliability is dso an important property of automatic ticket machines; the user should never have r=son to suspect that the machine may be out of order when he/she arrives at the station, and should be confident that the correct ticket will be produced. Machines should dso be capable of accepting any method of payment that the passenger wishes to use, including paper money and credit cards, and change should dso be given. Such capabilities should help to minimise the stress that is put upon passengers both before and during a journey, and can reduce the “technology shock” that might be experienced by elderly pwple. For those for whom using an automated system is still an intimidating prospect, an dtemative means of purchasing a ticket should be available, particularly when a new machine is first introduced.
6.2 Telephones t Although no raommendations on the dimensions of telephones are included in the IHT guidelines [5], they are an important facility which should be available to dl passengers in dl types of terrnind. For some disabled travelers, a telephone might even be seen as a lifeline.
Unlike the British guidelines, those contained in the United States Fderd Register [18] include detailed spwifications for accessible telephones, (SEE Figure 6.9), which define the amount of CIW floor space required around the telephone and maximum mounting heights. The American publication dso states that the didling mechanism should be a push-button device, and that the cord attiched to the receiver should be at 1- 735m in length; there is dso a recommended maximum and minimum decibel level within which the user might adjust the telephone’s volume.
A slighfly different design is suggestd in the German Transport Policy Department guidelines, (SEE Figure 6. 10), which incorporates a sound-absorbing wopy, or hood, positioned at a level useful to a wh~lchair user. The main problem with such a canopy, however, is that it might constitute an overhanging obstruction for a visually impaired passenger, an obstacle that would not be detmted with a long me. This highlights a gened area of potential conflict betw=n providing for wheelchair users and for ambulant passengers who have a visual impairment, (although with careful design it should be possible to overcome such problems). Nevertheless, the German guidelines recommend that at least one telephone that conforms to this design should be available in every terminal, with no operable parts of the telephone located at a grater height than 1200~ from the floor.
57
59
~l~re 6.9 Recommended mounting heighti and clearanc~ for acc~ible
--..__.- ....”------
— I I= plans ~
0: ~:
I ...... 1:......
,*,” ml. 760 u + 760 150 k, (b) Few~rd Reach Requifcd
(Source : [18])
Figure 6.10 Recommended daign for an acc=ible
(source : [1 ~) bndon Underground’s guidelines [11] suggest that, if three or more public telephones are instilti, at least one should be positional 260mrn lower than standard height and be identifid with a public information symbol, (combining the familiar wheelchair access pictogram with a telephone symbol). They dso suggest that dl public telephones should be fitted with an induction loop for the benefit of those with a h~ng imp~iment, and should not be built with an overhanging hood which might present visually impaird passengers with a h-d.
Penton’s review [23] puts forward thr= common-sense suggestions concerning telephones that are worthy of inclusion here : firsdy, dl telephone kiosks should have a shelf providd for personal belongings and at last one in each location should be quipped with a fold- down sat, ~ondly, at last one kiosk should be larger than s~dard size so that it may be able to accommodate a person with a mobility aid or a parent with a child, md, thirdly, an intemd telephone or sp~er system should be available for emergency dls for help, (with any receiver or mouthpi- fixd at a maximum height of 1220mm). He dso points out that where telephone kiosks are provided for people with disabilities, they should be cI=IY. signpostti as such.
6.3 bmD columns. bollards and similar obiects
This smtion dds with any free-s~ding obj=t which, if carelessly locatd, might cause an obstruction, or even a serious hazard, to pedestrians, particularly those with impaired vision. The list of items which might muse such problems is an extensive one, but those which are most likely to be encountered in a transport terminal are bollards, lamp columns, information signs, advertising hoardings, timetable display cases, waste bins, flo-wer boxes; sats @particularly wdl-mount~ s~ts), bicycle stands and, in some modem complexes, large exotic pints. The modem trend towards letting out space on concourses to retail outiets often results in tenants displaying their wares, or positioning advertising “A- frames”, in the path of passing pedestrians; claly, it is the responsibility of those who let out space to retailers to ensure that the flow of pedestrian movement is not impdd in this way. All items of station furniture should be designed to have no overhang at, or below, hmd height, as cane users are unable to det~t such obstructions; as well as bumps on the had from higher overhanging obj~ts, quite serious injuries can be caused to shins and knees from obstructions which might only protrude slightiy. To avoid such accidents, dl information signs and waste bins etc that are positional nw to the main flow of pedestrian movement should have an outiine that follows an almost vertical line to the floor, and should not be on “stiks”, or, if wdl-mountd, have empty space ben~th them, (SEE Section 8.7 for a discussion of the positioning of overhead information signs).
Even when an item of station furniture is detectable to dl pedestrians, it should not cause an obstruction so that passengers must step down from the kerb into the path of on-coming vehicles. Clm pedestrian routes are needd, and these should be marked using textural and colour- or tondly-contrastd floor materials throughout terminals. All items of s~tion furniture should be made clmly visible, if not by bright colouring then by tonally contrasting banding on columns and posts etc.
6.4 Guard rails
Guard rails are essential in some interchanges, especially bus stations, for the purpose of protecting waiting passengers and passing pedestrians from vehicles. In some stations such rails are usti for preventing queues from obstructing passers-by, or for ensuring that queues form in an orderly fashion, rather than having people waiting for different buses mingling with one another. A guard rail in a waiting ar~ may dso act as a handrail, or as a bar against which passengers cm la; some incorporate stits or ldges for those wishing, or needing, to sit down.
60 Guard rails should conform to the raommendation for stition furniture outiind above, in as much as they should have an oufline that follows a vertical line down to the ground, and have no parts which protrude or overhang; it would dso be an advmtage for them to be brighfly colourti, to help those with a partial vision impairment. Figure 6.11 shows an example of @right yellow) guard rails that conform to these recommendations, and which appear to fulfill dl of the functions listi above, although these particulm railings would be even more acceptable if they were round and had roundd, rather than square, comers ad it would be of advantage to long me users if a third honzonti bar nw to the ground were addd. It should be notd, however, that uncoatd meti may bwome too cold or slippery md is difficult to s=; a brighdy-colourd epoxy or plastic coating avoids these hazards.
6.5 Other obstructions
Extensive advice on how designers might avoid crating potentially h-dous obstructions, for visually impaird @estrians in particular, is wntined in Section 2.8.2 of the IHT guidelines [5]; includd in this section are tipenng obstructions (such as stairs with space ben=th them and stabilizing wires on telegraph poles), ladders, shop sun blinds, bicycles, dogs on a lmd, and may similar items. A general approach to such problems might be to cordon off aras of a terminal or interchange that may be dangerous to pedestrians, using handrails or even guard rails. A more comprehensive dtemative, however, might be to provide blind and visudly-impaird travelers with a system of tactile guidance paths through a terminal that will st=r them away from potential hazards and enable them to use the facility safely. This might dso be achieved using tonally contrasting paths which may be ud to guide both visudly-impaird and sightd people on a desird route. The concept of tictile surfaces for the blind is explained in more detil in Section 8.10.
Perhaps the biggest single problem for visually impairti travelers is chmges in the physid environment; way finding without sight relies to a lage extent on memorizing routes and the location of potential hazards. The obstructions listed above are potentially dangerous bause they are unexpected, and the possibility of suddenly coming across scaffolding, or an advertising “A-frame”, for example, where there was previously no obstruction adds to the stress of traveling. The situation might be improvd if authorities responsible for terminals and interchmges were to publicise temporary works and other changes in the physid lay out of facilities using local networks and organisations, md particular care should be taken to ensure that new h~ds, such as holes in a station’s concourse etc, are clwly signed in situ, (details of authorities’ duties towards dl people with disabilities, concerning temporary works, are contined in Chapter 9 of the IHT guidelines [5fl.
H~ds caused by inadquate maintenance of pavements, platforms and other surfaces should not be underestimate, as uneven or damagd surfaces can cause problems for visually impaird people, ambulat disabld people and wheelchair users dike. Similarly, surfaces used by pedestrians should be kept free of slippery substances, such as oil md rubber from tyres - this is a particularly serious problem for indoor terminals which never benefit from rain, in this context, and the only solution is constant claing or the complete segregation of passengers from vehicles.
61 62
Figure 6.11 Anexmple of brightly-coloured @ardraik, Eldon Square Bus Station, NewMle 7. Sating and Waiting Ar~
The provision of seating for passengers is extremely important, since most forms of public transport involve waiting for services, md many ~ple find standing uncomfortable or even impossible for more than a few minutes. This section considers where and how seating for the public should be provided.
It should be noted, however, that the type of sating referred to here is gened public s=ting which might be found in waiting rooms, at bus stops (SEE dso Swtions 7.1 and 13.2) or on platforms; recommendations for sats that are not designed for use by the gened public, such as those provided in accessible telephone kiosks, baby care rooms and toilets, ap~ elsewhere in this report.
As a gened rule, seating should be clean, comfortable, =sy to get in and out of, and fr~ly available at a range of heights, although financial constraints on the providers of facilities mm that the availability of smts may be limited. bndon Underground’s own guidelines [11], however, stipulate that a minimum of five benches, or rows of seats, should be provided on platforms, on ~ch side of the track, at every station. There are other factors which need to be considered when choosing s=ting, and these sometimes lad to compromises in the main objective, the provision of comfortable waiting facilities for passengers. One of these is the need to instil s=ting which is “vndd-proo~, in other words ~ting which is not ~sily broken or defacti. Similarly, it is an advantage for sating to be made of an ~sy-to-clm material, whether this is to ease the removal of graffiti, or to reduce routine cleaning and maintenance costs, which can be considerable. For outdoor sating it is viti that rain water is not allowed to collect in any part of the sat, and that the seating is made of a material that dries relatively quicUy. In the larger cities of the UK there is a demand for “vagrant prooF sats, since bench-type seating can be taken up by sleeping vagrants at the expense of bow fide passengers; authorities that have this problem tend to instil rows of smts rather than the more tradition bench, but strategidly placed arms on benches will achieve the same result.
S-ting in terminals should dso be regardd as “station furniture”, and therefore conform to the standards set out in the previous section, (ie seats must not obstruct the main flow of passenger movement but should be clmly visible md able to be detected by a long-cane user). On narrow platforms, s~ting that is set in a r~ess in the station wtil is preferrd, providd that the seats do not protrude excessively from this recess; on the other hand, seating should not be set so d=p as to give rise to fm of attack among passengers.
7.1 seats
Wenever possible, fixed separate seats should be providd with a smt height of about 450mm, (420mm minimum), though various sat height options might be providd, and with an arm at 200rnm above sat level on one or both sides to enable passengers to push themselves up from the sat. A mixture of seat heights will help passengers with different types of disability, and dso those of different stature. Mere seats cannot be provided in a bus shelter, liaison with the Iocd authority or owners of adjacent premises may make it possible to site public seats near the shelter.
Benches and seats should be in bright, “warm” matetids with a non-slip surface which is strong, asy to cla and (in exposed positions) quick to dry. Slatted wood or plastic coatd meti meet these requirements. Regular claing and maintenmce is essential. On sloping sites, benches md smts should be horizonti, with more than one s~tion if nwessary to maintin the seat height referred to above.
The choice of which type of sat to instil depends largely on the nature of the clientele for whom sating is to be provided, the length of time for which people are likely to want, or need, to sit down, and the extent to which the provider of the facility perceives that there is a problem with vanddism, vagrants etc. There are five broad categories of seat currentiy available in what is now a very competitive market, and these may be listed as follows :-
63 1. Perch-type seats against which passengers might lH or “half sit” for a short period of time. This type of sating is sometimes incorporated into guard rails (SEE Figure 7.1). This type of seat requires minimal maintenance, takes up very little space and is attractive to passengers with arthritis, stiff joints or back problems who find it difficult to get up from a low s=t. The particular example of a perch shown in Figure 7.2, however, is not recommended; the slope of the ledge is not only too steep but is dso finished with a smooth surface, and so is of no use as a sat. 2. “Flip-up” seats, such as those shown in Figure 7.3, may be favourti because of their space-saving qualities; when in use, passengers might sit on them in such a manner that their legs do not protrude too far into the path of passing @estrians, and they “flip up” to take up very litde space when not in use. Another advantage of using seats that fold away is that they do not bwome wet when it rains. Such s=ts should, however, be carefully designd so that children do not injury themselves on them. 3. The tradition wooden bench, (SEE Figure 7.4), is still a very popular form of sating, as it is more comfortable for sitting on for extendd periods than either the perch-type or the “flip-up” sat. Wood is relatively “warm” and has a non-slip surface, it dries quic~y and does not encourage vanddism; arms help passengers and discourage vagrants. 4. The wire-mesh sat, as shown in Figure 7.5, is normally instiled in rows, and fulfills largely the same role as the tradition bench. As well as providing the transport provider with the opportunity to display the company’s corporate colour scheme, the s=ts may have an altogether more modem apece than wooden benches; they can dso have arms on ach side of ~ch seat position, (although they are rather too small in the example shown), which not only help passengers to get up from the seat but dso deter vagrants from sl~ping in them. 5. For indoor waiting rooms, where it is not perceivd that there is a serious problem with vandds, more expensive, upholstered seating can be providd. Figure 7.6 shows such sating in an on-platform waiting room at Coventry railway station.
The MT guidelines [5], however, report empirical work carried out by the University of Hs which showd that perch-type seats were the last popular form of seating with a sample of pple with different types of disability. This was bwause subjects found them insaure and uncomfortable, comments which were dso made about “flip-up” smts. By far the most popular type of sat, according to these experiments, was the tradition bench.
In spite of these results, however, perch-type s~ts should still be made available for those who have difficulty with getting in and out of smts; in fact, providers of facilities should endeavour to instil different types of sat, at different heights, to provide passengers with the widest possible range of options. Two particular types of sat should, though, be avoidd, having been described to the authors of this report as being unsuitable or even dangerous. The first of these is illustrated in Figure 7.7, and is a style of sat quite commonly-usd in railway station buffet and bar ar=s, often in conjunction with tables. Passengers with hip or knee problems might find it both difficult and painful to get in and out of such a s=t. Figure 7.8 shows a sat in a bus shelter which, though attractive, combines a slippery surface with a convex shape, making it potentially rather difficult to sby on.
Very few actual dimensions for off-vehicle stits are available in the literature, but Figure 7.9, however, shows dimensions for minibus sats, with elderly and disabld people in mind, as recommend by the Motor Industry Resmch Association (MIRA); although minibus s~ts do not fulfil exacdy the same role as s~ts on a platform, it is rmsonable to assume that the basic dimensions required for the latter will not differ gr=tiy from MIRA’s recommendations. Any sp~ifications for platform-basal sating, however, should include minimum requirements for arm rest provision, (ie height and number).
64
66 “~pup” scab, Gatmhead Metro Centre, Tyne and Wear
.
Traditional wooden benches, Coventry ratiway station, W- Midlands 67
Figure 7.5 A row of wir~m~h seati, Sheffield hterchange, South Yorkhire n
Figure 7.6 UphoMered seating in an indoor waiting room, Coventry ratiway *tion, W* ~dands
s
- .’, ::.: ‘..’...... ,-,.-=?, ,.. ... ,-,.-.,.:.>,:*.....
...... 68
Figure 7.7 Ftied seat comon to ratiway station buffets and bars which is not Ho-ended
Fi~re 7.8 Bus shelter seat whose design is not raomended 69
Hwre 7.9 ~=ommended dimensions for sea@ in minibmes that are dwigned to Mrry elderly or disabled people
- b n \
,4 Seat Depth 400 mm
B Seat Squab Height 432 mm
C Seat Back Height 530 mm
D Seat Squab Width - Single Seat - 4s0 mm (mln) Double Seat - 900 mm (rein)
(Source: MI~)
Fl~re7.10 Waiting room at Birmingham bternational Ratiway *tion, W* Mdands 7.2 Pnoritv seating
Even where no specially-designed seating is available in a waiting room, or elsewhere in a terminal or interchange, certain strategidly-positioned seats can be labelld as being priority sating for people with disabilities. Such seating might be locatti n= to an entrance or toilets etc, and should be clearly signed, with younger, more able passengers politely asked to vacate the seat(s) if sommne with a greater need rquires it.
7.3 Waiting rooms
As well as the provision of m adequate number of seats on platforms and concourses, it is important to provide enclosd waiting rooms in convenient locations. Waiting rooms should be well-ventilatd, but draught-fr~, and warm, since elderly and disabled pmple are often affectd by the cold more than younger, more active passengers. Both visual and audible information should be relayd to paple using waiting rooms, so that they do not f~l cut off from station renouncements. Easy auss doorways are dso essential.
An example of a very good waiting room is the one on the platform at Birmingham Intemationd railway station, (SEE Figure 7.10), which provides passengers with plenty of comfortable, upholstered sating in a warm and friendly environment. The waiting room dso provides a clock, a telephone, VDU screens for up-to-date information and large windows so that passengers ca see trains arriving at the platform.
Although waiting rooms might appear to be ~sy targets for vanddism and graffiti, there is no evidence of either at BR’s Birmingham Intemationd, probably due in part to the deterrent effect of large windows. The questionnaire survey into personal security, vanddism and graffiti in public transport-related buildings, (whose results are reported in fu~ in Section 11), found that waiting rooms do not appear to be a prime target for such abuse.
7.4 Catenn~ and refreshments facilities
Facilities for providing passengers with food and refreshments are an incr~singly common f~ture of major terminals and interchanges, with “fast food” outiets being a relatively recent innovation in railway stations in the UK. It is dso incr~singly commonplace for such facilities to be contractd out to private enterprises, with concourse space being let out to them; in connection with this practice, British Rail’s Station design guide [10] states that any contract drawn up should ensure that provision is made for people with disabilities, with priority seating in restaurants and cafeterias clmly signposted, (SEE previous section). The guide tiso states that tables designd for wh~lchair users should be provided, with a maximum height of 730m; the space ben~th ~ch table that is n~d for “leg room” should be at least 500H deep, 600m wide and 700m high, as m~surd from floor-level. The guidelines set out in the United States’ Ftierd Register suggest that dl furniture and fittings in public arms should have beneath their most protruding point a toe clmce space of at 1X 230m in height to enable wheelchair users to turn more asily. All chairs and tables should dso have roundd edges, and, some furniture should be moveable to enable wheelchair users access to a suitably designed table.
Self-service restaurants and cafeterias should be designed so that a customer in a wh~lchair can travel along the full length of dl counters. Guidelines drawn up by the Mobility Unit of the Royti National Institute for the Blind suggest that dl such gangways should be at 1% 1300m, which should allow enough room for both wh~lchair users and pmple with a guide dog. The ~ dso proposes that furniture, trays and crockery should be in colours which tonally contrast with their surroundings.
70 8. Si~age
8.1 Basic ~rinci~les
Design consultants in the field of signage tend to approach a signage project in a fairly methodid way, since well-establishd guidelines exist in terms of typeface and positioning of signs etc. Consultants responsible for signage are mainly design consultants and consultants in corporate identity, and it is a combination of their experience of what is rquird and commonly-acknowledged guidelines on letter spacing, character sizes etc. that mainly influences their rmmmendations. The first step in designing a signage system would be to examine the physical on-site restrictions and @hnid restrictions of the relevant environment, and then to proceed to assess the characteristics of the transport system’s current ndership or the clientele that the system wishes to attract. In other words, to begin with, subjmtive decisions are made based on the consultants’ experience and “common sense” with empirid research then carried out to address s~ific questions. For example, the consultits in corporate identity, Hennon, Ludlow & Schmidt, who are currently in charge of the development of signage on the bndon Underground, recentiy carrid out some resmch into whether LUL passengers found it more useful to be informed of platform numbers than to be given cues such as “~stbound” or “Northbound” etc. The result of this was that roughly 50% of those askd preferrd to be informal of a platform number whilst the other 50% of the sample preferrd direction information. What is important, of course, is that consistency is maintained throughout a system, whichever option is chosen.
Considerable emphasis is atbched to the role of consultation with various interest groups during the design of signage, since the result of this process is often a compromise to satisfy various points of view. An example of this type of consultation process, again cited by Henrion, Ludlow & Schmidt, is their dilemma over the choice of instiling green-on- black “EXIT” signs on the Underground, or yellow-on-black “Way out” signs. The argument for the former was that the word “EXIT” is concise, and that the green lettering is accepted as conveying the mming of “safe passage” in an emergency. Against this, “Way out” was considered to be a more friendly, less aggressive instruction, (similar resmch carrid out by the same firm has suggested that people find this mixture of upper and lower case lettering ~sier to r=d), and yellow has been establish as being the most penetrative of colours in misty or darkened conditions. Eventually, the argument that yellow lettering would be more penetrative in a smoky atmosphere tippd the balance, md yellow-on-black “Way out” signs are now being instiled in the Underground.
All of the publishd guidelines consulted are prescriptive about the type of information that should be displayti by a signage system; these recommendations are largely self-evident, and differ little betw=n sources. Guidelines produced by French, Canadian and Unitd States sources ([32], [33] md [34], respatively) dl define three broad roles of signage: 1. to inform passengers of services and facilities available, 2. to direct passengers to ach facility, and 3. to identify the facility or service-point. Fruin’s United States Transportation Research Board publication, [34], adds thr~ further functions of signage: regulatory, emergency/security and advertising. The same author dso suggests that signage has a role to play in dirating potential users to the system, by quoting the example of Washington Metropolitan Ar~ Transit Authority’s initiative of instiling guide signs in the city to direct pedestrians to the nmest Metro station. ~ch sign, which points in the direction of the nwest station, displays the name of this station, the lines which serve it and the number of blocks it is from the sign. Advance signs for York’s Park-&-Nde scheme are another good example of this type of signing.
71 All terminals should have clocks which display the time in large, digiti characters; if timetabling details are given using a 24-hour format, then this format should dso be usti for clocks. Highly-accurate el~tronic clocks, kept correct by radio signal, have been instild by London Transport Bus Passenger Infrastructure in a number of LT’s bus stations (twelve by November 1993); their clear digiti time displays, which are designd to be ~sily read from a distice, are another f~ture of these clocks, (SEE Figure 8. 1).
It is dso extremely important for passengers to be provided with a street map of the arm in the vicinity of the terminal, in order to facilitate passengers’ journey to their ultimate destination.
Giannopoulos [35] is more interestd in the actual detis that should ap~ at terminals, at stops nd on the vehicles themselves. His recommendations are summaristi in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Reco~ended information to be d~played in teminal, at stops and on vehicl~
hcation of signage Information to be conveyed
In terminal or interchange - Route map of the whole system - H maps locating stops - Fare information - Details of other modes of public transport in the ar~
At stops - Name of stop - Route numbers send by stop - Stops and terminal points of routes - Times of departure of vehicles - Route map of whole system
On vehicles - Route number - Destination name - Brief description of route and/or type of se~ice
(Source: Gianmpoulos [35]).
Although dl sets of guidelines discuss attributes that a signage system should have, those published by the French unit COLITRAH, [32], are the most comprehensive, listing the following recommendations:- 1. Visual Displays for passengers, in transit should be designed to give an ins~taneous “snap-shot” of information, and therefore be simple, cl= and unambiguous. 2. A signage system is effectively a mws of conveying “coded” messages in the form of symbols or abbreviations, and so the “code” should consist of a finite set of elements. The public must interpret what they see on a sign, although the information displayed should, as far as possible, be self- explanatory, and memorise the meaning of dl colours and symbols; the number of elements in this set should therefore be limited as far as is practicable. 3. Since the mming of abbreviations and other codd information must be known by the system users, a lining process is implied. Therefore, when a new sign or symbol is introduced into the system, it must initially be accompanied by a verbal explanation; only when the public is totily familiar with the sign or symbol and its mming should the sign be usd on its own. This is particularly important for people who have l~ing difficulties.
72 73 An electronic digital clock recently ti~ed at Walth=ow Central BW Stition
(Source: btion Trampoti Bus Passenger Infiastwture)
Hwre 8.2 me relatiomhip between rmding tiance and letter height
CAPITAL HEIGHT (cm)
t 30
20
10
R~~ol~G , OISTAIVCE 5 10 (M)
(Source: [35]) 4. All signs should be consistent in as much as their shape, colouring and the form of the information they contain should not vary. All of these characteristics form a recognizable entity or “whole” and, as such, are inseparable from one mother.
If any one characteristic should be altered or omitted, then the whole sign could lose its effmtiveness. For this rason, signs must be durable, and thus permanent, so that there is no risk of colours or any other elements fading over time. 5. ~erever possible, the information displayed on signs should be understood by those with poor literacy skills or with no knowldge of the native language. If this m be achieved then it is more likely that the signage system will be of use to passengers with some menti or comprehension disorders. 6. Information should be presentti to users in the form of a stipulated hierarchy which should be consistent throughout the system. 7. It is important for signage to form a “chafne signalttique” or “signage chain”, so that the user may be guided throughout the whole transport system by a chain of information. The concept of a chafne signalttique dso implies compatibility of signage in spaces associatd with different, but connecting, modes of transport, (such as a British Rail - hndon Underground interchange). It is permissible, and perhaps advantagmus, to distinguish between signs and spaces belonging to different modes of transport by means of logos and subtie colour coding, but the shape, content and maing of individud signs should not vary. 8. Men designing a signage system it should be rememberd that, although signs md other visual displays of information must form an integral part of the environment, they should not be blendd in with their surroundings to the extent of losing their obtrusiveness and thus their usefulness. 9. The package of signage offerd to the public should be controlled and co- ordinate by a single person or body, in order to ensure that dl its elements conform to the structure of the signage system. Furthermore, signed information in terminals and interchanges and stops, should conform with timetables, advertising and other printed information distribute elsewhere. 10. mere it is naessary to provide information for a minority group (such as wheelchair users), this should be done without implying a restriction of use, or causing confusion, to other users. By the same token, wheelchair users, for example, should not be given the impression, from the sign, that they are being segregated from the mtinstr~m of users. 11. In some cases the route most suitable for wheelchair users and passengers with wheeled vehicles may be too lengthy for ambulant disabled people. In such cases separate symbols may be necessary to indicate the different routes. 12. The system of signage should be adaptible, so that changes to the transport system, or environment chmges, may be r~dily incorporatti. -
The following sub-sections outline the rmommendations of the aforementioned texts concerning specific aspects of signage.
8.2 Size of lettering
The minimum size of lettering that is rquired for displays of information varies according to the distance from which the sign is to be read and the visual capacity of the person rmding the sign.
74 Giannopoulos [35], for example, when considering how large letters on bus stop signs should be, defines the following groups of people who might require information on bus services serving it: 1. Persons on the opposite side of the str~t, (approx. 15m away). 2. Persons inside an approaching bus, (approx. 8m-10m away). 3. Persons s~ding n= the sign at a distance of, say, 2m-3m.
To these assumptions he adds figures on the relationship betw~n letter height and reading distance (ie the distance over which capiti letters of given height may be r~d), for different visual abilities; this relationship is illustrate in Figure 8.2. Using the line representing pple with “slighfly impaird vision” in this diagram, (approximately 1:160 vision), Giannopoulos suggests the following minimum letter heights for the upper panel of a bus stop:- Bus stop name: 5om Route number: 9om Main destination: 36m S=ondary destination: 27m
He rejwted the ida of using the line referring to “imptired vision” (1.5 : 100) in Figure 8.2 on the grounds that this would make the corresponding rwommendations for minimum letter heights unrdisticdly large, (although there is no r~son why some information cannot be presentd in extra large characters). A similar methodology is usd for lettering on vehicles themselves, and minimum height recommendations are as follows,
Front sign - Route number : 250mm to 300mm Main destination : 100mm to 120mm Other information : 80mm to 100mm By entrance - Route number : 150mm Main destination : 60mm Other information : 40mm
Suen and Geehan [33], however, suggest different figures for rading distances to those usd by Giannopoulos. They claim that distance studies have demonstratti that a person with norrnd 20/20 vision can r=d 25mm high characters at a distance of 15m, (Figure 8.3 suggests that even pmple with “impaird vision” can manage to do this), and that a minimum letter height of 25mm for every 7.5m of viewing dis~ce should be adopted to cater for elderly and visually impaird people. With mobility impaird passengers in mind, Suen and G~han go on to suggest that dl lettering on signs should be at 1X 22m in height, so that they do not nd to cover extra ground to see what a sign says.
Bentien [36], like Giannopoulos, relates minimum letter heights to both viewing distance and the specific purpose for which signage is requird. For an individud whose vision is no better than 20/400, @en&en considers that this level of vision takes into account at last 70% of the USA’s visually impaird population), the recommended minimum letter heights are as described in Table 8.2. The author claims that these recommendations, and dl others quotd from the same source in this Section, are basal on both laboratory experiments in non-transit environments and anecdoti evidence from field observers.
Fruin [34] suggests that, “Based on human factors studies, the minimum letter height recommended for the majority of viewers under good lighting conditions... ” is 3mm per viewing metre, and 6mm per viewing metre for, “... the gened population under a wider mge of lighting conditions”.
75 Fi~re 8.3 Comparkon of recommendation for the relatiomhip between letter hei@-t and viewing tince
130
120
110
100
% 90 j 80 m .- V 70
60 t 50 E .-? 40 x
2 30
20
10 x 0 I 10 50 1DO 150 200
Minimum letter height (mm)
❑ Gionnopoulos A + Gianapoulos B o Suen & Geehan A A Suen & Gee~an B
X Bentien
~ Wsulabilities msociated with each line). Giannopoulos A..... 1.5:100 impaired vision, [35]. Gimnopoulos B..... 1:160 slightiy impaird vision, [35]. Suen & Geehm A.... “to ~ter for elderly and visually impaird people”, [33]. Suen & G=han B.... “a person with normal 20/20 vision”, [33]. Bentien ...... accounts for “visual requirements of at l=st 70% of the visually handimppd population”, [36].
76 Table 8.2 Miurn character sizw for signage in a range of situations
Role of signage Minimum letter Minimum viewing size distance
At station entrance 203mm 6.lm
Station name and line name along platform 152mm 4.57m
Train name (viewed from platform) 102mm 3.05m
Line transfer information in station 76mm 2.29m
Route information on display maps 51mm 1.52m
(Source : Bentzen [36])
The s~ond of these two figures may be tien to be Fruin’s rwommendation for pple with a visual impairment of some kind. Ins~tion of Figure 8.2 revds that this estimate of 6mm per viewing metre exacdy corresponds to Giannopoulos’s 1:160 (stightiy impairti vision) line, whilst the 3mm per viewing metre line would exactiy coincide with the 1:320 line in Giannopoulos’s diagram. Omitting Fruin’s raommendations, therefore, Figure 8.3 compares the minimum letter height suggestions of Ginnopoulos [35], Suen & Geehan [33] and &ntzen [36]. This diagram confirms that dl of the rwommendd relationships between letter height and viewing dis~ce mentiond above are Iina; both the x- and y- axis here have been extendd for illustrative purposes, to more clmly show the differen~ in gradient of the lines. Wntzen advomtes the largest letter size per unit of viewing distance.
Rmommendations of the height of characters on tactile signs appm in Section 8.10.2.
8.3 Use of colour and contrast
Giannopoulos [35] claims that colour itself has no role to play in improving the legibility of signs, but that tend contrast is a key factor. He distinguishes betw~n “positive” lettering, which is dark lettering on a white or pde background, and “negative” lettering, which is pde on dark. Interestingly, Gimnopoulos claims that positive lettering is more legible when the characters are of “normal size” (less than 12 pica), whilst negative lettering is preferable when the characters are larger and when a single word is usd on a sign. The advantage of using negative lettering is enhanced when signs that are lit from inside are used, though this may be affwtd by gened lighting.
Fruin [34] further emphasizes the impo~ce of good tend contrast in colour schemes. He states that letter rwognition experiments have shown that the high contrast combination of black letters on a yellow background is legible at thr= times the distance of a low tend contrast wmbination of green letters on a red background. Suen & G~han [33] single out the latter eolour combination as one to be particularly avoided, as red and gr~n are colours that are confused by people with colour blindness, @oth appting to be grey). Fruin [34] points out that an estimated 0.3% of the population is colour blind. He dso states that approximately 8% of the population suffers from the more general problem “colour confusion”, which has implications for the scope for using colour coding in terminals and interchanges. Fruin estimates that the maximum number of different colours that cm rdistidly be differentiated by the public is ten, and goes on to list the most commercially-used colours in colour coding schemes as being rd, yellow, blue, green, orange and brown, (excluding black md white).
77 8.4 Dir&tiond arrows
The precise interpretation of dirwtiond arrows is a common source of confusion, and this point is highlighted both in COLITRAH’s guidelines [32] and by Fruin [34]; Table 8.3 is a reproduction of Fruin’s table in which he summarises eight possible orientations of a simple direction arrow and offers an explanation as to the rowing of each. The COLITRAH publication points out that even a seemingly straightforward symbol, such as a vertical arrow pointing upwards, (Arrow Orientation No. 3 in Table 8.3), can be ambiguous, mming either “upstairs/on the floor above”, simply “up”, or “straight on”. Numerous examples may be found of this symbol being usd to mean any one of these. Fruin focuses more on the even grater ambiguity caused by oblique arrows, ie those slanted at 450. An arrow pointing from top-right to bottom-left of a symbol (such as Arrow Orientation No. 6 in Table 8.3), for example, might have at last four valid interpre~tions:- 1. kft. 2. Take this door, entrance or corridor on the left. 3. Turn left and down, (ie down a ramp, flight of stirs or escalator). 4. Go down, then left.
This particular symbol is dso usd on road traffic “k~p left” signs.
There is no obvious way of eliminating this ambiguity concerning direction arrows. In many cases, the arrow’s meaning will be self-evident when viewed in the context of the site at which it is usti, although this still may not hold true for a passenger who is totily unfamiliar with the system, or for one who has a visual impairment. For “straight ahwd” indications an upward pointed arrow would seem to be more logical for “way out” directions in a subway, with a downward pointd arrow when the route will (even if not immediately) be down to a subway or a low-level platform. An innovative id= for dispensing with the confusing oblique direction arrow is provided by ONOW, the national standards institution of Austria; Figure 8.4 shows two symbols that are commonly used on the Vienna Underground system, one mming simply “right”, the other maing “subway down to the right”.
Whitaker & Sommer, in their resmch paper published in Ergowmics, [37], highlight a s~ific problem that might occur with the use of symbols; that of some symbols which have an unintentional dirmtiond quality being mistien for dirationd guides. For example, the silhouette of an aeroplane symbol, commonly used to denote the presence of an aitileld or airport, may sometimes be aligned so that the aeroplane “points” in a certain direction; if so, this might ~sily be miscons~ed as pointing the public in the direction of the tifileld. There are numerous examples of this phenomenon, involving either corporate logos or information pictograms. Figure 8.5, for instance, shows the pictogram used at Birmingham Intemationd railway station to direct passengers to the airport. In this case, it ap~s that the aeroplane symbol is being used deliberately to perform a dud role - as pictogram and direction arrow - since the symbol “points” in the correct direction in both Figure 8.5a and Figure 8.5b. The fact that it is not immediately cla that the aeroplane silhouette is mmt to have this function might in itself be a sour~ of confusion; furthermore, whilst the sign on the platform Figure 8.5a) has the aeroplane pointing in the same direction as the “Way out” arrow, the next sign in the squence (shown in Figure 8.5b) has the two symbols pointing in the opposite direction. When such a symbol is combined in a sign with a directional arrow, and the two appw to point in different directions, then this might cause confusion to passers-by.
78 79 Table 8.3 Possible interpretations of dir~tiond arrows on signs
Arrow Orientation Connotation Use Constraint
1 To the right @ 2 Hdf right or ~ to mean to tie right and @ hdf right Up then up 3 Straight ah-d @ straight Upahmd
4 Hdf lefi or ~ to ma to the left and @ hdf left up then up 5 To the left @ 6 Hdf left down ~ to ma to the left and @ then down
7 @ Down 8 Hdf right down ~ to mm to the right and @ then down
~gure 8.4 Dirwtional arrows used on the Vienna underground
,’
L J
(Source : ONOW (Amtria)) 80 ~gure 8.5 fiample of a pictogram having an inherent dirwtional quatity, which may wuw confwion, Birmingham hternational railway Wation a. On platform
b. At exit to ratiway ~tion 81
Rgure 8.6 fiampl~ of syrnbok, used by ~itaker and Sommer, with a strong directional quatity, which may cause confusion
(/;) (1/)
(Source: [37]) fiWre 8.7 ~ampla of pictograms
(a) Used on Vienna’s underground system
(Source: ONOW (Autria))
Recommended by COLI~
——
1- J~ ‘! (Source : [32]) Whitier & Sommer’s resmch investigates the extent to which a conflict of information might be causal in such a situation, hypothesizing that, in a motoring situation, apparent discordance between a direction arrow and an accompanying arrow-like logo, would at last incr~se the time that is requird for a motorist to process the sign’s information. The four symbols having a direction quality usd in their experiments are illustrated in Figure 8.6. It should be notd that example “(c)”, the logo usti by Amtrak, the organisation that controls the passenger rail network of the West and Midwest of the United States, has been designd with a left-to-right orientation in order to give an impression of forward movement, so that reversing this symbol is not an option. The experiment Consistd of presenting subj=ts with dl possible combinations of the symbols and direction arrows (eg aeroplane silhouettes pointing up, down, left and right, with arrows pointing left, right and up, to give 12 possible combinations). Subjects’ r~ctions to the experiment signs were mwsurd using semantic differential sales, designed to test both the signs’ clarity and the strength of the information they conveyed; subj~ts’ response times to the signs were dso rwordd. Not surprisingly, the experiments demonstrate that signs on which the symbol and dir~tiond arrow were concordant were judgd by subjwts to be clmer and stronger than discordant signs. Responses to signs “(a)” and “(c)” in Figure 8.6 were timed as being longer when the two symbols were discordant, whilst there was no tangible effmt with the other two signs used. Whitaker and Sommer conclude that agrwment betw~n symbol and arrow dirwtion is an important element in decreasing perceptual conflict within a sign, and that, unless such agr=ment can be achievd, symbols with a strong direction quality should be avoided because of their adverse effect on response times. I 8.5 PictoRrams The use of symbols, or “pictograms”, on signs is increasing, and the use of pictures instad of words has obvious advantages of clarity and brevity. Two respondents to a questionnaire survey of transport providers, [38], Birmingham Intemationd Airport and the Vienna underground, both stated that they are beginning to incr~se their use of pictograms in order to help passengers who do not speak English/German as a first language, which illustrates another major advantage of symbols on signs. There are no univer~ly acceptd rules or guidelines for the design of pictograms, although seveti have bwome internationally r~ognised, (such as signs mming “telephone”, “ladies toilets”, “men’s toilets”, “information” etc). Examples of these, used in the Vienna underground, are shown in Figure 8.7. The third of the pictograms illustrated in Figure 8.7, denoting the presence of an escalator, dso serves to highlight the problem of incorporating direction information into such signs, since there is no indi~tion here of whether the escalator goes up or down. Suggestions for including these details are contined in the guidelines issud by COLITRAH, [32], for both esdators and fixed stairways, Figure 8.7). With such clm dir~tiond indications incorporated into the sign, there is no nd to add direction arrows that might lad to confusion, (see previous discussion).
Genedly, there is littie s~dardisation in the design of pictograms, although this may not necessarily be a problem. There are may symbols that might be used to represent the availability of a public telephone, for example - a representation of the did, the handset or the whole telephone may dl be equdlyeffective -without -causing confusion or ambiguity. It is notiwble, though, that a grmt dd of standardisation has been achieved in the labelling of controls in private cars; dl makes md nationalities of cars use similar pictograms to represent quite complex constructs such as “rear window hater”, “choke”, “intermittent windscreen wipe”, “the handbrake is on”, etc. This demonstrates that it is f~sible for pictogram design to become more standardisd in other ar=s.
The literature search did not produce any data on the comparative merits of symbols versus words in terms of paples’ ability to recognise and comprehend them. However, raent resach in the USA on the use of words and symbols for highway signs, has shown that symbols can be recognisd at two to three times the distance of equivalent sizd letters. There is no reason to suppose that this principle would not apply to signage at interchanges and stations.
82 8.6 Tmface
The history of modem signage typefaces is well documented in architecture and design manuals and text books, and it is cla that those typefaces currenfly used were both conmived and perfected many yms ago. “Helvetica”, for instance, which is undoubtedly the dominant typeface used for signage connected with transport, is merely an adaptation of “Standard”, a printers’ typeface that was developed in 1898 by Berthold. The adaptations of the ongind form of lettering were made so that the typeface would be suitable for signs that must be r~d from a distance or at speed. Giannopoulos [35] suggests that “Helvetica” is especially appropriate for such a role, due to its sharp, straight contours, and argues that, if it is designed to be more legible at grater distices than rival typefaces, it must dso be more legible for pple with limited vision.
The signage manual of Crosby, Fletcher and Forbes [39] lists seven typefaces that are commonly used for signs; these are: “Grotesque”, “Futura”, “Gill Saris”, “Univers”, “Folio”, “Helvetica”, and “Standard”. Figure 8.8 gives m illustration of =ch of these. Another adaptation from “Standard”, before the development of “Helvetica”, was “Airport”, a typeface especially designed for signage in international airports. The changes that were made from “Standard” are shown in Figure 8.9. The main feature of these changes is that dl oblique angles associated with the “stroke” of letters were eliminated and replaced with horizonti or vertical lines in order to improve legibility. Some individud letters, (such as “r”), were dso modifid, and a spmific weight for the typeface, @etw=n the “bold” and “medium” versions of “Standard”), was chosen.
All signage on British Rail premises adheres to the “Rail Alphabet” typeface, an alphabet designed for BR in the mid- 1960’s by Kinneir Associates, and the result of a grmt dd of re~ch that was carried out at this time to enhance clarity and legibility. A similar typeface is dso used on motorway and trunk road signs in the UK. bndon Underground, under a variety of management regimes, has dso used its own unique typeface; this is known as “Johnston”, since it was designed in 1916 by Mward Johnston for bndon Underground, again with boldness and legibility in mind. As r~nfly as 1979, typographic design consul~ts were hired to modify this alphabet, and this led to the development of “New Johnston”, which is the typeface in evidence on bndon’s Underground system today.
This brief history of the more commonly-usd typefaces serves to illustrate the fact that this particular aspect of signage has its roots in reswch and design work carried out many years ago, and there ap~s to be very litfle scope for further resmch to improve typefaces.
8.7 -tion of signs
The precise location of signs is claly very important, and recommendations are made under four broad hwdings, as follows:
(a) Height of signs The height at which signs should be placd appws to be based on two main, conflicting, factors: the average eye-level of those for whom the sign is intended, and the minimum cl~ance that is required to prevent people from hitting their head on the sign. It is clearly not possible to satisfy both of these criteria.
83 84 figure 8.8 Seven typefac- commonly used for signage Grotesque Futura Gill Saris Univers
Helvetica Standard (Source: [39])
Hgure 8.9 me adaptation of the “A@ort” typeface from “Standard”
(Source: [39]) Recommendations as to the height of signs varies considerably. Fruin [34], for example, suggests that the minimum cl-cc for overh~d si~ns is 2290mm, whilst 90% of the population has a stiding eye-level of between 1420mm and 1750mm. Signs locatd according to the latter recommendation are obviously only practicable when attached to a wdl or when in a position where pedestrians do not pass; there is still the problem, however, of signs at this height being obscured by other passers-by. Fruin dso stites that the eye-level of 90 % of the population when sated varies between 710mm md 860mm. This measurement has implications for the location of on-bored signs and for exterior station identification signing that is to be viewd by people sitting in vehicles, as well as being important for the consideration of wheelchair users. Bentzen [36] merely suggests that signs should be above h~d level, so that they are not obscured by other pedestrians, and, although she gives no firm indi~tion as to the oDtimum height of signs, she goes on to state that 100mm letters placed at a height of 2440mm (eight feet) should be legible from 3050mm (ten feet) to a person with 20/400 vision under good viewing conditions. The recommendations of Suen & Geehan [33] are based solely on eye-level for both standing and satd passengers, and are 1700mm and 1300mm, resp=tively. It is notic~ble that this estimate of the average eye-level for seated persons is considerably different to that of Fruin. To take a “rd world” example, the actual location of overhad signs on the Vienna underground is betw~n 2350mm and 2800mm. Height rwommendations for tactile signs are of course different, and appw in Section 8.10.2.
@) Displacement Displacement, in the present context, is defined by Suen & G~han [33] as the distance between the centre of a sign and an observer’s centi line of vision; assuming that an observer’s line of vision is at 90° to a sign, it is rmommended that this sign should not be displaced by more than 15°. Fruin’s publication [34] contains similar recommendations, md he illustrates the concept of displacement with a diagram which is reproducd as Figure 8.10. He points out that, although people have a cone of vision of about 60°, there is a smaller cone for optimum word recognition of about 20° to 40°; signs should therefore be lmted within this smaller cone, using the main path of pdestriw movement to determine the central line of vision. As Figure 8.10 shows, these cone of vision guidelines apply both vertidly and horizontily.
(c) Viewing mgle Figure 8.10 shows the observer’s centrti line of vision making a 90° angle with the plane of the sign; Suen & Geehan [33] define this as the “viewing angle”, stating that the legibility of a sign deteriorates significantly if this angle bwomes less than 45°.
(d) Strategic placement The issue of strategic placement of signs includes the number of signs which should be placd along platforms, particularly in situations where passengers on vehicles are rquired to recognise signs whilst the vehicle is in motion, and the distance between mch confirmatory sign. This is most likely to involve the signs indimting the name of a station. Fruin [34] claims that, according to guidelines in an unnamd transit agency’s graphics manual, confirmatory signing in such a situation should be sited at 23m (75 feet) intervals.
85 Rwre 8.10 me angle of ~placement of sigm
I I
Word it ion
(Source : [34]) In the same context, Bentien [36] rwommends that these signs should be placed at 7620mm intervals (eve~ 25 feet), 3m to 6m from the platform dge and at a height of 2.44m above the platform. She dso stresses the importance of consistency in sign placement, so that signs carrying the same type of information (such as station name, platform number etc) may be found in the same position in ach station or at mch stop. hndon Underground’s policy has been to rep~t station names on platforms/or on the track wdl side of simple tube platforms so that dl passengers on the train m s= at l=st one name sign to ascertain the station name.
8.8 TWe of disDlay
Variable message signs (VMS) are likely to bwome standard for highway application: they have, of course, b~n usd for many years in transport terminals to provide arrival and departure information. Their use for rd-time information on underground systems and, more recentiy, at bus stops is incr~sing.
A literature swch failed to find any resach on the relative merits of the different ways of presenting VMS in transport infrastructure. There is, however, some resach on this subject for road signs by Upchurch et al [40] in the USA. This study lookd at the use of light emitting diode @ED), -fibre optic and flip-disk signs; in comparison with conventional (static) letterd signs. It was found that fibre optic performd better in terms of legibility distance than LED, but that both were of an acceptable standard, and both were better than flip-disc signs. One feature of the fibre optic signs was that there was less diminution in legibility for older people than there was with LED or conventional signs. While the circumstances of this research are different from those which apply to the present study, the gened conclusions may well be relevant.
It is obviously more difficult to provide a consistent level of legibility across a wide range of extemd illumination (eg bright sunshine/darkness) but rapid improvements are taking place in twhnology.
8.9 Results of survey on transport Droviders and si~nage
Barham md Oxley [34] carrid out a questionnaire survey in 1991 to find out who is responsible for the design md provision of signage in transport terminals and interchanges, and to assess what types of signage currentiy exist in the UK and Europe.
To summarise the structure of the ongind sample, questionnaires were distributed as follows: 181 to PTE’s, Transport Co-ordinating Officers and bus companies in the UK, 69 to similar organisations elsewhere in Europe, and 32 to airports in the UK, to make a toti original sample of 282. With 60 additiond questionnaires dispatched, a toti of 342 orgmisations received a questionnaire, and this may be regarded as the overall sample size.
The 85 questionnaires that were returned completed, (of which ten were from overseas), represent 24.9 % of the overall sample population.
Table 8.4 gives a summary of the types of sign that are currently usd in trmsport terminals. An important feature here is the extent to which signs are lit, as lighting is particularly impotit for people with low vision, and these figures show that 70 respondents (82.4 %) are responsible for at last some signs that are not lit in any way. Generally, it appms that the higher the cost of the type of sign, the less commonly it is usd, with flat signs lit by an extemd light being more in evidence than LED and LCD displays, and VDU scr~ns being even more rare. An exception to this trend is the use of intemdly-lit translucent signs, which are used by 44 (51.8%) of the respondents; the survey suggests that these are the most common type of illuminated sign in transport terminals. Although it is not possible to generalise as to the strength of the light source
87 that is required to make a sign visible to dl passengers, it is a good rule-of-thumb that, if a person with “normal vision” cannot read a newspaper in the vicinity of an extemdly-lit sign, then a person with impaired vision will not be able to r~d the sign. Another relevant f~ture of signage is whether the signs themselves have a matt or gloss finish; this is bmuse a glossy surface on signs, particularly in conditions of bright light, can cause glare, and disadvantage those with low or impaird vision according to WB sources; for these pmple, therefore, signs with a matt finish are preferable. The sample was roughly evenly divided between respondents whose signs have a matt finish and those whose signs have a gloss finish; there are dso 10 (11.8%) organisations that have both glossy and matt signs. Similarly, discussions with both the ~B md signage design practitioners have revdd that words in lower-case lettering are far more readily distinguishable than words in upper case lettering, (ie capitis). They are more legible from a distance, in fity. conditions or in conditions of poor light, which is advantageous for both the visually-impaired and people with unimpaired vision. This is bwause, when lower case lettering is usd, the shape of a word a be recognised before individud letters can be distinguished. Only 14 responding organisations (16.5 %) use upper ue lettering only; of the majority, (54, or 63.5 %), who claimd that they usd both types of letters, many elaborated by saying that ~piti letters were only usti at the beginning of proper names and for the first word on a sign.
Table 8.4 Typ~ of signs available in ~tion(s) / interchange(s)
Yes I No No answer Toti Udit signs? 70 85 Translucent signs lit intemdly? 44 3: 85 Flat signs lit extemdly? 32 46 85 LED (letters formed with lights)? 16 61 85 Liquid Crysti Display? 12 68 85 VDU screens? 4 79 85 (Source1: [38]) A wide range of colour combinations is used for lettering, reflecting in part the number of organisations that employ their corporate colours for their signage. Three combinations emerge as being the most common: black on yellow, black on white md white on blue. Mat is particularly notic~ble from the survey is the predominance of black lettering on a yellow or white background over white lettering on a black background. In fact, when the background of a sign is darker than the lettering, blue appas to be chosen as a contrast to white rather than black; this is possibly because operators md local authorities might fear that the use of too much black may give signs, and the terminal as a whole a more sombre apece. Blue is dso very often chosen as a corporate colour. ~ether black or blue is used as a background, the preference for dark lettering on a contrastingly paler background as oppos~ to a light-on-dark contrast, was shown by a majority of 51 to 23. Mat is particularly interesting about these findings is that they are opposite to what is preferable for pple with low or impaird vision; white or pde letters on a dark background have been shown by research to be more legible than the opposite type of image. This implies that the light-on-dark contrast improves legibility for ~ passengers, ptiicularly in conditions of poor visibility. Res~ch has dso established that yellow is the “most penetrative” of dl colours, and is rwommendti to be used in dark, misty or smoky environments, or for pmple with impaired vision. It is perhaps surprising, therefore, that only two organisations use yellow lettering for their signs, and one of these was a yellow- on-red colour scheme that was almost certainly chosen for the purpose of corporate identity.
88 It was hypothesisti that there are three properties which might be common to dl signs in any public ~sport facility: (i) colour scheme, (ii) typeface, ad (iii) some other characteristic or characteristics which would impose a corporate identity on the signage. The survey revdd that a uniform colour scheme for lettering and background is the most common feature among the Sampld organisations, citti by 59 (81.2%) respondents, whilst 68.2% use the same type-face for dl signs and 54.1% use some means of imposing their corporate identity of signs.
Table 8.5 suggests that, in spite of the considerable number of typefaces (fifteen, in dl) that were mentionti by respondents, “Helvetica” is by far the most common, being used by 26 respondents. The only other typefaces to be mentiond by name more than twice are “New Johnston”, (the typeface used by bndon Transport), and “Univers”.
Table 8.5 Nme of typeface used for signage
I I Frquency Helvetica 26 New Johnston 3 !’BAArwommended” 3 Univers Bembo ; Futura 2 Others 9 I Toti I *4g (* Some respotients cited more than one ~peface) (Source : [38])
Respondents stating that their signs carry their organisation’s corporate identity were then askd about how this is achievd. In most cases, more than one means was mentiond, and a summary of these responses is presented in Table 8.6. Clearly, the use of colour is a very popular method of imposing corporate identity. The use of company or Council logos on signs and of a distinctive typeface dso emerge as common identifiers. If employed sensibly, there is no reason why legibility or clarity should be compromise by any of these t~hniques.
Table 8.6 Method of supertiposing corporate identity
I Frquency I Colounng 31 hgo 18 Typeface Others : Toti I *67 I (“ Open, more than one method ww cited) (Source : [38])
89 The questionnaire’s other questions about current signage provisions concerned the use of pictograms and colour-coding to enhance the clarity of signs’ information. The use of pictograms isapparentiy more common than the latter technique: 39(45.9%) of the sample donotuse pictograrnsatdl, whilst 58(68 .8%) respondents stated that they donot use any form of colour-coding.
Only 18 (21.2%) of the 85 respondents said that consultation took place with represenbtives of organisations for ~ple with disabilities during the design-stage of their signage project. Of the seven that elaboratd on this point, two statd that it consultd with LRT’s Unit for Disabled Passengers, three liaisd with ld organisations for the visually impaird and for people with other types of disability, one organisation rweived an input from the 1~ council’s Access Officer and another consultd Universities. and other res~ch institutes working in the field of accessibility improvements for the disabld.
8.10 Provisions for mDle with sensorv impairments
In geneti, official statistics on blind and partially sighted pwple are not comprehensive. In England, in 1986, a toti of 120,548 pple were reported as registerti blind, and 71, lW as partially sightd, [41]. The quivdent figures for Wales and Northern Ireland are published separately. In Wales, in 1988, a toti of 8,564 people were on the register as btind, and 5,764 were registerd partially sightd. Northern Ireland does not have a register as such, but defines the classification as ‘blind persons known to the board’. In Northern Ireland, in 1987, a toti of 3,278 pwple were classed as blind and 1,092 as partially sightd. The statistics concerning registered blind and partially sightd people in Scotiand are not publish~ bmause they are considerd too unreliable. Ind@, the Department of Hdth and Social Security question the reliability of their own published statistics for two rasons : firstiy, there are uncertainties about the regularity with which ld authorities update the registers; smondly, registration of blindness is voluntary. Thus, the toti number of paple registered as visually handicappti may well understate the true incidence of visual impairment in the population at large.
It is this factor of voluntary registration which has led the Royal National Institute of the Blind to estimate the number of registerable blind pwple to be in the region of one million. The estimate is based on current reswch being conductd by McKennell, Walker and Bruce, from dati obtained by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
People with impaird vision therefore represent a significant proportion of the population and, since many of these will be unable to drive, they are an important group of public transport users. A rmendy developd mdium for communications with visually impairti people is the tactile surface.
8.10.1 Tactile surfaces
A tactile surface is a spwid textural surface that visually impaird pdestnans can feel under foot and which conveys a specific message. In Great Britain there are six types that are r~ommended to provide environment information-in -the following situations :- ■ warning of dropped kerb at road crossing @igure 8. 11) ■ proc~ with caution (eg steps; Figure 8. 12) m guidance through pdestrianised and platform areas (Figure 8. 13) m indication of the pedestrian side of shard ptiestrian cycleway (Figure 8. 14) m warning of the dge of either a heavy rail platform or an on-street light rail platform Figure 8. 15) - this suface is subject to firther aperimental trials; information on the latest position m~ be obtained @om the Mobili~ Unit of the Depament of Trawport ■ information (eg location of a telephone box, bus stop ticket kiosk).
90 Re~ch [42] has shown that vis~y impaired people are able to learn to discriminate between different tactile surfaces, and w remember the patterns and associated meanings over a period of time. In 1990, the Cranfield Centre for Logistics and Transportation (CCL~ mnducted research at Coseley Railway Station, near Wolverhampton, which demonstrated that various combinations of tactile surfa=s suussfully enabled vistily impaired travelers to safely negotiate a station environment, [43]. The research includd an assessment of the “proc~ with caution” surface which was used to indicate the existence of steps. A guidanm path was instied on the platform to provide a safe route to the waiting room and ticket office. The en~ce to the ticket offiw was indiated by the information surface. In 1992, a before and after study mnducted by the TRL [~] demonstrate the usefulness of a tactile guidance pati for providing vis~ly impaired people with a safe route across a large pedestrianid quare in Mflton Keynes. The pathway, which crossed three roads, led from the entranm of Milton Keynes railway station to two subways, one leading to the bus station and the other to the shops.
CCLT’S previous re-ch (43] showed that the layout of a tactic guidance path should be simple, too many right angle turns and junctions can be confusing for vis@y impaired people.
For advi= on where and how to instil tactile surfaces, the reader is encouragd to contact the Mobfity Unit of the Department of Transport at 2 Marsham Street, London SWIP 3EB.
8.10.2 Tactile si~ns
The Mobflity Unit of the Royal National Institute for the Btind has produd a short document entitied Some Dractid w ints to take into acmunt when desi~nin~ signs, which includes some guidelines as to the design of tactic signs. One of the most important points made in this document is that the characters, whether they be letters or pictograms, should be embossd rather than engraved, preferably raised from the sign by between 1- and 1.5m; the stroke width should be between 1.5m and 2-, and the height of each character should be at 1- 15m. Obviously, a tactile sign must be positioned so that it may be touched, so the idd height for such a sign is between 140- and 170- from the ground; passengers should dso not have to stretch more thm 500- to reach the sign.
8.11 Provisions for mDle with mental or co~nitive im~aiments
Just as some passengers may have visti or hearing impairments that hinder them whilst they are traveling, others have problems in the selection and comprehension of visti information displays, or with communicating effectively with fe~ow passengers or transport stif when they nd help. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, in 1992, investigated the extent to which people with lting and/or mmmuni=tion difficulties had problems with public -sport in the Grater Manchester area, and found that there were approximately 10,000 people with learning difficulties who were issued with a bus pass; two thirds of these are able to wvel by bus independently, and so rquire information on services etc that is mmprehensible to them. One simple and cost~ffective solution to their problems is the availability of staff who can assist them. So that passengers with a learning difficulty a be r=dily identified to staff, therefore, GMPTE h~ issued this user group with passes which have bright green edging; dso issud with the pass is a card bting telephone number which may be used if the passenger gets lost or confused. GMPTE dso considers the needs of people with learning difficulties in its driver training programme, [45].
91 92 Hwre 8.11 Specifimtiom for a tacttie mrface giving warning of a dropped kerb at a road cro~ing
?MN
I = I ,+ 33 = = = = -33 4 I I I I 4 — I
o0 o0 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 = ‘x. (4 1)
— 00 00 00 00 00 00 =
— 00 00 00 00 00 @
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
I
T jO
ELEVATION All dimensions in mm 93 figure 8.12 Specification for a tactile mrface wafig wer to proceed with caution
Figure 8.13 Specifimtiom for a tictile mrface that providw guidance through ped~riatied and platfom arem
22.’ -
I 101 . —
All dim..,,.., mm i 94
Fl~re 8.14 Specflcations for a tictile side of a shared Wd-rian cycleway
— — — — —
....
10
— —
All dim,n,ae., mm HWre 8.15 SpecWlcations for a tactile surface warning of a light rati platfom edge
:00 Resach has been carried out by Velche [46] to investigate the extent to which pictograms can be usd, instad of text messages, to convey visual information. Dividing his subjmts into thrm literacy groups - fluent raders, subjects who could not read at dl and those who could rmd some words - Velche has found that pple with at lust some ability to rad find signs that are predominantly text substantially asier to unders~d than signs that are purely pictographic. This was dso true with signs that convey an abstract, or compound, message, (eg “no entry”, “ticket punching here”), since the syntax of a pictographic message may be as difficult to comprehend as that of a text message. Velche’s main conclusion from this research is that pictograms should not be regarded as a fasible dtemative to verbal messages for people with laing difficulties. He does, however, suggest that the use of pictograms and symbols in conjunction with text is helpful for passengers who w r~d at least some words, md the pictographic content of a sign may help dl passengers with l~ing difficulties to 1- the mming of new signs and enhance the clarity of visti messages to dl users of a transport system.
95 9. Satib~ Convenience
9.1 Toilets
Minimum standards for public conveniences are laid out in the British Standards document BS 6465 Fart 1), entitled Code of Dractice for scale of Drovision. selection and installation of sanitarv apDlimms; more sp~ific guidelines are containd in British Standard BS 5810: Code of Dractice for access for the disabled to buildin~s, [4]. Minimum dimensions and fittings that are rquird for awessible toilets are well documented in dl major aceessibfity-related design guidelines, and raommendations for toilet, bath and shower facilities mupy no fewer than ten pages of the American FedeA Register’s guidelines, [18]. The 1~ guidelines [5] simply refer to Approval Dwument M of the Building Regulations [3]; a diagram summarizing these regulations is reproducd here as Figure 9.1. Among the recommendations made in BS 5810 that are additiond to those illustrated in this diagram, is the provision of a mirror approximately 400mm wide and 900mrn high; the lower dge of this mirror should be no more than 900mm from the floor [4].
A facility that complies with dl of these requirements, and which is dso unisex, is entitied to b= the international accessibility symbol; the condition that the facility should be unisex is important, since a disabled person wishing to use a toilet might need to be accompanied by somwne of the opposite sex.
An important consideration that is not mentiond in the British S~dards document referred to above is that some people might have problems with transferring from a wh~lchtir to a toilet which is on, say, their right-hand side, (and, conversely, some might have difficulties with a toilet located to the left of the cubicle, as in Figure 9.1). Therefore, where a cubicle with sufficient space on either side of the toilet itself is not f~sible, a wh~lchair-user should have the choice of using a left-hand or right-hand toilet. There should dso be adquate space in the cubicle to enable a carer to assist someone who is in a wheelchair; a d~ncy screen will enable the carer to leave the cubicle without the toilet user being exposed.
Amerim guidelines differ litfle from those shown in Figure 9.1, although there is a gr=ter tendency for the Fedefi Register to publish a range of dimensions, (the Amerim recommendation for the height of the water closet itself, for ins~ce, is that it should be between 430mm and 485mm from the floor, whilst the British Building Regulations spwify 450mm as being the idd height). The issue of height is particularly important for the design of urinals, particularly for children and others of small stature, and the Federd Register’s raommendation is that the rim of at last one unnd in a facility should be at a height of no more than 430mm from the floor.
An additiond suggestion, made in the German Trmsport Policy Department document referral to ~lier in this report [17], is that toilet compartments for disabled people should be quipped with a cdl device connected to what is describti as a “Travelers’ Aid Station”, but such an emergency dl system -could be -designd to alert any designated member of staff on duty at a station or interchange.
The Women’s Design Service ~S) has gone as far as to publish an 84-page handbook devotd to the design of public toilets for women, which includes a swtion on current sanitary conveniences on British Rail (Network South fist), London Underground and airport premises, [12]. This publication focuses on the problem of priority being given to toilets that are vandd-proof and low-cost, so that the nds of the user are a s~ondary consideration. In larger complexes, such as airports and major interchanges, sanitary convenienws must compete with lucrative retail ouflets for concourse space; in the case of the newly-refurbished Liverpool Str~t railway station, the retail outlets have been given preference, since the station’s toilets are Iocatd at basement level, accessible only by stairs or escalator.
96 97 fi~re 9.1 R~omrnended minimum dimemiom and fittin~ for an accmible totiet
- SECTION
------. A n
~---.-m 35mm diameter 600 mm ,, suppofi rails L-----J
:-. :L,i Somm ------r 1; ~ ------$ -.------A ) A 4 ~---.7A250:@:; ?,.;,::,.>><.;....:.::. ~!mm e ‘~ / ----=- 750mm
I
A A
..,,,...,.-...... ,, I 500mm l—750mm~, ------+------..... u I ... .’. ! ‘\ 1000mm ‘., single ‘, Pull rail leaf \ i doorset ‘\, , , L Mirror 400mm wide x 900mm high 1 1 fixedgoomm.------1 I
(Source : [3]) The hmdbook dso sets out the most important principles for the design of toilets for both men and women : that facilities should be accessible to those with dl types of mobility impairments, from wheelchair users to parents with young children, and that these facilities should not be segregatd from those used by other pwple thus stigmatizing disabl~ people. Bmuse of the ~S’s particular interest in the needs of women, however, the handbook does outiine the ways in which women are different to men and therefore rquire different design standards for their smitary convenience. It is argued that, for biological rasons, women genedly require more frequent use of a toilet. B-use it is unacceptable for extra women’s facilities not to be accompanied by a man’s facility, this argument must be seen as a dl for incrati availability of public conveniences in gened.
The handbook does, however, present valid reasons for designing women’s toilets differently. For instance, a woman is more likely to be inconvenienced by a small cubicle thm a man - not only does a man usually have the option of using a urinal, but women more often have to take charge of young children and more often carry bags of shopping. For the same reason, women are likely to be more inconvenienced by toilets that are lmtd underground, and by turnstiles, (such as those usd by British Rail to collect admission f~s). A cubicle should dso be large enough to cater for a woman who is pregnmt.
The question of smurity is dso very important when locating a sanitary convenience for women, who feel more vulnerable to attack than men. For this reason, a ladies’ toilet should not be sitd in a remote, swluded or badly-lit location. A similar argument may be put forward as an anti-vmddism masure; this is impo~t, as repatedly vanddised toilets are often simply closed down. One mas by which vwddism and misuse of accessible toilets may be avoided is the use of the National Key Scheme which has been introduced by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation ~DAR). This scheme involves the distribution of keys which fit standard locks on toilets, keys which are distnbutd to people with disabilities through local networks, or obtained directly from RADAR. Such locks need to be well maintaind and well oilti to keep them operational; a key should be available from station staff.
The ~S publication dso makes specific r~ommendations for minimum dimensions ad fittings for ladies’ toilets, many of which might be relevant for the design of men’s toilets as well. The hypothetic lay-out includes one fully accessible cubicle, a toilet and wash basin for children, a “buggy park” large enough to accommodate a double pushchair or buggy, and baby changing facilities, (which will be discussed in more detail later on in this sation). It is dso suggested that, when cubicles are divided with an “open” partition, the gap between the bottom of the partition and the floor should be between 100m and 150m; such a gap allows adequate space for clming purposes whilst being small enough to deter thieves from snatching hand-bags and other belongings from benath the partition. The favoured type of hmdle for flushing the toilet is the flat, lever-type of handle which may be operated by using only the pdm of the hand or the forwm; this should be situated at a height of between 900- and 1050m so that it may be rachd from a satd position or by a child. A lever-type mechanism is preferred to a push button device, and dl foot-activatti systems are ruld out on the grounds that wheelchair users are unable to use them. Similarly, the handbook recommends that lever taps should be used on sinks, rather than taps that rquire a twisting or a push-down action.
Other useful design rmommendations providd in this publication include the reminder that a space should be allowed for a sanitiry bin (as this often further rtiuces the amount of room that is available to the user within the cubicle), the suggestion that ach compartment should be separately lit (to avoid problems with shadows) and the assertion that women tend to be more conscious of cleanliness and hygiene than men so that floors should be made of an easy-to-cla matend and preferably be coved at the wall. The handbook dso revds that toilet-roll holders which are equipped with a catch to enable one-handd operation are currenfly available, and recommends their use.
98 All handles and buttons etc should be within r=ch of wheelchair users and people of small smture; similarly, mirrors should be extended downwards so that these people can use them.
Daency screens should be instiled where appropriate, and cubicles should be fittd with an emergency-cdl button. To aid visually impaird people it would be useful for toilet doors to carry embossd “men” and “women” signs.
When rwommending minimum dimensions for ac~ssible toilet cubicles, most publications concentrate, quite understandably, on facilities that can be used by wheelchair users. It should be notd, therefore, that, even when a toilet cubicle is not intendd to be wheelchair accessible, it should be at 1X 1500m deep and 750m wide.
9.2 Babvcare and childcare facilities
The n- for babycare facilities, as well as .-sanitary conveniences, has already been mention~; this mainly concerns the provision of facilities for fding and nappy changing. A popular current solution, where there are facilities at dl, is to instil a nappy changing shelf in existing wh=lchair accessible toilets. The attraction of using such locations is that they are dr~dy relatively spacious rooms, and more importantly, they are dr~dy available to both men and women. A disadvantage of using disabld persons’ toilets for this purpose is that the addition of an extra function might substantially increase usage of the toilets, and thus rduce their availability to disabled users. Furthermore, although it is convenient to instil a nappy changing platform in existing unisex facilities at relatively low cost, it is not acceptable, for reasons of hygiene, to have babies fti in a toilet; there is a persuasive argument, therefore, for the provision of specialised babycare centres in major terminals.
The Women’s Design Serviw, in conjunction with me Daily Telegraph’s Parent Friendly Campaign has produd a factsheet devoted to the design of babycare facilities, [14]. The major requirements for nappy changing are a safe, asy-to-clean surface with raisti sides to prevent rolfing or slipping, a nappy dispensing machine, a sink with warm water, paper rolls and separate nappy dispo~ and rubbish dispod bins. In circums~ces where spaces is stricfly limitd, a folding baby-changing platform may be instild; such devices are currentiy used in some fast food retail oudets. The room, or kiosk, should be well- ventilated and at a even temperature of 21 ‘C. There should dso be regular supervision and clwing of the facility, and additiond floor- and shelf-space should be provided for matends, personal belongings, shopping and pushchairs. An automatic bottie-warmer should be providd for parents wishing to fd their child. The factsh~t includes three suggestd lay-outs for such a facility, complete with recommend dimensions; one of these lay-outs is reproduced in Figure 9.2. In dl cases, the hypothetic facilities are designed to be wh~lchair-accessible.
As with ti other types of sanitary and personal convenience, the location of a babycare facility should be clearly signal, (the subject of signage has been discussti in depth in Swtion 8). Because this is a relatively recent innovation, -there is not yet a standard symbol or pictogram usd to denote a babycare centre. One of the more commonly used symbols, however, is a silhouette of a baby’s bottie, and Figure 9.3 gives two more examples of signs that are currently used to convey a similar message.
The main complaint made by parents with young children about fding and changing facilities is lack of availability, as they are still quite rare, though incrwsing in number. All of the major airports in the UK, however, now provide such a service, and new facfities at British Rail’s Victoria Station and Sheffield Transport Interchmge include a “baby room”. Birmingham Intemationd Airport dso provides creche facilities for the benefit of parents with older children, (see Figure 9.4).
99 9.3 “DOE100s”
When a guide dog user arrives at a transport terminal, it may be necessary, particularly at the end of a long journey, for the dog to relieve itself. Consideration should therefore be given to the provision of “dog loos”, at l=st at larger terminals and interchanges. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association recommends that such a facility should consist of a pennd ar~ of 3000m by 2000m, with a 1500m high fence; at lmst two sides of this enclosure should be of wire mesh type construction, to give the dog the impression of a bigger space. The gate to the enclosure should dso be 1500m high, and 750m wide and fastenable with a positive bolt action. The floor of the ar~ should be of concrete, and should have a drain and the mas for daily washing.
100 101 RWre 9.2 Rmommended mum dmensions and fittin~ for a babymre facfity at a medium-shed transport terminal
(Source: [14]) 102 10. Hmlth and Safety hu~
Although there are no statutory regulations governing the correct temperature that should be maintind in terminals or wtitin~ rooms, and no sDecific minimum lizhtin~ levels. (there are such standards for factories-and offices). everv”effort should be m~de t; Drovide passengers with a warm, well lit and well ventilated ~nvironment. Adequate w~mth is particularly important for elderly and disabld people, who might f=l the cold more than younger, more active users.
10.1 Lighting
The issue of lights here should not be confusd with the question of the corr=t siting md marking of lamp fixtures, as this md other “station furniture” considerations, has bmn ddt with in S~tion 6. This section is more concemd with highlighting the importance of good lighting at terminals md interchanges, as this can considerably enhance the aesthetic ap~ of the public transport environment and offer passengers a feeling of comfort and security. There is litfle point in spifying quantitative minima for lighting levels - the IHT guidelines [5] merely quote the relevant British SWdard number, No.5489 - and it is rather trite to state that dl parts of terminals that are usd by the public should be well lit at dl times, but lighting is an integral part of the design of a facility and there are certain key considerations that should be taken into account.
It is particularly impotit, for instance, that dl visual displays of information should be well lit, either intemdly or from an extemd source.
Where skylights and windows are usd to enable as much natural light as possible to enter a building, these should always be kept clean md unobstructed. When artificial lights are usti, it should be borne in mind that white light is more effective than yellow light, and that stroboscopic effects with lights should be avoided, as these may cause problems for people who are subject to fits.
On the subject of artificial light, the IHT guidelines advise that high pressure sodium is a better fight source than a cheaper dtemative - low pressure sodium - since the latter is monochromatic and tends to provide poor colour discrimination; the same publication dso points out that wdl-mountd lighting gives a more even distribution of light tha column- mounted lighting.
Penton [23] describes a problem which particularly affects underground systems; not only are the top and bottom sections of stairs and escalators most likely to present problems for visually impaird travelers when poorly lit, but they are dso frquentiy borderd by advertising display panels that are lit by fluorescent light sources. Passengers might be dazzld on the approach to an escalator or a flight of stirs if the advertising panels are brighter than general lighting equipment, and strip lights might give rise to the undesirable stroboscopic effects mentioned above. Penton’s suggestion is that concentrate lighting should be usd in such location, ‘so that the beginning and end of stairs and escalators are clwly identifid; strong lighting would dso have the effect of casting shadows to better define trads and step nosings.
10.2 Glass windows. doors and shoDfronts
Serious injuries can be caused when people fail to see glass and walk straight into it. The most serious injuries occur when the glass actually bras, causing lacerations; this problem may be averted with the use of toughened safety glass, but this still presents an unyielding obstacle to anyone not s~ing the glass. Visually-impaired passengers are particularly at risk, although the use of glass, despite the fact that it is a useful material in helping to rduce feelings of insecurity, presents a problem for dl sectors of the population. The current popultity of glass among architects is reflectd in its widesprmd
103 use in modem transport terminals, particularly at and around entrances and for shops locatti on the concourse. The problem for those with impaird vision is heightend by the use of stainless stml and the blending of subtle shades of grey for aesthetic reasons - it is extremely important, therefore, that marhngs should be placd on the glass itself to m~e it more visible. As a minimum, brighfly coloured (not white) banding, at le~ 140m- 160m dmp - perhaps incorporating the operator’s or funder’s motif - should be provid~ on dl glass at a height of at Iemt 1500m from the ground; this is the height of “mmifestation” that is recommended in Part N of the Building Regulations, which dds with glazing in buildings, [47]. Part N dso includes examples of how glass may be usd for doors and not rquire extra marting to enhance its visibility; these feature the following types of door :- 1. a door with small panes whose width does not excd 400m between frames, 2. a door which has a clearly visible horizonti rail or bar at a height of between 600m and 1500u from the floor, 3. a single pane which is enclosed in a “substantial” frame, and, 4. a door which has a very large handle or push plate, (although this should not itself be transparent or in a matend that “blends in” with the glass, such as stainless steel).
The Women’s Design Service factsh~t entitld “Access” [13] suggests that plate glass doors should be made easily distinguishable from fixed glazing, and that martings should be placd at adult eye-level and dso at a child’s eye-level; the same pamphlet dso suggests that no glass should be usd on doors below a height of 400m from the floor, to avoid damage causal by pushchairs and whwlchair footrests.
A similar problem exists in relation to bus shelters, as modem designs often use full-length glass pnels - bus shelters are ddt with in more detail in Section 13.2.
104 11. Pemonal Security, Vandalkm and Graffiti
11.1 Personal sWuritv ofpassen~ers
Although reports in the media may sometimes suggest the opposite, travel by public transport is generally very safe. Resarch has shown, however, that the f=r of assault considerably outweighs the probability that an individud will actually be attacked. Against this it should be pointd out that crime statistics themselves do not accurately portray the level of crime in public transport environments or in the community as a whole. This is largely due to the under-reporting of crime; the British Crime Study in 1985 suggestd that only 37% of dl assaults are actually reportti, which compares with 32%..of thefts from the person and 8% of sexual offences, [48]. Atkins [49] argues that official crime statistics are, in my ease, an inadquate reflwtion of people’s insaurity, since they do not, ad mnot, cover what he refers to as “subcrimind” antisocial behaviour from others, which might take the form of being stared at, being-followed, drunkenness or other forms of intimidation. Such factors Muse some people, esp~idly women and elderly pmple, to be afraid to travel, p~icularly at night or where travel involves using unstaffd stations. A recent resmch study [1] undertaken by CCLT in London, which was based on over 800 in-depth interviews with samples of disabld people of dl ages and able-bodid pensioners, includd questions on perceptions of safety on bus, rail and the Underground with the results shown in Table 11.1. Those disabld pple who were not using ordinary public transport (though most had in the past) contind a signific~tly grater proportion of people who thought the services were not safe. In some cases this perception of lack of safety was oeasioned by the individud’s disability, but more often it was relatd to a fear of violence (“mugging”) particularly on the Underground. Dirwt experience of violence was in fact small.
Table 11.1 Proportions of people who think trave~ing by public tramport is not safe
Per cent considering travel unsafe
Disabled people:
using public not using public OAPS using transport trasport public transport % % %
25 2: 34 2; F 9 22 12 (Source : [1])
Wking at the rmsons for m~le fmlin~ unsafe in more detil. it is aDDarent that the design ~f transport infrastruc~ur~ has som~ relevance. Spmific physical f~tures can make some pmple fear for their safety: both flights of steps and escalators were mentiond in this context. Some people are worried about traveling in the dark, a far which may be ameliorated, if not altogether removed, by good lighting and by the provision on an unmanned station of an emergency cdl system; the eff-tiveness of such systems does, however, depend ultimately on the speed of staff response to a alarm.
Crowding md fm of being pushed are dso matters which concern passengers with disabilities. Given the pad nature of travel by public transport, it is inevitable that at certain times stations will be crowded, but there is scope to control crowds (as is done at some bndon Underground stations) and to avoid too gr=t a press of people on platforms or in the associatd passageways. Movable barriers, adjustable gateways and changes in 105 the direction of escalators tie dl methods that can be usd to limit and control crowding. Most elderly and disabled people who do not travel to/from work will avoid the busiest travel periods and travel at off-p~ times.
Crime on, or associatd with public transport is significantly worse in some Unitti States’ transit operations than it is in Britain. There the following suggested guidelines for improving passenger security within transport infrastructure include: m Make fences, parapets, gates and windbr~s more transparent ● Minimise the number of structural columns in platforms and lobbies
B kate ticket collmtors’ booths to optimise sight-lines ■ Avoid twisting or dog-leg corridors ■ Instil mirrors or closti-circuit television to provide surveillance over aras not direcfly visible from smff offices or booths ■ Provide high levels of illumination for indoor and outdoor spaces ■ hcate toilets in rosily supervisd aras, inside the paid ar~ if possible.
The main purpose of these measures is to make passengers more visible to one another and to staff md saurity personnel, so rducing the likelihood of crime or, if it does happen, making it ~sier and quicker to tie corrective action. Many of these masures have b~n adopted by bndon Underground [11] within the scope of their s~tion modernisation programme. As M~ds [50] points out, “The station environment and the immdiate environment outside the station play a significant pm in crating a feeling of ~se, or un~se. In particular if a station is dirty, decayed, vanddised and suffers from graffiti, this itself lmds to anxiety, and is evidence of a lack of control. Bright, clm and well lit stations give much less cause for concern. Poor station layout (including the existence of remote passageways and “blind comers”) can dso contribute to the opportunity for crime and may heighten fws. ”
11.2 Vanddism and graffiti
To ascefin the extent to which vanddism md graffiti is a problem at transport terminals and interchanges, a questionnaire was dispatched to a sample of transport providers, both in the UK and on the continent. The questionnaire dso sought to assess the attitude of those responsible for transport terminals towards the issue of the personal saurity of passengers, and to establish what prautions, if any, they were currently ting; a copy of the questionnaire appms in Appendix A.
Of the 65 questionnaires in toti that were sent to PTE’s, other bcd Authorities and some public transport operators who were known to have responsibility for at last one bus station or terminal, 37 (56.9%) were completed and returned; of the 13 questionnaires, (one fifth of dl those sent), that were dispatchti to authorities locatd outside the UK, five were completed and retumd, (two from France. and one from ach of Switzerland, Itiy and Austria).
The figures in Table 11.2 summarise the nature of the two problems f~turti here - personal attacks are relatively rare occurrences that affect most transport providers at last some times, whilst problems with vanddism ad graffiti app~ to be both universal and frquent. Although there were no respondents who claimed that atticks on staff or passengers happened more than just “rarely”, only eight (21. 6%) of the 37 reported that such incidents never took place; conversely, not a single respondent was able to report that vanddism was never a problem for them, and only one organisation does not have a problem with graffiti. An interesting finding from Table 11.2 is that, of the 28 respondents who claimed to have some problems with personal attacks, 24 sbtd that these attacks tendd to be on women, in particular; this is a high proportion, especially in view of the fact that it is generally young males who are assaultd more often than any other group. One might hypothesise that this finding reflects the grater use made of public transport by women, although it should be emphasised that none of the respondents providd any 106 evidence to support their mswer, so that it is merely their perception that women are more often subject to attacks than men. One responding organisation that reportti having carried out some research into the problem, however, was Centro, the body in charge of public transport provision in the West Midlands, who found that just over 9% of people interview claimed that they had witnessed, or been involved in, an assault in a transport terminal or interchange. The main conclusion from this research, though, was that the public’s perception of the likelihood of being attacked is far greater than the probability of an assault actually taking place. It is because of this exp~tation of risk that it is important for public transport-related buildings to be well lit and unsecludd, and for any measures taken to try to improve passengers’ personal saunty to have a high profile.
The only other responding organisation that claimed to have resmched the.public’s attitude towards personal security in relation to public transport, was South Yorkshire PTE; this was as part of a wider survey to assess customer satisfaction with a number of new facilities that the PTE has provided.
Table 11.2 Respondent’ experience of the seriousness of violence and vandalism at their interchangfi/terrninak
How often does your autho@/organisti’on have problems with the following, at interchanges and teminals?
I Frquency I Very often Quite often Rarely Never Not applicable
Attacks on staff 28 8 1
Attacks on passengers - 28 8 1
Attacks on women, in particular 24 12 1
Vanddism 3 18 16
Graffiti 5 18 13 1
flespoue = 37)
Responses from the 37 respondents indi~te that not many organisations have taken steps to try to improve passengers’ security. As Table 11.3 shows, only 7 (18.9%) of the organisations tac~d the problem by ting on extra staff, whilst only 13 (35.1%) used closed-circuit television quipment. The most popular mws of improving passengers’ safety is by providing extra lighting, an inexpensive way of deterring potential assailats whilst enhancing passengers’ perception of a facility providing a safe environment; 20 (54. 1%) of the respondents statd that some or dl of the interchanges for which they are responsible are quip@ with extra lighting for swurity purposes. Three organisations statd that they had taken different steps to curb personal assaults : Grmter Manchester PTE employ contract security staff in some of their terminals, Centro referred to their close work with the Police, and the munici~al authoritv in charze of Dublic transDort in Line. France, combat the Droblem bv their ~nvolvement”with the ~OCd LOrnrnunity.’- All-- of- these7 dtemative approacfies can be effective ways to improve the perso~d security of passengers.
107 Table ll.3 Wemutions currently tiken to improve the personal security of passengers
In how many of your interchanges/teminals do you take the following precautions to improve the personal security of passengem? — Proportion of interchanges
All Some None
Extra staff 3 4 28
Closd-circuit TV’s 4 9 22
Extra lighting 8 12 15
Work closely with Police 1
Contract swunty staff 1
kd community involvement 1 -
flespowe = 3? no auwer = 2)
The questionnaire dso includti a sp~ific question about graffiti, asking about the locations in which graffiti was most often found; Table 11.4 provides a summary of responses to this question. What is slightly surprising about this set of results is that graffiti is apparendy more common in open lmations, such as on bus stops and on walls, than in more smludd environments such as subways, toilets and waiting rooms. This is largely explained, however, by the number of respondents stating “not applicable” to the latter thr~ lo~tions, an apparent indi~tion that some organisations do not have subways, toilets or waiting rooms within their terminals.
Table 11.4 The places in which graffiti is a problem
If you tive a problem with graf~ at all, then in which of the following locations does the problem occur?
Yes No Not No applicable answer
BUS stops/stands 26 6 5
W~l of terminal/interchange 23 4 3 7
Toilets 20 5 6 6
Waiting rooms 16 11 5 5
Subways/underpasses 14 6 11 6
Vehicles/rolling stock 3
Ticket machines 2
@esponse = 37)
108 Graffiti is clmly a widespread nuisance for public transport authorities, md one that is difficult to eradicate, although the use of “graffiti proo~ materials m be effmtive. A bus compay that has taken a positive initiative in trying to improve the smunty, comfort nd ~ce of mind of its passengers is South Yorkshire Tmsport Ltd; although this compmy is not responsible for any bus stations or terminals, South Yorkshire Transport’s efforts to stimp out graffiti nd assaults on board their vehicles stands as an example of how the gened problems of vanddism and violence may be approachd in my context and in relation to ay mode of transport. The -paign to prevent graffiti on buses has been the most successful aspect of South Yorkshire Transport’s crime prevention program me, sinw the problem has now been vi-ly efiminati. Fa& with the fact that graffiti done was wsting the company approximately a million pounds per ya, SYT set up a Security Department in mly 1990, headed by a SWurity Mmager who was formerly a high-ranking Potice officer, ad consisting of three other members of staff, one of whom dso had a Polim Form background. Previous Police Force experience and expertise in investigation are important in this context, sin= the main strategy of the SWurity Department’s drive to eliminate crimes on buses was one of de~tion md prosecution; such m approach was intendd to both apprehend current offenders ad deter others.
The pr=ss of detection begins with the computerisation of reports from drivers of hcidents on buses that they have witnessed; this enables certain routes at certain times of the day and w=k to be targetd for video survetiance. Twenty of South Yorkshire Transport’s 800 buses are now quipped with video cameras. On the basis of video rmrdings and evidence from other sources, a case is built against a sus~ted offender and is handed over to the Police only at the stage of prosecution. Although liaison with the Poliw. takes place on a regular basis South Yorkshire Transport estimates that approximately 95% of the time md mmpower resourms rquired to bring about a prosecution are provided by the Compmy’s SWunty Department; previous experience of statement-taking and a thorough howledge of what is admissible in a court of law is cl-ly, therefore, of gr=t importanw. A considerable amount of money - an estimatd f 10,000 in the past two yms - has been recovered in compensation, through the courts, as a result of pro=utions, the highest amount from one case being f 1,000. Footage from on-board surveillance cameras has b=n used by SYT to produce a video aimed at educating Poli~ md magistrates in the problems of crimes on buses.
The efforts of SYT’s SWurity Department have, however, concentrated most on the problem of graffiti on buses. It is company policy to remove any graffiti as soon as it is det=ted, in the befief that “graffiti brds more graffiti”, but the ~mpaign has been conducti in far grmter depth thm this. In the befief that the spraying or daubing of paint in public places is not merely idle vmddism, but a sub-culture among modem-day youth, security staff have spent a great dd of time studying the graffiti cult, so that now they are not only apable of d~iphering the hieroglyphics - tike characters that are drawn, but dso able to rmgnise the signature with which graffiti “artists” commonly identify themselves. Their efforts in penetrating this particular youth culture have resulted in the drawing up of a fist of 250 names and addresses of those responsible for mting graffiti, as well as the successful prosecution of some offenders. In the majority of cases, the culprits for van~sm or assaults are juvenfles who are sometimes quite young. Bause of this, it is SYT’S poficy to only pros~ute in serious -s, preferring to dd with young offenders through liaison with schools; since ~urity staff drady visit schools in South Yorkshire to give Mks, this firther strengthens ties with the education sector.
An additiond benefit of SYT reducing graffiti on their own buses has been the tremendous reduction in this form of vanddism experienced by other bus operators in the arm, which some have openly acknowldgd.
Although South Yorkshire Transport apps to be lading in the fight against vanddism and graffiti, it is by no means the only transport compmy to have put resources into an nti-vmddism campaign; West Midlands Travel Ltd has a snff of approximately 30, and the London Underground has its own anti-graffiti unit.
I 109 12. Consul@tion and Training
12.1 Consultation with grouDs re~resenting DeoDlewith disabilities
The recommendations arising from this report will need to be applid as widely as possible to ensure that passengers with a mobility impairment receive a consistent response to their nds wherever they travel. The recommended standards include specific dimensions and requirements which should not be dterd without prior consultation with the Department of Transport’s Mobility Unit, which will give advice on any points needing clarification.
Within these specific standards, however, local groups representing the needs of passengers with disabilities may be able to help with detailed implementation md may..often suggest simple and practical solutions to any problems. Planners, architmts and transport providers should, therefore, always consult local groups or individuals representing a range of disabilities at an early stage in dl schemes. This will give them a better understiding of passengers’ n~s and avoid the cost of rectifying misties retrospectively.
12.2 Disability awareness training
Disability awareness training is an essential element for dl operating staff and those providing information to passengers - whether in printed form, by visual displays, by telephone, or “face to face” at enquiry offices, etc. It is one of the most cost-effective ways of mting sewices more attractive to passengers.
Some bus and other transport operators (such as hndon Transport) have produced short training violas to draw attention to some of the more frequent problems faced by passengers with disabilities (espwidly “hidden” disabilities such as d~fness or tihritis) and how to minimise inconvenience and embarrassment to both passengers and staff. A short session on these problems and solutions, with due consideration for passengers with lining difficulties, should be built in to the initial training and dl refresher or promotion courses for staff, and a local representative of disabled passengers may be available to give practical guidance.
110 13. Bus Stops and Bus Sheltem
The maximum walking dis~ces set out in Section 1.3 indicate that many elderly ad disabled people may not be able to rwch the nmest bus stop to their home, while others - such as wh~lchair users - may not be able to board the current designs of conventional buses. Fixd bus stops may not be necessary in rural ar=s and some housing estates, but in these cases it is essential that potential passengers know the exact route of ach bus journey and can be confident that the bus they want will stop when htild. These “hail and ride” sections should be clearly defind in timetables, on route maps and preferably by some indi~tion on the streets concerned such as markings at eye level on street furniture.
Bus stops and shelters which are clmly visible, well-designd and maintained and contain CIW service information are major fixd advertisements for the operators md sewice funders. They will attract more passengers to local routes and to public transport generally.
13.1 Bus stops
Work tid out by the University of MS has shown that some people can manage to wdk only very short distances. Table 1.1 shows the percentage of mobility handicapped pple who can reach bus stops at different distices from their origin or destination points. In residential ar~s, clmly-visible bus stops should be located so that nobody in the neighborhood is r~uird to wdk more than 400m from their home, with more stops sited at points of particular need, such as day centres, residential homes etc. In town centres, the bus service will only be of value to passengers, ud therefore commercially successful, if buses stop at or nw the places passengers want to visit. Operators may nd to emphasbe to town planning officers and ld authorities the need for many elderly and disabld bus passengers to board and alight at bus stops nm to their destinations. Pdestrian schemes should permit bus access at low speeds, and whenever possible @estrim crossings should be locatd n= bus stops.
Bus stop flags should be fixd as low as possible while remaining visible above road traffic, @estrians and pavement distractions; whilst a height of 3500m to the top of the post is idd, the bottom of the flag should not be 1~ than 2500mm above ground and the flag should be at lmt 450mrn wide and 400rnrn high. It should incorporate route numbers of services using the stop, and possibly the name of the bus companies operating these services, in clear and bold numbers on a contrasting background @referably black on white, although other colours with strong colour and tend contrast such as deep blue on yellow may be used to distinguish special services) (SEE Section 8.3). Route numbers should be at least 50rnrn high and displayed in route number order. A good example of a well set-out bus stop flag is shown in Figure 13.1. This example demonstrates that it is possible to provide clear, unambiguous signage in a complex, deregulated environment where a number of operators might share some bus stops; on the other hand, muddled and clutterd displays and service slogans will confuse many passengers. It should be noted, though, that, since deregulation, timetabling details may chmge quite frquenfly so that written information may become out of date-even before it is printd! It is therefore, particularly useful for bus stop flags to display a telephone number that passengers might use to obtain up-to-date information. This telephone number should be given as an addition to the information that is displayed at the bus stop, as a telephone number on its own is not sufficient. Figure 13.2 is an illustration of particularly bad practice in bus stop design; the photograph shows a small flag baring no information other than the operator’s logo, and even this has been boltd onto a lamp post, in the absence of a proper pole. What is worse is that some bus stopping-points in this area are marked, not with flags, but with small stickers, one of which is dso shown in Figure 13.2.
111 112
Figure 13.1 ~ample of a flag at a bus stop shared by a number of operators, Tyne & Wear
. -. 113
Fl~re 13.2 tip post b~ring a smau bw stop flag and a sticker - an example of poor practice Bus stop posts should beofa distinctive design to help passengers - espaidly those with visual handicaps - to distinguish them from other street furniture. If stop flags are fittti to lamp posts or similar structures, colourd banding will help to identify them, and a raised capiti letter ‘B‘ about 20m high at a height of 1000rnru from the ground will be invaluable to blind people. Where pavements incorporate tactile routes the bus stop locations can be indicatd as shown in Figure 13.3, (using surfaces employed by the authorities in Dordrecht).
All bus stops should be providd with timetable frames locatd at between 1000m and 1700m above ground level which include current information on dl services using the stop. Where larger frames are required the maximum height from the ground should be 1900rnrn, with the more important information not above 1700m. The minimum height should be 95ti, with details of services used by passengers in wheelchairs at the bottom of the frame. Bus service and timetable information at stops and shelters should be clmly visible at dl times. If surrounding street lighting is not ad~uate, lighting should be providd on the stop itself.
For frquent 1~ services, details of the route and destination and departure times from the stop may be adquate, but as some passengers will not be familiar with the service a full timetable and route diagram are more helpful and are essential for longer routes or less regular services. Details of other stopping points in the vicinity and routes serving them win avoid confusion and worry where routes cross or there is more than one stopping place. Utterd bus stops - as used in bndon and elsewhere - should be used where stops are split betw~n different routes at complex junctions or picking-up points, with maps of the stop locations, letters and route numbers displayd at ach stop. I 13.2 Bus shelters Unless services are very frquent and regular, shelters with s~ts should be provided at dl stops. Many passengers with disabilities such as arthritis may be able to wdk to or from their naest bus stop but find it impossible or very painful to stand for more than 5-10 minutes. Elderly passengers may dso need to have some protection from rain or cold winds while waiting at their stop. I Combining bus shelters with commercial advertisements or public telephones will rduce costs and may provide an electricity supply to light the shelter at night and reduce passengers’ fw of assault; an example of such a stop is shown in Figure 13.4. Any shelters without lights should be sited in open, well-lit ar~s. Shelters should be designed and sited to provide maximum wather protmtion bearing in mind the prevailing winds and the n~ for protection from splashes from passing vehicles. Waiting passengers must have a cla view of approaching buses, and be themselves clmly visible to bus drivers and passers-by. In addition to using designs which visually do not clash with their surroundings, shelters should provide a minimum obstruction to the pavement and have no projmting sections or sharp comers to provide a hud to pedestrians.
Unglnti arms can be usd to display timetables and service information, but where glass is needed to provide a light interior it should have, at a minimum, a bold coloured band 14&160m dwp @ossibly using the operators’ logo or name) at a height of at l@ 1500m from the ground to avoid injury to handicapped passengers and pedestrians, (SEE $wtion 10.2). Shelters should be constructed from vandd-resistant materials which are =sy to cla and n~ minimum maintenance; if damage occurs it must be repaired quictiy.
Well designti shelters enhance the attractions of public trmsport; in some areas flower baskets have b~n provided on the roof of shelters to brighten their appearance md surroundings, (SEE Figure 13.5).
114 ....- 115
FIwre 13.3 An example of how tacttie wrfaces may be Wed to bdimte the prwence of a bm stop, Dordrmht, me Netherknds 116
Hgure 13.4 An example ofabusshelter shofigthebenefih ~gure 13.5 An attractive, ‘passenger frienwy” bw WOp, pete~field, of conunemial involvement, South Yorkhire Hampshire Kerbside shelters inevitably form some obstruction to pedestrians’ use of the pavement and I it may not always be possible to provide fixed seats for waiting passengers. As a minimum, shelters should incorporate a bench, platform or horizonti rails at a height of approximately 580mm, depending on the design, to provide waiting passengers with something to rest against or “perch” on.
Priority should be given to providing shelters with seats at stops usd by a high proportion of elderly or disabled passengers (eg nw shelterd housing, old peoples’ clubs).
Stops and shelters at important locations or interchange points should be supplemented with more comprehensive information displays, larger sheltered arms and other facilities listd above in Sation 8. There will be many places where a bus station is not appropriate or possible, but where attractive waiting facilities are needed.
13.3 Bus-friendlv traffic en~ineerin~ measures
Bus operators and other organisations responsible for supporting public transport should take every opportunity to emphasise the economic and environment advantages of reliable bus services, es~idly in town and city centres where increased use of buses cm be the most practid and effective m-s of reducing road traffic congestion. As the City of Undon has found, k=ping bus stops clear of parkd vehicles can lead to a significant rduction in delays ~usd by road congestion. For the many passengers who find boarding or alighting difficult it is essential that buses can pull up at the kerb without the n~ for them to step down to road level and up again.
The additiond delays caused when the bus driver tries to pull out of a lay-by or bus bay into the traffic str~m have led to the use of bus stopping ar=s which projmt into the nwside lane usually occupied by parked cars. These projecting platforms are sometimes referred to as “bus capes”. This gives passengers the benefit of a wider pavement arm at the stop which can accommodate shelters and information displays without obstructing the normal @estrian route, and allows the bus to stop =sily parallel to the bus stop kerb and depart without delay. The nd for traffic regulation to avoid illegal parking at bus stops is minimised as few motorists will park in such an exposed position.
117 14. Conclwion
This report has reviewti the available evidenee, from research literature and existing guidelines, on good practice in the design of public transport terminals and interchanges. Although priority has been given in this report to the results of empirical resmch, mainly from the field of ergonomics, the experience of the authors and of the members of the working group, (listd elsewhere in this document), has provided an additionti input.
There is no shortage of suggestions, in literature, for what design principles and standards should be - from Goldsmith’s mly work [6] to the guidelines published by both government departments and independent organisations throughout the world [3], [5], [8], [9], [10], [11], [17], [18] and [19] - md an attempt has b%n made hereto bring these ida together and to compare them. Extensive use has bwn made of what are considered to be examples of good and bad practice in the provision of public transport infrastructure. mere a particular lmtion is singled out as an example of inadquate design, the criticism is intended to be constructive, and is made in order to illustrate a particular point; for this rason, the operator or authority responsible for the fature has usually not b~n identified.
Design guidelines such as these n=essarily contain a great dd of minutiae concerning the maximum and minimum dimensions of steps, doors and handrails etc, but it is important to remember that the accessibility of a transport system depends upon far more than the physierd characteristics of its vehicles and buildings; in fact, it begins with the individud’s perception of whether they w cope with a journey by public -sport, whether helpful and sympathetic staff will be available, whether adquate sanitary facilities are available along the way, and how cla, safe and comfortable the system is. -use the public’s perception of a station or interchmge is so important, considerable emphasis has been placed in this report on the importance of maintaining a well lit, well maintained environment which exudes warmth and friendliness. The provision of extra lighting, the training of staff in the n~s of people with disabilities and regular cleaning and maintenance are dl cost-effwtive mms of increasing the attractiveness of a transport system, thus incrasing ridership. There are dso significant sociti benefits to be gained from encouraging people who are elderly, or who have disabilities, to increase their level of mobility using conventional public transport; increasing the accessibility of the public transportation network can reduce reliance on specialised, but segregated, services such as did-a-ride.
A geneti conclusion that ean be drawn from this in-depth review of the available resach literature md design guidelines is that there is no single design guaranteed to be the optimum solution in dl situations, as there are often a number of site-spmific considerations that come into play; where it is not possible to lay down prwise s~dards and regulations, it is important to unders~d the trade-offs that must be made. A good example of this is the discussion in Chapter 8 of the recommended height of overhead information signs; these signs should be low enough to be seen by a person who is in a wheelchair, or who is of short stature, but should dso be far enough from the ground to prevent other passers-by from bumping their hwd. Similarly, there may be conflicts of interest in providing for pmple -with-different-types of mobility -impairment. The most common of these involves the provision of facilities that are suitable for both wheelchair users md visually impaired travelers; the widespread provision of droppd kerbs for the former, for example, may pose problems for the latter, but such conflicts are not insoluble. Similarly, lower s~ts or lift control buttons etc, for the benefit of people of short stature will not be welcomed by those who are particularly Ml, or who have difficulty in bending down, and it has drmdy been pointd out in $ation 6.1 that lower fittings and counter heights for ~ple of short stature are not necessarily suitable for wheelchair users.
118 The swtion on seats in Chapter 7 dso refl~ts the fact that there is no single design that will suit W passengers, since a number of sat-types is recommend; one solution might be to provide as many different designs of seat as is practicable, so that passengers who find it difficult to rise from a low seat can use a “perch’’-type sat, and so on. Similtily, the choice of layout for a bus station will be considerably influenced by the nature of its site, md so three types of layout are describti in Chapter 4.
It is dso notic~ble that different sources sometimes propose different standards for the same feature; in such cases, the preferrd dimensions or standards are highlight in bold type.
It is acknowledged that it may not be rdistic to expat operators md designers to tie account of dl the recommendations containd in this document, but efforts must be made by them to avoid architwturd features that present an impassable barrier to some members of society (eg a flight of steps where no ramp or lift is providd as an dtemative), or a h-d which might cause personal injury, (such as unmarked panes of glass, slippery surfaces, low protruding signs and other obstructions to the main flow of pedestrian movement). Even if it is not financially feasible for an operator or transport authority to make whole~e changes to an existing facility, it is still important for dl transport providers to be aware of the main issues and principles involvd in mting public transport accessible to dl members of the community.
A full summary is containd in a separate publication entifld “Design Guidelines for Public Transport Infrastructure”, to which the current document serves as a T&hnid Report. The shorter publication is available, free of charge, from The Mobifity Unit, Depatiment of Tramport, 2 Marsham Street, bndon SWIP 3EB.
119 15. Itetied Lti of Recommendations
This s~tion is an itemised summary of the main recommendations containd in “Accessible Public Transport Infrastructure : guidelines for the design of interchanges, terminals and stops”, which is available, free of charge, from The Mobility Unit, Department of Tramport, 2 Marsham Street, bndon, SWIP 3EB.
The following is intended to be used as a check-list of minimum dimensions and mints of good design practice, but the r~der is strongly urged to refer to the publication m’entiond above, since its discussion of the DnnciDles of design and the overall obi~tive of making public transport facilities availabl~ to e~eryone is a= important as detail~ dimensions and standards. bcation of terminal As close to pnncipd destinations (shops, offices etc) as possible. bvout of bus stations Space permitting, a shallow sawtooth layout of boarding bays is preferrti, d bays having direct access to passenger waiting aras and other facilities.
Geneti design DnnciDles
(i) Queueing/boarding ara All passenger waiting areas should be protected from the w~ther and be separate from vehicular traffic. Queueing ar=s should be clear of through @estrian aras and should be demarcatti with bnghtiy coloured epoxy or plastic coated rails at a height of between 800mm and 900mm. These rails should be round in section, and be betw=n 45mm and 50mm in diameter. Bus and coach stand positions should be logidly and clmly numbered or lettered. S=ts or extra rails for passengers to lm on should be provided at the head of the queue. mere passengers need to cross the path of buses, crossings should be clmly marked for both bus drivers and pedestrians, and should have drop~ kerbs and appropriate @ctile surfaces built in.
(ii) Elsewhere in terminal The design should provide unimpeded access for disabled passengers. Steps and ramps should be avoidd whenever possible. All parts of the terminal should be well lit. Clearly marked dirwt routes for passengers using the terminal should be provided, together with adequate seating and waiting arms, which do not obstruct the passenger flows. Materials and finishes should be chosen to maimize ase of claing and minimize vanddism. ~enever toughened glass or an dtemative tisparent material is used, it should be clwly marked, and should not be accompanied by stainless steel and other materials which are not tonally distinct from it. There should be adquate boarding/dighting provision for those passengers who use special transport services (such as Did-a-Wde), tiis or cars to reach the terminal;
120 similarly, parking facilities should be provided in the appropriate manner for drivers entitid to concessions under the “Orange Badge Scheme”.
Access to and within buildin~s Approaches and entrances to the building must be accessible. If entrance doors are deemed to be essential they should open automatically, but the possibility of dispensing with entrance doors altogether should be considered. The minimum width of doors and corridors should be 900mm; 1200mm is preferable. Swing doors should open at 90° : when fitted with a closure device it should dso have a delay mechanism. Manually operated doors should be of push/pull design with vertid colour contrasted handles 30-35mm in diameter, 45mm cl= of the door and extending from 400mm to 1400mm from floor level. Floor surfaces should be firm, even, ~sily clmd and non-slippery. Main passenger routes into and out of terminals and to and from the main facilities should be indicated by a continuous broad band different in tone and colour from the surrounding arm. The band should contin a tictile strip. The minimum obsacle-frm width for a passenger route should be 1800mm, and 2000mm wherever possible. This route should be kept free of clutter and litter. Lights and signs should be wdl mounted if possible : if not, supporting poles or columns should be clmly markti by a band of contrasting colour 140-160mm wide with the lower edge 1500 to 1700mm above the ground. Free standing obj~ts (eg bollards, s~ts etc) should be cl= of the pedestrian flow and 1000mm high, with a tonally contrastd banding or top. All projecting objects (eg cantilever s~ts) should be prot=ted by a rail or frame r~ching from ground to 1000mm height. Litter bins should be brighfly coloured, with a top 1300mm from the ground and sides continuing down to nm ground level.
- Idd gradient should be 1:20 (5%) or less. Gradient should never exceed 1:12 (8%). Maximum length betwmn landings 6m (3m if a gradient steeper than 1:12 is unavoidable). Minimum width 2000mm (1350mm over short lengths if nmessary). Open sided ramps should be protected by handrails and kerbs which are detectable to long-cane users. Ramps should be complemental by a separate flight of steps, (and vice versa).
SteDs and stirs Risers should be between 100mm and 150mm; 130mm is preferred. Treads should be 300mm deep and non-slip. All steps in a flight should be uniform. Nosings should be rounded to a 6mm radius without overhang nd colour contrastti.
121 Risers should not be undercut or slopd, and tread stairwses should never be usti. The minimum width of stairs between handrails should be 1200mm. Maximum rise of a flight of steps between landings should be 1200mm. There should be a minimum of 3 steps in a flight. Rest ar~s should be 1200mm square (1800mm length preferrd).
Handrails Wider ramps and stairs should have a centi hand rail. Handrails should be provided on both sides of a flight of steps, or ramp, set at a height of 850mm above the step nose with a s~ond pdlel rail at a height of 550mm for people of lesser stature. Handrails should extend at last 300mm @referably 600mm) horizontily beyond the top and bottom of the steps. Handrails should have a round section between 45mm and 50mm in diameter and a gap of 45mm between rail and wall.
~ The approach to a lift should have space sufficient for a cla turning circle of at last 1700mm. Intemdly, a lift should be at least 2000mm wide, 1400mm deep and 2300mm high. Inside the lift a handrail should be providd on three sides at a height of 900mm to 1000mm from the floor. The back wdl of the lift should have a mirror. Lift controls outside and within the lift should be centred 1050mm above floor level, with nothing protruding by more than 100mm from the wdl below the controls. Emergency controls in the lift should have a centre line that is no lower than 900mm from the floor. Buttons should be at least 20mm in width/height and slightly raisd, and should be far enough apart to be operable with the pdm of the hand. A two-way emergency communication system between the lift and a point outside the lift shaft must be provided : the highest operable part of this should be no more than 1220mm. A lift’s entrance should be at last 1100mm wide and 2100 high, and have a CIW space in front of its doors of at least 1500mm by 1500mm. Lift doors should remain open for at least 20 swonds. Audible renouncements should be given of the floor reached and of opening/closing of doors md should be audible both inside and outside of the lift. Induction loops should be provided.
Escalators The direction of travel should be clmly indicatd at the top and bottom of ~ch flight. Treads should be claly visible with step edges markd in contrasting colour, and with a bright light shining beneath the escalator to enhmce discrimination of treads. Lighting should be provided at a low level with a visible change at the ends of the esdator.
122 Rail Stations At through stations, where goods lifts exist, these should, if possible, be reinstated for passengers unable to use stirs. Well-lit subways with ramps and stairs provided a shorter route from one platform to another than do bridges.
Station Dlatforms Platform surfaces should be even and non-slip. A kerb or “kicking board” should be ~rovided don~ the back d~e of an oDen platform that is det~table to a long cane-user : open m=lings done ar~ insufficie~t. All LRT platforms should have ram@ access.
Tactile surfaces Five surfaces are rmommended to provide environment information for visually handicapped pple : m warning of dropped kerb at road crossing ■ procd with caution (eg steps) 8 guidance through pedestrimisti and platform areas m indication of the pedestrian side of shared pdestrian cycleway ■ information (eg location of a telephone box, bus stop ticket kiosk) ~hese surfaces are illustrated in Section 8.10 of the Twhnicd Report) Two additiond surfaus, one to warn of a havy rail platform dge and the other to warn of an on-street light rail platform edge, will shofly be added to this list - their precise configuration is currentiy the subjmt of reswch.
Heatinz md Lighting Terminals md waiting arms should provide passengers with a warm, well lit (above BS No.5489) md well ventilated environment. When artificial light is used, white light is more effective than yellow light. Wall-mounted lighting gives a more even distribution of light than column-mountd lighting. High-pressure sodium lighting is preferred, since low-pressure lighting tends to provide poor colour discrimination.
Glass windows and doors Where glass is usd as a door or dividing wdl it must contain a brighfly coloured banding 140mm- 160mm d=p at a height of-at least 1500mm from the ground. Glass should not be usd on doors below a height of 400mm.
Station accommodation and furniture
Ticket sales Doints Where screens are used at ticket or information desks an amplification system with inductive loops should be fitted, and non-reflecting glass should be used, to aid lip rwders. Automatic ticket vending machines should not have any operating elements more than 1050mm from the ground.
123 Vending machines must be simple to operate, with cl= instructions on their use.
Enauirv offices Their location should be displayed prominently throughout the terminal. The position of timetable and information displays for use when the enquiry office is closed should be clwly shown. mere possible enquiry offices should be planned as open areas with tables rather thm counters. mere a counter is used, it should have one place at a height of no more than 850mm for shorter passengers and wheelchair users. tift luz~ hw level lockers nd counters should be included for passengers who have difficulty lifting luggage.
Telephones At last one in every three or four should be positioned 260mm lower thm the standard height and identified with a public information symbol. All telephones should be fitted with an induction loop. Telephones should not have an overhanging hood with a cla space beneath it, as this might be a h-d for visually-impaired people. One telephone kiosk in any area should be larger thm s~dard size (for wheelchair users). An intemd telephone or intercom system should be available for emergency use with the receiver/mouthpiwe no higher than 1100mm.
- As the n~s of pple vary, different types of seating (fixed, perch-type and flip- up) should be provided. Seat heights should offer a range from 420-450mm (conventional seating) to 700mm @rch ~ting). Arms should be providd on each side of single or double sats at a height of 200mm above the sat. Priority sating for disabled people should be provided and cl~ly signed.
Refreshment facilities Tables designed for wheelchair users should be providd with a maximum height of 730mm. Space beneath tables (leg-room) should be at last 500mm d~p, 600mm wide and 700mm high. Furniture and fittings should have a toe clearance space of at least 230mm in height benath their most protruding point to enable wh~lchair users to turn easily. Some chairs should be moveable to enable wheelchair users to reach the table. Self-service counters and aisles should be designed so that they cm be used by a customer using a wheelchair.
124 Toilets Minimum stidards for public conveniences are given in the British Swdards document BS 6465 wart 1) and minimum dimensions and fittings for accessible toilets are set out in Approved Document M of the Building Regulations. Toilet cubicles should be designed with sufficient space on either side of the WC itself to permit transfer from a wheelchair. An emergency dl system should be providd.
Babv and child care facilities The Womm’s Design Service has produced a factsheet describing ..the design of baby care facilities ~actsheet 2 : Babycare ~omen’s Design Service/~e Daily Telegraph Parent Friendly Campaign)) and the rmommendations contained in this factshwt are fully endorsd.
BUS StODS Bus stops should be clearly visible with flags fittti 2500mm from the ground, the flag itself being at least 450mm wide x 400mm deep. Priority should be given to displaying route numbers on bus stop flags, and these should be CIW and bold on a contrasting background. Route numbers should beat last 50mm high. Bus stops should be fitted with timetable frames at a height from 1000mm to 1700mm. Where larger frames are needed the maximum height may be 1900mm but with the more important information no higher tha 1700mm. Information for wheelchair users should be put at the lower end of the frame. Where services are irregular, shelters and s~ts should be provided. Those parts of routes where there are no fixti stops should be claly defined in timetables, on route maps and preferably by some indication on the str~ts concemd (eg on street furniture).
Shelters Shelters should be lit at night if possible and if not they should be sitd in well-lit arm. Waiting passengers must have a CIW view of approaching buses and be visible to bus drivers. Where glass is used it should have a bold coloured band 140mm-160mm deep at a height of at last 1500mm from the ground. Smts in shelters should be providd in conformity with the guidelines given above.
Information and sizns At dl s~tions and interchanges up-to-date str~t maps showing lod public transport boarding points and routes should be prominently displayd. Stations md interchanges should be clmly signposted. Plans showing the layout of stitions and indicating the position of facilities should be displayed at entrances. Such plans should include a simplified tactile layout of the station. tittering on signs should be the largest size compatible with the space available and should contrast with the background (eg black on white or dark blue on yellow).
125 Care should be taken when using direction arrows to ensure that their maing is unambiguous. Pictograms whose design gives them an unintended direction quality should be avoidti. A mixture of upper and lower case lettering is preferable to upper case only. Generally, the height of letters and numerals on signs should be 10mm for every metre of viewing dis~ce, and 22mm should be considered to be the minimum height of a character. For tictile signs, characters should have a height of at last 15mm, and should be raised from the sign’s background by lmm to 1.5mm. The minimum height clmance for overhead signs is 2300mm. Tactic signs should be positional at betwmn 1400mm and 1700mm from the ground. Mere signs are viewed over the h~ds of s~td passengers a lower level may be used. At last one sign giving the name of stations and stops should be visible to dl passengers on an arriving bus, tram or train. All signs should be well lit. Variable message signs can be very helpful but care should be taken to ensure that, if a dot matrix is used, the grid is fine enough to produce accurately the shapes of letters and numbers. Signs that change or scroll should allow about 10 seconds for ~ch display. Audible renouncements are often helpful, but only if they are elm. Announcements of major service changes md emergency messages should be confirmd with visual displays.
Consultation and Training M groups representing the needs of passengers with disabilities should be consulted at an early stage in schemes affecting transport infrastructure. Disability awareness is an essential element in the training of dl operating stiff and those providing information to passengers.
Other Relevant Reports The following give advice on various aspmts of travel md transport : DPTAC R~ommended s~ification for buses used to operate local services DPTAC hgibility of Bus Timetable Books & laflets, A Code of Good Practice The Institution of Highways and Trmspo~tion “Reducing mobility handicaps : towards a barrier-free environment”.
126 1. Mobilitv in London (A study carried out by Cranfield Centre for bgistics and Transportation for the London Accessible Transport Unit and London Tmsport Limited, 1992).
2. BERRE~ B, LEAKE G R, MAY A D, and PARRY T, Erzonomic standards for disabled DaDle in D&estrian ar~s : results from HS observation work 1988/89 m Worting Paper 275, July 1989). 3. The Buildin~ Regulations - Part M : Access for disabled people @MSO, 1991).
4. BS 5810 Code of Dractice for access for the disabled to buildings @ritish S~dards Institute, 1979).
5. Revised guidelines for : Reducing mobilitv handicaDs - towards a barrier-free environment ~he Institution of Highways and Transportation, 1991).
6. GOLDSMITH S, Desizning for the disabled. (3rd edition] (MBA Publications, 1976).
7. ROYAL NATIONAL INS~TUTE FOR THE BLIND MOBILITY U~T, ~ fatures of good design (June 1992).
8. Access for disabled DwDle - desipn zuidance notes for developers (Access Committee for En~land/Centre on Environment for the Handicapped (now the Centre for Accessible Environments), 1985).
9. pl~ning for disabled people (Community T~hnicd Aid Centre/Manchester Disability Forum).
10. Station design guide for disabled customers @ntish Rail).
11. Makinz under~round stations more accessible to ~assengers - esDecidlv the elderlv and disabld @ndon Underground Limited/London Regional Transport Unit for Disabled Passengers, August 1988).
12. CAVANAGH S, and WARE V, At women’s convenience : a handbook on the design of women’s public toilets ~omen’s Design Service, June 1990).
13. Factsh~t 1 : Access ~omen’s Design Servicel~e Daily Telegraph Parent Friendly Campaign).
14. Factsheet 2 : Babv care ~omen’s Design Service/~e Daily Telegraph Parent Friendly Campaign).
15. Traffic signs manual (Department of TranspotiScottish Development DepartmentiWelsh Offiw - HMSO).
16. Disability Unit Circular 1/91 : The use of drODD~ kerbs and tactile surfaces at pedestrian crossing Doints (Department of Transport, May 1992).
17. Issue 39 : Communication on reswch aimed at imDroving transport conditions in cities. towns and other built-up areas (Transport Policy Department, Feded Republic of Germany, 1986).
18. “Part 11 : Architmturd and transportation barriers compliance board” Fdeti _ VO156, NO 173, (6 Sept 1991).
127 19. BALOG J N, CHIA D, SCHWARZ A N, and GNBBON R B, Accessibility handbook for transit facilities @edeA Transit Administration, Washington DC, July 1992).
20. RATCLIFFE J, “Middlesbrough’s new bus station : putting the passenger first” MuniciDd Engineer Vol 1, No 2, pp 129-138, (Aug 1984).
21. FOGELBERG O, Bussterminder i VasteuroDa (Transport Forsknings Berdningen, 1987(4)).
22. FLOW J L, and MINAIRE P, E~idemiologie du handicaD : etude fonctionnelle d‘une ~pulation @boratoire Ergonomic Sante Confort, Institut National de Rmherche sur les Transports et leur Securite, December 1986).
23. PE~ON J H, The use of the Underground svstem by Deo~le with imDaired _ @ndon Transport, September 1976). 24. The Building Re~ulations - Part K : Stairs. ramDs and guards (HMSO, 1991).
25. BS 5655 Lifts and service lifts : Part 5- Specification for dimensions of standard lift arran~ements @ritish Standards Institute, 1989).
26. PD 6523 Information on access to and movement within and around buildings and on certain facilities for disabled mD- Ie @ritish Stidards Institute, 1989).
27. BS 5655 Lifts and service lifts : Part 7- SDwification for manual control devices< indicators and additiond fittings (British Standards Institute, 1983).
28. BS 5656 Safetv rules for the construction and installation of escalators and passenger convevors (British Standards Institute, 1983).
29. VERHOEF L W M, “Decision making of vending machine users” Applied Er~onomics Vol 19, No 2, pp 103-109, (1988).
30. WGHT P, “Decision mting as a factor in the ease of using numerid tables” Er~onomics Vol 20, No 1, pp 91-96, (1977).
31. BARTWM D, “The presentation of information about bus services” fi EASTERBY R, and ZWAGA H, Information Design pp 299-320, (1984).
32. STEVOUX P, SMOLAR M, THERY C, and BWAUX-TROUVEME C, ~ conception de la “sipndetiaue” adaDtee aux besoins de 1‘ensemble des usa~ers (COLITRAH, Conseil National des Transports, 1989).
33. SUEN L, and GEEHAN T, Environment communications and wavfinding information in transportation terminals for Dersons with disabilities ~ransportation Development Centre, Transport Canada, 1991).
34. FRUIN J J, 7 Svnthesis of TransDort Practice : Passen~er Information Svstems for Transit Transfer Facilities (National Co-operative Transit Research and Development Program, US Transportation Board, Washington, Ott 1985).
35. GIA~OPOULOS G A, Bus DlanninR and oDeration in urban areas : A practical guide (Gower, 1981).
36. BENTZEN B L, et al, Solutions for Droblems for visudlv imDaired users of raDid rail transit (US Department of Transportation/UMTA, Aug 1981).
128 37. WITAKER L A, and SOMMER R, “Perception of Traffic guidance signs containing conflicting symbol and direction information” Er~onomics. Vol 29. No 5. Dp 699-711. [1986).
38. BARHAM P A J, and OXLEY P R, Si~na~e for udestrians using Public Transport interchanges and terminals : a review of existing resmrch and guidelines (Cranfield Centre for bgistics and Transportation, Jan 1992).
39. CROSBY, FLETCHER and FORBES, A sign svstems manual (Studio Vista, bndon, 1970).
40. UPCHURCH J P E, et al, Evaluation of Variable Messa~e Sizns : target value. legibility and viewing comfort (US Trmsportation Reswch Board, 71st Annual M~ting, 1992).
41. Bad on DHSS statistics, (June, 1987).
42. GALLON C A, OXLEY P R, and SIMMS B, Tactile footwav surfaces for the blind ~RRL Contractor Report 257, 1991).
43. GALLON C A, Tactile surfaces in the ~edestrian environment : exRenments in WolverhamDton ~RRL Contractor Report (unpublished), 1992).
44. WLLIAMS M, A ~uidance path in Milton Keynes ~RRL Report, to be published).
45. COSBY S, “Helping bus users with l~ing difficulties” bcal Transport Today (November 12, 1992).
46. VELCHE D, “Access to signage information and use of transportation systems by mentily disabled people” ~ DEJEAMM~ M, and MEDEVIELLE J-P, @S), Mobility and TmsDofi for elderlv and disabld Dersons : ProcWinEs for the 6th Intemationd Conference {COMOTRED ’92) (Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Swurite, 1992).
47. The Building Regulations - Part N : Gl~in~ - materials and protection ~MSO, 1992).
48. HOUGH M, and MAYHEW P, Taking account of crime - kev findings from the swond British Crime Survey (Home Office Research Study 85, HMSO, 1985).
49. AT~NS S T, Critid Daths : desi~nin~ for secure travel ~he Design Council, 1989).
50. MEADS R H, “Great Britain” ~ Delinauencv and vandalism in Dublic transDort (ECMT Round Table 77, Paris, 1989).
129 AC~OWLEDGE~NTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the importance of the material input and guidmce of the Department of Transport’s st~ring committee to the production of this report; the committee consisted of: -
Miss Ann Frye (Chairman) @epartment of Transport) Dr Ht Mitchell flransport Research bboratory) Ms Marian Hwards (Transport Resmch Laboratory) Ms Jean Ashcroft (Arthritis Care) Mr Andrsw Braddock (Unit for Disabled P~.sscngers, ~ndon Transport) Mr John Wagstaff @nit for Disabled Passengers, hndon Transport) Mr Bernard Garner ~yne & W~ PTE) Mr Peter Morgan (Grater Mmchester PTE) Mr David Skelton ~erseyside PTE) Mr Garry Williams (South Yorkshire PTE)
We would dso like to acknowledge the technid support provided by the Trmsport Research hboratory for the production of this report. APP~M A
130 ~S QH~O~= IS DESIGNED TO I_~GATE THE ISSm OF PERSONAL SEC~ITY AT TRANSPORT ~RCHANGES AND TERM~~, _ THE A~E OF THE WOR TRANSPORT PROWERS OF E~OPE TOWARDS THE S-H OF PASSENGERS AND STAFF.
1. Sizeoftie problem. HOWoftendoesYOMaUtioriw/orgtiation haveproblemswiti the fo~owing,at interchanges and termin~.
VERY OFTEN
Attacks on staff u u Attacks on passengers ‘n n n Attacks on women, in particdar u n u V~dtism n n
Graffiti n n
If you have a problem with grfiti at d, then in which of the foUowing lmtions does tie problem occur?
NO NO
Todets nm Subways/underpasses on
Wtiting room/areas mu W* of terrnind[iterchange mu
Bus stops/stands mu Other lomtions, (pleae pecifi) mm
?. “. Surveys on personalsecurity. Has your orgtisation/authority carried out its own survey of the pubfic’s attitude towards personal security in interchmges/terrnin&?
Yes D No m
U NO, please go to Qu. 3.
If ~S, please give brief detfis......
......
What were your main conclusions? ......
......
What action(s) did you take as a result of this reseuch? ......
......
we would be grateful if you cotid send us any report that you have on this research.] Current precautions. In how many of your interchanges/temhA do you tde the fo~owing precautions to tiprove tie personal security of passengers?
WL OF HM u n Closed-ticuit TVS n m n m
Other measures @leae specifi) n n
...... D
...... u m n
lW TM= FORYOURHELPIN COMPLE~NGTHISQUESTIONNMRE. PLWE REm ITTO USW T~ PRE-PMDE~LOPE PROWDED,(~ ~ THE~o Q s 0
a
s m
s ■-
J