Accessible public transport in Europe’s cities

Within the European Union there are more than 55 million disabled people – the equivalent of the population of one of the larger Member States – plus still larger numbers of older people and those who are encumbered by small children (in or out of pushchairs), or by heavy baggage or shopping when they travel by bus or rail.

For all these groups, some degree of mobility impairment makes it difficult or impossible to use public transport. Yet the needs of such a significant segment of their market have, until recently, been largely ignored by public transport authorities and operators.

The accessibility problem

From the introduction of the first horse-drawn buses in the mid 1800s, through to the opening of the world’s first underground railway in 1863 and the inauguration of most cities’ electric tramway networks in the early 1900s, and right up to the 1980s, little or no thought was given to the needs of passengers with reduced mobility. It was assumed that all potential users were totally able-bodied.

It was eventually realised, however, that disabled people were entitled to the same consideration as other groups and that public transport was especially important as a means of mobility for everyone. Many cities therefore took the simple step of introducing separate door-to-door transport services for disabled people. These were provided by taxis, often at a subsidised fare, or through the use of demand-responsive fleets of minibuses equipped with tail lifts and space for one or more wheelchair users. Disabled people were usually required to register with the service provider and to book their trips in advance, often 48 or 24 hours ahead of the desired time of travel.

In most cases, there were inevitably a series of restrictions imposed on such services to contain costs with users facing the problem of demand seriously outstripping supply.

Specially adapted buses

In order to make it possible for some disabled people to travel on regular timetabled services, a few cities invested in specially adapted buses with a platform lift at door two or – in the case of a minibus – at the rear, and allocated them to new routes planned with the needs of disabled people in mind.

This represented an overlaid network, operated in addition to all the conventional bus routes – though running much less frequently and, like door-to-door transport, these services really only provided for short local trips, so the mobility of the users continued to be very restricted.

The low-floor revolution

It quickly became clear that the concept of separate provision for disabled people was not going to satisfy the increasing demands for access to conventional public transport. The lifts on the specially adapted buses proved costly and unreliable but, above all, the time taken to load one wheelchair user was as much as three or four minutes. This was because – in a vehicle designed to carry a number of wheelchairs – it was necessary to make use of both wheelchair and occupant restraint systems, so it was soon obvious that the use of slow-moving lifts on high-floor buses, as widely practised in the USA, would simply not be practical in European conditions.

By the mid1980s the development of the low-floor bus was in full swing in Germany and soon after in Belgium and The Netherlands, though this had little to do with accessibility as such. The designers’ aim was largely to enhance safety and reduce dwell time at bus stops by removing the steps at all the doorways. This concept was attractive for tramway operators too, and the very first low-floor cars entered service in Geneva in 1984 and shortly afterwards in Grenoble.

The first low-floor buses and trams were a great success from the passengers’ point of view though they were not without the inevitable teething problems for the operators. Once the new vehicles had settled in, and the manufacturers had perfected their production, it was realised that the low-floor design could easily make it possible for wheelchair users to get on board buses and trams for the first time. The addition of a boarding aid – such as an extending ramp or ‘palette’ – to bridge the gap between the pavement and the bus, or the boarding platform and the tram, and the provision of a safe area devoid of seats for a wheelchair user to be accommodated, turned a low-floor vehicle into an accessible vehicle.

It soon became the norm to equip the standing area of a city bus with an ‘ironing board’ backrest, up to which a wheelchair user could manoeuvre him or herself into place. By adopting a rearward-facing space, with the energy-absorbing backrest, there was no need for wheelchair or occupant restraint and, where power-driven ramps were used, no need for driver intervention.

At last it had been made possible for this long-neglected group to travel independently – and on the same buses or trams as everyone else.

Lessons learned

In particular, powered wheelchair access ramps initially proved troublesome though it has to be said that this was much more the result of lack of interest or attention by some operators than of poor product quality on the part of the ramp manufacturers. The principle of a powered ramp is hardly rocket science – it is akin to a motorised window in a car door. What is different, however, is that a ramp will be used much less frequently than a car window – so it needs to be checked frequently to ensure it is in working order. Unfortunately, perhaps, and unlike when there are defects in brakes or gearboxes, a bus can be operated with a ramp that has failed. Not surprisingly, the high failure rate in the early days generated much criticism from wheelchair users but most operators then put more effort into maintenance and made sure that each bus was subject to a daily ramp function test, so that failures were significantly reduced.

Although many cities use manual wheelchair ramps the power-driven type saves vital time and avoids the need for the driver to leave their cab, with the attendant risk in some areas of his cash takings being stolen. With practice, the time taken for a wheelchair user to board the bus is less than one minute, including the 12 to 15 seconds for the ramp to deploy and then retract.

Perhaps the greatest single benefit of the low-floor revolution is that these new buses and trams have dramatically improved the public transport offer for millions of non-disabled passengers too – especially those travelling with small children, heavy baggage or shopping.

Older passengers in particular benefit from the step-free doorways and ‘kneeling’ suspension. Passenger numbers have increased with the change to low-floor so these accessible vehicles make good business sense too.

Changes at the bus and tram stop

The low-floor bus can really only do its job properly when it can be brought to within a few centimetres of the kerb at stops, and this often proves difficult. Problems of stop location – for example, outside a fast food outlet or a bank cash machine – parking enforcement and basic design have all been the subject of review. Use of the so-called ‘Kassel Kerb’ has brought some success in minimising the gap between the bus and the pavement at stops, and the removal of lay-bys in favour of ‘bus boarders’ has helped to deliver something much more akin to a tramway on many busy bus routes. It is clearly necessary to consider the fixed infrastructure as a component part of the bus ‘system’ – just as it is with a tramline – if the best results for the passengers are to be obtained.

For the tram, the changes at stops have been concentrated upon minimising the gap and step between the platform and the vehicle, but on many traditional street-running systems there may well be no space for a platform at all. In such cases a lift is needed – usually at the doorway nearest to the driver – if wheelchair users are required to board from road level. In Vienna, the so-called ‘ULF’ or ultra-low-floor tram has an initial step of only 197mm above the rails but there are many other examples of modern trams with lift access for street-loading stops.

Other modes

In the larger cities, heavy rail services and underground or metro networks are clearly vital to individual mobility. In common with the bus and the tram, however, accessibility for disabled, older and encumbered passengers needed to be improved. The old deep-level metro systems present considerable challenges to accessibility. Improvements have been made in some places with the installation of lifts at all or a ‘key network’ of stations, and future designs of rolling stock will ensure that the car floor height is at the same level as the platforms. In the short term, as is common in Hamburg and some other cities, so-called ‘humps’ have been installed on the platforms of stations with step-free access from the street, in order to ensure level boarding to at least one doorway of the train.

New lines and extensions are now designed to be fully-accessible from the start and these can dramatically enhance local public transport in the areas served.

In conclusion

In a little over 10 years, there has been a significant change in the accessibility of most cities’ public transport. Millions of users of bus and rail services have benefited. More and more people are making fewer journeys by car as they find out how much easier it is to get on board the bus, tram or train.

A good start has been made towards the achievement of a transport system that is truly ‘Accessible to All’.