How about introducing architecture to children and teenagers in school as a means of getting better architecture? Teachers can use architecture as a learning resource for other subjects as well. De-a Arhitectura Association thinks bringing teenagers and architecture together is a good idea. It’s also a good way to give voice to children and teenagers and what they want from the built environment.
De-a Arhitectura has a network of built environment professionals who share knowledge with children and teenagers.
Image from a De-a Arhitectura workshop.
The way professionals understand the built environment and the way the public see it are quite different. One group often left out of consultations is teenagers. Consequently, De-a Arhitectura set about finding out how to give voice to teens.
Using workshop methods, participants analysed their city for facilities and how it feels to be in the city. One workshop focused on the experience of pushing a stroller, being in a wheelchair, and pulling luggage. The research paper describes the workshop methods used in the project.
The follow up project provided a way to raise awareness that teenagers perspective should matter. Teenagers have a language of their own and the researchers found they had energy and innovative ideas. They engaged younger and older people in their lives in the stories they create. And they provided a fresh angle or perspective on things.
The researchers conclude that teenagers have their own visions and benefits from interacting with public space and the activities they carry out.
Teenagers may not be the most obvious left-out category of people, but in the design and use of public spaces they are often left out. Public space belongs to everyone, yet teenagers have few ways make their voices heard. How do they demand their own space, which represents their identities and offers a creative and comfortable environment in which they can socialise and evolve?
De-a Arhitectura Association began to develop the Urban Up educational program in 2016. It was a starting point in diversifying its portfolio with teenagers, aiming to be inclusive of all categories and backgrounds.
Throughout the past years, Urban Up has tried to hear their wishes and expectations from the built environment and the public spaces they use. We used different hands-on activities (extracurricular) and with a design thinking methodology for improving their schools.
Trying to constantly find better communication channels and to reduce the generational distances, we started a fellowship program for students in different study fields connected to the built environment (multidisciplinary teams), in order to bring teenagers and young adults together.
The students became mentors for the high school students, in workshops they co-designed, aiming to engage them in better understanding and using public spaces. It is our belief that the more aware and involved teenagers are today, the more active and responsible citizens they will be tomorrow.
Mollie Pittaway gives a neurodiverse perspective on the world in a Medium magazine article. She describes 10 ways autistic people are different to neurotypical people. She makes it clear in the beginning that she doesn’t speak for all autistic people. Pittaway just wants to emphasise cultural differences. Understanding these differences are useful in the workplace for managing and interacting with staff who might be autistic.
Understanding how autistic or neurodiverse people see the world and process information is key to being inclusive in any situation. They don’t need to be the odd one out.
We all have different ways of experiencing the world and interacting with one another. However, sometimes it is difficult to empathise with each other when our experiences are quite different. Pittaway presents ten differences to neurotypical people are briefly outlined below. See the article in Medium for a more detailed explanation.
10 ways autistic people are different
Small talk: This can feel fake or unimportant, because autistic people want to talk about deeper, meaningful things. Consequently, they don’t join in conversations about pop culture, TV shows or sports games. This means they appear shy or aloof.
Eye contact: Eye contact is considered “normal” and courteous to neurotypical people. Pittaway says she loses her train of thought when looking at someone. This makes it look like they are bored or indifferent.
Directness and empathy
Directness: Neurotypical people can deal with ambiguity in communication rather than saying exactly what they are looking for. Pittaway says she needs as much clarification as possible and finds it difficult not to be direct. This can be perceived as being blunt or rude.
Empathy: When someone is upset many neurotypical people listen and talk things through. Pittaway, however, says her way is to talk about her similar experiences as a way to show she understands. Finding the right words is difficult. However, this can be viewed as moving attention to themselves and therefore being selfish.
Social situations
Social connection: Pittaway says that in comparison to neurotypical people she has a low “social battery”. This means she doesn’t seek frequent social connection such as going to the pub or a party. Recharging her social battery might mean refusing invitations to events.
Interests: Differences are less obvious when it comes to talking about interests. Some autistic people can remember a wide range of facts, but these facts can be boring to others. Everyone has the ability to bore people with their special interests.
Spontaneity: Last minute plans or sudden changes in plan can be challenging for autistic people. Changing routines is difficult and can take extra energy when recharging is required.
Sensory overload: Background noise, traffic, nightclubs and crowding make it a struggle for autistic people to concentrate. They can’t filter the information in the same way as others and just try to hide their distress.
Morals and conforming
Hypermoralism: Autistic people see things in black and white whereas neurotypical people see nuance in things. Pittaway says holding the high moral ground is one of the best traits because they want the best for others. However, they might be seen as the “goody two-shoes” and their concerns are ignored.
Conforming: Going along with the status quo is difficult because autistic people need to understand why things need to be done a certain way. That can make for a lot of questions. This makes it inconvenient for those at the top because it feels like their authority is being questioned.
Pittaway concludes by saying there isn’t any right or better way to communicated. But it is important to respect differences.
As stated above, this is one person’s experience of being autistic. However, the autism spectrum captures many types of neurodiversity. This is one view. The title of the article is 10 Significant ways autistic people are different to neurotypical people. You will have to sign in or sign up to Medium to read it.
Neuroinclusion and disability inclusion: are they the same?
Ainslee Hooper raises this question in relation to the workplace – is it the same conversation or a separate one? Some see them as the same while others feel neurodivergent experiences need a distinct spotlight. But does it matter?
In many ways, neurodivergence is very different from other types of disability which means people face different barriers to inclusion.
Neuroinclusion is about recognising, valuing, and accommodating neurodivergent individuals whose brains process information differently from what society considers “typical.”
Disability inclusion focuses on removing the physical, systemic, and attitudinal barriers to participating in everyday activities. This includes the environments and systems that create exclusion. But not all neurodivergent people identify as having a disability.
When separating the two is a problem
It reinforces ableism. Neuroinclusion is often framed as the “positive” side of inclusion—celebrating strengths and innovation. Disability inclusion faces stigma, stereotypes, and assumptions of deficit.
It creates gaps. Organisations may provide supports such as flexible work, while neglecting other crucial accessibility needs. This fragmented approach rarely leads to genuine inclusion.
It leaves people out. Many neurodivergent people also live with physical disabilities, chronic illness, or mental health conditions. Separating the two risks missing intersectional experiences.
Psychologist John Elder Robison provides a personal view of neurodiversity in his writings. A review of his book in the Psychology Today blog outlines his experience. A key point is that if one in seven children in the US are now identified as neurodiverse, is this really an exception to “normal”? The title of the book is Look me in the Eye: My Life With Asperger’s.
Architects Selwyn Goldsmith and Ronald Mace were leaders in the field of universal design. Both contracted polio in their childhood but this did not stop them from championing the disability rights movement. Today, Mace is widely recognised in the universal design movement. However, Goldsmith was very active in the UK and wrote four books. The last of which was in 2000, titled Universal Design.
Although the book is more than 20 years old, it remains a good reference for architects with some wise advice on attitude.
“The architect does not start with the presumption that people with disabilities are abnormal, are peculiar and different… [or] packaged together with a set of special-for-the-disabled accessibility standards, … presented in top down mode as add-ons to unspecified normal provision.” Image from The Guardian
Today’s universal design campaigners still find this attitude within the general design community. The resistance to that paradigm change Goldsmith discusses remains 25 years on.
From the Routledge book description
“Universal Design presents detailed design guidance for architects in an easily referenced form. Covering both public buildings and private housing, it includes informative anthropometric data, along with illustrative examples of the planning of circulation spaces, sanitary facilities, car parking spaces and seating spaces for wheelchair users in cinemas and theatres. It is a valuable manual in enhancing understanding of the basic principles of ‘universal design’.
The aim – to encourage architects to extend the parameters of normal provision, by looking to go beyond the prescribed minimum design standards of the Part M building regulation, Access and facilities for disabled people.”
Heights of fixtures and fittings; Mirrors; Windows; Shelves; Work surfaces; Digital code panels; Socket outlets; Vertical Circulation; Steps and stairs; Ramps; Handrails; Spaces for wheelchair manoeuvre; Movement through door openings; Entrances to buildings; Entrance lobbies;
Sanitary facilities; Cloakroom lobbies; WCs; Wash basins; Baths and bathrooms; Shower and shower rooms; Changing rooms and dressing rooms; Lifts; Platform lifts and stairlifts; Seating spaces; Kitchens; Bedrooms; Car parking spaces.
Goldsmith’s first book was in 1963 titled Designing for the Disabled – an entirely new concept at the time. He expanded this publication in 1967. A third book in 1992, Designing for the Disabled – The New Paradigm, expanded his focus to children and prams. His research led to the first kerb cuts in the UK. Selwyn Goldsmith died in 2011.
A group of researchers compared the walking experience of tourists and locals in two New Zealand cities. The research was in the context of accessibility and active travel. They chose to compare Christchurch and Wellington because of their differing topography and architecture. There are no surprising results from the study, but they confirm the need for good footpaths and wayfinding for everyone.
Overall, both tourists and locals were generally “satisfied” with their walking experience in both cities. However, the age of participants was skewed to younger age groups.
Image of Christchurch Post Office.
Participants were asked to rate the presence of a good and wide walkway condition, absence of closed roads (culs de sac), signage, flat terrain, and accessibility for wheelchairs and prams. Overall, both locals and tourists appreciated well designed level walkways with good signage for wayfinding. However, walkers would like to be alerted to construction works so they can take alternative routes in the same way as motorists.
In Wellington, tourists indicated that they expected more accessible routes so that people with differing abilities could walk or wheel. This was the most significant finding in the survey because it was the only score to fall below the statistical neutral line.
Image of Wellington.
Christchurch has less steep terrain which means it could satisfy the accessibility criteria better than Wellington. Tourists liked the grid pattern of the city which removed the culs de sac that existed before the earthquake. However, poor or narrow footpaths were a concern for both tourists and locals in the central area. Lack of signage at intersections was not regarded well by tourists either.
In Wellington footpaths and signage were also a major concern for locals and tourists alike. While the footpaths were wide, they were poorly maintained.
More signage for tourists
It’s not only signs that people need – landmarks work as well. Wellington has a good natural landmark in the form of the harbour. The Avon River in Christchurch also helps with navigation. However, tourists would like more signage, especially at intersections.
This research addresses the question of how visitors perceive and evaluate the city they are visiting when they walk. Comparisons are made with the experience of local residents. The paper examines the relatively overlooked domain of tourist walkability and investigates the extent to which accessibility and topography may influence walking experiences.
Data were gathered from a Walk Diary in which respondents evaluated the environment along a single walk. Responses were received through convenience sampling from 132 people in Christchurch and Wellington. The Walk Diary provided an effective way of capturing differences between locals and tourists when they walk. Insights from this study will be particularly useful to those tasked with enhancing people’s urban walking experience.
Most people know that digital platforms, such as Facebook, collect personal data about their users. When setting up user accounts, platforms ask users to choose various preferences which are not necessarily inclusive. These options often misrepresent gender and sexual orientation of users, which disproportionately affects the LGBTIQ+ population. Three researchers tackled this issue and came up with an inclusive user account playbook.
Creating a user account is one thing, creating a profile is another. A user account has demographic information about the user’s preferences or interests. This can apply to user groups as well.
TheUser Account Playbook is structured as an online learning tool on “how to”. It begins with instructions on how to use the guide followed by an overview of the content. There are three key ideas underpinning the guide. Understand the social issues related to LGBTIQ+ and user accounts; design with these in mind; and implement inclusive practices across the organisation.
This Playbook will equip you with knowledge on creating Inclusive User Account Experiences for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning+ (LGBTQ+) Community .
The problems the playbook aims to solve are related to how data is collected and used, and not relying on LGBTIQ+ co-workers to “educate” them. It also aims to challenge industry norms and design with and LGBTIQ+ users. The video below does not have captions.
Digital platforms utilize data collection processes to assess demographic data about their users through user account creation. These platforms require users to select preferences that provide options which oftentimes misrepresent gender and sexual orientation identities of users. This disproportionately affecting the LGBTQ+ population.
This research uses academic literature that focus on LGBTQ+ inclusivity, and surveys and interviews from LGBTQ+ technology users. The authors detail their thoughts on a Facebook user account case study.
Product team experiences about work flows surrounding inclusion informed the creation of the digital playbook that rests at the following link: bit.ly/LGBTInclusive_UAGuide. Implications for this work lie in the possibility for impactful industry change within company cultures and individuals for the benefit of LGBTIQ+ users of technology.
We know that as people grow older, the desire to stay in their current home increases. Different health conditions begin to emerge as we get older, and home design becomes an important factor in managing these conditions. Researchers from Italy chose to explore Parkinson’s disease in relation to home design using inclusive design methods.
Parkinson’s disease is one of the most frequently occurring neurological conditions along with dementia. Parkinson’s disease affects voluntary movements which make daily tasks more difficult.
Similarly to other studies, the researchers found the size of the bathroom the main area of difficulty. This is for manoeuvring in a wheelchair or shower chair and placement of a shower seat.
People with reduced mobility find stairs difficult. But the visual impact of stairs can reduce “freezing” in people with Parkinson’s disease. However, overall, participants in the study preferred a single level dwelling. Being able to work in the kitchen from a seated position was the third most important factor. The design of kitchen appliances also emerged as a design factor along with furniture design.
The article has some explanatory drawings and pictures depicting their design solutions. Many of these solutions are beneficial for other health conditions and disabilities. Circulation space within the home is the main criteria for all of them.
Assistive devices
Participants reported frustration with products immediately identifiable as “products for the disabled”. The authors note that although these products are useful, they are stigmatising. Consequently they are often rejected by those who could really benefit from them. Their appearance makes them different from “normal products”.
As with the universal design approach and co-design methods, places and products for people with disability are good for everyone.
“…designers often forget the meaning and full force of the words human-centred design as a fundamental affirmation of human dignity…”
Designers have “the responsibility to continuously search for what can be done to uphold and enhance the dignity of human beings as they lead their lives…”
Note that the authors make reference to inclusive design being different from universal design and design-for-all. Their distinction is based on the notion of universal design being only for people with disability. This is often the case in the United States, but is not the case in Australia. The term universal design is embedded in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, this does not mean it is exclusive to people with disability.
Consequently, the terms inclusive design and universal design mean the same thing. Human-centred design also has the same goals, but has emerged from the ergonomics literature.
From the abstract
Inclusive design is an approach that puts users at the centre of the design process. This means working with people rather than working for them. This article focuses on the application of inclusive design and human-centred design approaches specifically aimed at Parkinson’s disease.
The article describes a case study of the applied methodology for solving challenges posed by Parkinson’s disease. The case study shows how an inclusive design mindset favours a holistic and creative approach, capable of bringing together different user groups throughout the various stages of the design process.
Barriers to digital use are caused by a complex web of intersecting factors. Gender identity is just one of them. Age, education, socioeconomic status, race, physical and cognitive disadvantage all have a role to play. Focusing on one dimension of inclusion does not account for all the complexities. That’s the conclusion two researchers came to after looking at Microsoft, Apple, and Google websites.
The big software industry players have enthusiastically promoted their commitment to inclusive design. But how inclusive are they?
A paper discussing aspects of their inclusive practice from a gender perspective reveals that it is only a partial response. That’s because gender intersects with many other identities such as age, capability, and ethnicity.
“Regardless of efforts to promote inclusivity mainly in terms of gender, the intersectionality of identities is frequently overlooked and ignored in design.”
Microsoft, Apple, Google and Meta
The paper covers the issues of intersectionality and imagery, which is followed by tech industry case studies. Here is a brief overview:
Microsoft’s manual does a great job in explaining why there is a need for inclusive design. However, it is focused on disability and the images maintain the male/female binary. It covers theoretical and practical aspects.
Apple’s site has a detailed description of what the company thinks about inclusive design. It goes further than Microsoft on accessibility an introduces language use and stereotypes. Apple does not provide designers with many practical tools on how to do universal design.
Google acknowledges the need for equity and inclusion in their products by giving voice to the most underrepresented groups throughout the production process. They have a list of diversity segments for designers to consider.
Meta has implemented several key strategies in its design process to create inclusive products. The company is evolving to recognise the importance of accessible and inclusive products for all users. Meta conducts user research on a regular basis to gather feedback for improvements.
Guidelines for gender inclusion
The research resulted in guidelines for designing gender-inclusive tools in technology. They are applicable to both academia and industry. They are also useful for anyone responsible for the look, feel and accessibility of their organisation’s website and digital products.
Consider intersectionality: avoid simplifying people to one-dimensional characters. People have complex identities, which go beyond belonging to one specific gender, race, or sexuality group.
Avoid propagating stereotypes: attaching typical looks, occupations, and traits to a person based on their gender, race, or sexuality, contributes to social stereotypes that aggravate misogyny, racism, and homophobia.
Overcome the gender-binary: avoid producing text and images that reinforce the gender binary and social stereotypes, regarding appearance, jobs, preferences, or skills.
Make your text, tone, and imagery consistent and inclusive: it is necessary to maintain efforts for inclusivity throughout your copy, visuals, communication, and products.
Show the diversity of each community: make a conscious effort to illustrate how multi-colored communities are, instead of simplifying them to stereotypes.
Involve people with that particular identity: diversity and inclusion should be taken seriously. There’s no better person than the one with that particular identity to tell you about their concerns and challenges.
Avoid concentrating on a single mode of communication: adapt your copy, images, and communication to different languages, cultures, and levels of complexity.
Provide training in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: help your business or organization by providing constant training and mentorship.
The need for inclusion stems from the fact that the composition of the IT sector reflects a workforce that is not diverse enough. This can result in blind spots in the design process, leading to exclusionary user experiences. The idea of inclusive design is becoming more prevalent. In fact, it is becoming a general expectation to create software that is useful for and used by more people.
With a focus on intersectionality, inclusive user experience (UX) seeks to actively and consciously integrate minority, vulnerable, and understudied user groups in the design.
UX that is based on inclusive design and aims to overcome social disadvantages in all of their intersectional complexities. These arise from gender, sexual orientation, age, education, dis/ability, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity, among others. At the same time, gender-inclusive design has challenges and limitations: the idea of gender inclusion in design is not yet a reality.
Our research investigates academic literature, as well as tech industry practices, like the websites of Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Meta. Our analysis shows that intersectionality suffers even when inclusivity is considered. We also offer guidelines for factors that might be explored for a more inclusive design.
Apple to unveil accessibility features
Apple announced in May 2025 that it will introduce new accessibility features at the end of the year. It will provide more detailed information for apps and games on the App Store. See their media release for more.
If we want to get everyone walking and wheeling for their health, and the health of the environment, a few things have to change. If people don’t feel safe walking and wheeling, they will avoid the journey or take the car. Many people who are blind or have low vision fear a collision with vehicles and cyclists. That makes them feel unsafe on our streets, and means they are less likely to venture from well-known routes in their community.
Pedestrians who are blind or have low vision have difficulty knowing when it is safe to cross at non-signalised crossing points. This is compounded by traffic volume and speed. Not every person with low vision uses a cane or dog indicating to drivers they have reduced vision.
If you want to know more about the issues encountered by people who are blind or have low vision, take a look at the study by Victoria Walks. They conducted a survey of people with vision impairment and carried out some street audits. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the road and footpath safety issues encountered by this group.
“Difficulty in judging whether it is safe to cross the road” was the biggest overall concern, followed by tripping hazards on the footpath. Crossing the road at non-signalised intersections was not an option for many. Given that most mid-block crossings and intersections are not signalised, this severely limits this group’s mobility. But they are not the only ones. People with poor depth perception and some cognitive conditions find it difficult to judge when to cross.
Interaction with other road users
Drivers are required to give way to pedestrians. However, at traffic lights for example, motorists failing to give way was the biggest concern for people who are blind or have low vision. Failing to give way to pedestrians on the footpath across driveways was another real problem. Shared paths with cyclists, pedestrians with dogs, and just other pedestrians were also an issue.
People who are blind or have low vision are not the only ones with poor road and footpath experiences. Consequently, if we can get it right for this group, every pedestrian should benefit.
Site audit issues for safe walking and wheeling
Issues common to most areas audited were: – Tripping hazards and obstructions on the footpath such as low hanging tree branches, shop sandwich boards, and outdoor dining. – Poor kerb ramp design that potentially sends pedestrians with a vision impairment into the middle of an intersection rather than directly across the road. – Differences between the width of a crossing and the width of the kerb ramp used to access it causing a potential trip hazard. – Missing or poorly functioning Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI) or audio tactiles.
An artist’s impression showing the QVB stop in the George Street pedestrianised zone
What role do shared spaces play in “successful places”? And what are shared spaces anyway? A report compiled by the Transport Research Centre at UTS for the NSW Government attempts to answer these questions. The focus of the report was to understand how shared spaces can enhance the development of “successful places”, a key strategic priority of Transport.
Varied terminology on the topic of shared spaces is not helpful and needs a standard definition. Another issue is whose opinion counts most. Is it user perceptions or transport performance measurements? And implementation is difficult even though there are many guidelines and there are few case studies.
What is a shared space?
The report offers the following definition.
“A public street or intersection that is intended and designed to be used by all modes of transport equally in a consistently low-speed environment. Shared space designs aim to reduce vehicle dominance and prioritise active mobility modes. Designs can utilise treatments that remove separation between users in order to create a sense of place and facilitate multi-functions.”
Findings
Broadly, high level critical findings include:
The shared space design concept is one tool for forming successful places across the community.
A spectrum of intervention and design options are available to transport professionals to achieve a shared space within the road network.
Defining relationships between design parameters and performance metrics are key to determining the factors leading to implementing successful shared space.
Current guidelines, standards and practical processes limit the application of novel shared space solutions.
The title of the Shared Spaces Reviewis, Evaluation and Implementation of Shared Spaces in NSW: Framework for road infrastructure design and operations to establish placemaking. Examination of existing Shared Space knowledge. The Transport Research Centre, University of Technology Sydney conducted the research for Transport for NSW.
The report is comprehensive and detailed with some international case studies to illustrate issues and findings. The report provides recommendations and current best practice for Transport for NSW.
Intergenerational shared spaces
Having interaction between generations, particularly older and younger people is beneficial for everyone. Julie Melville and Alan Hatton-Yeo discuss the issues in a book chapter, Intergenerational Shared Spaces in the UK context.
The authors discuss how the generations are separated by life activities and dwelling places. The design of the built environment is a major concern because is not conducive to sharing spaces across the generations.
While this book is not specifically about universal design, it is about inclusive practice and social inclusion.
Google Books has the full book, Intergenerational Space, edited by Robert M Vanderbeck and Nancy Worth.
A working paper based on five participants with disability highlights the small but important details that form barriers to getting around in the public domain. The results of their neighbourhood movements are traced in a map showing the barriers.
The usual barriers are encountered and are specific to Berlin and most likely representative of suburban neighbourhoods in Australia as well. Another paper to add to the collection.
Imagine you could travel to only 1% of the city where you live – areas that were easily accessible to other residents. The main problem is it’s not the bus system itself that’s inaccessible. It’s all the infrastructure around it such as footpaths and kerb ramps. That’s the claim by researchers in Columbus, Ohio.
“People with mobility disabilities need to get to and from bus stops to use public transportation, and that isn’t easy in many parts of the city.”
The study of wheelchair users who rely on public transport, found that powered wheelchair users were a little better off than manual users. The researchers used high-resolution, real-time data on the usage of buses by people with and without disabilities.
In one analysis, the researchers found how many of the bus stops could get users to various places in the city within 30 minutes. Manual wheelchair users had 75% fewer bus stops they could use compared with non-disabled users. For powered wheelchair users, they experienced 59% fewer stops. Even when they gave them more time to complete the journey, it was little better. That means wheelchair users are confined to self-segregated parts of the city.
Public transit is not a business, it is not just a social service. It is crucial urban infrastructure and footpaths are part of that.
Many people with mobility disabilities rely on public transit to access crucial resources and maintain social interactions. However, they face higher barriers to accessing and using public transit.
We used high-resolution public transit real-time vehicle data, passenger count data, and paratransit usage data from 2018 to 2021 to estimate and compare transit accessibility and usage of people with and without mobility disabilities. We found significant disparities wheelchair users’ accessibility relative to people without disabilities.
The city center has the highest accessibility and ridership, as well as the highest disparities in accessibility. We also find that people with reduced mobility using a fixed-route service are more sensitive to weather conditions. Most will ride in the middle of the day rather than during peak hours.
The spatial pattern of bus stop usage by people with disability is different to people without disabilities. This suggests their destination choices are driven by access concerns.
Bus and tram stops by universal design
Public transport is often perceived as an inefficient way to travel, especially in terms of time taken. Not good for customer service or engagement. A research paper reports on a detailed analysis of bus and tram stop positioning using a holistic universal design approach.
A common story
“To get from my house to the nearest restaurant is a mile-and-a-half walk, which takes me about 30 minutes each way. To get to the same restaurant by bus, I must walk half a mile, then cross a heavily traveled arterial street with no pedestrian protection to arrive at the nearest stop (it’s unprotected) for a route that passes the restaurant.
“Once the bus arrives, I have to ask the driver where the bus is going, since there’s no signage at the stop, pay the fare, and then watch as the bus stops six times in the remaining mile, all of those stops on the same arterial street I just crossed to board the bus. It takes me 10 minutes to walk the half-mile to the bus stop, and according to the Met Transit schedule, it takes the bus another 20 minutes to negotiate the remaining mile to the restaurant, so walking or riding the bus are equivalent in terms of time spent. It’s the sort of bus service that encourages people to drive a car instead.”
Placement and design are critical
The article addresses the placement and design of the stops in detail. There’s some joined up thinking for the eighteen elements identified including: safety, convenience, lighting, routing patterns, width of footpaths and pedestrian activity. The pros and cons of different stop placements are listed in a table. Service frequency and faster travel times were more highly regarded than add-ons, such as WiFi and USB ports. Shelters at stops and up to date information were critical design elements.
A transit stop serves more than one purpose. It signals the presence of a transit service, information about the service and surrounding destinations, and a place to wait. This article draws together the elements that transport designers should consider in providing a good customer service experience.
Transit stops should be situated where they are convenient and safe for passengers and alternative road users has been taken into consideration.
On-street stops and their connecting roads are viewed as a holistic environment, instead of an ordinary place or location to make a stop. This environment includes elements such as: Accessibility through street connectivity, street and road design, and transit stop design. This paper develops a conceptual model that links the various variables together. It highlights how one affects the other and their impact on the overall ability to produce a good passenger experience.
Transit stops are easier to locate when there is high street connectivity which determines how transit passengers gain access to a transit service. The design and configuration of on-street stops and connecting roads lead to increased safety, thereby leading to increased ridership.
Bus stop design for diverse populations
From the abstract
Disadvantaged groups, encounter barriers in bus stop environments that limit their mobility, health, and social equity. This study evaluates bus stop design guidelines from six countries. It focuses on critical facility components such as wheelchair pads, tactile indicators, and seating.
While most guidelines primarily address mobility and visual disabilities, gaps persist for overlooked groups. These include people with cognitive or invisible disabilities and pregnant women. This study highlights the need for inclusive bus stop design standards to ensure equitable access, promoting active transportation and public health.
We all have to go sometime and some of us sooner and more quickly than others. The availability of clean public toilets can make or break a shopping trip or social outing. People with bladder problems will restrict their movements to where they know the toilets are. This is not just a social issue, it is an economic one.
The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design had a good look at this issue. Their report outlines how they went about finding an alternative model for high street toilets. The project was titled, Engaged: a toilet on every high street.
This design research project was about a simple concept of reusing vacant high street units as toilets (plus commercial or community space). It explored the idea before thinking about how to implement it.
The research explored how this idea would fit into current systems and infrastructure. People within retail, community safety, government and urban design were consulted. Then they spoke with council officers to see how they could make it happen.
Pub staff responsible for toilets talked about the problems with toilets. Public toilet provision is complex. A lot can go wrong. The aim therefore was to understand what the public want, what councils can achieve and where the pitfalls are.
The key areas or outcomes for Engaged were the issues of:
Closed and Temporary Toilets
Future Inclusive Toilets
Lootopia and the High Street
Toilets in the 24-hour City
Talk Toilets
The report explains these points in detail using case studies. Accessible toilets are included in the discussions as well as criminal behaviour.
Everyone needs a toilet
Everyone needs to use the toilet, and people shouldn’t be ‘designed out’. People who spend all day outside, such as rough-sleepers, rely more on public toilets than most. Yet privately-owned, publicly-accessible toilets may not be accessible to them, either from exclusion or from feeling that they would be permitted. Other groups who may feel excluded include teenagers and people of colour. Discrimination that associates groups with anti-social or criminal behaviour reduces the number of toilets that people can access.
The researchers found their findings match similar surveys by the Bathroom Manufacturers Association, and AgeUK London. ‘High streets’ was the main location where respondents thought public toilets were not good enough (70%), ahead of parks (47%). This data is useful for showing the value that public toilets bring to the high street. If people leave early due to a lack of toilets, that hurts businesses and the wider community. It also limits people’s participation and quality of life.
The title of the report is, Engaged: a toilet on every high street. The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design did the research published by the Royal College of Art. It is a good example of talking to stakeholders before even thinking about solutions.
Accessible toilets: how are they really used?
Accessible public toilets are constructed to a set standard in many countries including Australia. But has anyone actually asked users if they are truly functional for wheelchair users and others? Access Insight magazine gives an overview of new research into this question.
The UTS project focused on public accessible bathroom design. Falling off the toilet pan while reaching for toilet paper and avoiding public bathrooms altogether are two preliminary findings from the research project. Photo: Phillippa Carnemolla.
The current Australian Standard for accessible bathrooms is based on data from the 1970s with a few tweaks along the way. The design favours paraplegia who have good use of their upper body and arms. That means people with higher level needs are excluded from the design.
Apart from falling when trying to reach the toilet paper, users also need shelving near the toilets and sinks. We floors are unhygienic and a slip hazard when attempting a sit to stand transfer. Soap, paper towels, hand dryers, and toilet rolls are often placed in inaccessible positions. Or they can obstruct the grab rail.
The other key finding is how wheelchair users plan their movements outside the home to avoid needing a public toilet. Some would rather forgo social activities than be faced with bathrooms they cannot access.
Design policy and regulations within our cities can significantly impact the accessibility and social participation of people with disability. Public, wheelchair-accessible bathrooms are highly regulated spaces, but little is known about how wheelchair users use them.
This exploratory inquiry encompasses twelve interviews, delving into how participants utilise accessible bathrooms based on their functional needs.
Findings revealed themes of safety, hygiene, planning/avoidance and privacy and dignity. Many wheelchair users invest significant effort in planning for bathroom use or avoid public bathrooms altogether.
Regulatory standards don’t capture the ongoing maintenance and regular cleaning of bathrooms. However, this is critically important to the ongoing accessibility and safety of public bathrooms for wheelchair users. This points to a relationship between the design and the maintenance and the social participation of people with disability.
These findings can potentially drive innovative and inclusive approaches to bathroom design regulations that include maintenance. As such they can inform regulations, standards and design practices for more socially sustainable cities.
Everybody Poops
A Canadian briefing paper, Everybody Poops: Public toilets are a community issue, covers similar ground. Although these facilities are an important part of the community, local authorities are not keen to provide them. Solutions are around advocacy and partnerships. The paper has a link to The Safer Bathroom Toolkit, which has a focus on people who use substances.
Universal Design Guidelines: Changing Places
This set of guidelines comes from Ireland and aims to take the design beyond minimum standards. It covers every aspect you can think of from planning and building control to management and maintenance. The guidelines explain why some things need to be designed or placed in a certain way.
The design and installation section is comprehensive. The management and maintenance section includes pre-visit information, staff training, and health and safety. The guidelines are downloadable in different formats. Another excellent resource from the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design.
