Draft Guideline for assessing compliance of bus stops with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002
DRAFT GUIDELINE FOR DDA-COMPLIANT BUS STOPS
1. Introduction
1.1 This Draft Guideline has been prepared to assist bus infrastructure providers (‘Providers’) to ensure that bus stops comply with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (DSAPT). The recommendations in the Draft Guideline are based on the requirements outlined in the DSAPT, including the technical requirements of the Australian Standards which are referenced in the DSAPT.
1.2 Any bus stop which is constructed after 15 August 2002 is required to comply with the DSAPT. In addition, Schedule 1 of the DSAPT sets down the following timeline by which all existing bus stops are required to comply with the DSAPT:
31 December 2007 – 25% of bus stops
31 December 2012 – 55% of bus stops
31 December 2017 – 90% of bus stops
31 December 2022 – 100% of bus stops
1.3 The Draft Guideline gives Providers the basic information necessary to assess the compliance status of a bus stop. However, for those who require more detail, such as the design specifications of tactile ground surface indicators or kerb ramps, references are included to the sections in the DSAPT which underpin each recommendation (and to clauses in Australian Standards, where specified).
1.4 There might be some locations where it is not possible to provide a fully-compliant bus stop. For example, it may not be possible to provide a fully-compliant bus stop on a narrow inner-urban street with a very narrow footpath, or in an outer urban area where there is no footpath or where there is are particularly difficult topographical issues. In such cases, a Provider should do as much as is possible to make the bus stop compliant. A Provider may also be able to rely upon a defence of ‘unjustifiable hardship’ in situations where compliance cannot be achieved.
1.5 The Draft Guideline is also applicable to the boarding points provided at bus terminals, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations and similar facilities. However, such facilities often have to provide for more complex functions than just boarding. The Draft Guideline does not address these more complex functions.
1.6 The Draft Guideline addresses the minimum compliance requirements for a bus stop under the DSAPT. Providers may choose to install facilities which go beyond the basic facilities addressed in the Draft Guideline. Where a Provider chooses to do so, there may be additional compliance obligations under the DSAPT. For example, if a Provider installs a shelter at a bus stop, it should meet certain circulation, positioning and dimensional requirements. It is not practical for this draft Guideline to provide for all such permutations, but it is assumed that organisations constructing such facilities will have access to the expertise and resources necessary to ensure compliance with the DSAPT.
1.7 In addition to the minimum compliance standards for a bus stop under the DSAPT, the Draft Guideline also makes suggestions on prioritising works to upgrade bus stops to compliant status (see Part 7), and a checklist for assessing the compliance status of a bus stop (see Part 9).
1.8 Appendix 1 to the Draft Guideline provides further background information, including:
· commentary on the drafting of the DSAPT;
· responsibilities of Providers;
· DSAPT compliance timetables;
· the complaints process for breaches of the DSAPT; and
· the Equivalent Access provisions under the DSAPT, the unjustifiable hardship defence in the DSAPT, and how to apply for a temporary exemption under the Disability Discrimination Act.
NOTE:
The Draft Guideline cannot provide for every conceivable situation. Providers must therefore ensure that they are familiar with the overall requirements of the DSAPT and the Disability Discrimination Act.
Many Providers are already putting in new bus stops and upgrading existing bus stops in order to meet the DSAPT compliance timetables. Some have developed their own extensive compliance guidelines and checklists which may differ in some areas to the recommendations in this Draft Guideline. For example, some Providers may have chosen to use a different approach to the use of Tactile ground surface indicators at bus stops.
If Providers consider their approach meets the DSAPT requirements for a bus stop by providing equivalent or better access, as described in Part 33.3 of the DSAPT, there should be no need to retro-fit the infrastructure to meet the recommendations made in this Draft Guideline.
However, some Providers may wish to seek additional expert advice on the impact of their proposed approach.
|
2. Use of technical specifications
DSAPT Technical Specifications and the Australian Standards
2.1 The DSAPT makes reference to technical specifications found in a number of Australian Standards. The applicable Australian Standards are outlined in section 1.6 of the DSAPT.
2.2 Compliance with those Australian Standards, where referenced, is regarded as compliance with the DSAPT (see section 33.3(1)(a) of the DSAPT).
Accessibility Innovation and the ‘Equivalent Access’ provisions
2.3 When the DSAPT was drafted, it referenced the best available technical specifications in Australian Standards to ensure effective minimum standards for accessibility on public transport. The DSAPT recognises, however, that technologies improve over time and alternative solutions to achieving accessibility may evolve. Accordingly, the DSAPT includes an ‘equivalent access’ provision to accommodate innovation so long as the resulting alternative approach provides equivalent or better ‘amenity, availability, comfort, convenience, dignity, price and safety’ (see section 33.3(1)(b) of the DSAPT).
2.4 Any ‘equivalent access’ proposal must involve consultation with service users (see section 33.4 of the DSAPT) and the Provider must be able to demonstrate that the ‘equivalent access’ provides public transport without discrimination ‘as far as possible’ (see section 33.5 of the DSAPT).
2.5 Providers who choose to achieve compliance through adopting an approach that provides equivalent access may wish to seek additional expert advice on the applicability of upgraded Australian Standards.
2.6 Where this Draft Guideline refers to technical specifications from updated Australian Standards (as opposed to the versions specified in the DSAPT) the intention is to acknowledge that an alternative technical solution has become available and to provide reference to specifications that may provide equivalent access. Any references in the Draft Guideline to Australian Standards which are not specified by the DSAPT are advisory only.
3. Basic Parameters
Minimum level of performance for an accessible bus stop
3.1 The Draft Guideline sets out a minimum level of performance for a basic accessible bus stop. The key performances sought in an accessible bus stop are:
· a flat, firm, unobstructed space large enough to allow for the deployment of a ramp so that a person with a mobility disability can safely get on or off a bus;
· a seamless transition between the bus stop and any connecting footpath, or the bus stop and the road where there is no footpath;
· clear signage indicating the location of the bus stop; and
· consistently-applied Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSI) to assist people with vision impairment to identify the presence of a bus stop and the location of the boarding point.
3.2 The Draft Guideline assumes that a passenger with a disability will both board and disembark from buses through the same entrance/exit, generally by way of the vehicles’ front doors. This is consistent with the on-board location of priority seating and allocated wheelchair spaces and is more convenient for those passengers who need ready communication with the driver.
A bus stop is not a ‘resting point’ – Part 5 of the DSAPT
3.3 The Draft Guideline is based on the view that a bus stop is not a ‘resting point as described in section 5.1 of the DSAPT.
3.4 Accordingly, the Draft Guideline considers that a Provider is not required to provide seating at a bus stop.
A bus stop is a ‘boarding point’ – Part 8 of the DSAPT
3.5 The Draft Guideline acknowledges that there is a significant question of interpretation concerning whether or not a bus stop is a ‘waiting area’ as described in Part 7 of the DSAPT. If a bus stop is considered to be a ‘waiting area’, then a Provider will be required to provide both a minimum number of seats and a minimum number of allocated spaces for passengers with a disability (see Part 7 of the DSAPT).
· The Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) has sought clarification from the Attorney General’s Department concerning this question. The Commission is generally of the view that a basic roadside bus stop is best categorised as a ‘boarding point’ rather than a ‘waiting area’. If this view is adopted, then a Provider is not required to provide facilities such as seating or a shelter. .
· If, however, a Provider decides to provide seating and/or a shelter at a bus stop, the Draft Guideline recommends that these facilities meet the minimum requirements for such facilities outlined in Parts 7 (number of seats and allocated spaces) and 23 (design of seats) of the DSAPT.
NOTE:
Centralised seating in a major transport interchange or bus station is more likely to be regarded as a ‘waiting area’ for the purposes of the DSAPT and therefore required to provide seating and allocated spaces. For example, seating in a ‘departure lounge’ where there is access to buses on various routes through different doors.
Where a bus stop is provided in circumstances such as these, Providers may wish to seek expert advice to determine their specific obligations under the DSAPT.
|
4. Specific Requirements
Basic boarding point
4.1 A basic bus stop must provide a firm, level, unobstructed area measuring at least 2070mm perpendicular to the kerb and 1540mm along the kerb. This is the minimum space necessary for wheelchair manoeuvring in order to safely get on and off a bus. This Draft Guideline refers to this area as the ‘basic boarding point’
Figure 1: Basic Boarding Point
4.2 In some bus stop layouts (especially at bus stations) it may be more convenient to locate the manoeuvring area away from the kerb and to connect it to the bus boarding point by means of an access path
Figure 2: Manoeuvring space remote from boarding point
Deployment of ramps
4.3 The level of the basic boarding point, relative to the roadway, must be such that a ramp can be deployed at a slope not exceeding:
- 1 in 12 for unassisted access;
- 1 in 8 for unassisted access where ramp length is less than 1520mm;
- 1 in 4 for assisted access.
4.4 The DSAPT does not make the requirement for a kerb mandatory, but it does require that If there is a kerb installed at a boarding point, it must be at least 150mm higher than the road surface. The purpose of this requirement is to assure bus operators that if there is a kerb they can assume it will be at least 150mm higher than the road in order that they can specify their on-board ramps accordingly.
4.5 Section 8.1 of the DSAPT specifically requires a level surface for a boarding point, but does not provide detailed specifications on what constitutes a level surface. However, the DSAPT generally refers to AS 1428.1-2001 for technical requirements relevant to a continuous accessible path of travel including a requirement that any gradient or crossfall on level surfaces should not exceed 1 in 40.
NOTE:
Ramps will usually be carried on board buses providing accessible services and, where the roads in the area are kerbed, the ramp will usually be built into the entry doorstep.
In some cases separate ramps might be carried on board and manually deployed (this might be in cases where longer ramps are necessary because boarding points are not elevated above road surfaces or where the interior floor height of buses is such that the necessary minimum slope cannot be achieved by a built-in ramp). In other cases, ramps might be stored at a bus station and deployed by station staff.
It is important that, in all circumstances, Providers and bus operators confer to ensure the provision of a fully compliant bus service, particularly when there is no kerb and achieving compliance with ramp gradients may be difficult.
|
Surface of boarding point
4.6 The surface of the boarding point and any adjacent access path must be non-slip. Heavily-textured or figured surfaces (such as raked-joint pavers) should be avoided. The following surfaces are considered to be slip-resistant:
· Rough or textured concrete
· Exposed aggregate concrete (small aggregate)
· Bituminous concrete
· Natural stone with a rough finish
· Textured paving bricks (without chamfers)
· Slip-resistant tiles.
NOTE:
Paving bricks can be prone to movement in some environments, causing surface irregularities that can impede wheelchair movement and may also constitute a trip hazard. Care should be taken to ensure that pavers are securely laid and checked regularly to ensure a smooth surface.
Grass and loose pebble surfaces are not considered to be compliant with the DSAPT.
|
Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSIs)
4.7 Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSIs) are necessary to guide passengers who are blind or whose vision is impaired to the boarding point and identify any hazards.
4.8 Section 18.3 of the DSAPT states that colour-contrasted TGSIs must be installed at accessible boarding points at bus stops or in bus zones.
4.9 The surface of the TGSI must be in a 30% luminance contrasting to the adjacent boarding point surfaces.
NOTE:
For the purposes of this Draft Guideline, the application of TGSIs found in AS 1428.4-2002 (Figure A2) has been used rather than that found in the DSAPT referenced AS 1428.4-1992. This draft specifically seeks comments on this issue. See Appendix 2 for discussion on alternative TGSI arrangements.
|
(as specified by AS1428.4-2002 - see Appendix 2 for discussion)
NOTE:
When positioning TGSIs on narrow pathways, it should be borne in mind that bus external rear view mirrors project up to 230 mm beyond the body of the vehicle and thus may project by this amount over the kerb. It is important, therefore, that the stop’s “warning” TGSIs are always set back 300mm from the kerb.
Most people with vision impairment prefer to follow the building line or fence line adjacent to footpaths and walkways, so it is essential that TGSIs extend from the building line (or the fence/building side of the footpath) towards the boarding point at the kerb.
Where a bus shelter, seat or other item of street furniture projects into a pathway or access path, additional TGSIs may be considered necessary to ensure safe passage in accordance with AS1428.4.
However, while directional and warning TGSIs serve a vital function in assisting in the safe usage of bus stops their usage should be carefully considered. The foreword to AS 1428.4-2002 which covers the use of TGSIs states that:
TGSIs should not be proliferated unnecessarily, nor used to compensate for bad design. They should be used where the obstruction, hazard or change of direction of travel is less likely to be expected or anticipated and could be encountered, perhaps injuriously, in the absence of a suitably placed TGSI.
|
Bus stops which are wider or longer than the basic boarding point
4.10 Many bus stops are longer and wider than the basic boarding point. For example, bus stops may be longer or wider to:
· facilitate disembarkation from buses’ centre doors
· provide for several buses to stand at the stop
· provide additional standing space for intending passengers
· incorporate seating or a shelter.
4.11 In such cases, if an adjacent footpath is not wide enough to provide an access path between boarding/disembarkation points, the bus stop must incorporate an access path at least 1200mm wide .
NOTE:
TGSIs are not required at a location which is used solely for disembarkation.
Care should be taken that any kerbside street furniture does not obstruct the disembarkation point.
|
Unobstructed access to the bus stop
4.12 Where possible, the basic boarding point should be positioned so that any adjacent pavement, walkway or thoroughfare provides an access path that is unobstructed and at least 1200mm wide. Where this is not possible (for example, if the pavement is too narrow) this Draft Guideline proposes that it is permissible for the walkway to pass through the boarding point.
4.13 Where there is insufficient pavement width to provide the basic boarding point, the area in and around the bus stop should be kept as free as possible of obstructions. This is particularly important if there is insufficient width to meet the access path width requirement outside of the boarding point. An alternative might be to consider relocating the stop if this can be done within the stop-spacing rules set by transport regulation authorities.
NOTE:
It is preferable that any street furniture such as seating, shelters, bins or public telephones be located to the kerb side of the footpath because people with a vision impairment are encouraged (and usually prefer) to follow the building side for safety, security and protection. An exception to this might be at major CBD bus stops, bus stations and Bus Rapid Transit platforms where the kerb is fully delineated by TGSIs.
Also, optimum weather protection is provided by having shelters over the actual boarding points rather than at the building line. It is recognised that there are many bus stops that do not, and in some cases cannot, satisfy this objective and it is not suggested that these be immediately altered or relocated. Rather, the Draft Guideline recommends that those structures in question should be upgraded so that they are identifiable by appropriate high luminance contrast framing, or high luminance contrast visual indicators on glass panelling. In some cases, it may be appropriate to install warning TGSIs before the structure, be placed ahead of them in the direction of pedestrian travel.
|
Placement and design of ‘Bus Stop’ signs
4.14 The DSAPT requires that ‘Bus Stop’ signs must meet AS1428.2 –1992 sections 17.1 and 17.2 which essentially cover comprehension and letter height. While the DSAPT specifically refers to these Australian Standards as the minimum requirements for compliance, the Draft Guideline acknowledges that bus stop identification varies from city to city and often depends on graphics as much as on wording. Accordingly, the Draft Guideline recommends that bus stop signs be identifiable as such (by means of their shape, the graphics displayed, or the wording on them) from a distance of 50 metres. To be legible at this distance, for example, any lettering on the sign must be at least 150 mm high,[10] and any lettering must have a 30% luminance contrast with the background colour.
4.15 DSAPT Part 17.2 requires ‘Bus Stop’ signs to be placed so that they are clearly visible to people in a seated or standing position.[11] To achieve this, the Draft Guideline recommends that they be displayed at the departure end of the boarding point.
4.16 DSAPT does not require bus timetable information to be available at bus stops. The DSAPT does, however, require that general information about transport services must be accessible to all passengers.[12] The DSAPT also allows for equivalent access by direct assistance if the passenger’s preferred format cannot be provided. It may be possible, therefore, to comply with this requirement by providing standard print timetable information at a bus stop and making the same information available in a range of accessible formats such as on a website or via telephone inquiry.
4.17 If a Provider or bus service operator decides to provide information at a bus stop in large print format this should be in a typeface of not less than 18pt in a sans serif font such as Arial or Helvetica.
NOTE:
Providers should liaise with the bus operator(s) using the stop to agree on responsibility for provision and installation of signs and timetable displays.
Where the bus stop boarding point is surrounded by unpaved ground, any information display on the side remote from the boarding point will be inaccessible to people using wheelchairs and many other people with mobility limitations. Accordingly, while it is not a requirement of the DSAPT, such displays should be avoided.
|
5. Additional features and atypical situations
5.1 As discussed above in paragraph 3.5, the Commission’s view is that a basic roadside bus stop is a ‘boarding point’ and not a ‘waiting area’ for the purposes of the DSAPT. If this view is adopted, a Provider is not required by the DSAPT to install shelter or seating at a bus stop.
5.2 The Draft Guideline encourages Providers to install shelters and seating at a basic roadside bus stop, wherever possible. An example of a layout for a shelter is provided in the figures in Part 6 of the Draft Guideline. This example is provided primarily as a way of demonstrating some basic principles. Providers should seek expert advice if they are unsure of the requirements for specific sites.
5.3 Where a Provider is not required to install additional features such as shelters or seating, but elects to do so, the Draft Guideline recommends that these features are installed in accordance with the minimum standards outlined in Parts 7, 23 and 27 of the DSAPT. (Parts 5.4 to 5.10 below are provided as information for those who elect to provide shelters or seating.)
Providing seating at a basic boarding point
5.4 Section 7.1 of the DSAPT requires a ‘waiting area’ to have a minimum number of seats marked as available, if required, for the use of passengers with a disability. This minimum number is either 2 seats of 5% of the seats available.
5.5 Section 23.1 of the DSAPT requires seats to comply with AS1428.2-1992, clause 27.2. Generally, the height of the seat above the ground should be between 400 and 450mm. AS 1428.2 also recommends that, where a high proportion of older travellers is anticipated, a seat height of up to 520mm should be provided. It is easier to rise from a higher seat and this is an advantage for other people with mobility impairments. As it is rarely possible to predict the demographics of bus stop users, and given the relatively large number of seniors who use public transport services, the Draft Guideline recommends that all seating identified as being priority seating for people with a disability be provided at the upper end of the height range (ie, up to 520mm).
5.6 While clause 27.2 of AS 1428.2 as referenced in section 23.1 of the DSAPT does not require armrests, the Draft Guideline recommends providing armrests as shown in Figure 32 of AS 1428.2. Armrests assist older people and other with mobility impairments to seat themselves and to rise from their seats.
5.7 Seating spaces must not intrude into the circulation space required in the boarding point. See paragraph 4.1 above for the space requirements of a ‘basic boarding point’.
5.8 As a general rule, seating is not necessary at stops which are solely used as disembarkation-only points. It should be borne in mind, however, that many ‘outbound’ stops are also boarding points for people travelling further along the route. Providers should consult with their local bus operators in deciding which stops, if any, fall into the category of disembarkation-only points.
Providing ‘allocated spaces’ at a bus stop
5.9 Section 7.2 of the DSAPT requires a ‘waiting area’ to have a minimum number of ‘allocated spaces’ available, if required, for passengers with disabilities. This minimum number is either 2 allocated spaces or 5% of the area. There could be a number of configurations possible to provide 2 allocated spaces within the shelter.
5.10 Section 9.1 of the DSAPT states that the minimum size for an ‘allocated space’ is 800mm by 1300mm, and it is to be made available for people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids.
Providing lighting in a bus shelter
5.11 If internal lighting is provided in a bus stop shelter it should conform to minimum levels of maintenance illumination outlined in Part 20 of the DSAPT, including as shown in the notes to section 19.1 of AS1428.2-1992 as well as and AS1680.2 at a light level of 150 Lx. 150 Lx is considered to be the minimum lighting level necessary for lip readers.
5.12 These requirements also apply to lighting in a bus station and BRT waiting areas, but not to street lighting external to the shelter.
Kerb ramps required at some bus stops
5.13 If the boarding point is not at the same level as the adjacent footpath, walkway or, in areas without footpaths, the roadsurface, an access ramp must be provided to allow for access to the boarding point.[14] For ramps greater than 1520mm long the maximum gradient should be 1:14. For ramps up to 1520mm long, a maximum of 1:8 is permissible (though a maximum of 1:10 is preferred).
DSAPT compliance issues at bus stop terminals
5.14 At major CBD bus stops, some bus stations and some BRT platforms, it is often the case that buses running on different routes may pull in one behind the other and not proceed to the head of the rank before departure. This means that intending passengers have to move up and down the rank to board their buses. Clearly this mode of operation impacts on people whose vision or mobility is impaired and who must therefore wait at a predetermined place. Acceptable arrangements to resolve this issue might include:
· Identifying the rank as a series of marked bus stops each with its own boarding point
· Requiring all buses to proceed to a compliant boarding point at the departure end (or even the approach end) of the rank.
5.15 Providers and bus operators should confer on the most appropriate approach to resolving such situations.
6. Recommended bus stop layouts
6.1 Figures 8 to 11 show some suggestions for DSAPT-compliant stops. These are not an exhaustive set of arrangements and are included to indicate basic parameters for compliance with the DSAPT.
6.2 Where a bus stop is placed at a point where there is a kerb but no adjacent footpath, a kerb ramp is necessary to connect the boarding point and the road. Figure 10 below provides an example of a layout for this.
Figure 8: A bus stop with a shelter, seating and wheelchair spaces
Figure 9: A bus stop in an area without kerbs, gutters or footpaths and with the boarding point at the same level as the road surface
Figure 10: A bus stop in an area without kerbs, gutters or footpaths but with the basic boarding point elevated above the road surface
Figure 11: A suburban bus stop on a wide nature strip with an adjacent footpath
7. Priorities for upgrading of bus infrastructure
7.1 Given that compliance of all bus stops with the DSAPT is not required until 2022, it is desirable that upgrading programs are initially targeted at locations where they will deliver the most benefit in the least time for people with a disability. In this regard, the following priorities are recommended:
· immediate priority to routes most likely to be patronised by people with a disability
· 2012 target date: priority to routes serving local amenities
· 2017 target date: priority to bus stops in residential areas.
· routes serving central business districts and regional centres
· routes with timetabled accessible buses
· routes serving major educational and health facilities and high volume corridors such as Adelaide’s ‘Go-zones’, Melbourne’s ‘Smart Bus’ routes, Sydney’s ‘Strategic bus corridors’ and Brisbane’s ‘Buzz’ routes
· routes on bus transitways, major arterial roads and those connecting to accessible rail stations.
7.3 The 2012 target date requires 55% of bus stops to be compliant with the DSAPT. For this target date, priority should be given to bus stops serving local shopping centres, industrial areas, schools, hospitals, tertiary educational institutions, retirement villages, nursing homes, and rehabilitation centres.
7.4 The 2017 target date requires 90% of bus stops to comply with the DSAPT. For this target date, priority should be given to bus stops in residential suburbs. Particular attention given to locations where it is known that there is an immediate need for accessible services.
NOTE:
These priorities are recommendations only, and should be applied in light of particular local needs.
In addition, the recommended priorities should not be applied so rigorously as to prevent the upgrading of lower priority bus stops which can be upgraded in the normal course of a Provider’s business (for example, at the request of or through a partnership arrangement with an outdoor advertiser).
Those responsible for bus stops should consult with local organisations representing the views of people with a disability such as Local Government Access Committees and local advocacy or service provider groups. In some circumstances, it might be feasible to make improvements to local bus stops where there are known to be local bus users who would benefit from the application of accessibility measures.
The priorities may also be influenced by the availability of accessible buses. Accordingly, Providers should consult with their local bus operators to determine the most appropriate priorities for their bus stop development programs.
|
8. Additional information/ Useful links
A number of organisations both in Australia and overseas have developed guides in relation to accessible bus stops. While overseas compliance requirements may be different to those in Australia they do provide valuable information and ideas for responding to difficult and unique topographical or infrastructure problems. See, for example:
Western Australia
Public Transport Authority of Western Australia, Public Transport Bus Site Layout Policy: For Universal Access Including Tactile Ground Surface Indicators and Wheelchair Access (June 2003)
This policy paper is particularly relevant as it shows examples of how the principles in this Draft Guideline may be extended when space and funding is available.
United Kingdom
Transport for London, Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance: Bus Priority Team Technical Advice Note BP1/06 (January 2006).
United States of America
Easter Seals Project Action, Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and Safetyhttp://projectaction.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ESPA_BusStopToolkit
Transit Cooperative Research Program, ‘Chapter 4: Curb-side Factors’ in Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops (1996)
Canada
http://www.busonline.ca/corporate/resources/pdf/res-urban-21.pdf
9. Checklist For Assessing Compliance of Bus Stops with DSAPT
Item
|
Requirement
|
Paragraph in the Draft Guideline
|
Reference
|
Status
|
Result
|
Boarding Point
|
Minimum dimensions: 2070mm x 1540m to provide for manoeuvring of wheelchairs and location of TGSIs.
|
4.1
|
DSAPT, section 3.1
AS1428.2-1992, clause.6.2
| ||
Boarding Point
|
Level (less than 1:40 recommended)
|
4.2, 4.4
|
DSAPT, section 8.1
AS1428.1-2001
| ||
Boarding Point
|
Elevation such that ramp deployable at:
- 1:12 or lower (unassisted access)
- 1:8 to 1:11.9 (unassisted and ramp length < 1520mm)
- 1:4 to 1:7.9 (assisted access)
|
4.2
|
DSAPT, sections 6.2 and 6.4
AS1428.1-1993, Figure 8
AS1428.2-1992, clause 8.4.2(a)
AS3856.1-1991, clause 2.1.8
| ||
Boarding point
|
Kerb height not less than 150mm (only where kerb is installed).
|
4.3
|
DSAPT, section 8.1
| ||
Bus stop surface
|
Firm and non-slip, no figured surfaces.
|
4.1, 4.2, 4.5
|
DSAPT, section 10.1
AS1428.2-1992, clause 9,
AS1428.1 Supplement 1 – 1993, clause 12.
| ||
Access Path (if stop area extends beyond boarding point)
|
Minimum width: 1200mm
|
4.8
|
DSAPT, sections 2.1, 2.4
AS1428.2 -1992, clauses 6.4 and 8.1
| ||
Adjacent footpath or walkway
|
Minimum width: 1200mm
|
4.9
|
DSAPT, section 2.1,
AS1428.2-1992, clauses 6.4 and 8.1
| ||
Access Ramp to stop
|
Required if boarding point not at same level as access path.
- 1:14 if > 1520mm long
- 1:8 up to 1520mm long (1:10 preferred)
|
5.10
|
DSAPT, section 6.1
AS1428.2-1992 clause 8.1(this refers to AS1428.1 – see clauses 53 and 5.8)
| ||
Seating (if provided)
|
5% of seats (minimum of 2) to be identified as priority seating for people with disabilities and the same number of allocated spaces to be provided.
|
3.4 and 5.2
|
DSAPT, Part 7
| ||
Seating
|
Design conforms to AS1428.2-1992 (Recommended seat height 520mm).
|
5.3, 5.4, 5.5
|
DSAPT, Part 23.
AS1428.2-1992, clause 27.2
| ||
Street furniture (and shelter, if present)
|
Structures not to obstruct access paths or walkways.
|
Note to 4.9, 4.10
|
DSAPT, Part 2
| ||
Bus stop sign
|
Legible at 50m, placed for easy viewing, post at departure end of stand, Large print format (if provided)
|
4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14.
|
DSAPT, section 17.1
AS1428.2-1992, clauses 17.1, 17.2, 17.4
| ||
Tactile Ground Surface Indicators
|
Directional indicators from building alignment to hazard indicators at kerb; boarding point colour-contrasted.
Other indicators as required to indicate obstructions and changes of grade.
|
4.6, 4.7,
NB: See note to section 4.6 and Appendix 2 to this Draft Guideline.
|
DSAPT, Part 18
AS1428.2 ,clause 18.1
AS1428,4-2002
| ||
Lighting
|
If installed, >150 lx
|
5.9
|
DSAPT, section 20.1
AS1428.2-1992, clause 19.1 and AS 1680.2
|
Appendix 1
Background to the drafting of the DSAPT
In June 2006 the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes, wrote to Local Government Authorities and others around Australia concerning the application of the Accessible Public Transport Standards (DASPT) to the construction and maintenance of bus stops.
This letter was subsequently published on the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (the Commission) website for the information of those other organisations with responsibilities for bus stops.
Below is an edited copy of the introduction to that advice.
Extract of letter dated from Disability Discrimination Commissioner to Local Government Authorities –Application of DSAPT to bus stops
(a) Background to the drafting of the Transport Standards
Before looking at the specific issue of bus stops I would like to comment on the broader question of interpretation and application of the Transport Standards to transport systems.
The Commission was part of the Drafting Committee for the Transport Standards.
The Drafting Committee adopted a particular approach to its work. First, the Committee aimed to develop Standards which clearly described what infrastructure and service providers must do in order to meet their existing responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act. The Standards had to be sufficiently clear to give providers the confidence that if they followed them they could not be subject to a successful complaint of discrimination.
Second, the Committee resolved that while the Standards needed to be clear they should not be so prescriptive as to eliminate innovation, or be so inflexible they could not adapt to particular local circumstances.
In order to allow for innovation and flexibility the Standards were formulated in a way that reflected the style of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) by providing a set of objectives or performance statements about conveyances, premises and infrastructure, and then referencing technical specifications as one means of achieving the level of performance required.
To also provide for innovation and flexibility, the Standards provide for what is termed 'Equivalent access'. This allows for alternative approaches to achieving the performance requirements in much the same way that the BCA allows for an 'Alternative solution'. The Standards make it clear, however, that an alternative approach in the form of Equivalent access must provide for equivalent amenity, comfort, convenience, dignity, price and safety when applied.
While Equivalent access might be achieved using alternative technologies or designs, the Standards state that direct assistance may also be offered by a provider as a means of achieving Equivalent access in some circumstances. Direct assistance must also aim at providing equivalent amenity, comfort, convenience, dignity, and safety.
Third, rather than provide detailed design blueprints for each conveyance or building the Committee proposed that the Standards would be made up of a number of elements, again like the BCA, that would have to be pieced together as appropriate to deliver accessible conveyances, premises or infrastructure. This means that rather than being organised under the headings Trains, Buses, Airports etc the Standards would consist of a number of elements such as Access paths, Ramps, Lighting, and Surfaces etc.
Those responsible for transport services therefore would be required to determine which elements in the Standards were relevant to whatever conveyance, premise or infrastructure was being built.
Whether this is the best approach or whether Standards should address transport modes more distinctly is one issue that is being considered in the review of the Transport Standards which has yet to be finalised.
Fourth, the Committee was very conscious of the need to ensure the Standards clearly described how the different parts of the transport system (conveyances, premises and infrastructure) and the different elements of the system (such as doorways, ramps and circulation space) connected in a seamless way. The Committee was very conscious of the fact that failure to ensure a seamless transition between all the parts and elements of the transport system would result in inaccessible services and continuing discrimination.
In order to achieve this seamless connectedness the Committee adopted the concept of Access Paths(section 1.9 and Part 2) and Continuous accessibility (section 2.2) involving a requirement to provide aContinuous accessible path of travel.
For example, in order for a conveyance such as a bus to be accessible it would require a number of accessible elements including ramps, doorways and allocated spaces. It would also require access paths between those elements in order to link them on a continuous accessible path of travel and thereby ensure the bus itself was accessible. Failure to ensure the ramps, doorways and allocated spaces linked together on a continuous accessible path of travel would ordinarily result in the bus not being accessible.
The Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport Guidelines note in section 2.1 that ‘The existence of an access path is implicit in many sections of the Disability Standards’ indicating that those responsible for applying the Standards should consider Access Paths as being fundamental to its effective application.
In summary I would say that in applying and interpreting the Transport Standards the following issues need to be noted:
- If the performance requirements of the Standards for accessible conveyances, premises and infrastructure are met then operators are fulfilling their responsibilities under the DDA.
- The performance requirements may be met by constructing the relevant conveyance, premises and infrastructure in accordance with the referenced technical specifications (primarily Australian Standards) or through providing Equivalent access by some alternate means which provides equivalent amenity, comfort, convenience, dignity, price and safety.
- Accessible conveyances, premises and infrastructure are made up of various elements that must be linked by a series of access paths that provide a continuous accessible path of travel if the performance requirements of the Standards are to be met.
- Careful consideration needs to be given to determine which elements must be addressed as all elements are not necessarily relevant in all situations. For example, doorways are not a relevant element at bus stops.
- Leaving out required elements or failing to ensure those elements link together on a continuous accessible path of travel would mean that the performance requirements of the Standards are not being met.
(b) Application of the Transport Standards to Bus Stops
Before looking at some of the technical questions on the application of the Standards I would like to comment on the general application of the Standards to bus stops: in particular the responsibilities of those accountable for bus stops; compliance and complaints issues and the circumstances under which non-compliance or variations with the technical provisions of the Standards are permissible.
Are bus stops covered by the Standards and who is responsible for compliance?
Section 1.4 of the Standards states that the Standards apply to
… all operators and the conveyances they use to provide public transport services. They also apply to providers and supporting premises and infrastructure.
Section 1.18(1) defines ‘infrastructure’ as ‘any structure or facility that is used by passengers in conjunction with travelling on a public transport service.’
Section 1.22(1) defines a ‘provider’ as ‘a person or organisation that is responsible for the supply or maintenance of public transport infrastructure.’ Section 1.18(2) notes that Infrastructure ‘does not include any area beyond immediate boarding points (for example bus stops, wharves, ranks, rail stations, terminals).’
Several Parts of the Standards specifically refer to bus stops and the Compliance Schedule also includes specific sections on bus stops.
My interpretation of these Parts is that bus stops are part of the infrastructure of a public transport service and that the provider is whoever is responsible for constructing and maintaining the bus stops. This is usually, but not always, Local Government Authorities.
While section 1.18(1) restricts the definition of infrastructure to the immediate facilities associated with transport services, in my view this would include other infrastructural elements such as seating or a shelter (if provided) at a bus stop if there was evidence to show that they were associated with the bus stop and intended to be ‘used by passengers in conjunction with travelling on a public transport service’ (as referred to in section 1.18(1)).
In my view, a provider is also responsible for ensuring that there is a continuous accessible path of travel between a bus stop and the surrounding paths that service it (see sections 2.1 and 2.2). It would clearly be quite contrary to the intent of the Standards to have a raised bus stop platform connecting to the surrounding footpath via a step.
(c) Compliance for providers – bus stops
The Transport Standards came into force on 15 August 2002 and from that date all newly constructed infrastructure was required to comply with the Standards (section 32.1(i)). So, for example, if a new bus stop was being constructed it must comply with the requirements of the Standards.
Similarly if an associated piece of infrastructure used by passengers in conjunction with travelling on a public transport service, such as a new bus shelter, was being built at an existing bus stop after the Standards commencement date I consider that this also must comply with the requirements of the Standards (see section 32.1(iv)).
In addition any existing infrastructure undergoing ‘substantial refurbishment or alteration’ after the commencement date would also be required to comply with the Standards at the time of the refurbishment or alteration (section 32.1(iii)).
So, for example, if an existing bus stop was simply having the signage flag replaced because of vandalism I do not believe the Standards would require the whole bus stop to be upgraded at the time of flag replacement. Similarly if a relatively new bus stop shelter was having a smashed glass pane replaced I do not believe this would trigger a requirement to upgrade the whole shelter until caught by the general compliance timeframe requirements as set out below.
However, if for example the bus stop pole was being replaced as part of a program of upgrading, requiring digging up of the foundation, I would consider this to be ‘substantial work’ thereby triggering an obligation under section 32.1(iii) for the bus stop to be upgraded to the requirements of the Standards.
Similarly if the bus stop shelter was having the roof and seating replaced because of excessive wear I would consider this to be ‘substantial work’ warranting a full upgrade under section 32.1(iii). The question of what is 'substantial' thereby triggering full compliance with the Standards requirements is of course subjective and a final decision on this question would be the responsibility of a Court in the event of a complaint.
Finally all existing bus stops are required under section 32.2 to comply with the Standards at target dates specified in Schedule 1 of the Standards as follows:
31 December 2007 - 25% of bus stops
31 December 2012 - 55% of bus stops
31 December 2017 - 90% of bus stops
31 December 2022 - 100% of bus stops
(d) Complaints of violations of the Standards
Section 32 of the DDA states that it is unlawful to contravene a Disability Standard.
In the case of bus stops I believe this means that a complaint of a contravention of the Transport Standards can be made in four situations.
- First, where a new bus stop and associated infrastructure is built and the bus stop does not comply with the Transport Standards.
- Second, where substantial refurbishment or alteration of an existing bus stop and/or associated infrastructure is undertaken and the Provider fails to ensure the whole bus stop complies with the Standards.
- Third, where Equivalent access or direct assistance do not deliver equivalent amenity, comfort, convenience, dignity, price or safety.
- Fourth, complaints are possible at the various compliance timetable dates if there is evidence that the percentage compliance rates have not been achieved.
A complaint could be lodged with the Commission and an attempt to conciliate an agreement would be made. If this is not successful the complainant is able to pursue their complaint with the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court.
It is only the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court that can make a determination about whether or not the Standards have been contravened and, if so, what action the operator or provider must take to remedy the situation.
It is my view that in assessing a complaint the central question should be "is there evidence that the Standards have not been effectively implemented?" If the answer to that question is yes then it would be up to the Court to determine whether or not the defense of unjustifiable hardship applied (see section 33.7) and, if not, what remedy would be required.
(e) Equivalent access, direct assistance, unjustifiable hardship and temporary exemptions
While the Standards require providers to fully comply with those Standards over specified timeframes, there are a number of provisions within the Standards that would allow providers to:
· vary the equipment or infrastructure in a way that provides for Equivalent access (section 33.3);
· address non-compliant elements through direct assistance (section 33.6);
· claim that a particular requirement would impose an unjustifiable hardship (section 33.7)
There is also a mechanism within the DDA to allow operators to apply to Commission for a temporary exemption from coverage of the Standards (section 55 of the DDA).
In relation to bus stops I would envisage these provisions could be used in a number of ways if theprovider were proposing to do something other than full compliance with the technical provisions of the Standards and/or its timeframe for compliance.
(i) Equivalent access
A provider might look at technical solutions to facilitating access from a boarding point to a conveyance other than the way identified in the Standards. For example, a provider might work with an operator to develop a platform lifting device on the conveyance to allow access from the road surface rather than a raised footpath area. Similarly an operator might design a ramping system that would meet the required angles as specified in section 6.4 of the Standards.
(ii) Direct assistance
A provider might negotiate an agreement with the operator or some other group to ensure suitably trained personnel are available to provide Equivalent access through direct assistance. I note that section 33.4 requires that when Equivalent access is being proposed, the provider and operator must consult with passengers with disabilities who use the service or with organisations representing people with disabilities.
(iii) Defense of unjustifiable hardship
A provider might decide to not fully comply with the Standards or part of the Standards on the basis that it believes that it would experience an unjustifiable hardship in doing so. In this situation any complaint against the Provider could ultimately result in it having to convince a Court that it would experience an unjustifiable hardship if required to fully implement the Standards. While there may be situations where extreme topographical or technical difficulties might result in a successful claim of unjustifiable hardship, I would expect this to be uncommon, especially in relation to new bus stops constructed after the Standards commenced.
(iv) Temporary Exemptions
A provider might apply to the Commission for a temporary exemption for up to five years from some aspect of the Standards, or from the requirements of the compliance timeframe. Such applications would be subject to a public comment process and would generally only be granted if there was a commitment by the provider to addressing the compliance requirements within the period of the temporary exemption. The Commission has provided Guidelines on the exercise of its power to grant a temporary exemption under the DDA, which are available at:http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/exemptions/Exemption_guidelines/Exemption_guidelines.html
For example, a provider may have audited all the bus stops in their area and have determined that budgetary and technical limits would mean that they would not be able to meet their compliance responsibilities until 12 months after the deadline required under the Standards. A temporary exemption might be sought to provide protection from complaints during that additional compliance time.
In summary I would say that while generally it is unlawful to contravene the Standards there are a number of situations in which non-compliance with the referenced technical provisions would not be unlawful; as follows:
· Where equivalent access was provided through some other means such as technical innovation or direct assistance
· Where the Provider was able to show full compliance would result in an unjustifiable hardship
· Where a temporary exemption had been obtained.
Appendix 2
Discussion of options for installation of Tactile Ground Surface Indicators
Part 3 of the Draft Guideline outlines the key performance for the basic parameters for a basic boarding point. These basic parameters include:
- consistently-applied Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSIs) to assist people with vision impairment to identify the presence of a bus stop point and the location of the boarding point.
Determining the appropriate layout for TGSIs to deliver that performance can be problematic for infrastructure providers, especially for facilities such as roadside bus stops which, while superficially simple, have a great many permutations arising from pavement width, topography, etc.
(a) AS1428.4-1992
The DSAPT references AS 1428.4-1992. This Australian Standard is quite specific in respect of requirements for TGSIs at bus stops, but proposes only one layout as shown in Figure A1 below. It does not contemplate bus stop designs other than this simple pavement-based boarding point. No guidance is given in respect more complex facilities.
Figure A1: TGSIs as proposed by AS1428.4 – 1992
(Figure 7 of the Australian Standard refers)
(b) AS1428.4-2002
AS1428.4-2002 is more helpful on this issue, but is not referenced by the DSAPT and thus must be regarded as advisory only. At the simpler end of the spectrum, AS1428.4-2002 proposes a TGSI layout for the basic boarding point (Figure A2), but adds a design for a more sophisticated shelter (Figure A3) as well as well as layouts for tram/light rail platforms and safety zones that can be fairly easily extrapolated to BRT platforms and bus stations .
The Commission notes that the layouts shown in Figures A2, A3 and A4 (including variations on these) are already being used by some providers at various sites around Australia.
NOTE:
The TGSI layout in Figure A2 has been used throughout this document for simplicity, but should not be assumed to be necessarily preferred. The preferred design or designs will depend on the views of respondents to this Draft Guideline.
|
Significantly, AS1428.4-2002 cautions against unnecessary proliferation of TGSIs and proposes that they be used ‘where an obstruction, hazard or change of direction is less likely to be expected or anticipated and could be encountered, perhaps injuriously, in the absence of a suitably placed TGSI’ (see the Foreword to AS1428.4-2002).
(c) Some issues in respect of TGSIs
The basic bus stop in AS1428.4-1992 has TGSIs arranged in a ‘T’ or ‘hammerhead’ pattern, with warning indicators 1800mm wide parallel to the kerb and directional TGSIs 600mm wide running all the way from these to the building align.
The warning indicators at 1800mm wide would therefore be wider than the basic boarding point (1540mm). Logic suggests that it would be acceptable to limit them to that dimension in situations where, for example, the basic boarding point was a platform only 1540 wide.
Figure A2 taken from AS 1428.4-2002 changes the ‘T’ to an ‘I’ formation with directional indicators 600mm wide running from the building line to the boarding point where the warning indicators measure 600mm by 600mm.
Figure A3 taken from AS1428.4-2002 Figure E1 also proposes a design for a fully accessible bus stop. In Figure A3, the directional TGSIs extend from the building line towards the boarding point but they are only 600mm wide over the adjacent footpath and, once inside the bus stop area, reduce to 300mm wide.
The design in Figure A3 may seem in contradiction to the simpler bus stop layout (Figure A1 and A2). There is no warning ‘square’ at the point where the directional indicators approach the kerb, and the boarding point is located ‘upstream’ of the bus stop post. However, the single line of directional indicators seems to have the advantage of simplicity and may be easier for wheelchair users to negotiate.
Figure A4 of this Draft Guideline is extrapolated from AS 1428.4-2002 Figures E2 and E3. These Figures have directional indicators starting 300mm from the building line. These directional indicators are 600mm wide and extend for 900mm before reducing to a single line of directional indicators 300mm wide. Accordingly, these extend over the trafficable part of the footpath terminating in a narrower ‘hammerhead’ of warning indicators 1200mm by 600mm.
No comments:
Post a Comment