University transportation facilities might still not be accessible for people with impairments even 20 years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), although everyone benefits, regardless of abilities, from a safe and equitable learning environment. This paper examines modern conceptions of disabilities and transportation provisions to accommodate them. To test the accessibility of transportation facilities as defined by ADA guidelines, the bus stops situated around the campus of Clemson University in South Carolina were evaluated in the context of ADA and the more modern concept of universal design. The results showed accessible accommodation of transit riders is still a concept that falls short of implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
La PlanteM.The Demographics of Disability. The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 69, Suppl. 1–2, 1991, pp. 55–77.
2.
MitchellC. G. B.Access to Transport Systems and Services—An International Review. TP12927E. Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada, Montreal, Quebec, 1997.
3.
ClarkeP., AilshireJ. A., BaderM., MorenoffJ. D., and HouseJ. S.Mobility Disability and the Urban Built Environment. American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 168, No. 5, 2008, pp. 506–513.
4.
HineJ., and MitchellF.Better for Everyone? Travel Experiences and Transport Exclusion. Urban Studies, Vol. 38, 2001, pp. 319–332.
5.
Norris-BakerC., and StephensM.Evaluating Wheelchair-Accessible Design on College Campuses. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987, pp. 149–161.
EricksonC., and von SchraderS.2008 Disability Status Report: South Carolina.Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Ithaca, N.Y.www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/. Accessed Oct. 7, 2009.
9.
PrestonJ., and RajeF.Accessibility, Mobility and Transport-Related Social Exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2007, pp. 151–160.
10.
Design for All Americans: A Report of the National Commission on Architectural Barriers to Rehabilitation of the Handicapped.Rehabilitation Services Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967.
11.
HallP., and ImrieR.Architectural Practices and Disabling Design in the Built Environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1999, pp. 409–425.
12.
McCluskeyM.Rethinking Equality and Difference: Disability Discrimination in Public Transportation. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 97, No. 5, 1988, pp. 863–880.
13.
American Public Transit Association v. Lewis, 655 F.2d 1272, 1981.
14.
FleischerD. Z., and ZamesF.The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation.Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pa., 2001.
15.
United States Access Board. ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Aug. 5, 2005. www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/final.cfm. Accessed Oct. 9, 2009.
ThaparN., WarnerG., DrainoniM.-L., WilliamsS. R., DitchfieldH., WierbickyJ., and NesathuraiS.A Pilot Study of Functional Access to Public Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Impairments. Disability & Rehabilitation, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2004, pp. 280–289.
18.
YinR.Case Study Research: Design and Methods.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 2003.
19.
BartmanK.Evaluating Transit Systems in a University Environment: The Clemson University Case Study, Clemson University, S.C., 2010.
20.
United States Access Board. ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities. Nov. 1, 2006. www.access-board.gov/ada/index.htm. Accessed Oct. 9, 2009.
21.
Texas Transportation Institute. TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design for Bus Stops.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.
