La accesibilidad en los espacios públicos con plataforma única de convivencia. Análisis y Clasificación de las soluciones existentes. Avances y nuevos problemas. Posibles parámetros e Indicadores de Accesibilidad

Abstract

The single-platform spaces of coexistence (level surfaces or shared surfaces), or EPUC in its Spanish acronym, have become singular spaces whose development in recent decades has resulted in an undefined variety of types. This has led to many difficulties in their use, often also related to certain confusion about the concept of coexistence and shared spaces in itself. In particular some groups have raised concerns about the inadequate accessibility in these spaces, which, paradoxically, are considered by many citizens as more accessible than conventional streets. Three research areas are posed to study the improvement of accessibility for singleplatform spaces of coexistence (EPUC): the plurality of users and different uses of public roads, diversity in the formalization of the different public realm designed with level surfaces, and existing deficiencies in accessibility in these spaces and possibilities for improvement from a design point of view. Thus in the first part of the research, the focus is on the analysis of the diversity of users and the different ways in which pedestrians use the streets depending on their needs. Different classifications of users of public roads as well as the different current needs of pedestrians are analyzed. These analyses converge on a proposed classification of pedestrians. In the second part of the research, a set of indicators is proposed with the aim of analyzing the different characteristics of the EPUC and the application of these indicators on 70 case studies. Finally, the conclusions of the previous two parts come together to discuss in a concrete manner specific accessibility-related needs in the EPUC.

Can Proximal Environments Prevent Social Inequalities Amongst People of All Ages and Abilities? An Integrative Literature Review Approach

“…Clear examples of policies which directly address this theory, with some even under the design-for-all perspective, include the woonerfs in The Netherlands [117,170,171]; residential streets and shared zones in Spain [172]; low-speed areas or "gångfartsområde" in Sweden [173,174]; residential zones or "zone résidentielle" in France [175], Belgium [176], and Quebec [177]; or shared zones in Australia [178,179] and New Zealand [179].…”

“…In addition, they commonly avoid addressing the existing conflict between cycling and people with the unease of movement, who may fail to react on the expected standard time to potential urban threats [142,172,186]. Some authors even consider cycling as a way to perpetuate segregation [141,186], while the 15 min city places pedestrian mobility and cycling in the same position.…”

“…Although bike lanes are bound to present some serious danger for people with slower reflexes [142,172,186], only 2 studies mentioned the possibility of separating them in the urban patchwork. Numerous conflicts in terms of acoustics, visual identification, and timely responses to unexpected encounters may create undesirable situations of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists [141,186].…”