This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1.0 Introduction Thirty of the sixty-nine Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) stations are designated fully accessible, meaning that a circulation path has been provided for riders using wheelchairs or scooters . These stations have elevators and at least one accessible fare gate at the main entrance; for the most part however, this is not the case at a station’s secondary entrances— entrances which are completely automated, or manned only at peak hours . Fare gates which are not specified as accessible, for instance turnstiles, are difficult to negotiate for ambulant persons who have reduced balance or stability, who require walking aids, are pushing strollers or bikes, or are carrying luggage or other loads. Because of this, while accessible fare gates were designed for people in wheelchairs, the previously identified groups also make use of these entry points. Existing accessible fare gates are only located at a station’s main entrance because they require TTC employee supervision. Therefore people who use accessible fare gates are forced to enter through specific entrances that may not be the most convenient for them—ironically, the people who have the most trouble with mobility are forced to travel further to enter the transit system. 2.0 Evaluation of Existing Entrances TTC stations currently make use of four major entry methods. This section gives a general description of how and where each entrance is used, and its shortcomings. 2.1 Waist-Height Turnstiles Waist-height turnstiles are found at all TTC station main entrances. They can be automated, however are often used in conjunction with a fare box at station service booths. These turnstiles are one-way only, and allow only one user to pass through at a time. The turnstile is locked in position until a user deposits a token or swipes a metropass in a slot/card reader, indicated by 1 in Figure 1. If the token is not accepted, it falls into the token return cup, located at 2. If fare has been paid correctly, a green light is displayed to the right of the slot, a buzzing noise is heard, and the user is allowed to proceed by walking forward.
Problems with this style of entrance are that: Figure 1: Waist Height • turnstiles can be dangerous for ambulant persons Turnstile, St. George Station using walking aids like crutches, canes, or walkers  • bicycles, strollers, and wheeled/large hand-carried luggage must be lifted over • supervision is required to deter fare evasion by jumping over or crawling under bar
52 cm 36 cm
2.2 High Entrance/Exit Turnstiles The High Entrance/Exit Turnstile (HEET), similar to a revolving door, was designed to prevent fare evasion and eliminate the need for a service booth . As such, HEETs are commonly found at secondary station entrances. A HEET is operated in the same way as a Waist-High turnstile, however, requires the user to push the door forward with more force.
Figure 2: HEET, St. George Station
Problems with this style of entrance are that: • revolving door mechanisms are difficult to use for persons with reduced physical capabilities, such as strength  • bicycles, strollers, wheeled/large hand-carried luggage may not fit 
36 cm 86 cm
2.3 Accessible Fare Gates Accessible fare gates are found at the main entrances of thirty TTC stations. These gates are wide enough to allow the passage of those in wheelchairs or scooters, but can be, and are, used by other TTC riders. The appearance and operation of the fare gate depends on the station, some being automated (eg. St. George station), and others requiring employee assistance (eg. Spadina station); however all models make use of a powerassisted swinging door.
The operational procedures of all accessible fare gates follow a similar pattern. The user pays fare. A power-assisted door then opens, during which a mounted light flashes. In figure 3, these lights are along the left-hand side railing. The user is allowed to pass through. After approximately 10 seconds, the Figure 3: Accessible Fare Gate, St. George Station gate closes. In the automated case, the gate opens upon fare payment. Otherwise, the user must signal to the TTC employee working at the service booth, who will then start the gate remotely, from the booth. Problems with this style of entrance are that: • supervision is required, in some cases, to open the gate • supervision is required to deter fare evasion by jumping over or crawling under gate • supervision is required to ensure that only one person enters when the gate is open 2.4 Accessible Alternative Circulation Path Accessible stations have “accessible alternative” entry paths in the event that an elevator or accessible fare gate is being repaired . These entry paths involve boarding accessible buses—buses which are equipped with lifts, ramps, or are able to kneel —at the nearest stop to the station; these buses enter the station bus bay, from which a rider can board other buses, or access the subway system . Accessible Alternative paths can be found on posters beside elevators and on the TTC website. The main problem with this entry method is that it involves significant detours from a TTC rider’s intended travel path. Depending on the station, the closest station-entering bus stop may be more than a block away in distance. Persons who require accessible entrances are then forced to travel out of their way to use TTC services. 3.0 Design Problem The main design objective is to create an automated fare gate which does not require supervision. It must be accessible to ambulant persons who have reduced balance or stability, who require walking aids, are pushing strollers or bikes, or are carrying luggage or other loads. These fare gates are to be used at secondary station entrances where TTC employees may not be present for aid or supervision. The St. George Street entrance of St. George station has been selected as the location for the pilot project. Reasons for this are that St. George is an accessible station, with a prominent secondary entrance, and that St. George station has the second highest daily user traffic—127
450 riders on the Bloor-Danforth line and 112 340 on the University-Spadina line . The proposed solution however, must be able to be implemented at all TTC stations. 4.0 Specifics of St. George Station The secondary entrance of St. George station is located at the corner of Bloor St. and St. George St. The accessible main entrance is located a block east (approximately 340 m depending on travel route) at Bloor St. and Bedford Ave. The St. George Street entrance is equipped with two HEETs, and a waist-level turnstile which is used when a collector is on duty— 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. When the collector is off duty, the waist-level turnstile is barred with a locking swing door. 5.0 Requirements 5.1 Accessibility Related Requirements The accessibility of proposals will be largely assessed on the basis of the functional capabilities required of the user to operate the fare gate. We define functional as relating to a user’s sensory, cognitive, and motion abilities . The functional capabilities that will be considered when evaluating proposals are based on those that are commonly used in the field of product design: dexterity, reach and stretch, strength, vision, hearing, and intellectual functioning . It can be assumed however, that all users will have the functional capabilities needed to pay fare with token or metropass. Table 1: Constraints and Criteria Relating to Functional Capabilities Capability Constraint Rationale Entrance should be operable with the Accommodates users who are carrying use of one hand—specifically, a items, or who can not use their hands Dexterity closed fist or open hand—and must fully . Also follows the standards for not require twisting of the wrist or fine barrier free door hardware as specified finger control. in . Accommodates users carrying items or Any hardware required to operate the with limited reach and stretch. Based Reach and entrance must be located between on door hardware standards as Stretch 400 and 1200 mm of the floor. specified in  and anthropometric data for the elderly from . Based on the standards for barrier free The linear force required to operate design as specified in  and Strength the entrance must not exceed 22 N. anthropometric data for the elderly from  Accommodates slow moving users, The force required to stop any linear ensuring they are not injured by any * Strength moving part must not exceed 66 N. moving parts—based on the standards for power-assisted doors as seen in . Those who are vision or hearing No task should explicitly require the Vision/Hearing impaired will also be using the use of vision or hearing. entrances. Capability Criteria Rationale and Evaluation Users who have used other TTC entrances should understand how to Intellectual Intuitive Functioning of Entrance use the fare gate without employee Functioning assistance. This will be evaluated by comparing the number of tasks
Consider this only if proposed solution is power assisted
required to operate the proposed entrance (eg. Pay fare, push a button etc.) to the number of tasks required to operate existing models. Paying fare is an assumed task. 5.2 Functional Requirements Functional requirements relate to the behaviour of the proposed entrance, what it should be able to achieve, and specifications for dimensions. Table 2: Constraints and Criteria relating to Function Constraint Rationale Entrance must allow only one user to enter for Preventing fare evasion is a main design each fare paid. objective. Entrance must accept (a minimum) of token Existing HEETs, turnstiles and fare gates and metropass. accept these payment methods. Entrance must allow passage of strollers, Allows users with these items to use entrance bicycles, wheeled/large hand carrier luggage and is part of main design objective. without lifting. Size of entrance can not exceed a height of Based on the amount of available space for 213 cm, width of 262 cm, and depth of 250 cm. entrances at St. George Street entrance. Quickly moving motorized parts can be harmful * Individual parts of entrance can not take less to user if struck—based on standards specified than 3 s to go from fully closed to open. in . Criteria Rationale and Evaluation There is no specific time constraint since the main design objective is accessibility as opposed to a high flow rate, however, if Reasonable Entry Time constraints can be met, a lower entry time is preferable. Entry time is defined as the average time it takes between paying fare and entering the station proper. 5.3 Non-Functional Requirements Non-Functional requirements relate to the operation of the proposed entrance as a whole. Table 3: Constraints and Criteria relating to Operation Constraint Rationale The manufacture and installation of the This amount is the budget for the pilot project. entrance can not exceed $250 000 CAD. Criteria Rationale and Evaluation While the constraint for cost is $250 000, proposals with lower cost estimates for Cost manufacture and installation are preferred, as an automated entrance should be more cost effective than employing a TTC collector. If the entrance requires electrical power, lower Power Consumption power consumption is preferable, and will be measured in kW. Entrance should integrate well into the existing Aesthetics TTC built environment, and will be evaluated
Consider this only if proposed solution is power assisted
by a joint panel of TTC employees and riders. The entrance should be long-lasting and resistant to vandalism so that it is cost effective. Durability will be evaluated on the basis of the expected life-span of the parts, and estimated number of run cycles before obsolescence. Fixing an out of order entrance should not be a lengthy procedure. Maintainability will be evaluated on the basis of how easy the individual parts are to procure and how specialized the repair procedures are.
Works Cited     Toronto Transit Commission. “Easier Access on the TTC,” [Online document] Nov. 2007, [2008 Feb. 10] Available at: www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/ea_booklet_07.pdf Barrier-Free Design. CAN/CSA-B651-M90, Sept. 1990. A. Amerikaner, “Subway gates save money but put lives at risk,” The Columbia Journalist, 29 Jan. 2007. D. Watson and M. Crosbie, Time-Saver Standards for Architectural Design: Technical Data for Professional Practice, [Online] McGraw-Hill Professional, 2005. [2008 Feb 15] Available at: books.google.com/books?id=9IORj6aVN7YC Toronto Transit Commission. “Accessible Alternatives,” [Online document] [2008 Feb. 10] Available at : www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/accessible_alternatives_st_george.pdf Toronto Transit Comission. “Subway ridership, 2006-2007,” [Online document] [2008 Feb. 14] Available at: www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/subway_ridership06_07.pdf S. Keates and J. Clarkson, Countering Design Exclusion: An Introduction to Inclusive Design, Wiltshire: Springer-Verlag, 2003. The City of New York, Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, Universal Design New York, New York: City of New York Office of the Mayor, 2001. E. Steinfeld, S. Schroeder and M. Bishop, Accessible Buildings for People with Walking and Reaching Limitations, Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, 1970.
    
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?