Identifying high impact upgrades

Prioritisation method

The Strategic Framework establishes an advanced method to identify priorities in fixing transport accessibility issues (the Prioritisation Method). It was developed through consulting with people with disability to understand their needs, through analysing the issues and looking at best practice in other jurisdictions.

The Prioritisation Method outlines how to prioritise upgrades based on available resources so that the most important accessibility issues can be fixed first. It does this by focusing on the impact of non-compliance with accessibility standards on people with a disability and considering the importance of the location. Safety issues are fixed first, followed by issues that result in a fundamental barrier to access.

The remaining issues are ordered by how much effort it takes for someone with a disability to use the part of the network impacted, from relatively minor inconvenience to severe or needing extraordinary effort.

Implementation of the Prioritisation Method can identify the top stations or stops needing accessibility upgrades, priorities for addressing a specific feature (such as ramps, tactile ground surface indicators, handrails or walkways) or the top accessibility priorities at a particular site.

It is easier for accessibility priorities to be considered alongside other priorities (such as updating old assets, creating more capacity to deal with growing demand or scheduling works to minimise overall costs) when the Government makes investment plans.

The Prioritisation Method applies to both long-standing issues and issues arising due to wear or damage.

The framework has two steps – step one assesses the impact of current conditions on users and step two identifies the importance of the location. A final ranking can then be assigned.

Steps of the prioritisation method

A graphic showing the three steps of the prioritisation method.
1. The first step uses impact ratings, in the order of lowest to highest significance: complies with standards, minor impact or inconvenience, medium impact or significant inconvenience, high impact requiring extraordinary effort, absolute barrier, and lastly, safety critical.
2. Second step includes a location weighting.
3. Third step provides the final ranking.
Download 'Steps of the prioritisation method'

Impact

When comparing existing assets to accessibility standards such as DSAPT, there may be a large difference in practice between two non-compliant features. For example, a ramp that is marginally too steep and has a handrail that is a little too low presents obstacles to people with disability, but is of lower impact than a ramp that is very steep with a dangerous level of crossfall, and no handrail. Both ramps are non-compliant, but they do not have the same impact.

Impact ratings can be developed to take these differences into account and to reflect real world impacts for people with disability with select key impact ratings tested by people with lived experience of disability. Measuring the impact on people with a disability of an accessibility issue assists planners to work out which accessibility issues are most important to address first.

Accessibility issues are ranked based on their impact, using the five impact rating categories below:

A serious safety risk (Safety Critical)
An absolute barrier to use for some people (Absolute Barrier)
Issues where the facility can be used, but it may require extraordinary levels of effort to do so (High Impact)
Issues where the facility can be used, even though it might require significant effort (Medium Impact)
Issues where the facility is relatively easily used – even though it does not technically meet required standards such as DSAPT (Minor Impact).

The aim of impact ratings is to identify which of the existing assets that are not accessible should be fixed first. It is not an approach for arguing that new installations can be built to a more lenient tolerance.

Principles in developing impact ratings:

Safety comes first	The highest impact rating applies when something is safety critical, based on whether there is a risk of serious injury or death.
Ratings should be specific to people’s needs	The needs of the people living with disability who will be impacted must be considered. For example, the standard doorway width is 850mm. Anything below 800mm is regarded as an absolute barrier - as around 90 per cent of wheelchairs need at least 800mm to fit through the doorway. Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002
Consider all disability needs	To identify an impact rating, all types of disability are considered. If the lack of a feature or poor installation means that a subset of people with disability are unable to access the transport network, then that is an absolute barrier, regardless of whether or not most others can use it.
Consider alternative options	Impact ratings should consider the alternatives provided, wherever possible. For example, a station that does not have step-free access to platforms via a suitable ramp may offset this with the provision of lifts. Where lifts are available a rating of absolute barrier is inappropriate, as there is a credible alternative.

Location

The Prioritisation Method suggests that locations that are close to important services, such as healthcare or education, are ranked above those that are not close to these services. Higher scores are also given to destinations with high overall demand (where people can get to more jobs, shops, recreation, sporting and cultural facilities) and that are key interchanges that link people to other parts of the transport network.

Numbers of users of the transport system at the location are also considered, with added weight for locations where a higher proportion of people with disability live, such as in outer metro areas and regions outside of metro Melbourne.

Prioritisation and use

The severity of the impact and the importance of the location are combined to rank potential projects within a priority category. Safety-critical issues will always be ranked the highest but can be prioritised within the category based on their location.

For example, absolute barrier and high impact issues can be ordered by their location characteristics so a stop in a high value location (e.g. a hospital in inner Melbourne located near education facilities) would be prioritised over similar issues at a location with less demand (e.g. outer suburban bus stop). These would still be ranked lower than any location with a safety-critical issue.

Once priorities have been identified they can be used in various ways to inform advice about what should be done to improve the transport network. The top priorities for accessibility can be identified along a particular route or geographic area, or for a particular type of asset (e.g. the most urgent tactile delimiter improvements). Similarly ranked priorities could be assessed in terms of value for money to identify those that will produce the greatest benefits relative to the cost of upgrading them.

Network benefits can also be considered in deciding which upgrades to invest in, as some routes may be strategically important and there may also be cost savings from delivering a number of nearby upgrades at the same time. Priorities can also be used to inform what should be done as part of a broader project that is needed for other reasons, for example, a public transport station or stop upgrade.

Examples of using the Prioritisation Method

The top 10 stations or stops to be considered for accessibility upgrades would be assessed by identifying the stations or stops with safety-critical issues and then applying their rankings based on locations.
The Prioritisation Method might identify five stations that each have safety-critical issues, which will then be listed within the highest priority classification. These would then be ranked in order of the location weights and be identified as the top 5 accessibility upgrade priorities.
The remaining five stations in the top 10 list might be stations with accessibility issues that create an absolute barrier to some people with a disability and would be ranked in terms of the number of issues at each stop or station and their location weights.
While a range of other practical considerations may also need to be applied to choose where new trams are deployed (such as power needs and crowding on current routes), accessibility priorities can be considered by using the Prioritisation Method to identify the routes where newer, more accessible trams would have the greatest benefits.
Applying the Prioritisation Method to produce accessibility scores using impact ratings and location weights for the stops on potential routes will enable planners to identify which routes would benefit the most from more accessible trams.
Another key consideration in the Tram Plan is the alignment of accessible tram stops and accessible trams. Deploying accessible trams on a route where they cannot be accessed from the stops available would have lower benefits than where accessible trams are matched with accessible stops.
Funding might be available to address a specific accessibility problem such as the lack of, worn or poorly implemented tactile delimiters. Applying the Prioritisation Method provides a way to identify the places that have the greatest impact on users through tactile non-compliance, ranking them by their impact and location – for example prioritising tactile delimiter non-compliance that poses a grave safety risk.
An alternative way to prioritise accessibility improvements would be to select a location (such as a local government area or a precinct) and then use rankings produced by following the Prioritisation Method. This would produce an ordered list of potential upgrades within the area, across all the stops, stations and modes, and where data is available, across all footpaths and crossings in the area.

Updated 2 October 2024