- 1 This article builds upon the analyses conducted by Dobruszkes et al. [2024] and in Dobruszkes et al(...)
1While public transport (PT) is implicitly expected to be inherently inclusive, a proportion of individuals and social groups around the world face barriers in using them. Among these barriers is the inappropriate design of PT stops (in this study, “stops” refer to surface stops and underground stations) and PT vehicles for disabled people [Steinfeld et al., 2018]. Such inappropriate design is the result of “ableism”, which has long dominated – and still does to some extent – transport planning [Levine and Karner, 2023]1. This can prevent individuals with any impairment (e.g. physical, cognitive, visual and hearing) from boarding and/or alighting from PT vehicles, which makes journeys across the city complicated, if not impossible [for empirical analyses, see, e.g. [Lope and Dolgun, 2020; Moran, 2022; Dobruszkes et al., 2024; Dobruszkes et al., 2025]. In the case of Brussels, Dobruszkes et al. [2025] have calculated accessibility indices based on thousands of potential PT trips and six specific travel constraints that are faced by a proportion of travellers (e.g. the need for a step-free route, tactile paving, shelters with seats or a route that avoids stairs and escalators). After comparing the results to unconstrained travel, they conclude that the inappropriate design of PT stops and/or vehicles results in a significant increase in travel times, number of transfers and walking distances for disabled persons.
- 2 Suburban and interurban travel also deserves attention, but requires further research.
2In other words, disabled persons face serious obstacles in access to the city, and there is thus considerable potential for improving the inclusiveness of the Brussels PT network operated by STIB-MIVB2. There are various concrete means to deliver inclusive PT and to make such inclusion a reality. Baskauf [2023] highlights that inclusion can be achieved through two strategies that could be combined:
-
Accessibility by accommodation: assistance provided by PT staff members; if sufficient staff is available, a high degree of accessibility can be achieved in the short term, even with old rolling stock or poorly designed stops. However, this option has been criticised because it makes disabled people dependent in the travel context and increases operational costs;
-
Accessibility by design: stops (including underground stations) and vehicles are progressively adapted or replaced to offer autonomous use of PT by disabled persons through the concept of Universal Design3. This approach also improves service quality for all other PT users. Given the inherently inertial nature of past investments in PT and public spaces, this obviously takes more time than deploying extra assistance staff, but has the merit of rendering disabled people less dependent or not dependent at all. It also helps develop a broader culture of Universal Design.
3Another perspective considers four states, from exclusion to segregation to integration to inclusion (Table 1). Note that these degrees are not purely compartmentalised. Typically, several observers who demand full autonomy regard the specific TaxiBus service in Brussels as a segregated system but, nevertheless, it remains useful for various disabled persons, given the nature of their impairment and/or in view of the current state of the PT network, which is not wholly inclusive. The “Integration” level integrates partially with “Accessibility by accommodation” due its assistance dimension, while “Inclusivity” integrates with “Accessibility by design”.
Table 1. From exclusion to inclusion according to Passe le Message à ton Voisin asbl
|
Stage
|
Description
|
Examples in Brussels
|
|
Exclusion
|
Disabled persons cannot board/alight
|
The initial design of the underground (no lifts, many stairs, gap between the vehicle and platform)
|
|
Segregation
|
Measures to transport disabled persons in specific means of transport
|
STIB-MIVB TaxiBus service (e.g. travelling with other passengers, booking at the latest the day before the journey)
|
|
Integration
|
Efforts are made to enable disabled persons to board/alight
|
Improved design of a proportion of stops and vehicles. Assistance in underground stations. (recommended to book in advance but can be used without booking, with a variable waiting time that can go up to several dozen minutes)
|
|
Inclusion
|
Disabled people can extensively and autonomously board/alight
|
Not a reality throughout the network, but some stops and vehicles can be considered inclusive. Example: tram stops with a platform height of 31 cm, equipped with a gap filler, and served by adequate rolling stock.
|
- 4 See STIB [2024] for surface stops and Bruxelles Mobilité and STIB [2022] for underground stations. (...)
4Accessibility by accommodation is typically the policy pursued in Boston. In contrast, Brussels has engaged in an accessibility-by-design strategy (see [Baskauf, 2023] for an in-depth comparison and discussion). Thanks to efforts pursued over the past decade, Brussels has moved towards the “integration” level but has not reached the “Inclusion” level yet. To deliver the latter, and therefore give full autonomy to most disabled travellers, new guidelines have been established for designing surface and underground networks4. Their concrete implementation depends on several parallel initiatives (see [Dobruszkes et al., 2024]).
5However, given the fact that delivering inclusivity through design takes time and requires significant resources, such a policy raises the issue of finding the means to achieve it. For instance, should priority be given to upgrading the underground network, the surface network or both? Is it better to distribute investments across the network or focus on selected routes or nodes? Is adapting two metro lines (out of four) enough to ensure significant improvements?
6This paper’s goal is to respond to these questions. To do so, we have considered 15 scenarios and compared them to the 2022 situation. The remainder of the paper is as follows. Section 1 explains the methodology and data used. Section 2 presents the results, and last section concludes.
7This paper replicates the methodology developed in Dobruszkes et al. [2025], which models intra-urban journeys from all daytime-active STIB-MIVB stops (n=2,174) to 20 points of interest spread across the city (Figure 1). The modelling is based on the STIB-MIVB network and timetable in force in October 2022 and on the public spaces described by OpenStreetMap (walk from/to/between stops). Itineraries are estimated with OpenTripPlanner (OTP) 1.5, a well-known open-source software that seeks the most plausible itineraries within a given network based on various parameters5. All computations are made for an arrival at the points of interest on Tuesday, October 4, 2022, by 9:00. For more details on the method, please refer to Dobruszkes et al. [2025]. Obviously, progress achieved and changes in the PT network since October 2022 are not part of our results. All methodological details relating to journey modelling and its validation, timeframes and destination selection can be found in Dobruszkes et al. [2025].
Figure 1. The 20 destinations
- 6 Each case involves 2 174 origins x 20 destinations = 43 480 itineraries estimated.
8OTP has been used to estimate three successive contexts6:
-
Present (2022) unconstrained accessibility, which supposes that the whole network (all stops and all vehicles) can be used by any PT user;
-
Present (2022) constrained accessibility, in which only stops and vehicles that satisfy specific travel constraints are included in the calculations. This is still based on the 2022 state of the network (both stops and vehicles). In this paper, we consider three travel constraints: “hard step-free”, “soft step-free” and “tactile paving” (Table 2; see [Dobruszkes et al., 2024], for a detailed description). The two former are required by many travellers with physical and/or visual impairment, but are also valued by a larger range of PT users (e.g. the elderly, travellers with a pushchair or a shopping trolley, etc.). The difference between the “hard” and “soft” levels relies in the diversity of personal factors (including kind and degree of impairment, physical skills and travel training [Mwaka et al., 2024]) as well as the presence of external assistance or not. As for “tactile paving”, it is a condition to help travellers with significant visual impairment;
-
Fifteen scenarios, in which more stops and/or vehicles are made inclusive. These scenarios are somewhere between the unconstrained situation (reference) and the current constrained reality (travelling under constraint).
Table 2. The travel constraints considered in this research
|
Hard step-free
|
Need to embark/disembark from a stop with an absence of a step and a gap between vehicles and platform edges.
|
|
Soft step-free
|
Similar to “hard step-free”, but here, a “slight” gap between vehicles and platform edges can be overcome. This gap can be clearer thanks to the traveller’s ability or to external assistance.
|
|
Tactile paving
|
Need to embark/disembark from a stop with tactile paving.
|
9Among the 15 scenarios, 14 supposes that more stops and/or vehicles satisfy the “hard step-free” travel constraint while a 15th scenario supposes that tactile paving is wholly available across the underground network (Table 3). These scenarios are quite diverse in terms of ambition, spatial distribution (spread vs concentrated) and milieu (surface vs underground), as illustrated by Table 4 and Figure 2. These scenarios have been discussed in depth with the urban PT operator (STIB-MIVB), the regional mobility administration (Bruxelles-Mobilité) and the umbrella organisation for disability associations in French-speaking Belgium (Collectif Accessibilité Wallonie-Bruxelles, CAWaB). This ensures that our scenarios take into account the needs of PT users, the reality of the field as well as ongoing initiatives.
Table 3. The 15 scenarios analysed
* “Hub” means a group of stops with the same name (e.g. Schuman). When metro lines are included, lines 2 and 6 count only once because line 2 is a truncated variant of line 6.
10It was challenging to estimate the ambitious nature of each scenario. To achieve this, we calculated the number of bus, tram and underground stations that would need to be upgraded. For the latter, we made a distinction between lifts to be installed and platform issues. We also estimated the number of new trams and metro trainsets to be purchased. We anticipated the ongoing delivery of 43 M7 trainsets and 90 “new generation” 3200/4200 trams, so only additional vehicles are included in Table 4. Regarding metro trainsets, the range of results is due to uncertainty over whether the penultimate M6 generation could be adapted to be step-free, as the final M7 generation is.
11All these numbers were then multiplied by the average unit cost, except for underground platform height issues due to a lack of data. There are no “official” unit values published, and each project is specific. As a result, we considered the average cost of several recent upgrade projects. The unit costs of the trains and trams are based on the most recent orders placed by STIB-MIVB. In addition, we were unable to assess the cost of the additional parking space required for the new trams (significantly longer than the older models) and the metro trains (somewhat longer). Such costs are subject to significant variations depending on the specifics (e.g. covered vs open-air area; building from scratch vs adaptation of existing facilities).
12It is therefore clear that these estimates should only be considered as an indication. Consequently, we have converted the results into a relative scale labelled the “ambition index”, setting the estimated cost of scenario 1A at 1. This result is shown in Figure 2.
Table 4. Number of stops to be upgraded and rolling stock to be ordered
|
#
|
Tram stops (surface only)
|
Bus stops
|
Underground stations to be equipped with lifts
|
Underground platforms to be upgraded
|
Trams to be ordered
|
Metro trainsets to be ordered
|
|
1A
|
105
|
0
|
0
|
0*
|
0
|
0
|
|
1B
|
105
|
0
|
8
|
15*
|
0
|
0
|
|
2A
|
528
|
0
|
0
|
0*
|
89
|
0
|
|
2B
|
528
|
0
|
8
|
15*
|
89
|
0
|
|
3
|
105
|
358
|
0
|
0*
|
89
|
0
|
|
4
|
0
|
282
|
0
|
0*
|
0
|
0
|
|
5A
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
N.A.*
|
0
|
0
|
|
5B
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
N.A.*
|
0
|
4 or 25***
|
|
6A
|
94
|
199
|
0
|
N.A.*
|
73
|
0
|
|
6B
|
206
|
389
|
0
|
N.A.*
|
89
|
0
|
|
7A
|
6
|
29
|
11
|
N.A.*
|
39
|
0
|
|
7B
|
6
|
29
|
14
|
N.A.*
|
39
|
4 or 25***
|
|
8A
|
102
|
218
|
11
|
N.A.*
|
89
|
0
|
|
8B
|
102
|
218
|
14
|
N.A.*
|
89
|
4 or 25***
|
|
11
|
N.R.
|
N.R.
|
N.R.
|
69**
|
0
|
0
|
N.A.: not available. N.R.: not relevant.
*Platform height to be adjusted to match the floor height of the vehicles.
**Tactile paving to be standardised in all the (pre)metro stations.
***Depending on whether M6 trains can be adapted to be step-free.
In comparison, in 2022 there were 773 stops that met the hard step-free constraint.
Figure 2. The ambition index for the hard step-free scenarios (reference: scenario 1A=1)
Excluding underground platforms to be upgraded and additional parking facilities for new trams and metro trains. The index range for scenarios 5B, 7B and 8B results from uncertainties regarding the feasibility of adapting the M6 metro series for step-free access.
13In all cases, the calculations with travel constraints limit the walking distance from/to/between PT stops to 500 metres. This prevents the model from proposing aberrant itineraries and respects the fact that moving in public spaces (out of PT vehicles) is painful (e.g. kerbs, discontinuity in tactile paving’s path, obstacles on sidewalks). Among the OTP’s outputs, this paper considers the number of departure points, travel time, the number of transfers and walking distance.
14Table 5 unveils the overall outcomes, namely the 20 destinations being averaged. On average for the 43 480 itineraries (2 174 origins x 20 destinations), unconstrained accessibility involves the whole 2 174 departure points, a travel time of 45 minutes, 1,2 transfer and a 427-metre walk. When imposing the “soft step-free” constraint, the number of departure points decreases by 10 %, travel time increases by 10 %, transfers increase by 13 % and walking distance by 24 %. If one considers the “hard step-free” constraint instead, the changes are very worrying: -26 %, +68 %, +70 % and +38 %, respectively.
15In other words, the “hard step-free” constraint results in a sharp deterioration in access to the city, while this deterioration is less serious in the case of “soft step-free” although not negligible for those who face it. It is worth noting that the decrease in the number of departure stops only partially reflects the number of non-inclusive stops. Indeed, when a stop does not meet a travel constraint (e.g. “hard step-free”), OTP will seek an alternative stop nearby within the 500-metre threshold. Stops are thus excluded only if they do not meet a travel condition, and no alternative stop is available.
Table 5. Overall results for the hard step-free scenarios
|
|
Departure stops (n)
|
Average travel time (minutes)
|
Average number of transfers (n)
|
Average walking distance (m)
|
|
Present (2022) situation
|
No constraint (reference)
|
2 174
|
|
45
|
|
1,2
|
|
427
|
|
|
Soft step-free
|
1 948
|
-10 %
|
50
|
+10 %
|
1,31
|
+13 %
|
530
|
+24 %
|
|
Hard step-free
|
1 612
|
-26 %
|
76
|
+68 %
|
2,00
|
+70 %
|
590
|
+38 %
|
|
Scenarios
|
1A
|
1 770
|
-19 %
|
73
|
+61 %
|
1,93
|
+66 %
|
579
|
+35 %
|
|
1B
|
1 772
|
-18 %
|
67
|
+48 %
|
1,70
|
+46 %
|
559
|
+31 %
|
|
2A
|
1 915
|
-12 %
|
61
|
+35 %
|
1,63
|
+40 %
|
489
|
+14 %
|
|
2B
|
1 917
|
-12 %
|
57
|
+27 %
|
1,48
|
+27 %
|
468
|
+10 %
|
|
3
|
1 778
|
-18 %
|
65
|
+43 %
|
1,77
|
+52 %
|
525
|
+23 %
|
|
4
|
1 702
|
-22 %
|
67
|
+47 %
|
1,71
|
+47 %
|
503
|
+18 %
|
|
5A
|
1 651
|
-24 %
|
61
|
+34 %
|
1,60
|
+37 %
|
634
|
+48 %
|
|
5B
|
1 668
|
-23 %
|
54
|
+19 %
|
1,41
|
+21 %
|
628
|
+47 %
|
|
6A
|
1 810
|
-17 %
|
63
|
+40 %
|
1,57
|
+35 %
|
488
|
+14 %
|
|
6B
|
1 852
|
-15 %
|
60
|
+32 %
|
1,50
|
+28 %
|
465
|
+9 %
|
|
7A
|
1 655
|
-24 %
|
56
|
+23 %
|
1,37
|
+18 %
|
605
|
+42 %
|
|
7B
|
1 669
|
-23 %
|
53
|
+17 %
|
1,35
|
+16 %
|
593
|
+39 %
|
|
8A
|
1 831
|
-16 %
|
51
|
+12 %
|
1,20
|
+3 %
|
535
|
+25 %
|
|
8B
|
1 844
|
-15 %
|
49
|
+7 %
|
1,19
|
+2 %
|
529
|
+24 %
|
In dark blue: the results are close to the reference (no constraint) and better than “soft step-free”. In light blue: the results are close to “soft step-free”. In salmon: the results remain close to “hard step-free”. In grey: intermediate results.
16The 14 scenarios that guarantee wider “hard step-free” access result in a range of intermediate results between the “hard step-free” travel constraint and the “soft step-free” travel constraint. Only in a few cases (scenarios 8A/8B for some indicators) are the results better than “soft step-free”. The results highlighted in blue are the most favourable as they make it possible to move from the poor results of “hard step-free” travel towards the somewhat better results of “soft step-free” travel.
17In addition, Figure 3 compares average travel time to the ambition index. Overall, more ambitious scenarios lead to larger gains, although scenarios 5B, 7B and 8B are subject to uncertainty relating to the M6 metro trains (see above). Clearly, these averaged results are contrasted, which demonstrates that opting for one scenario or another is not neutral.
Figure 3. Average gain in travel time vs ambition index
The gain in travel time is calculated compared to hard-step free travel, on average for the 20 destinations.
18In this perspective, the larger gains under the “hard step-free” constraint are obtained from scenarios that upgrade stops at hubs where it is possible to transfer between lines and between PT modes, including the (pre)metro (scenarios 8B and 8A, then 7B, 5B, 7A and 2B to a lesser extent). It is worth noting that these are the most ambitious (and thus the more expensive) scenarios, except for scenario 7A (as new step-free M7 trains are being delivered) and scenarios 5B and 7B, provided that M6 trains can be adapted to be step-free. Of course, including more hubs (scenarios 8A/8B vs 7A/7B) or more underground stations (scenarios 8B vs 8A, 7B vs 7A, 5B vs 5A, 2B vs 2A and 1B vs 1A) clearly gives better results although at higher cost. Offering “hard step-free” access for the whole metro network but only this network (scenario 5B) also helps to improve accessibility significantly, given the trunk role of this transport mode within the Brussels PT network. Doing so for the whole tram network (scenario 2A and 2B) leads to interesting but less favourable results at a high cost given the need to replace numerous older trams.
19In contrast, the least ambitious scenario that extends “hard step-free” travel to the surface stops of the four main tramlines only (scenario 1A) at least improves access to the city, still on average. Other scenarios are somewhere in between. Those scenarios are not ambitious enough because they include too few routes (scenarios 1B and 4) and/or do not include any underground stations (scenarios 2A, 6A and 6B) or are arguably geographically too scattered (scenario 3). Interestingly, for a similar ambition index, scenarios that improve network nodes (6B and 8A) or the entire underground network (5B) achieve greater gains than a scattered upgrade, as in scenario 3. Furthermore, the number of transfers remains high for scenarios 1A and 3 (see Table 5).
- 7 The floor’s height of these new trainsets can be adjusted in a STIB-MIVB workshop, depending on whe (...)
20The higher gains obtained when improving the four metro lines instead of only lines 1/5 (scenarios 8B, 7B and 5B vs 8A, 7A and 5A, respectively) should be understood as a signal. Metro lines 1 and 5 (East-West route) are becoming more inclusive through the combination of lifts from street to platforms, platforms being progressively adjusted at a 1 m height over the rail and the new M7 trainsets being delivered07. Since metro lines 2 and 6 (circle line and branch to Roi Baudouin) will remain serviced by older rolling stock, our results highlight the rationale for finding a means to deliver “hard step-free” travel there as well.
21Table 6 shows that the lack of tactile paving results in a sharp deterioration of access to the city, as shown by considering the state of the STIB-MIVB network in 2022 (with, again, longer journeys, more transfers and longer walks compared to unconstrained travel). In contrast, scenario 11 would really help to improve things, keeping average travel time and number of transfers close to the unconstrained situation. However, the number of departure points and walking distance remain deteriorated. This is because scenario 11 improves the (pre)metro stations only (hence the limited improvement in departure points) in a context where the (pre)metro plays a key role in the Brussels PT network. These routes are even almost mandatory in connecting opposite neighbours across the city (see [Dobruszkes et al., 2025]).
Table 6. Overall results for the tactile paving scenario
|
|
Departure stops (n)
|
Average travel time (minutes)
|
Average number of transfers (n)
|
Average walking distance (m)
|
|
Present (2022) situation
|
No constraint (reference)
|
2 174
|
|
45
|
|
1,2
|
|
427
|
|
|
Tactile paving
|
1 519
|
–30 %
|
68
|
+49 %
|
1,9
|
+61 %
|
657
|
+54 %
|
|
Scenario
|
11
|
1 555
|
–28 %
|
47
|
+3 %
|
1,3
|
+12 %
|
631
|
+48 %
|
22The previous results were all aggregated (average for the 20 destinations). In this sense, they mask potential heterogeneity at the destination level or by origin-destination pair. To illustrate heterogeneous results, this subsection presents selected disaggregated results.
23Table 7 disaggregates the results at the level of the 20 destinations for travel time. In doing so, one can first observe that the increase in travel time compared to unconstrained travel varies significantly across destinations (a result already presented by [Dobruszkes et al., 2025], in the same journal). For the “hard step-free” travel constraints, change in travel time ranges between +35 % (to Westland Shopping) to +175 % (to Midi railway station).
24In comparison, the increase in travel time under the scenarios 1A to 8B is always smaller than when considering the “hard step-free” travel constraint in the present state of the PT network. This means each scenario does help to limit the deterioration of travel conditions for disabled people. However, here too there is strong heterogeneity across scenarios, although within somewhat smaller ranges. For instance, scenario 5B limits the increase in travel time into a range from +9 % (to UZ Brussel) to +80 % (to Bourget) (instead of the aforementioned +35 % to +175 % range).
25Contrasts in accessibility improvement across the scenarios also prevails at the origin-destination pair level, as rendered by the selected cases mapped in Figures 4 to 7.
26Let us first consider travel times to Bruxelles-Midi railway station (Figure 4), a key destination served by metro lines 2/6, tram lines (both surface and pre-metro routes) and several bus lines. Most scenarios show better results compared to “hard step-free” travel, as with the 2022 state of the network. However, scenarios that do not offer hard step-free travel in the pre-metro (scenario 1A) or offer hard step-free travel only for metro lines 1/5 that do not serve Midi station (scenario 5A) do not improve access to Midi station. However, when hard step-free travel is offered for metro lines 1/5 without lines 2/6 but in combination with other bus and tram routes including pre-metro lines (scenarios 7A and 8A), the results are also encouraging. This is arguably due to the large range of lines that serve Midi station, and therefore a large number of alternative itineraries, even with metro lines 2/6 not being an option. In addition, travel time from the northern and eastern parts of the city remain quite high for scenarios 3 (spread stops), 4 (the 12 busiest bus routes) and 6A/6B (surface hubs).
- 8 Having said that and beyond our scenarios, upgrading the bus stops that serve the clinic (bus route (...)
27Results for UCL Saint-Luc, one of the three Brussels academic hospitals, are quite different (Figure 5). The clinic is located at the eastern edge of the city and is served mostly by metro line 1. Travel times in 2022 under the hard step-free travel constraint are dramatically high, namely more than 90 minutes from most origins. Given the high dependence on metro line 1, only scenarios that offer “hard step-free” travel for this line (scenarios 5A, 5B, 7A, 7B, 8A and 8B) make it possible to significantly improve inclusive access to the clinic8.
Table 7. Travel time to the 20 destinations as a percentage of unconstrained travel
Empty cells denote nonsignificant results (not enough itineraries). Weighted average based on the number of stops departure stops for each destination.
Figure 4. Comparing scenarios to Brussels-Midi station
Figure 5. Comparing scenarios to UCL Saint-Luc
Figure 6. Comparing scenarios to ULB Solbosch
Figure 7. Comparing scenarios to UZ Brussel
28The ULB Solbosch campus offers other perspectives (Figure 6). Given the rather peripheral location in the south of the city and surface PT services only, unconstrained travel is clearly longer than for Midi station and UCL Saint-Luc Hospital. But 2022 travel times become increasingly high for more origins under the “hard step-free” travel constraint, notably because several stops that serve the campus are not designed appropriately. Most scenarios help to improve travel times under the “hard step-free” travel constraint, and the spatial extent of the benefits varies widely across the scenarios. Travel times from the northern-western part of the region remain very high, except in scenario 8B, which makes a large number of both surface and underground stops inclusive, including those on metro lines 2 and 6. This is because with the actual network design, it is very difficult to cross the city from one edge to another without transiting via the underground (in other words, a typical routing would comprise a bus/tram leg, an underground leg and another bus/tram leg). And since the north-west of Brussels is served by metro line 6 (directly or via a bus/tram route that connects with line 6), a scenario that improves the inclusiveness of metro lines 1/5 is not enough.
29Similar conclusions can be drawn from the case of UZ Brussel (Figure 7), the Flemish academic hospital located in the north-west of Brussels. In 2022, travel time under the “hard step-free” travel constraint led to very long journeys from a large part of the city. However, the 90>-minute area is more restricted than to ULB Solbosch thanks to (1) the recent tramline 9 that was built from scratch according to the last STIB-MIVB guidelines (see [Dobruszkes et al., 2024]); and (2) several bus routes that also offer inclusive design. As in the case of ULB Solbosch, scenario 8B offers the most extended gains across the city.
30Finally yet importantly, all case studies show a significant number of excluded departure stops (black crosses on the maps). These are the stops that combine two conditions: they do not satisfy criteria for “hard step-free travel” and there is no alternative within a 500-metre walk. Even in the most voluntary scenarios (such as scenario 8B), many stops remain excluded.
31This paper presents a quantitative analysis of the potential accessibility improvements that could be achieved in Brussels through a by-design strategy. It is therefore in line with the strategy adopted by the regional authorities and the city's public transport operator in consultation with NGOs. In doing so, it expands a research field that is currently dominated by qualitative studies. It also highlights the fact that mobility policies are not neutral. There is indeed plenty of room to make PT in Brussels more inclusive for disabled people. Yet a key point is to prioritise investments, with the awareness that human and financial resources are currently limited and could even be reduced given the Region's financial situation. To this end, scenarios can be useful for prioritising actions by investing in specific surface stops, underground stations and vehicles that can offer significant gains, in travel time for instance, to access different places in the city.
32This paper’s analysis focuses mostly on the “hard step-free” constraint, which is valued and/or needed by disabled people, including those with visual impairments as well as the wider public. No less than 14 scenarios have been compared. Our quantitative results clearly highlight that not all scenarios are equal. In a nutshell, aggregated results suggest that:
-
More ambitious scenarios tend to deliver higher gains in inclusiveness but are more costly;
-
Higher gains are obtained when the main PT nodes and the entire underground network are made inclusive. In contrast, scattered upgrades produce disappointing results given their cost;
-
Scenarios involving the large-scale renewal of tram and/or metro fleets are the most expensive, although upgrading the M6 metro trains would deliver high gains at limited cost;
-
In addition, a 15th scenario that delivers tactile paving in the whole underground network would offer major gains compared to current travel under the tactile paving constraint. This finding can support the STIB-MIVB’s initiative to conduct a general audit of tactile paving infrastructures in the 70 stations in order to implement uniform wayfinding signage in all underground stations.
33However, the disaggregated results show that the gains of each scenario are geographically heterogeneous. One given origin-destination may benefit from one scenario but not another. In other words, viewed from the departure point, the best scenario depends on the destination.
34This heterogeneity of our disaggregated results makes it somewhat difficult to firmly recommend one scenario over the others.
35Beyond our quantitative exercise, it is worth noting that less ambitious scenarios resulting in fewer benefits could still have other, unmeasurable benefits. For example, making some tramlines truly inclusive (scenarios 1A and 1B) is easier to implement in the short term, is less dependent on human behaviour than bus services are (driving, illegal parking, etc.), provides an opportunity to redesign public spaces (including crossing major avenues if the tracks are placed in their middle) and is easy for the public to read.
36Having said that, a certain proportion of the improvements is not based on existing strategies but on opportunities (e.g. road to be renovated or tram rails to be renewed). Also, the ultimate goal remains to achieve a truly inclusive network. As the necessary human and financial resources are currently not available, a balance of interests could thus be made between making the existing network more inclusive and investing in very costly megaprojects.
37This paper also calls for further research. Let us recall that the scenarios discussed in this paper are all based on improving the stops and vehicles leaving the network unchanged. However, one could also investigate the potential effects of changes in the network design on its inclusiveness, which can be achieved at low cost. For example, long lines would help minimise the number of transfers, reducing the risk of encountering non-inclusive stops that force suboptimal itineraries and limit the need to “walk” in the public space, which often presents obstacles. Examples include reconnecting the north and south of the city via the central pre-metro tunnel, and extending surface lines to metro lines 1/5 stations if they currently end at metro lines 2/6. Furthermore, an alternative design of the surface network could help to bypass the underground network until it is fully accessible to everyone. As Lebrun [2018] and Dupriez [2025] have concluded, the topology of a PT network is everything but neutral, and certainly calls for a public debate.
We express our gratitude to all the disabled persons and partners’ employees who contributed to this research through interviews, meetings and trips across the city. We also took advantage of the very stimulating and useful comments received from Bruxelles Mobilité, STIB-MIVB and CAWaB on an earlier draft. These fruitful exchanges totally respected our academic freedom. Lastly, we used open-source software and data as part of this research and would like to thank all those who help keep open-source communities alive.