Breaking Barriers: Analyzing Accessibility in 16 European Railway Nations

Rail travel is favored in Europe thanks to the efficiency of its train systems, its extensive network, and the scenic routes. It can provide a comfortable and unique way to explore diverse landscapes and countries – offering an immersive travel experience that is convenient and environmentally friendly, while connecting a range of destinations from major cities to charming towns.

Countries like these demonstrate a commendable commitment to accessibility and inclusivity, catering to individuals with and without disabilities and fostering an environment of equal participation.

Regrettably, traveling in countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Czechia, and Italy can pose challenges for individuals with mobility disabilities. Our research reveals that only 1 in 4 or fewer railway stations in these countries are accessible. Notable exceptions include Brussels Midi, Copenhagen Central, Prague Main Station, and Rome Termini.

In Sweden, Norway, France, and Luxembourg, at least 9 in 10 platforms offer tactile guidance.

Denmark and Poland, on the other hand, emerge as the least accessible in this criterion. Only 22 percent of Danish railway stations are equipped with tactile pavement, while the number for Poland is even lower at 17 percent. These barriers significantly impact people’s ability to travel independently. However, assistance is available at Copenhagen Central and Warsaw Central when booked in advance.

In general, digital passenger information boards are widespread among European railway networks and stations. Countries like Ireland, Spain, Czechia, and Poland provide real-time travel information on 6 out of 10 platforms, which is less accessible compared to other European railway nations.

• Methodology

  The objective of the study is to examine the current status-quo when it comes to accessibility at railway stations in sixteen key European railway nations. The study is structured to assess the degree to which the railway networks in these countries cater to the requirements of people with disabilities. Three primary criteria were identified for evaluation, and a substantial volume of data were analyzed from reliable sources.

  • Stations with accessible platforms

  Accessible platforms are often facilitated by structural features such as elevators, ramps, and other infrastructural modifications. Various reports and studies were used to collect data about railway stations which are accessible to people with disabilities, particularly those using wheelchairs. Sources: Österreichische Bundesbahn (Austria), Passe le Message à ton Voisin (Belgium), Ombudsman (Czech Republic), Disabled People’s Organisations Denmark (Denmark), Paris Olympics 2024 (France), Deutsche Bahn (Germany), Republic of Ireland (Ireland), Italia Rail (Italy), CFL (Luxembourg), EIM Rail (Netherlands), Ministère de la Transition écologique et de la Cohésion des territoires, France (Norway), Notes from Poland (Poland), Servicio de Información sobre Discapacidad (Spain), Jernusen (Sweden), Bundesamt für Verkehr (Switzerland) und Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (United Kingdom).

  • Stations with tactile pavement

  Independent access for visually impaired individuals are often facilitated through methods such as floor guidance systems or tactile handrail signage in stairs and elevators. Information about these forms of access was collected from various reports and studies to look at the percentages. The sources specified in the previous criteria were used again to consider Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom for this criteria. For other countries, we calculated the percentages from a comprehensive examination of randomly selected stations to approximate the percentage of tactile pavements on platforms.

  • Stations with digital passenger information

  Stations offering visual passenger information in real-time, and digital departure boards, was the third criteria we looked at. The information was gathered from various reports and studies that highlighted train platforms and rail stations. The sources for Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Poland were highlighted in the previous criteria. For other countries, we estimated the percentages. These approximations came from a comprehensive examination of a randomly selected range of stations.

  The following railway stations were taken into account for the approximation: France (Gare de Marseille Saint-Charles, Gare de Lyon-Part-Dieu, Gare de Strasbourg, Gare de Bordeaux Saint-Jean, Aulnay-sous-Bois, Ceyzériat, Tournan, Morlaix, Le Bosquet, Gestel), Czech Republic (Praha, Brno, Ostrava, Plzeň, Hamry-Hojsova Stráž, Jaroměřice nad Rokytnou, Přerov, Třinec, Boří les, Dobré Pole), Italy (Roma Termini, Milano Centrale, Firenze Santa Maria Novella, Venezia Santa Lucia, Sibari, Domodossola, Maglie, Termoli, Bonefro-Santa Croce, Sacile), Spain (Madrid Atocha, Barcelona Sants, Sevilla Santa Justa, Valencia Joaquín Sorolla, Zamora, Benicarló-Peñíscola, Ronda, Cercedilla, Llanes, Crevillent), Sweden (Stockholm Central, Göteborg Central, Malmö Central, Uppsala Central, Linköping Central, Västerås Central, Örebro Central, Norrköping Central, Östersund, Sundsvall Västra), Norway (Oslo, Bergen, Stavanger / Sandnes, Trondheim, Kløfta, Mandal, Leirvik, Ler Station, Nærbø, Åndalsnes), Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Dudelange, Schifflange, Wasserbillig, Mersch, Roodt, Schieren, Betzdorf, Berchem), Switzerland (Zürich Hauptbahnhof, Genève Cornavin, Basel SBB, Bern, Lausanne, Luzern, Cheyres, Grandvaux, Interlaken Ost, Zermatt), United Kingdom (London King’s Cross, Edinburgh Waverley, Manchester Piccadilly, Harlow, Hinckley, Grantham Station, Long Eaton Station, Mills Hill Station, Upton, Ince)

  To facilitate comparison, the data has been statistically standardized on a scale from 0 to 100. The nation exhibiting the highest level of accessibility for each criterion was assigned a score of 100, while the one with the lowest accessibility received a score of 0. Scores for other examined nations were allocated on a scale between 0 and 100, determined by their respective results.

  The final ranking was determined by aggregating scores across all three standardized categories. This overall score was also standardized on a scale from 0 to 100, establishing the total score and final ranking. The nation securing the highest total score led the ranking – in this case, the Netherlands. A conventional statistical normalization formula was employed for these standardizations.

  The study was conducted in December 2023.