Accessibility of Streetscape taking Delhi as Case

Study

By
Jagriti Pande

Under the Guidance of

Ms. Aparna Dass, Program Manager ABLE
American India Foundation
and
Dr. Varsha Gupta
Asst. Professor
National Institute of Fashion Technology
 Abstract

Accessibility is the ease with which any product or services can be availed by anyone
irrespective of their age, gender, physical characteristics, capabilities, language or
intelligence. In today’s context, accessibility has moved from the “barrier free
approach” to the “universal design approach”. Accessibility is the first step towards
mainstreaming the persons with disability. Secondary research show that the persons
with disability are more financially disadvantaged because they are not able to have
access to education, schools, healthcare and workplace. In India an approximate 4-8
percent of population consists of persons with disability. This project “Accessibility of
Streetscape of Delhi” assessed the accessibility of Delhi w.r.t. both the structural and
attitudinal barriers. For the purpose of studying the structural barriers, streetscape of
53 sites including the places of educational, recreational and historical importance in
the nine zones of Delhi were analysed. The persons with disability and persons with
no disability were interviewed to understand the complete perception of the society.
Research showed that though persons with no disability are open to the idea of
inclusion of persons with disability in the society yet there is a serious lack of
confidence on the abilities of Persons with disability. 98 percent of the persons with no
disability felt that persons with disability should work and financially independent and
89 percent felt that persons with disability should attend the educational institutes, yet
an approximate 70 percent of the non-disabled population felt that persons with
disability must always travel with someone. Only an 11 percent of the persons with no
disability knew about Persons with Disability Act 1995. The field survey revealed that
though the efforts are being made to make pedestrian infrastructure and transport
accessible for persons with disability, yet the poor implementation renders the exercise
futile. The interviews with the persons with disability showed that most of the persons
with disability are independent travellers. However, the purpose of going out is almost
always work related. The reasons for not going out are mostly lack of infrastructure
and transport suited to their needs. The women with disability are the most vulnerable
section amongst the persons with disability. A 45 percent of the women with disability
have faced unwanted sexual overtures. It was also found that the information system
of any means of transport except the metro is not very helpful. There was not a single
person with disability who had seen ramps being opened in the buses. Buses though
most economical means of transport and designed as per the accessibility standards
still remain completely inaccessible to wheelchair users because the bus drivers and
conductors are not sensitized to the needs of persons with disability. The lack of
sensitization amongst the society including those which are the service providers, non-
participation of stake holders, the weak implementation framework and strict punitive
measures are the main culprits behind inaccessibility. Though sensitization is a key to
ensure a better accessible environment it is very important to sensitize the persons
with disability as well. The research showed that only a 6 percent of persons with
disability knew about the Officer of Chief Commissioner of Disability which protects the
rights of persons with disability including those related to accessibility. The research
concluded with the recommendations based on the best international practices and
interviews from the experts in the field of accessibility.

iii
 Acknowledgment

Foremost, my sincere thanks to American India Foundation for sponsoring my

project. I would especially like to thank Ms. Aparna Dass, Program Manager,
ABLE team from American India Foundation for guiding me throughout my
project and providing me all the support that I needed for the completion of my
research. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mentor at National
Instittue of Fashion Technology, Dr. Varsha Gupta for her unending support in
completion of my thesis. Her patience, motivation, belief, and immense
knowledge helped me sail through the 4 months of my research project
smoothly.
This project would not have been successfully completed without the support
of the organization who volunteered to be a part of the study. My sincere thanks
to all the participating organizations. I am deeply indebted to Mr. Sanjeev
Sachdev, resource person on accessibility for providing me his valuable
feedback in every stage of the project. My sincere thanks to Ms. Anjali Agarwal,
founder Samarthyam, Mr. Subhash Vashisht, accessibility expert, Ms. Shivani
Gupta, founder AcessAbility, Dr. Shakuntala Davar, Ms. Amba Saleskar of
Inclusive Planet and Mr. Pradeep Raj for sharing their experiences and
providing me with insights that helped me in successful completion of my
project.
A mere thank you cannot express the extreme gratitude I feel towards my
parents and brother who have always been a guiding light in all my endeavours.
I owe the successful completion of this of this project to them.

iv
Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgment .......................................................................................................iv
Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background of accessibility ............................................................................. 1
1.2. Aim of the study .............................................................................................. 2
1.3. Need for the study ........................................................................................... 3
1.4. Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2. Literature Review ..................................................................................... 4
2.1. The Global Picture .......................................................................................... 4
2.2. The Indian Picture ........................................................................................... 4
2.2.1. The studies carried out in past and their findings ...................................... 4
2.2.2. Barriers to Accessibility ............................................................................. 7
2.3. The legislative framework and the guidelines .................................................. 9
Chapter 3. Methodology .......................................................................................... 12
3.1. The mixed method approach ......................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Observational Study ................................................................................ 12
3.1.2. Primary Data Collection from various sample groups .............................. 21
3.2. The Sampling ................................................................................................ 23
Chapter 4. The structural accessibility ..................................................................... 25
4.1. Observation and Findings – Statistical Snapshot........................................... 25
4.1.1. The sidewalks ......................................................................................... 25
4.1.2. The Pedestrian Crossing ........................................................................ 28
4.1.3. The Bus stops......................................................................................... 30
4.1.4. Subway and Foot over bridge ................................................................. 33
4.2. Accessibility score – The individual zone assessment ................................... 33
4.2.1. Sidewalks ............................................................................................... 34
4.3. The Pedestrian Crossing ............................................................................... 70
4.2.2 Bus Stops ................................................................................................ 93
Chapter 5. Attitude towards person with disability .................................................. 106
5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 106
5.2. The profile of respondents ........................................................................... 106
5.3. Opinions on a person with disability travelling independently ...................... 107

1
 5.4. Question of inclusion ................................................................................... 108
5.5. Women with disability .................................................................................. 112
5.6. Socio-Cultural Beliefs towards Disability .................................................. 114
5.7. Awareness about disability and accessibility ............................................... 117
5.8. Takeaways .................................................................................................. 122
Chapter 6. Experiences of PWDs in Built Environment ......................................... 124
6.1. The profile of the respondents ..................................................................... 124
6.2. The Travelling Patterns ............................................................................... 127
6.2.1. Independent Travelling ......................................................................... 127
6.2.2. The Mode of transport .......................................................................... 131
6.3. Structural Accessibility - Experiences with the infrastructure ....................... 135
6.3.1. The pedestrian infrastructure ................................................................ 137
6.3.2. The information system ........................................................................ 142
6.3. Attitudinal Accessibility - Experiences with the People ................................ 146
6.3.1. The service providers ........................................................................... 147
6.3.2. The fellow travellers .............................................................................. 152
6.4. The perception of PWD ............................................................................... 155
6.4. The expectations ......................................................................................... 159
6.5. The awareness amongst PWD .................................................................... 160
Chapter 7. Recommendations & Best Practices .................................................... 162
7.1. Issues Identified .......................................................................................... 162
7.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................... 165
Annexure I: List of tables ....................................................................................... 172
Annexure II: Table of Figures................................................................................. 173
Annexure III : Participating Organizations .............................................................. 179
Annexure IV: Experts Interviewed .......................................................................... 180
Annexure V Questionnaire for Persons with Disability ........................................... 181
Annexure VI Questionnaire for Persons with no Disability ..................................... 188
Annexure VII: The Questionnaire for Experts......................................................... 193
References ............................................................................................................ 196

2
 Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1. Background of accessibility

Accessibility is the ease with which one can use a product or a service
irrespective of age, gender, physical characteristics or intellectual abilities. It
has its root in the barrier-free movement of 1950’s in United States where the
war veterans who acquired disability during war demanded inclusion in the
society. They demanded equal opportunities instead of being confined to health
institutions (The Center For Universal Design, NC State University, 2008). For
a long time the approach towards achieving the accessible environment was by
eliminating barriers. The environment designed by removing the barriers
facilitated the movement for persons with disability but it was not much effective
at bringing inclusion at an attitudinal level. In the 1980’s the designers moved
towards a more inclusive design approach wherein the terms like “Design for
all”, “inclusive design” etc. started to be used instead of accessible design. Ron
Mace, an architect from US who himself had polio led the team of 7 architects
and designer in mid-1990’s and came with the term “Universal Design” based
on seven principals (Fletcher, 2002). The seven principles1 that defined the
relationship between a universal design and accessibility were:
1. Equitable Use – The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse
abilities.
2. Flexibility in Use- The design accommodates a wide range of individual
preferences and abilities.
3. Simple and Intuitive use- Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless
of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration
level.
4. Perceptible Information- The design communicates necessary information
effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory
abilities.
5. Tolerance for Error- The design minimizes hazards and the adverse
consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

6. Low Physical Effort – The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and
with a minimum of fatigue.

1According to the guidelines published by the Centre of Universal Design, North Caroline
University who hold the copyright of the 7 principals of universal design the principals must be
printed intact without interpretation or abbreviation or any other alteration. It is acceptable to
print the principals either as the seven principals alone or with all 29 associated guidelines.

1
7. Size and pace for Approach and Use – Appropriate size and space is
provided for approach, reach, manipulation and use regardless of user’s body
size, posture or mobility.

The role of accessibility is very vital in ensuring the independent and safe
navigation of persons with disability in environment. In the absence of an
enabling environment the persons with disability are forced to live in isolation
with no social, political and cultural participation. The PWDs irrespective of their
age or gender can be productive members of society if only the limiting belief
about the disability are challenged and the barriers are dismantled. (UNDP
India, 2012). Studies prove that the costs of economic exclusion outweigh the
costs of full economic citizenship of PWDs. Hence, it is valuable to invest in the
disabled peopled. (Kleinitz, n.d.). However, insufficient investment in the
education of children with disability, the disabling environment which are not
conducive for working of persons with disability resulting in exits from workplace
and the loss of taxes related to loss of productivity due to environmental
handicap results in high and substantial indirect and non-economic cost. Non-
economic costs consists of social exclusion and stress and though difficult to
quantify these result into subsequent economic costs. (WHO, World Bank,
2011). It is crucial to understand that accessibility should be a holistic concept
that should encompass every sphere of life. Even if the workplaces or
educational institutes are made accessible, the persons with disability will not
be motivated to participate in them unless accessibility is an equal component
of their journey from their home till the destination. The secondary research
suggests that in India accessibility remains a major challenge. The barriers
faced by the persons with disability goes beyond the infrastructure and are
equally social in nature. The persons with disability in various parts of India are
not able to access the basic facilities like healthcare and education compared
to persons with no disability citing the lack of infrastructure as a major reason.
Though India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention of Rights of
Persons with Disability the incidents of persons with disability facing injuries
due to the poor infrastructure. There is an evident amount of data which also
outlines the issues that are more specific to women and those which are often
not given much consideration.

1.2. Aim of the study

The aim of the research is to study the accessibility of streetscape taking Delhi
as a case study. The accessibility in the research will be understood as a bigger
term including the overall experience of the PWD (persons with disability) while
they are navigating in the built environment. Based on the identified issues the
recommendation will be made for the stakeholders in the form of Government
authorities, the architects, the designers and policy makers who can take this
research as a reference to design policies around accessibility. The study will
take in account the actual state of the infrastructure of the streetscape, the
experiences of persons with disability with the infrastructure, the perception of
persons with disability towards the society, the perception of society towards
the PWDs, the recommendations from the experts in the disability sector and
the best practices internationally that can be implemented in India as well.

2
1.3. Need for the study
The research carried out in the field of accessibility can be grouped either as
the ones which point out the discrepancies existing in the infrastructure and
how it should have been or they point about the experiences of persons with
disability only. The recommendations are suggested on these basis are more
oriented towards suggesting new guidelines or through an emphasis on the
need of sensitization. This research will however, understand the opinions of
the persons with no disability also as a first-hand account apart from the
experiences of persons with disability. Both persons with disability and no
disability can be equally benefitted in the presence of an accessible
environment. It is important to understand that if the reason for the structural
barriers is related to the lack of understanding of disability. It is also important
to understand that how the people with whom persons with disability
communicate if they go out from their homes feel about them. The research in
past have addressed the issue from the perception of persons with disability
but it is equally important to assess the opinions of the others. The practices
that have been followed internationally could be a reference for our cities in
India as well. There have been a number of guidelines that have been issued
by a number of agencies in the past yet they have not been implemented
completely. The research is aimed at understanding the ways in which the
practices are followed and what are the ways it is not. All this is done to ensure
that the research comes up with a set of recommendations that can be
implemented as a system in totality.

1.4. Objectives
1. To present an overview and critical assessment of the status of accessibility
in Delhi w.r.t. structural, psychological and attitudinal barrier.
2. To suggest guidelines based on analysis of the best practices worldwide, the
issues identified and the experts’ opinions.

3
 Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1. The Global Picture

The persons with disability are estimated at 650 million worldwide. This roughly
translates to 12 percent of the world population. Out of these 650 million PWDs,
520 million are living in the developing countries. (UNDP India, 2012).The
population survey in the year 2011 approximated the prevalence of disability in
India as 2.21 % which translates to approximately 26 million individuals. It is 22
% more than 2001 survey (Office of the Registrar General & Census
Commissioner, 2013). However, World Bank estimates the population of
persons with disability in India to be 4-8 % (World Bank, 2007). Irrespective of
varying estimate, considering the size of Indian Population, even the lowest
estimate makes it equal to the population of several European countries put
together. In this perspective disability can be considered as the single largest
combined minority group in India (Shenoy, 2011). The prevalence of disability
increases with age. With 1.14 percentage of PWD in age group 0-4 years
increasing to 1.97 in age group 20-29 years and 8.41 in 80-89 and 90+ is 8.40
percentage. (Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 2013).

In 2012, the people aged 60 or above were found to be 810 million or 11.5
percent of the global population. This number is projected to reach 1 billion in
less than 10 years and more than double by 2050, reaching 2 billion and
accounting for 22 per cent of the global population. Worldwide, more than 46
per cent of people aged 60 years and over have disabilities. More than 250
million older people experience moderate to severe disability. (United Nations
Population Fund, HelpAge International 2012, 2012). There are an estimated
600 million persons living with disabilities in the world today. If one includes the
members of their families, there are approximately 2 billion persons who are
directly affected by disability, representing almost a third of the world's
population. (Indian Institute Of Tourism And Travel Management, Ministry of
Tourism, 2010)

2.2. The Indian Picture

2.2.1. The studies carried out in past and their findings

Numerous studies have been carried out in past to understand accessibility

within the context of various facilities and services that are essential for survival.
Telengana Disability Evidence Study revealed that significant participation
restrictions and environmental barriers are experienced by children and adults
with disabilities of all ages compared to those without disabilities – this includes
access to transport, availability of health care services and prejudice and
discrimination. The Children with disabilities are less likely to go to school than
children without disabilities (51% vs 91%).Adults with disabilities are less likely
to be working (44.4% vs 80.1%). (International Centre for Evidence in Disability,
2014). Another study “ The South India Disability Evidence” conducted in 2014

4
conducted on a total of 839 people with disabilities and 1153 age and people
without a disability, aged18 years or more were included concluded that People
with disability faced significantly more barriers to accessing health services
compared to people without a disability. Ignorance regarding availability of
services, costs of services and Transportation, lack of information and physical
barriers, inadequate personal assistance, affordability, limitations of resources
and inaccessible infrastructure and non-friendly environments are the major
barriers. (Murthy Venkata S Gudlavalleti, 2014). Research in four districts of
Gujarat, by UNNATI identified accessibility to physical spaces as a key area for
mainstreaming the rights of PWD. (World health Organization: Regional office
for South East Asia, 2013)
National Urban Transport Policy dwells on all issues related to urban transport
but does not address issue of accessible transport to disabled people and
elderly people. The policy states “accessing jobs, education, recreation and
similar activities is becoming increasingly time consuming, but it forgets that an
accessible transport system is the key to getting access to education and jobs
for disabled people. (Ministry of Urban Development, n.d.). Svayam- National
Centre for Inclusive Environment conducted an accessibility audit for the status
of Urban Transport of Delhi in June 2013 (Svayam, 2013). The results were
disappointing. The report mainly focussed on structural barriers in environment.
According to the report, the sidewalks built on drainage, are encroached and
only few have tactile markings. The report highlighted the unplanned
construction like sidewalks with no manoeuvring spaces, bus shelter with no
kerb cuts, bus stops with no real time information, absence of traffic island and
no alternate access to stairs for parking, foot over bridges and subways. The
presence of the advertisement and bill board blocks the sidewalk width. Another
survey conducted by the same organization at Bhikaji Cama Place that
comprises of commercial and government offices. The report used the strong
words like “utter disdain for public property and lack of maintenance” The survey
reported the unusual height of the pathways, absence of kerb cuts, the buses
stopping even at the middle of roads, encroachment of the pedestrian
pathways, the cars blocking the accessible parking, improper placement of
signage, roads overflowing with sewer water as the main culprit. Sadly, the
ramps were in such unhygienic conditions that they were of no use. Similarly,
the accessible parking do not have enough aisle space for wheelchair users to
disembark through the parked wheel. (Bhatnagar, 2012). With ever increasing
traffic, the pedestrian pathways provide for a safe passage to the pedestrians.
In Delhi the pavements with the tactile strips however is solving no purpose for
visually impaired people. They start and end abruptly without warning in case
of any obstacle like a tree or a pole. They are encroached by poles for
advertisements, shopping booth, kiosks and streetlights. Even the accessible
bus stands have advertisements blocking access to these facilities. (Chitlangia,
2014) Zebra crossings are also supposed to have specialised signs for the
convenience of the disabled. The suggestions were also approved by the Indian
Road Congress, 2012, but neither has ever been implemented. (Gulati, 2014) .
By providing a limited number of accessible vehicles on each route or making
only improvements partially will not result in an accessible travel chain. (WHO,
World Bank, 2011). It may cost people in terms money if they have to avail a
separate mode of transport like cab or may cost in terms of time if they have to
take an alternate long route.

5
Some of the bus shelters are said to be disabled friendly but are not fully
accessible to wheelchair (Rama Chari, 2009). In Delhi where there are low floor
buses with automated ramps, the un co-operative attitude of drivers and has
left redundant the exercise of procuring new vehicles after spending thousands
of crores redundant. The abuses and the humiliating taunts to stay at home are
pointed out towards people with disability (Bhatnagar, 2013). These barriers are
however not limited to DTC buses only. Jeeja Ghosh, head of advocacy and
disability studies at Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy was forcefully thrown off
the Spice Jet aircraft on Sunday because pilot did not want an ‘abnormal’
passenger on board (Niyogi, 2012). Even the Delhi Metro which is hailed for its
accessibility has a lot of ground to cover. The access to metro station through
the elevator is on one side only and hence is not always useful. The ticket
counter and the ticket vending machine are at an uncomfortable height which
makes access difficult to those sitting on the wheelchair. Similarly, there are no
tactile maps within the station and the display panels only display information
related to arriving and departing train. The other information is mostly audible
and hence those who are hard of hearing are disadvantaged (Svayam, 2013).
The lack of sensitization and availability of staff at Metro station has led to many
accidents in the platform. In 2014, a blind teacher fell on the tracks due to the
gap between the tactile strip and the platform. This was because of the faulty
design as well as due to the fact that she did not receive any help from the
metro staff and fellow passengers while she was navigating alone in the
platform even when she asked for it (Chowdhuy, 2014). Similar incident
happened with another visually impaired metro passengers who was denied
assistance by the Metro staff as nobody was free fell onto the track. Metro has
no officially designated assistant and depending upon the availability any of the
housekeeping staff- guard, sweeper, and cleaners are asked to escort the
passenger. As this whole thing takes a lot of time, the passengers with disability
have to commute on their own. This would be convenient however if the basic
safety measures like steel railings are present in all platforms (Gulati, 2014).
Accessibility should acknowledge the needs of everyone. The people with
disability face different problems while accessing environment. A case study in
Europe highlighted how the nature of problems faced by people with different
disabilities. For physical disability thee most common barriers were
inaccessible sidewalks, high curbs, inadequate road infrastructures, heavy
entrance doors, too steep or too long ramps. For sensory-impaired persons,
inadequate information systems like absence of tactile markings, contrasting
markings on stairs and windows, no auditory signals, barriers on walking path,
improperly installed information panels and lack of interpreters are the greatest
hindrance. (Kerbler, 2012) . The tiles sometimes are paved in such a way that
instead of guiding them away from danger, it causes them to bump into trees
or fall into potholes and drains. (Svayam, 2013)

6
2.2.2. Barriers to Accessibility

The barriers to accessibility are not limited to only the design aspect of the
environment but has many aspects. The Project Enhanced Accessibility for
People Living in Urban Areas (Venter, 2002) investigated 5 countries India,
Mozambique, Malawi, Mexico and South Africa identified 3 categories of the
barriers faced by people with disability while negotiating the environment as:

a) Structural Barriers
The barriers which result due to design of a facility or a product. The high rise
buses, the design of seats, the design of bus stops, the slippery and broken
pavements, the bus stands with no route maps, no auditory cues, poor legibility
of signage, no grab rails at stop and buses, non-accessible taxis, uneven
surfaces, garbage, and unkempt vegetation often forced people to use the road
discourage people with disability to venture out unescorted as they are
vulnerable to injury.

b) Social or Attitudinal Barrier

Strong social and cultural attitude that isolated people with disabilities. The
authorities and staff which are to provide facilities are mostly insensitive to the
needs of passengers with disability. This is reflected not only in the design of
the facilities and environment but also in the intent and practices. The transport
staff show unwillingness to provide assistance, do not inform the passengers
about the correct stop and do not stop for sufficient time to allow them to board
the bus. Uninformed practices leads to many accidents. Examples including
road works left open without warnings or protection; vehicles parked on
footways; and vendors encroaching on footways and pedestrian areas, no
tactile strip to indicate start and end of the pavement and no warning blocks.
The persons with disability feel hesitant in asking for help as often they are
refused and even if someone helps it comes in a demeaning and patronising
manner which undermines a disabled person’s self-esteem. The females with
disability reported that their requests for help is often misinterpreted by opposite
sex and they had receive unwanted advances. This was often linked to
communication difficulties. They are often denied the concessions they are
entitled to such as free travel in bus. . One such finding is of the Zero Project
Report 2014 (Michael Fembek, 2014) which was aimed at studying the
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability
was that not even one capital city in the world can be travelled without barriers.
The lack of training of transport operator and the subsequent harassment is the
major reason for it.

3. Psychological Barrier
The persons with disability feel insecure while traveling unescorted and are
concerned about their personal security. They feel that the drivers would not
take them to right destination or cheat them. Female participants especially felt

7
threatened by other passengers. Participants were worried that the drivers
would not take them to the right destination or would cheat them. Often the
impairments are converted into lifelong disabilities due to the attitudes of
communities and families in which persons with disability live. The lack of
confidence on the abilities of the persons with disability gets mirrored onto the
self-confidence of persons with disability who themselves start showing
negative attitudes towards their disability as well. The qualitative research into
attitudes towards PWD in India revealed that household generally felt that the
disability is an act of punishment by God for the “sins” of persons with disability
or their parents and hence they deserve to be punished in large measure.
(World Bank, 2007)

In reality all of these barriers together limit the mobility of persons with disability.
In 2010, 1205 tourists visiting in six major tourist attractions across India with
reduced mobility were surveyed as part of the study (Indian Institute Of Tourism
And Travel Management, Ministry of Tourism, 2010). One-fourth of tourists felt
that the attitude of employees in the hospitality sector, i.e. the hotel staff, the
cab drivers, the guides towards them is not that favourable. When interviewed
the staff, the factors like need of extra-time and poor understanding of the needs
of persons with disabilities, absence/ shortage of accessible equipment and
social stigma attached to disability were the factors attributed to the social
barrier associated with the accessibility. The lack of information was the number
one barrier faced by tourists followed by non-availability of ramps in general or
level differences of alternate ramps; non-availability of toilets meant for persons
with reduced mobility, unhygienic condition of available ones; lack of access
stairs/lifts; inconvenient reach points at attractions and the slippery or coarse
tracks

Anita Ghai (Ghai, 2002) points out disability in Indian context is equated with
lack or flaw associated often with deceit, mischief, devilry, misdeed. The
attitude of society towards People with disability lies on two extremes. On one
extreme PWD are represented as the sufferers of God’s wrath and their
disability is considered as a penance for their misdeeds and the other extreme
is of “pity” under which people believe that the “charity” is one’s religious duty
towards needy. The charity is done in the spirit in which a beggar is given
money. We lack an understanding of the social model of disability which says
that it is society which disabled an individual. The disability is not in the body
but outside in the society.

They also face social and psychological barriers- ignorance, myths, prejudice,
stereotyping and misconceptions about their capacities, acceptance by fellow
workers, and low self-esteem, fear and over-protective families. Bringing about
changes to existing infrastructure is a key need to improving access for the
physically disabled, with employers also often reluctant to provide accessibility
and supportive facilities. There is little legislative support for disabled people,
and where protective laws exist they may be poorly enforced.

8
Mariana Preda describes cultural attitudes supress people with disabilities so
that they do not have access to resources to become politically active. Because
they are not active and do not have representation in society, their opinion is
not taken while development of legislation. (Society for Disability and
Rehablitation Studies, 2008). The lack of visibility is another reason why people
do not understand the real issues concerning the people with disability.
(Satyamev Jayate Episode 3 Season 1, 2012).

The public spaces may lead to social exclusion in economic, political and
cultural arenas (Zając, 2013). Political exclusion may be caused by
inaccessibility of voting booth, the economic exclusion can be unemployment
due to inaccessible workplaces and transport system and cultural exclusion can
be seen when a person with disability or an elder citizen cannot visit a historical
monument because of high threshold at entrance and absence of ramp. In
India, up to 2004, the voting booths were inaccessible. Disability movement in
India campaigned vigorously for access to the political system. In 2007 the
Supreme Court passed an order by which the Election Commission was
directed to instruct all the State Governments and Union Territories to make
voting booth accessible. (WHO, World Bank, 2011). We should move beyond
designing for an average person as in reality there is no average person. The
accessibility of buildings, spaces, pedestrian networks and public should be the
norm not the exception. It is the only way to ensure an inclusive environment.
(Salisbury District Council, 2007)

2.3. The legislative framework and the guidelines

The Persons with Disability Act 1995, article 45 talks about the installation of
auditory signals at red lights, causing curb cuts and slopes for easy access of
wheelchair users and engraving on the surface of zebra crossing for the easy
access of wheel chair users (Department, 1996), major obstacles remain to
translate accessibility policies into the mandatory guidelines. There are
guidelines provided by Central Public Works Department but as reported above
these steps have not brought any positive changes. Lack of monitoring and
strong will for enforcement of compliance is widely cited as the key impediment
to providing inclusive transport in developing countries. The legislation is not
matched adequately by detailed regulatory frameworks and has a very limited
response on the ground is generated. Lack of data makes it impossible to
provide a meaningful overall cost estimate for the interventions required to meet
the accessibility needs of disabled people in developing countries. (Venter,
2002). The new “Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014” was introduced
on February 07, 2014 in the Rajya Sabha and is currently under consideration
of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for its examination and report
(Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Department of Disability Affair,
2014). The Bill has a separate section on accessibility highlighting the
importance of both architectural and social interventions. Legally binding
instruments are often the keys in triggering a shift in attitudes and in changing
the behaviour of all involved actors. If such instruments are to meet this

9
objective, they should be properly designed, so as to foster a positive process
of change and to be effectively complied with on the ground structure across
countries. (European Commision Expert Committe, 2003). Large-scale
research should be conducted to identify how people behave and "function" in
ergonomic terms. Such research should be based on the actual "behaviour" of
the whole population, so as to measure the actual range of performances
across society. Consultation is a pre-requisite to inclusive design. The people
should be a part of the project from the onset. (Commission for Architecture and
the Built Environment, 2008). India has also ratified the U.N Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities protocol (United Nations, 2006) which makes
accessibility as a mandatory feature for those countries who ratify it. The
General Principles of the UNCRPD talks about Full and effective participation
and inclusion in society (Article 3(c)) and accessibility (Article 3(f)). The
Preamble under its section e, g, k emphasize on the importance of
mainstreaming disability by recognizing and preventing attitudinal and
environmental barriers. Further, Article- 30 specifically deals with the
participation and access in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.
The provisions on access for people with disabilities in the PWD Act are framed
as contingent entitlements, but the nature of the legal obligations is somewhat
vague. Indeed, there are no specific enforcement provisions or sanctions for
failure of authorities to be proactive in undertaking their obligations under the
Act. Nor is a mechanism spelt out for how authorities should move to implement
the Act’s provisions, e.g., amendment of bye-laws, etc. While the PWD Act can
be considered a starting point in promoting accessibility, there is clearly a
significant need to build on it. There has been progress on the policy side in
promoting accessibility since the Act. The Ministry of Urban Affairs and
Employment issued Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built
Environment for Disabled and Elderly Persons in 1998 (with a similar document
from the Chief CPWD Office). This is a guiding document to central and state
authorities in modifying their bye-laws, and applies to most construction other
than domestic buildings. In addition, the latest 2005 revision of the National
Building Code (NBC) includes provisions for buildings, services, and facilities
for people with disabilities. The NBC acts as a model code for construction by
Public Works Departments, other public agencies and private construction
companies. These documents are of extreme importance but are not legally
binding. To make them legally binding they should be an integral part of the
local building bye-laws for construction and systems for approvals. To date,
around 16 states have modified their bye-laws or adopted new ones, with others
in the process of doing so. (World Bank, 2007)
Both quantitative and anecdotal to indicate that accessibility for PWD is an
unrealized goal in India to date. Institutional Coordination is a major issues in
promoting access. For the built environment, there are a range of line agencies
and other local authorities responsible for infrastructure thus placing
responsibility to no single agency for making the built environment accessible.
The institutional issues in promoting access reflect deeper challenges of

10
accountability. In this respect, the PWD Act itself is not of great use in terms of
establishing clear lines of accountability for ensuring that accessibility
standards are adhered to. A further important weakness in improving
accountability has been the general lack of consultation with people with
disabilities themselves in prioritizing investments to promote access, and in
monitoring access outcomes. (World Bank, 2007)

11
 Chapter 3. Methodology

3.1. The mixed method approach

A mixed method approach was used that included both the qualitative and
quantitative data collection. Each data collection tool will be described in detail
in the later section of the chapter. The data was collected through 3 methods:
1. Secondary Research- The data was majorly qualitative with some
quantitative data in form of statistics from the previous literature. This formed
the basis for the further research.
2. Observational Study - The primary research which was majorly quantitative
in nature with few qualitative data. The quantitative data consisted of the data
collected on the basis of the checklist which is mentioned in the later section.
The qualitative data was based on the general observations at each site.
3. The interviews - This part of primary research was carried out to understand
the attitudinal, structural and psychological barriers faced by Persons with
disability, Persons with no disability, the families of persons with disability and
the experts in the disability sector. The data collected was both qualitative and
quantitative in nature.

3.1.1 Observational Study

3.1.1.1. Data Collection Tool

Delhi divided into 9 zones: North West Delhi, North East Delhi, North Delhi,
Central Delhi, New Delhi, East Delhi, West Delhi, South Delhi and South West
Delhi. A total of 54 places like hospitals, movie theatres, historical places and
shopping malls were identified from these 9 zones as:
Places Studied
1. North West
Number of sites identified - 6
a) City Centre Shopping Complex
b) Shoppers Stop
c) Saroj Hospital
d) Bhagwati Hospital
e) Delhi Haat Pitampura

12
g) Netaji Subhash Place

2. North East
Number of sites identified - 3
a) Ramjas College
b) Sri Ram college of Commerce
c) Daulatram College

3. North Delhi
Number of sites identified - 5
a) St. Stephen Hospital
b) Tis Hazari
c) Red Fort
d) Old Delhi Railway Station
e) ISBT Kashmiri Gate

4. Central Delhi
Number of sites identified - 5
a) Jama Masjid
b) Karol Bagh Market
c) Karol Bagh Liberty Cinema
d) Karol Bagh Metro Station
e) Ganga Ram Hospital – Rajinder Nagar

5. New Delhi
Number of sites identified - 12
a) Bangla Sahib
b) Jantar Mantar
c) Indira Gandhi Centre for Arts
d) Archaeological Museum

13
e) Regal Cinema and PVR Plaza
f) Nehru Planetarium
g) Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital
h) Laxmi Naryan/ Birla Mandir
i) National Science Museum
j) Pragati Maidan
k) Old Fort
l) Humayun Tomb
m) National Zoological Park

6. East Delhi
Number of sites identified - 5
a) Karkardooma Court
b) Cross River mall
c) Anand Vihar Bus station
d) Max Super Speciality Hospital Patparganj
e) Akshardham Temple, Noida Morh

7. West Delhi
Number of sites identified - 6
a) Janakpuri District centre
b) Janakpuri Delhi Haat
c) Bharti College
d) Vishal Cinema Rajouri
e) West gate mall Rajouri
f) City Square Mall

8. South Delhi
Number of sites identified - 8
a) AIIMS

14
b) Safderjung Hospital
c) Select City Walk Saket
d) Delhi Haat INA
e) Bhikaji Cama Place
f) CGO complex
g) Venkateshwar College
h) ARSD College

9. South West
Number of sites identified - 2
a) Qutub Minar
b) Chattarpur Mandir

As the purpose of the study was to study the structural accessibility of the
streetscape, following
4 components were studied for each identified site:
1. Sidewalks
2. Road Crossings
3. Bus Stops
4. Subways or Foot over bridge wherever present.
Svayam, National Centre for Inclusive Environment in year 2013 compiled a
report “Status of Accessibility in Urban Transport” for the office of CCPD in year
2013. On the similar lines the factors were identified on the basis of 7 Universal
Design Principles as:

15
Table 1 The Seven Principals of Universal Design and the corresponding guidelines

SIDEWALKS BUS SUBWAYS /

Parameters STOPS PEDESTRIA FOOT
N OVER
CROSSING BRIDGE

Universal
Design
Equitable Use Appropriate Bus stop The dividers Have
height that is that are not ramped
sheltered too high and entry
Appropriate
Design is with have a space instead of
Width
useful and ramped designated for stairs.
marketable to Ramped entry and the
people with Entry And Exit exit, tactile pedestrians to
diverse marking on stand
abilities the ground,
live feed
and The traffic
auditory light that also
information has auditory
cue
Seats that
can be
used by a
variety of
passengers

Flexibility in Kerb Cuts to Information The space There is

use disembark if system that where the tactile path
someone involves pedestrians and proper
wants to signage, can stand for signage
The design whether on auditory while crossing
accommodate foot or on cues and road should
s wide range of wheelchair tactile be wide
individual information enough to
Ramped entry
preferences . This will accommodate
and exit if they
and abilities benefit all wheelchairs
cannot climb
users. and should
the high
have kerb cut.
sidewalks

16
 Request
crossings with
auditory cues

Simple and Tactile Use of Zebra Use of

intuitive use Markings pictograms, crossing that directional
which are Information is clearly pictograms
continuous about route marked in and auditory
Use of the and have white. cues
Bus Stop
design is easy warning block
with At red light
to understand wherever
there is
regardless of there is Tactile
provision of
the user’s obstruction marking a
auditory cues
experience, gives effective the bus
knowledge, cue and stop
language skills prompting
or current during
concentration walking
level

Perceptible Tactile Path The name The colour of Tactile path,

Information that informs if of the bus the divider is signage and
there is any stop is in high auditory
obstruction mentioned contrast, i.e. cues to
The design clearly. either black assist
communicates and White or diverse
Use of
necessary Yellow and users.
braille,
information Black.
auditory
effectively to
cues and
the user,
live feed
regardless of Wherever
and for
ambient there is
route
conditions or crossing there
information
the user’s should be
Tactile
sensory kerb cuts at
markings at
abilities the sidewalk
the stop
and tactile
indicator to
indicate that
there is
crossing
Use of
auditory cue

17
Tolerance for A sidewalk The stop is The dividers The well
error that is even not are well maintained
and obstructed maintained subways
continuous and has with space to with lighting.
The design with no warning stand and if
minimizes encroachmen blocks the divider
hazards and t and wherever has trees or if
the adverse obstruction so there isit is fenced, it
consequences that no one obstruction.should not
of accidental or gets hurt affect the
The stop is
unintended accidently visibility and
connected
actions should not act
to the
as an
sidewalk
obstruction.

Low Physical Sidewalks of Ramped Dividers that No stairs but

Effort appropriate entry and are not high. lifts, ramps
height that exit and or
Request
can be used buses stop escalators
crossings so
The design can without at the stop
that the old
be used discomfort aligning
people or the
efficiently and and fatigue bus to the
persons with
comfortably height of
disability do
with a the stop so
not have to
minimum of that
stand waiting
fatigue passengers
while crossing
can get on
the road.
the bus
easily
The seats
for
passengers
while they
are waiting
for their
buses
Size and A sidewalk Bus stop The dividers Constructed
Space for that is not too that is built that are not little away
approach and high to use for little away high to use. from the
use old people, from the sidewalk
The zebra
children, sidewalk with some
crossing is
those with tactile
Has marked at
Appropriate luggage and information
ramped places where
size and space wheelchair and signage
there are kerb

18
 is provided for users and has entry and cuts to get off indicating
approach, a ramped exit and on the undergroun
reach, entry and exit. sidewalks. d pedestrian
manipulation It should be crossing
The traffic
and use wide enough
light signal
regardless of so that one
that is not
user’s body can use it if
obstructed by
size, posture or has luggage,
the presence
mobility walking with
of trees and is
kids, is a
visible.
wheelchair
user or has a
white cane. It
needs to be
unobstructed
so that the
original width
remains
intact.

A checklist was prepared based on above factors for sidewalks, bus stop,
pedestrian crossing and Subway/ foot over bridge
Table 2 The Checklist for field survey

Serial BUS STOP SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN SUBWAY

CROSSING
Number FOOTOVER
BRIDGE
1. Tactile Warning Zebra Crossing Entry to the
Marking Blocks subway/ Bridge
Present and clearly
marked Ramp or
stairs?
2. Accessible Tactile
Signage Marking
Request Crossing The signage
Leading that
does not lead
to Holes or
any other
obstruction.
3. Kerb Cuts Continuous Auditory Signal Any auditory
cue

19
 4. Ramp for Uneven Road Divider
Entry and present
Cleanliness
Exit

5. Ramp Height Barrier free space Information

Blocked at the divider to regarding
cross directions
6. Live Feed Width Divider fenced.

7. Auditory Encroachment Divider well

Information maintained or
broken
8. Tactile Trees Tactile Prompt
Signage where there is
pedestrian
crossing
9. Route Poles The road divider is
Information coloured in high
contrast
10. Seats

11. Bus halts

at the Stop

At the place of visit, the photographs were taken and other observations were
made.

3.1.1..2.The Data Analysis Technique

The data was analysed in two manners
1. Measuring Accessibility of Individual Places
Each component, i.e. the sidewalk, the pedestrian crossing, the bus stops and
the subway/ foot over Bridge were marked for each site on a scale of 1 to 5 as

20
Table 3 The accessibility measurement

SCORE EXPLAINATION
1 Completely inaccessible if none of the accessible
factor present
2 Mostly inaccessible if number of unfavourable factors
more than favourable factors
3 Negotiable if number of favourable factors and
unfavourable factors are equal
4 Mostly accessible when the number of favourable
factors more than unfavourable factors

5 Completely accessible when all the factors favourable

This data was be used to find the following

a) Individual accessibility score of each site.
b) Most accessible and inaccessible site
c) Which component of the streetscape was most accessible and inaccessible?

2. Analysing the overall patterns

Through quantitative data analysis tools of measuring central frequency, count,
percentage. To know in numbers what the current status is.

3.1.2. Primary Data Collection from various sample groups

3.1.2.1. Data Collection tools

As established by numerous research and studies carried out in past, it can be
easily understood that attitudinal and psychological barriers should be
addressed just as structural barriers. From the studies mentioned in the
Chapter 2, the factors attributed to accessibility at all three levels were identified
and the questions were framed in the form of questionnaires for 4 sample
groups:
a) The persons with disability
b) The persons with no disability
c) The Experts in the disability sector

21
The questions related to the accessibility were framed based on the universal
design factors mentioned above. The psychological barriers are the barriers
that involves the notion PWDs have about independent travelling which may be
based on the past experiences, the opinions of the family members and the
willingness to travel independently. Thus, the psychological factors were
mapped based on following criterion:

Figure 1: The psychological barriers of persons with disability

The attitudinal barriers are the barriers that persons with disability face because
of the society towards persons with disability. The aim was to understand the
stereotypes associated with disability and to know if they understand the
importance of independent travelling and accessibility for the persons with
disability. The people who make policies, the bus drivers, the co-passengers,
the co-workers, the people with whom PWDs often come in contact, the space
owners are not necessarily PWDs and hence it becomes important to
understand if there is a lack of understanding of disability among the non-
disabled community and to what extent. The factors for attitudinal barriers were
mapped as:

22
Figure 2 The attitudinal barriers of persons with no disability towards disability

Once the factors were identified, a questionnaire which has both open ended
and closed questions were made for each sample group. The similar
questionnaire was used to conduct both structured interviews and self-
administered survey.
For the persons with visual impairments and those with cerebral Palsy, the
structured interviews were taken. For the persons with loco motor disabilities,
both the self- administered questionnaire and interviews were used as a tool.
(Once I will have done all the interviews I will put this in number here that how
many people were interviewed how) For persons with no disability, the
responses were taken through self-administered survey. For the families of
persons with disability, the families were interviewed through structured
interviews.
The experts were asked to fill both the self-administered forms and also
interviewed.

3.2. The Sampling

1. Sample group – Persons with disability

The total population of persons with Disability in Delhi according to Census
2011 is 234882.For the purpose of the research the PWDs above age 14 were
considered assuming that the children below that age group are mostly
accompanied by their parents. However, the census has no specific data for
children below 14 years. Since the data was available for PWDs up to 10 years
and then from 10-18 years and upwards, the PWDs below 10 are excluded from
population. As population for PWD below 10 years was 22475, the PWD
population above 10 year is 212407. At 8 percent margin error and 90 %
confidence level, the sample size came out to be 106.
2. Sample group – Person with no disability

23
The total population of Delhi according to Census 2011 is 16,787,941. If the
persons with no Disability are excluded from this population, the population of
persons with no disability is 14540605. The specific statistical data age wise
could be found for age group 0-6 years. This Population was excluded from the
sample population to get sample size as 1454065. At the 7 Percent margin error
and 90 percent confidence level, the sample size was 139.
3. Sample group – Family of Persons with disability
Many persons with disability that were interviewed are living in the institutions
or hostels for Persons with disability. There is also no specific statistical data to
know the number of families of persons with disability. So, through the
community outreach programmes carried on by an NGO, the families were
identified and detailed interviews were conducted with them.
4. Sample group – Experts
A total of 4 experts were interviewed.
The data collected was both qualitative and quantitative. For quantitative data
the measures of central Tendency were measured. The patterns in qualitative
data were observed and represented graphically as shown in the later sections
of the report.

24
 Chapter 4. The structural accessibility

The Persons with Disability Act 1995 (Equal opportunities, protection and full
participation) obligates the Government and local authorities for creating an
accessible environment. The section 45 of the PWD Act specifically mentions
that the appropriate Government authority should provide for installation of
auditory signals at red lights, kerb ramps, kerb cuts and slopes to provide
accessibility to wheelchair users and engraving on the surface of the zebra
crossing. “The Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built
Environment for Disabled and Elderly Persons issued in 1998 by Central Public
Works Department” and guidelines “Planning a Barrier Free Environment”
issued by the office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in 2001 mentioned the
accessibility requirement based on different disabilities in detail. All these
guidelines are aimed at ensuring that the persons with disability are able to
participate within the built environment without any discrimination. India is also
the signatory to the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities since 2007 which makes it obligatory to make all the public places,
housing and transportation accessible for persons with disability.
This chapter describes the research findings based on the field surveys of 53
identified sites in 9 different zones of Delhi and rating of the different
components2 by the experts in the field of accessibility. These sites included
the famous landmarks like temples, historical monuments and museums of
Delhi as well as the hospitals, educational institutes and other recreational
places in different parts of Delhi. The checklist as discussed in Chapter 4 was
used for the purpose of observation and analysis. In section 4.1 the statistics
based on the survey of all the sites will be discussed. In section 4.2 the
observations will be made for each zone for every component of the
environment in detail. Section 4.3 discusses how the experts in the field of
disability rate the accessibility of these components.

4.1. Observation and Findings – Statistical Snapshot

4.1.1. The sidewalks
Out of the 53 sidewalks, 12 had tactile blocks out of which 2 were present only
in a small stretch and were broken at several places. It was observed that out
of the 12 sidewalks which had tactile block all of them were encroached by
poles, trees or parked vehicles. There were 2 which led to pits. Out of 53, more
than 50 percent of the sidewalks had uncovered pits on the sidewalks without
any warning block. Many PWDs reported in the interviews that they have been
injured multiple times due to the

2The component of the environment implies the pedestrian sidewalks, road intersection and
bus stops.

25
 Condition of the sidewalks
46
41 41
37

28
25

16
12
10
7
2

Tactile Guide Block on Uncovered pits Encroachment on the Broken Sidewalk Obstructed by trees
sidewalk sidewalks

Yes No Present only partially

Figure 3 Condition of sidewalks w.r.t. different aspects of structural accessibility

presence of uncovered pits, broken sidewalks and encroachment on the road.

It was observed that of the 53 sidewalks 46 were broken at several places. 9 of
these broken sidewalks are the ones with tactile block. There were 12 sidewalks
which were not encroached. All the sidewalks were encroached by either the
shops or vehicles or both. Out of the sidewalk at 53 places. Majority were found
to be encroached by both the vehicles and shops, 13 encroached by shops only
while 7 were encroached by parked vehicles only.

Encroachments on the sidewalk

13
12

N= Not encroached
Y= Both vehicles and shops
Y1 = Yes vehicles parked

7 Y2= Shop

21

Figure 4: Encroachment on the sidewalk

Out of the 12 sidewalks which were not encroached there were only 2 which
had no uncovered holes, uneven surfaces and obstruction in form of trees and
poles. These sidewalks were present at the Lakshmi Narayan Mandir and CGO
Complex. However, these did not have tactile guide block.

26
The sidewalks should have ramps in the starting and beginning and kerb cuts
at the places of pedestrian crossings so that the wheelchair users can also use
the sidewalks with ease. The field survey showed that 43 sidewalks in Delhi
were very high with an approximate height of 200 mm or high. There were only
10 sidewalks with an appropriate height. However, there were only 15
sidewalks which had ramped entry and exit. 11 of these sidewalks were
obstructed in the beginning by shops poles or trees. So, there were only 4
sidewalks which had unobstructed ramps in the beginning.

Structural Accessibility of sidewalk

Completely accessible sidewalk

4
9
Sidewalk that are broken

10

Sidewalk which is wide, have unobstructed

ramps and no encroachments

43 44
0 Sidewalk with width of approximate 1500
mm or greater
4
4
Ramps which are not obstructed

53
53
53 Ramped entry and exit

Number of sidewalks higher than 200mm

Sidewalk
and ramps Sidewalk
and width Accessible
Sidewalk Total number of sidewalks

Figure 5 Overall accessibility of sidewalk

The width of the sidewalk should be minimum 1500 mm. The width of 44
sidewalks was approximately 1500 mm or more. However, the width was not
uniform along the full stretch of the sidewalk and there were encroachment and
obstruction in the form of trees, poles, shops and vehicle. Out of the 44

27
sidewalks which were wide at several places, there were only 12 which had a
clear passage.
It was observed that there were only 4 sidewalks which were of appropriate
height and width, had unobstructed ramp and tactile guide block. But these
sidewalks were also uneven and broken at several places. There was not a
single sidewalk at the 53 sites examined where there were all accessible
features present together.
4.1.2. The Pedestrian Crossing

According to the guidelines issued by The Office of Chief Commissioner of

Disability the road divider or the islands should be present to reduce the length
of the crossing for safety of all road users. There should be guide strip on the
crossing for the persons
with disability. The
Road Island should be
cut through and level
with the street as shown
in the picture.3 If the
island is not cut through
then it must have curb
ramps with a level area
not less than 1500 mm.
There should be a
tactile strip at least 600
mm wide in the
beginning and end for
assisting persons with
visual impairments. As
discussed previously
the PWD Act 1995
Figure 6: A road divider which is accessible

obligates the concerned Government authorities to install the audible signals at

the traffic light signal.
In the filed survey it was 51 pedestrian crossings were studied. During the field
visit, it was observed that none had an audible signal or request crossing.

3This image is for representational purpose only. Source of the image -

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa06016/images/fig96.jpg

28
 Zebra Crossing
8, 16%

21, 41%
No Zebra Crossing

Clearly marked Zebra Crossing

Zebra Crossing present but not

marked clearly
22, 43%

Figure 7: Zebra Crossing on the roads

The zebra crossing was present at the 21 sites. There were 22 pedestrian
crossing which had clearly marked zebra crossing whereas there were 8
pedestrian crossing where the zebra marking was faded and could not be
recognized from a distance even by the persons who are sighted. The road
dividers were present at the 44 pedestrian crossings. Out of these 44 dividers,
33 were found to be higher than 200 mm. Most of them were found to be
higher than the sidewalk. Because of the height of the road crossing it could
be expected that there will be a designated space acting as a refuge for those
who wish to cross the road while waiting for the traffic to pass which is either
levelled to the street or has curb ramps. It was found that though there were
16 crossing with space designated as a refuge for the PWDs. 2 of them were
levelled to the ground while there were 14 others where the height was
lowered compared to the sidewalk. Those which were levelled to the ground
did not have enough area to accommodate a wheelchair. The sidewalks
where the height was lowered there were barriers. Thus, there was no
pedestrian crossing which was completely accessible.

Figure 8 Road crossing levelled up to road but Figure 9 Road crossing near Nehru Planetarium
space to stand- Near RML Hospital

29
Figure 10 Barriers at crossing- Red Fort Figure 11 Barriers at crossing- Red Fort

It could be assumed that though the pedestrian crossing remain inaccessible

for the wheelchair users and loco motor disabilities, they are accessible for
persons with sensory disabilities. It is important to mention that none of the
pedestrian crossing had tactile guide blocks, auditory signal and request
crossing. As discussed there were 33 sidewalks which were higher than 200
mm. Of these 33 sidewalks, only 10 had a designated space for the pedestrians
to stand. Of these 10, there was only 1 sidewalk which had no barrier on the
designated space. None of the crossing had tactile guide block. During the
interviews with 21 Person with visual impairment, there was hardly any person
with visual disability, male or female who were able to cross unassisted.
4.1.3. The Bus stops
The nearest bus stops to the identified sites were studied. According to the
guidelines issued by the Office of Chief Commissioner of Disability, there must
be at least one accessible route to the bus stop with guiding sign to direct
people towards the accessible entrance, guiding block along the accessible
walkway from the bus stand to the building entrance for the benefit of persons
with visual impairments, the bus stand, there should be a clear passage way
with minimum width of 900 mm, handrails at a height of 900 mm from the floor
level and seats. The stop must be sheltered.
A total of 43 bus stops were analysed and this section discusses the findings
from the field survey. There were 2 bus stops at District Centre Janakpuri and
Rajouri Garden Market where the bus stop was not constructed. There were no
sidewalks also so the people were found waiting for the bus standing on the
road among the heavy traffic. All the bus stops except 4 were found to be
sheltered. There were 38 bus stops that depicted the universal accessibility
symbol which depicts compliance with the accessibility guidelines. It was found
that not all the bus stop with universal accessibility symbol did not comply
completely with the accessibility guidelines. 25 of these bus stops were situated
on the sidewalk obstructing the movement of pedestrians. It was observed that
most of the bus stops had tactile guide block but there were only 7 bus stops
where the tactile guide block extended till the sidewalk. Ramped entry was

30
found at the 13 bus stops out of 38. However, there were only 3 stops where
the ramps were not obstructed. The trees, trash bins and advertising billboards
were found obstructing the entry to the bus stop.

Figure 12 The universal accessible symbol circled in red. This picture was taken at the Bus stop of
National Archives

Accessibility of bus stop

Column1
1 2
13 6 Live feed information panel functional

10
Live feed information panel

38 Route information in written format

34
13 Name of the bus stop clearly visible

Kerb ramps
38
Obstructed ramps
36
Ramped acess

38 Positioned away from the sidewalk for

38 faciliatating pedestrian movement
Availability of seats

38 Sheltered
43
Universal symbol of accessibility

Count of bus stops Entrance to the Information

bus stop system

Figure 13 The accessibility of bus stops based on various parameters

31
It was observed that the information regarding the bus numbers and route was
present at most of these
stops (34 out of 38).
Tactile guide blocks on the sidewalk However, the live feed

No tactile
panels were present at 6
8 guide blocks bus stops. Out of the 6 live
7 present feed panel only 2 were
functional. There was no
provision for an alternate
Tactile guide
blocks present method like auditory system
on the floor of or braille route map for
bus stop
extending to
communicating information
the sidewalks the persons with the visual
28 impairments. All the bus
stops had seats for sitting
Figure 14 Tactile guide block on sidewalk

which were of appropriate height. But these guiding blocks did not extend to the
sidewalk or the entrance of the building and limited only to the bus stop. There
were 7 bus stops where the tactile guide blocks were present and they extended
till the sidewalk as well.
It was found that there were 2 bus stops which completed most of the
accessibility criteria where the bus stops were sheltered, situated away from
the pedestrian sidewalk, tactile guide block extending till the sidewalk, clearly
mentioned route information, ramp present and not obstructed and handrails.
However, it was not accessible completely keeping in view the absence of
auditory system, live feed information system and route map for person with
visual impairments.
In the identified sites, it is very important to mention here that wherever the
accessible features were present, they were not leveraged due to the ignorance
on the part of the bus drivers and other travellers. In Delhi, the Low Floor Buses
was a welcome step as it has the facility of ramp and it could be aligned to the
bus stop in such a way that the passengers do not have to walk to catch the
bus. This is especially beneficial for the persons with disability and elderly
people. However, it was found that at each bus stop, the driver stopped the bus
at least 5 to 6 feet away or even more. The driver alone can however not blamed
for this alone. At almost each bus stop, the passengers stood on the road
instead of the bus stop shelter to board the bus. In the interviews with the
PWDs, incidents were shared where the bus stopped away and for a very brief
time due to which they could not board the bus. For persons with no disability
and drivers this could be a quick fix for saving time but for persons with
disability, it leads to greater problems.

32
4.1.4. Subway and Foot over bridge
The subway crossing and foot over bridge are very helpful for crossing the
roads where there is heavy traffic. The guidelines mandate that there should be
provision of slope ramps or lifts at both the ends for wheelchair accessibility.
There should be provision of tactile guiding block and warning block along the
length of walkway and walkway should be 1500 mm wide at least.
Out of the 53 identified sites, there were subways at 7 sites and foot over bridge
at 3 sites. The entry to both subways and the foot over bridge at all these sites
was through stairs only. 2 subways were not functional. There was no provision
of the tactile guiding block at any of these. During the interviews also PWDs
with disabilities mentioned that they have never seen a subway with ramps or
lifts except for the subway metro.

4.2. Accessibility score – The individual zone assessment

In the previous section, the overall accessibility patterns observed at 53
identified sites of Delhi were discussed. In this section the components of the
built environment, i.e. sidewalks, pedestrian crossing and the bus stops in each
zone will be analysed and rated. Out of 5, each component is scored depending
upon whether the number of accessible factors is greater, equal or less than
the number of inaccessible factors.
SCORE EXPLAINATION
1 Completely inaccessible if none of the accessible factor present

2 Mostly inaccessible if number of unfavourable factors more than

favourable factors

3 Negotiable if number of favourable factors and unfavourable

factors are equal

4 Mostly accessible when the number of favourable factors more

than unfavourable factors

5 Completely accessible when all the factors favourable

Table.

33
4.2.1. Sidewalks
In all the zones of Delhi, the sidewalks were mostly present but no zone has it
in good condition. They are obstructed, poorly maintained at most of the places
and most of the time the people were seen walking on the roads despite the
presence of the sidewalk. The sidewalks of each identified site in each zone will
be discussed one be one in this section.
4.2.1.1 North West Delhi
Table 4 Sidewalk North West Delhi

SIDEWALK THE CONDITION THE

AT ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Bhagwati Accessible Factors 2/5
Hospital
1. Absence of trees as obstruction Mostly
inaccessible as
2. Wide footpath.
the number of
3. Presence of kerb cuts inaccessible
factors is more
Inaccessible Factors
than the
1. Uneven footpath accessible factors

2. Entry to the footpath obstructed with

shops, poles and vehicles.
3. No tactile Marking on the footpath.
3. High footpath with no ramped entry and
exit.
4. The footpath encroached throughout with
vehicles and shops
5. Kerb cuts for the benefit of pedestrians
and wheelchair users used by two wheeler
users to ride their vehicle onto the footpath
to bypass traffic and traffic light.
2. Saroj Accessible Factors 2/5
Hospitals
1. Absence of trees as obstruction. Mostly
inaccessible as
2. Kerb cuts
the number of
3. Wide footpath inaccessible
factors is more
Inaccessible Factors than the
1. Footpath with no ramped entry and exit. accessible factors

34
 2. Encroached by vehicles and shops
3. Poles acting as obstruction.
4. Absence of tactile marking
5. High footpath
6. Obstructed entry to the footpath
3.City Accessible Factors 2/5
Centre
1. Wide sidewalk Mostly
Shopping
inaccessible as
Complex 2. Trees planted without obstructing the
the number of
passage.
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors factors is more
than the
1. High sidewalk accessible factors
2. Sidewalk broken at several places
3. No ramped entry and exit
4. No kerb cuts
5. Shops obstructing the passage
6. Absence of tactile marking
7. Uncovered Holes
4. Shopper’s Accessible Factors 2/5
Stop
1. Wide sidewalks Mostly
inaccessible as
Inaccessible Factors
the number of
1. Footpath with no ramped entry and exit. inaccessible
factors is more
2. Encroached by vehicles and shops than the
3. Poles and trees acting as obstruction. accessible factors

4. Absence of tactile marking

5. High footpath
6. Obstructed entry to the footpath
7. No kerb cuts
5.Netaji Accessible Factors 1 out 5
Subhash
None Completely
Place
inaccessible with
Inaccessible Factors

35
 1. Broken sidewalk no accessible
factor
2. Height that requires effort to climb
3. Encroached by vehicles and shops.
4. Trees as obstruction
5. Uncovered holes on the sidewalk
5. No kerb cuts
6. Absence of tactile marking
7. Absence of ramps
6. Delhi Accessible Factors 2 out of 5
Haat
1. Wide sidewalk Number of
Pitampura
accessible factors
Inaccessible Factors
less than
1. Broken sidewalk inaccessible
factors
2. Height that requires effort to climb
3. Encroached by vehicles and shops.
4. Trees as obstruction
5. Uncovered holes on the sidewalk
5. No kerb cuts
6. Absence of tactile marking
7. Absence of ramps
In the sidewalks identified in this zone, all the sites were mostly or completely
inaccessible with all the sidewalks which are broken, uneven and high with no
ramps. The tactile marking could not be seen anywhere. Every sidewalk had
poles and shops acting as obstruction. At some sidewalks, the vehicles were
parked as well. At places where there were kerb cuts for the benefit of
pedestrian, they were used instead by the two wheeler users to avoid traffic
light.

Figure 15 The sidewalk at Delhi Haat Pitampura Figure 16 The sidewalk at Saroj Hospital Rohini

36
Figure 17 The Sidewalk at Rohini Sector 17 Figure 18 Sidewalk at Shopper’s Stop Rohini

Figure 19 The Sidewalk at Netaji Subhash Place Figure 20The kerb cut at sidewalk in Rohini Sector 7

Figure 21 The trees that are planted strategically Figure 22 The broken entry to the sidewalk was very
near Shopper’s Stop Complex common

Figure 17 – Two wheeler users riding on the sidewalk to bypass traffic

Figure 21- The strategically planted trees on the sidewalks at City Centre
Shopping Complex

37
4.2.2.2 North East Delhi
Table 5 Sidewalk North East Delhi

SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Ramjas College Accessible Factors 2/5
1. Tactile Marking Mostly
inaccessible as
2. Wide
the number of
3. Warning Block near the end of inaccessible
the sidewalk. factors is more
than the
4. Ramped entry and exit accessible
Inaccessible Factors factors

1. High
2. Uncovered holes
3. Parked vehicles
4. Broken at places
5. Trees and poles acting as
obstruction
6. Absence of kerb cuts
7. Blocked entry to the sidewalk
2. Sri Ram College of Accessible Factors 2/5
Commerce
1. Ramped Entry and exit Mostly
inaccessible as
2. Tactile Marking
the number of
3. Wide inaccessible
factors is more
4. No uncovered holes than the
5. Warning Blocks accessible
factors
Inaccessible Factors
1. Entry to sidewalk blocked by
parked vehicles
2. Encroachment on the
sidewalks in the form of parked
vehicles and shops

38
 3. Trees and poles acting as
obstruction
4. High sidewalk
5. Absence of kerb cuts
6. Broken at some places
3. Daulatram College Accessible Factors 2/5
1. Wide Mostly
inaccessible as
2. Tactile Marking
the number of
3. No uncovered holes inaccessible
factors is more
4. Ramped entry and exit than the
5. Warning Blocks accessible
factors
Inaccessible Factors
1. High
2. Broken at several places
3. Encroachment in the form of
both vehicles and shops
4. Trees and Poles obstructing
the passage
5. Blocked Entry and exit too the
sidewalk
6. Absence of kerb cuts
The sidewalks in the sites identified have wide sidewalks with tactile marking,
ramps at entry and exit. The sidewalks however, are encroached with the
parked vehicles and shops. Also, at sidewalks at several places has uncovered
holes. The entry to sidewalk is ramped but at the same time found to be blocked
by parked vehicles.

Figure 23 Tactile Guide blocked by tree with Figure 24 Blocked Sidewalk at St Stephen
College warning at Ramjas College

39
Figure 25 Sidewalks encroached by vehicles Figure 26 Tactile guide block is redundant due
and shops to sidewalks.

4.2.2.3 North Delhi

Table 6 Sidewalks, North Delhi

THE
ACCESSIBILITY
SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION
SCORE
1. St. Stephen Hospital Accessible Factors
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible as
1. High
none of the
2. Narrow accessible factor
present.
3. Severely Dilapidated
4. Absence of Tactile
Marking
5. Uncovered holes
6. Encroached by both
vehicles and shops
7. No ramps for entry and
exit
8. Obstructed by both
trees and poles
2. Tis Hazari Court Accessible Factors
1. Tactile Marking 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible as
1. High
none of the

40
 2. Narrow accessible factor
present.
3. Broken at several
places
4. Absence of Tactile
Marking
5. Uncovered holes
6. Encroached by both
vehicles and shops
7. No ramps for entry and
exit
8. Obstructed by both
trees and poles
3. Red Fort Accessible Factors
1. Ramped sidewalk 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Mostly inaccessible
as the number of
1.High
inaccessible factors
2. The uneven width with more than the
mostly narrow sidewalks accessible factors
3. Broken at several
places
4. Absence of Tactile
Marking
5. Uncovered holes
6. Encroached by shops
7. No ramps for entry and
exit
8. Obstructed by both
trees and poles
4. Old Delhi Railway Accessible Factors
Station
1. Wide sidewalks 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Mostly inaccessible
as number of
1. Encroached with
inaccessible factors
vehicles and shops
more than
accessible factors

41
 heavily such that no
space for moving
2. Absence of ramps
3. Absence of tactile
marking
4. Uncovered Holes
5. Broken at several
places
6. High
7. Trees and poles
obstructing the passage
8. Absence of kerb cuts
9. Entry to the sidewalk
blocked
Accessible Factors
5. ISBT Kashmiri Gate 1. None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible as
1. 1. High
none of the
2. Narrow accessible factor
present.
3. Broken at several
places
4. Absence of Tactile
Marking
5. Uncovered holes
6. Encroached by both
vehicles and shops
7. No ramps for entry and
exit
8. Obstructed by both
trees and poles

Most of the sidewalks in the sites identified were either completely inaccessible
or mostly inaccessible. None of the sidewalks have the tactile marking. All of
them are high, encroached and broken.

42
Figure 27 The sidewalks near Tees Hazari are Figure 28 The sidewalks dilapidated near Tees
encroached at many places Hazari Metro Station

Figure 29 Sidewalk at Tees Hazari Court Figure 30 The tactile marking leading to a tree

Figure 31 The sidewalk at ISBT Kashmiri Gate Figure 32 Obstructed Sidewalks at ISBT Kashmiri Gate
having uncovered holes

43
Figure 33 The ramp slope present but uneven Figure 34 The trees and shops act as an
at Red Fort obstruction at Red Fort Sidewalk

Figure 35 The vehicle parked on the sidewalk Figure 36 The uneven sidewalk at the Old Delhi
Railway Station of Old Delhi Railway Station

4.2.2.4. Central Delhi

Table 7 Sidewalks Central Delhi

SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Jama Masjid Accessible Factors
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible as
1. High
none of the
2. Narrow accessible factor
present.
3. Broken

44
 4. Absence of Tactile Marking
5. Uncovered holes
6. Encroached by both vehicles
and shops
7. No ramps for entry and exit
8. Obstructed by both trees and
poles
2. Arya Samaj Road, Accessible Factors
Karol Bagh Market
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible as
1. High
none of the
2. Narrow accessible factor
present.
3. Broken
4. Absence of tactile marking
5. Uncovered holes
6. Encroached by both vehicles
and shops
7. No ramps for entry and exit
8. Obstructed by both trees and
poles
3. Karol Bagh Liberty Accessible Factors
Cinema
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible as
1. High
none of the
2. Narrow accessible factor
present.
3. Broken
4. Tactile marking poorly
maintained, partially present,
broken at places and lead to
trees and uncovered holes
5. Uncovered holes
6. Encroached by both vehicles
and shops

45
 7. No ramps for entry and exit
8. Obstructed by both trees and
poles
4. Karol Bagh Metro Accessible Factors
Station
1. Tactile Marking 2/5
2. Wide Mostly
inaccessible as
3. Clear entry and exit
the number of
Inaccessible Factors inaccessible
factors more
1. High than accessible
2. Absence of ramps factors

3. Encroached by parked
vehicle
4. Tactile marking leading to pits
5. Uncovered holes
6. Trees and poles acting as
obstruction
7. Absence of ramps
5. Ganga Ram Hospital Accessible Factors
– Rajinder Nagar
1. Suitable height 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Mostly
inaccessible as
1. Narrow
number of
2. Absence of ramps inaccessible
factors more
3. Encroached by parked than the
vehicle
accessible
4. Absence of tactile path factors

5. Uncovered holes
6. Trees and poles acting as
obstruction
7. Absence of ramps

46
Figure 37 Sidewalks at Jama Masjid Figure 38 Tactile Guide block with tree as
obstruction near Liberty Cinema, Karol Bagh

Figure 39 The sidewalk with uncovered pit at Figure 40 Encroached Sidewalks at Karol Bagh
Karol Bagh Market

Figure 41 The sidewalk at Karol bagh Metro Station Figure 42 The Sidewalk with uncovered pits near
Gangaram Hospital

47
4.2.2.5 New Delhi
Table 8 Sidewalks New Delhi

SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Bangla Sahib Accessible Factors
1. Suitable height 2/5
2. Wide Mostly inaccessible
with inaccessible
3. No pits on the sidewalk
factors more than
4. No encroachment on the the accessible
sidewalk factors
5. Ramped Entry and exit
Inaccessible Factors
1. No tactile marking
2. Broken at some places
3. Trees and Poles as
obstruction
4. Blocked entry to the
sidewalk
5. No kerb cuts
6. Public facility – washroom
and subway constructed on
the sidewalk breaking the
continuity of the passage.
2. Jantar Mantar Accessible Factors
1. Wide
Inaccessible Factors 2/5
1. High Mostly inaccessible
with inaccessible
2.No tactile marking
factors more than
3. Broken at several places the accessible
factors
4. Trees and Poles as
obstruction

48
 5. Blocked entry to the
sidewalk
6. No kerb cuts
7. Encroached by vehicles
and shops
3. Indira Gandhi Centre Accessible Factors
for Arts
1. Even with no broken
surface
2/5
2. Wide
Mostly inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors with inaccessible
factors more than
1. High
the accessible
2.No tactile marking factors
3. Broken at several places
4. Trees and Poles as
obstruction
5. Blocked entry to the
sidewalk
6. No kerb cuts
7. Encroached by shops
4. National Museum Accessible Factors
1. Wide 2/5
2. Suitable Height Mostly inaccessible
with inaccessible
3. Even with no broken
factors more than
surface
the accessible
Inaccessible Factors factors

1.No tactile marking

2. Trees and Poles as
obstruction
3. Blocked entry to the
sidewalk
4. No kerb cuts
5. Encroached by shops
and vehicles

49
5. Regal Cinema and Accessible Factors
PVR Plaza
1. Tactile Marking 2/5
2. Even with no broken Mostly inaccessible
surfaces with inaccessible
factors more than
3. Wide
the accessible
4. No trees and poles factors
obstructing the passage
Inaccessible Factors
1. Tactile Marking
obstructed
by shops and vehicles
2. High
3. No ramped entry and exit
4. Blocked entry
5. Absence of kerb cuts
6. Nehru Planetarium Accessible Factors
1. Suitable height 2/5
2. Wide Mostly inaccessible
with inaccessible
3. No encroachment
factors more than
4. Clear entry and exit the accessible
factors
Inaccessible Factors
1. No ramps
2. Absence of tactile
marking
3. Trees
4. No kerb cuts
5. Poles
7.Ram Manohar Lohiya Accessible Factors
Hospital
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible with
1. No tactile marking

50
 2. Uneven and broken absence of any
accessible factor
3. No ramps
4. No kerb cuts
5. Uneven width
6. High
7. Encroached by vehicles
and shops
8. Trees and poles acting as
obstruction
9. Blocked entry

8. Laxmi Naryan/ Birla Accessible Factors

Mandir
1. Suitable height 2/5
2. Wide Mostly inaccessible
3. Not encroached
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absence of tactile
marking
2. No ramped entry and exit
3. Entry to the sidewalk
blocked
4. No kerb cuts
9. National Science Accessible Factors
Museum
1. Tactile Marking 4/5
2. Suitable height Mostly accessible
with accessible
3. Suitable Width
factors more than
4. Not encroached the inaccessible
factors
5. Clear entry
6. Not obstructed by poles
or trees
Inaccessible Factors
1. Broken at few places

51
 2. No kerb cuts
10. Pragati Maidan Accessible Factors
1. Tactile Marking 4/5
2. Suitable height Mostly accessible
with accessible
3. Suitable Width
factors more than
4. Not encroached the inaccessible
factors
5. Clear entry
6. Not obstructed by poles
or trees
Inaccessible Factors
1. Broken at few places
2. No kerb cuts
11.Old Fort Accessible Factors
1. Tactile Marking 4/5
2. Suitable height Mostly accessible
with accessible
3. Suitable Width
factors more than
4. Not encroached the inaccessible
factors
5. Clear entry
6. Trees planted
strategically such that they
do not act as obstruction.
Inaccessible Factors
1. Broken at few places
2. No kerb cuts
12. National Zoological Accessible Factors 4/5
Park
1. Tactile Marking Mostly accessible
with accessible
2. Suitable height
factors more than
3. Suitable Width the inaccessible
factors
4. Not encroached
5. Clear entry

52
 6. Trees planted
strategically such that they
do not act as obstruction.
Inaccessible Factors
1. Broken at few places
2. No kerb cuts
3. Poles acting as
obstruction
13. Humayun Tomb Accessible Factors
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. Absent tactile marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops
6. Trees and poles act as an
obstruction
7. No kerb cuts

Figure 43 The sidewalk at Bangla Sahib Figure 44 The sidewalks near the bangla Sahib
are wide but blocked

53
Figure 45 The sidewalk near Regal Building CP Figure 46 One of the entry to the Regal Building CP
where the shops are on the tactile guide block through stairs

Figure 47 The other entry to the Regal Building Figure 48 The entry to the Regal Building CP
Blocked

Figure 49 Two wheeler drivers using sidewalk Figure 50 No tactile prompt near pedestrian
crossing

54
Figure 51Sidewalks near RML Hospital have ramped Figure 52 The width of the sidewalk keeps
entry but blocked changing RML Hospital

Figure 53 Wide sidewalks blcoked at Lakshmi Figure 54 The sidewalk encroached at Lakshmi
Narayan Mandir Narayan Mandir

Figure 55 The sidewalk obstructed by Poles at Figure 56 The sidewalk near Humanyun's Tomb
Humayun;s Tomb

55
Figure 57 The sidewalks near Zoo with Figure 58 The sidewaks at Pragati Maidan warning
unobstructed guide block blocks wherever there is a tree or other obstruction

Figure 59 The sidewal where lowered Figure 60 Encroached sidewalk

used by wo wheel users

Figure 61 The sidewalk outside National Museum is wide, unencroached and ramped with tactile guidde
blocks

56
4.2.1.6 East Delhi
Table 9 Sidewalks East Delhi

SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1.Karkardooma Court Accessible Factors
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. Absent tactile
marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops
6. Trees and poles act
as an obstruction
7. No kerb cuts
8. Dilapidated sidewalks

2. Cross River mall Accessible Factors

1. Tactile Marking 1/5
2. Wide Completely
inaccessible
3. Ramped entry and
exit
Inaccessible Factors
1. High
2. Uneven and broken
3. Encroached by
vehicles and
construction material
4. Trees and Poles
posing as obstruction

57
 5. Blocked entry
3.Anand Vihar Bus Accessible Factors
station
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. Extremely high
2. Uneven width
3. Dilapidated
4. Absent tactile
marking
5. No ramps
6. Uncovered Holes
7. Trees and poles
posing as obstruction
8. No kerb cuts
4.Akshardham Temple, Accessible Factors
Noida Morh
1. Wide 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Mostly
inaccessible
1. Absent tactile
marking
2. Broken and uneven
3. Encroached by shops
4. Entry blocked
5. No ramps
6. Trees and poles
acting as obstruction.

58
Figure 62 The blocked siddewalk at Figure 63 Trees obstructing the sidewalk at
Akshardham Templee Akshardham Temple

Figure 64 Sidewalk at Anand Vihar Bus Station Figure 65 Sidewalk at Anand Vihar Bus Station
severely broken

Figure 66 Sidewalk near Cross River Mall Figure 67 Obstructed sidewalks

59
4.2.1.7 West Delhi
Table 10 Sidewalks West Delhi

SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION THE ACCESSIBILITY

SCORE
1. Janakpuri District Accessible Factors
centre
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely inaccessible
1. Uneven width
2. High
3. Dilapidated
4. Absent tactile
marking
5. No ramps
6. Trees and poles as
obstruction
7. Shops and vehicles
as encroachment.

2. Janakpuri Delhi Haat Accessible Factors 2/5

1. Wide Mostly inaccessible
2. Entry not blocked
3. No encroachments
Inaccessible Factors
1. High
2. Absent tactile
marking
3. Trees and poles as
obstruction
4. No ramps and kerb
cuts
3. Bharti College Accessible Factors

60
 Wide 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Mostly inaccessible
1. High
2. Absent tactile
marking
3. Trees and poles as
obstruction
4. No ramps and kerb
cuts
5. Encroached by shops
4.Vishal Cinema Rajouri Accessible Factors
Wide 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Mostly inaccessible
1. Absent tactile
marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops
6. Trees and poles act
as an obstruction
7. No kerb cuts
5.West gate mall Accessible Factors
Rajouri
1. Wide 2/5
Inaccessible Factors Mostly inaccessible
1. Absent tactile
marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops

61
 6. Trees and poles act
as an obstruction
7. No kerb cuts
6. City Square Mall Accessible Factors
1. Wide 2/5
Mostly inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile
marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops
6. Trees and poles act
as an obstruction
7. No kerb cuts

Figure 68 Height of sidewalk near Delhi Haat Figure 69 Broken sidewalk outside Bharti College
Janakpuri Janakpuri

62
Figure 70 Entry to thr Janakpuri District Centre Figure 71 Blocked sidewalks at Janakpur
District Centre the shopping complex is through
stairs

Figure 72 Figure 73 - The dilapidated sidewalk at Rajouri Market

4.2.1.8 South Delhi

Table 11 Sidewalks South Delhi

SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. AIIMS Accessible Factors
1.Wide 2/5
2. Kerb cuts Mostly inacessible
3. Ramped entry and exit
4. No trees
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile marking

63
 2. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroachment by
shops and vehicles
6. Poles
7. Entry to sidewalk is
blocked
2. Safderjung Hospital Accessible Factors
1.Wide 2/5
2. Kerb cuts Mostly inaccessible
3. Ramped entry and exit
4. No trees
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile marking
2. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroachment by
shops and vehicles
6. Poles
7. Entry to sidewalk is
blocked
3. Select City Walk Accessible Factors
Saket
1.Wide 2/5
2.Ramped entry and exit Mostly inaccessible
3. No encroachment
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces

64
 4. High
5. Trees and Poles act as
obstruction
6. No kerb cuts
7. Entry to the sidewalk
blocked
4. Delhi Haat INA Accessible Factors
1.Wide 2/5
2. No encroachment Mostly inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5.Poles act as
obstruction
6. No kerb cuts
7. Entry to the sidewalk
blocked
5. Bhikaji Cama Place Accessible Factors
None
1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. Absent tactile marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops
and vehicles
6. Poles and trees acting
as obstruction

65
 7. Entry to sidewalk
blocked

6. CGO complex Accessible Factors

1. Wide 4/5
2. Suitable height Mostly accessible
3. Kerb Cuts
4. No encroachment
5. Trees and poles well
places without acting as
obstruction
6. Even surface

Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile marking
2. No ramps

7. Venkateshwar Accessible Factors

College
None 1/5
Completely
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops
and vehicles
6. Poles and trees acting
as obstruction
7. Entry to sidewalk
blocked

66
 Accessible Factors
8. ARSD College None 1/5
Completely
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. Absent tactile marking
2. No ramps
3. Uncovered holes and
uneven surfaces
4. High
5. Encroached by shops
and vehicles
6. Poles and trees acting
as obstruction
7. Entry to sidewalk
blocked

Figure 74 The sidewalks at BHikaji Kama Place Figure 75 Vehicles parked on the sidewalk at
Bhikaji Kama place

67
Figure 76 Sidewalk at AIIMS Hospital Figure 77 The ramp slopes present but blocked - AIIMS

Figure 78 parked vehicles on the sidewalk Figure 79 Sidewalk atVenkateshwar College

near Venkateshwar College

Figure 80 Ramps present but poorly Figure 81 Sidewalk outside Delhi Haat INA
maintained at AIIMS

68
4.2.1.9 South West
Table 12 Sidewalk South West Delhi

SIDEWALK AT THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Qutub Minar Accessible Factors
1. Wide
2. Even 2/5
3. Clear entry and exit Mostly inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. High
2. Absent tactile
marking
3. Obstruction such as
trees and poles
4. Ramps absent
5. Shops encroaching
sidewalk
2. Chattarpur Mandir Accessible Factors
None
Inaccessible Factors 1/5
1. Uneven width Completely
inaccessible
2. High
3. Dilapidated
4. Absent tactile
marking
5. No ramps
6. Trees and poles as
obstruction
7. Shops and vehicles
as encroachment.

69
Figure 82 Very high sidewalk Chhatarpur Mandir Figure 83 Obsructed and broken sidewalk
Chhatarpur Mandir

Figure 84 Sidewalk Qutub Minar Figure 85 Sidewalk Qutub Minar

Out of the total 53 sites observed it was found that 16 sites were completely
inaccessible, 32 sites were mostly inaccessible and 4 sites were mostly
accessible.

4.3. The Pedestrian Crossing

4.3.1. North West Delhi

Table 13 Pedestrian Crossing NW Delhi

CROSSING THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Bhagwati Accessible Factors
Hospital
1. Zebra Crossing clearly marked 1/5
2. Black and white colour of the Completely
crossing. inaccessible as
the accessible
factors present
Inaccessible Factors cannot be
leveraged in the
1. Uneven footpath absence of the

70
 2. No request crossing factors which are
not present
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island
4. High island with no ramped entry and
exit. The island was fenced.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
6. No auditory signals
2. Saroj Accessible Factors
Hospitals
1. Zebra Crossing clearly marked 1/5
2. Black and white colour of the Completely
crossing. inaccessible as
the accessible
Inaccessible Factors
factors present
1. Footpath with no ramped entry and cannot be
exit. leveraged in the
absence of the
2. No request crossing factors which are
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing not present
and the road island
4. No ramps or kerb cuts on the high
island which was fenced.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island.
6. No auditory signals
3.City Inaccessible Factors
Centre
1. Faded Zebra crossing 1 out 5
Shopping
Complex 2. No request crossing Completely
inaccessible with
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing
no accessible
and the road island
factor
4. High island with no ramped entry and
exit.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
6. Faded colour of the crossing

71
4. Shopper’s Accessible Factors
Stop
Black and white colour of the crossing 1/5
Completely
inaccessible as
Inaccessible Factors
the accessible
1. Faded Zebra crossing factors present
cannot be
2. No request crossing leveraged in the
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing absence of the
and the road island factors which are
not present
4. High island with no ramped entry and
exit.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
5.Netaji Accessible Factors 1/5
Subhash
None Completely
Place
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. Faded Zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
4. High island with no ramped entry and
exit.
5. Designated space for the pedestrians
on the traffic island not barrier free
6. Delhi Accessible Factors 1/5
Haat
None Completely
Pitampura
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No traffic island
2.No Zebra Crossing
3. No request crossing
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island
5. High island with no ramped entry and
exit.

72
 6. Designated space for the pedestrians
on the traffic island not barrier free
7. Absence of tactile marking

Figure 86 Faded Zebra Crossing Shopper's Stop Figure 87 The Road Divider high with no kerb cuts
and have barriers – near Saoj Hospital

Figure 88 Faded Zebra Crossing at Netaji Figure 89 The barriers on the road divider
Netaji Subash Place Subhash Place

4.3.2. North Delhi

Table 14 Pedestrian crossing North Delhi

CROSSING THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1..St. Accessible Factors 1/5
Stephen
None Completely
Hospital and
inaccessible
Tis Hazari Inaccessible Factors
Court

73
 1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island
4. No ramps or kerb cuts on the high
island
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island.
6. No auditory signals
7. Faded colour of the road divider
3. Red Fort Accessible Factors
1. Zebra Crossing clearly marked 1/5
2. Black and white colour of the traffic Completely
island. inaccessible as
the accessible
Inaccessible Factors
factors present
1.No request crossing cannot be
leveraged in the
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing absence of the
and the road island factors which are
4. High island with no ramped entry and not present
exit.
5. Designated space for the pedestrians
on the traffic island very high,
obstructed and had no ramps or kerb
cuts
4. Old Delhi Accessible Factors
Railway
Black and white colour of the crossing 1/5
Station
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible as
1. No Zebra crossing
the accessible
2. No request crossing factors present
cannot be
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing leveraged in the
and the road island absence of the
4. The designated space for factors which are
pedestrians to stand not barrier free and not present
with no ramped entry and exit.

74
Figure 90 No Zebra Crossing Figure 91 Sidewalks broken

Figure 92 The subway is locked at Tees Hazari Figure 93 The Road divider's height makes it
inaccessible

Figure 94 The road divider at Red Fort has barriers Figure 95 The Subway at Red Fort has entry
through stairs only

75
4.3.3. North East Delhi
Table 15 Pedestrian crossing NE Delhi

CROSSING THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Ramjas Despite being an education area where
College a lot of college students are present at
1/5
all times of the day, this place had no
Zebra crossing, Road Divider, and Completely
2. Sri Ram Traffic Island inaccessible
College of
Commerce
3.
Daulatram
College

4.3.4 Central Delhi

Table 16 Pedestrian Crossing Central Delhi

CROSSING THE CONDITION THE

ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Jama Accessible Factors
Masjid
1. Zebra Crossing clearly marked 1/5
2. Black and white colour of the traffic Completely
island. inaccessible as
the accessible
factors present
Inaccessible Factors cannot be
leveraged in the
1.No request crossing
absence of the
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing factors which are
and the road island not present

3. High island with no ramped entry and

exit.
4. Designated space for the pedestrians
on the traffic island very high,

76
 obstructed and had no ramps or kerb
cuts

2. Arya Accessible Factor 1/5

Samaj
None Completely
Road, Karol
inaccessible
Bagh Market
Inaccessible Factors
1. Faded Zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road divider
4. Designated space high with no kerb
cut or ramp. Poles as barriers
5. Road divider broken at several
places.

3. Karol Accessible Factor 1/5

Bagh Liberty
None Completely
Cinema
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. Faded Zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island
4. High island with no ramped entry and
exit.
5. Designated space high with no kerb
cut or ramp. Poles as barriers
6. Road divider broken at several
places.

4. Ganga Accessible Factors 2 out 5

Ram
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing Mostly
Hospital –
accessible.
2. Height of the island less than 200mm

77
 Rajinder Cannot be
Nagar accessed by all.
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
4. High island with no ramped entry and
exit.
5. Road Divider broken at several
places
6. Designated space for the pedestrians
on the traffic island not wide. There are
no ramps and kerb cuts also

Figure 96 The Road Crossing has space for Figure 97 Road Divider at Karol Bagh Market
standing but no kerb cuts, Liberty Cinema

Figure 98 Pedestrian Crossing Figure 99 The poles standing space of the road
Ganga Ram Hospital crossing act as barrier

78
4.2.2.5 New Delhi
Table 17 Pedestrian Crossing New Delhi

SIDEWALK THE CONDITION THE

AT ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Bangla Accessible Factors
Sahib
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing 2/5
2. Appropriate height of the traffic Mostly
divider with no fence inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
3. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island has
no kerb ramps.
5. Pink and Green in colour
2. Jantar Accessible Factors
Mantar
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing
Inaccessible Factors 2/5
1. No request crossing Mostly
inaccessible with
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing
inaccessible
and the road island.
factors more than
4. High island with no ramped entry the accessible
and exit. factors

5. Road Divider broken at several

places
6. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island not
wide. There are no ramps and kerb
cuts also
7. Island pink and green in colour
3.Nehru Accessible Factors
Planetarium

79
 1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing 2/5
2. Height of the island less than Mostly
200mm inaccessible
3. The designated space levelled to
the street and with no barriers.
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
3. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island not
wide.
4. Island pink and green in colour
4.Ram Accessible Factors
Manohar
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing 2/5
Lohiya
Hospital 2. The designated space levelled to Mostly
the street and no barriers inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
3. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island not
wide.
4. The subway does not have access
through ramps or lift. There are no
tactile guide blocks.
5. Island pink and green in colour
5.Laxmi Accessible Factors
Naryan/
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing 1/5
Birla Mandir
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.

80
 3. No auditory signal
4. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
5. No Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island. No
kerb ramps.
6. The subway does not have access
through ramps or lift. There are no
tactile guide blocks.
7. Island pink and green in colour
6. National Accessible Factors
Science
None 1/5
Museum
and. Pragati Inaccessible Factors
Maidan
1. No Zebra Crossing Completely
inaccessible
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
4. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
5.No Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
6. Subway with entry only through
stairs
7.National Accessible Factors 1/5
Zoological
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing Completely
Park
inaccessible
2. Height of the island less than
200mm
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
3. No auditory signal

81
 4. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
5. Road Divider broken at several
places
6. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island not
wide. There are no ramps and kerb
cuts also
8.Humayun Accessible Factors
Tomb
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit .
6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island is not
barrier free.

Figure 100 The road divider is levelled up to street Figure 101 The entry to the subway through stairs
at RML Hospital crossing but space not enough at RML Hospital

82
Figure 102 Subway Crossing CP Figure 103 Subway Crossing Humayun's Tomb

Figure 104 Pedestrian Subway Humayun's Tomb Figure 105 Foot over Bridge Pragati Maidan

Figure 106 The oedestrian cossing at Pragati Maidan Figure 107 Road Divider Humayun's Tomb
No Zebra Crossing and height of road divider too high

83
4.2.1.6 East Delhi
Table 18 Pedestrian crossing East Delhi

PEDESTRIAN
CROSING AT
THE CONDITION THE
ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1.Karkardooma Accessible Factors
Court
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. No Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
8. Faded colour of the crossings
2. Cross River Accessible Factors
mall
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
6. Road Divider broken at several
places

84
 7. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island is not
barrier free.
3.Anand Vihar Accessible Factors
Bus station
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island.
8. Road divider is not coloured
4.Akshardham Accessible Factors
Temple, Noida
None 1/5
Morh
Inaccessible Factors Mostly
inaccessible
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island.

85
Figure 108 Road Cossing near Cross River Mall Figure 109 Pedestrian Crossing karkardooma Court

Figure 110 The foot over bridge at Hasanpur Figure 111 No pedestrian crossing at Akshardham
Depot has escalators but access to escalators Temple
is from stairs

4.2.1.7 West Delhi

Table 19 Pedestrian Crossing West Delhi

CROSSING THE CONDITION THE

AT ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Janakpuri Accessible Factors
District centre
None 1/5
Completely
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing

86
 3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island.
2. Janakpuri Accessible Factors 1/5
Delhi Haat
None Completely
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
3. Bharti Accessible Factors 1/5
College
None Completely
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.

87
 6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
4.Vishal Accessible Factors 1/5
Cinema
None Completely
Rajouri
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No auditory signal
4. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island.
5. High island with no ramped entry
and exit.
6. Road Divider broken at several
places
7. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island

Figure 112 Road Divider Delhi Haat Janakpuri Figure 113 Road Divider at District Centre
Janakpuri severely dilapidated

88
4.2.1.8 South Delhi
Table 20 Pedestrian crossing South Delhi

SIDEWALK THE CONDITION THE

AT ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. AIIMS and Accessible Factors
Safderjung
1. Zebra Crossing clearly marked 1/5
Hospital
2. Black and white colour of the Completely
crossing. inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. Uneven footpath
2. No request crossing
3. No tactile Marking on the crossing
and the road island
4. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
dilapidated and has barriers. No kerb
ramps.
6. No auditory signals
3. Select City Accessible Factors
Walk Saket
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing 1/5
2. Black and white colour of the divider Completely
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile guiding block on the
crossing and the traffic island/divider
4. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island high
with no kerb ramp or slope.
6. No auditory signals
4. Delhi Haat Accessible Factors
INA
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing 1/5

89
 Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. No request crossing
2. No tactile guiding block on the
crossing and the traffic island/divider
4. High traffic island with no ramped
entry and exit.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
6. No auditory signals
7.Pink and Green coloured divider
5. Bhikaji Accessible Factors
Cama Place
1.Black and white colour of the divider
Inaccessible Factors 1/5
1.No zebra Crossing Completely
inaccessible
2.No request crossing
2. No tactile guiding block on the
crossing and the traffic island/divider
4. High traffic island with no ramped
entry and exit.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
6. No auditory signals
7. The subway can be accessed
through stairs only.
6. CGO Accessible Factors
complex
1. Clearly marked Zebra Crossing 2/5
2. Yellow and white colour of the Mostly
divider inaccessible
3. The height of traffic island or road
divider is apt and it is not fenced.
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing

90
 2. No tactile guiding block on the
crossing and the traffic island/divider
3. Designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
obstructed by poles
6. No auditory signals
7. The foot over Bridge with access
through stairs only.
7. Accessible Factors
Venkateshwar
1. Black and white colour of the divider 1/5
College
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. Faded Zebra Crossing
2.No request crossing
3. No tactile guiding block on the
crossing and the traffic island/divider
4. High traffic island with no ramped
entry and exit.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
6. No auditory signals
8. ARSD Accessible Factors
College
None 1/5
Inaccessible Factors Completely
inaccessible
1. No zebra crossing
2. No request crossing
3. No tactile guiding block on the
crossing and the traffic island/divider
4. High traffic island with no ramped
entry and exit.
5. No designated space for the
pedestrians on the traffic island
6. No auditory signals

91
Figure 114 No Zebra Crossing at Bhikaji Kama place Figure 115 Subway at Bhikaji Kama Place

Figure 116 Faded Zebra Crossing Venkateshwar Figure 117 The wide space at Pedestrian Crossing
College but has Barriers, CGO Complex Road Divider

4.2.1.9 South West

Table 21 Pedestrian Crossing SW Delhi

CROSSING AT
THE CONDITION THE
ACCESSIBILITY
SCORE
1. Chattarpur Metro Accessible Factors
Station
1. Clearly marked Zebra
Crossing
1/5
2. Black and white colour of
Completely
the divider
inaccessible
Inaccessible Factors
1. No request crossing

92
 2. No tactile guiding block on
the crossing and the traffic
island/divider
4. High traffic island with no
ramped entry and exit.
5. No designated space for
the pedestrians on the traffic
island
6. No auditory signals
7. The foot over Bridge with
access through stairs only.

4.2.2 Bus Stops

Table 22 Field Survey Bus Stops

ZONE BUS STOPS Accessibility Accessibility

Score
North West 1. Subhash 1. Sheltered- All the best Subhash Place -
Delhi Place stops sheltered 1/5 Completely
inaccessible
2. Rohini 7-8 2. All bus stops depict
Xing universal accessibility
symbol
3. Fire Station Rohini 7-8 Xing,
3. None of the bus stops Fire Station,
4. Rithala
had ramp Rithala Metro
Metro Station
Station,
4. Out of 5 only 2 bus
5. Ambedkar Ambedkar
stops Fire Station and
Hospital Hospital– 2/5
Rohini 7-8 Xing were
away from the sidewalk Mostly
leaving the walking space inaccessible
5. Except for Subhash
place Bus Stop, tactile
marking were present in
all the bus stands but
none of them continued till
the the sidewalks

93
 6. Kerb cut was present at
only one bus stand ROhini
7-8 Xing
7. Entry to all the bus
stops was blocked by the
presence of billboards.
8. None of the bus stops
had live feed pane
9. The route information
was shown at all the bus
stands except for the
Subhash place bus stop.
North East 1. SRCC 1. All the bus stops depict SRCC College
Delhi College universal accessibility and Ramjas
symbol. College – 3/5
2. Ramjas
Negotiable
College 2. All the bus stops
sheltered
3. Daulatram
College 3. All the bus stops have Daulatram
seats College – 2/5
Mostly
4. The name of the bus
inaccessible
stops at all stops is clearly
mentioned and visible
5. The tactile marking on
the floor of the bus stop
continues till the sidewalk
at all the stops
6. All the bus stand are
present on the sidewalk
leaving no walking space
7. While there are no kerb
cuts at any of the bus stop
the ramps are present at
SRCC College bus stop
and Ramjas College Bus
stop. At the Daulatram
Bus stop neither the kerb
cut nor the ramp is
present.
8. The entry to each bus
stop is blocked whether

94
 through ramps or
otherwise by the
billboards
9. The route information is
not present at any of the
bus stops.
10. No provision for live
feed information or
auditory information.
North Delhi 1. Tis Hazari 1. All the bus stops are
sheltered, have seats and
2. Mori Gate 2/5
show universal
3. Red Fort accessibility symbol All the bus stops
are mostly
2. All the bus stops are
inaccessible.
present on the sidewalk
Even though each
3. Apart from Mori Gate bus stop has few
Bus stop, the tactile accessible
marking are present on feature they are
the floor of other two bus present only
stop. However, present partially and not
only at the stop and do not utilized fully
continue to the sidewalk
4. Though the name of the
bus stop is mentioned at
all three bus stops, it is not
visible at Tis Hazari Bus
Stop
5. Kerb cuts are absent at
all the bus stop.
6. Ramp present only at
the Mori Gate Bus stop
which is also blocked by
tree and shops.
7. Entry to all the bus stop
is blocked by billboards
8.Though the route
information is present at
all the bus stop, none of
the bus stop has live feed

95
 information or auditory
information
Central 1. Dev Nagar 1. Out of the three bus
Delhi stops, only the Jama
2. Janki Devi 1/5
Masjid Bus stop depicts
Memorial
accessibility signage and All the bus stops
College
is sheltered are completely
3. Jama Masjid inaccessible
2. All the bus stops are
present on the sidewalk
with no kerb cuts and
ramps
4. All the bus stops have
seats
5. Tactile marking is
present on the floor of only
Jama Masjid Bus stop
which does not continue
till the sidewalk.
6. Though the name of the
bus stop is mentioned at
all the bus stop it is not
clearly visible at Dev
Nagar Bus Stop
7. Entry to the bus stop is
clear at Dev Nagar and
Janki Devi bus stop but is
blocked at Jama masjid
Bus Stop
8. Route information is
present only at the Jama
Masjid Bus Stop.
9. None of the Bus stop
has provision of live feed
and auditory information

New Delhi 1. Laxmi 1. All the bus stops are

Narayan sheltered and depict
Hospital universal accessible sign
2. Gurudwara
Bangla Sahib

96
3. Dr. RML 2. The name of the bus Pragati Maidan,
Hospital stop is mentioned and Pragati Maidan
visible clearly ITPO, Zoo – 4/5
4. Palika
Kendra 3. Seats are present at all mostly
the bus stops accessible
4. National
Archive 4. Bus Stops at Laxmi
Narayan Mandir, DR.
5. National All other – 2/5
RML Hospital, Pragati
Museum
Maidan, Pragati Maidan Mostly
6. Pragati ITPO and Zoo are present inaccessible
Maidan away from the sidewalk
while others are present
7. Pragati on the sidewalk.
Maidan (ITPO)
5. Though the tactile
8. Zoo marking are present on
9. Dargah the floor of each bus stop,
Nizamuddin it continues to the
sidewalk only at the bus
stops – Pragati Maidan,
Pragati Maidan ITPO and
Zoo
6. Except for the bus
stands- Pragati Maidan,
Pragati Maidan ITPO and
Zoo, none of the bus stops
have ramps.
7. No bus stop have kerb
cuts
8. Apart from the bus
stops- Dr. RML Hospital,
Pragati Maidan, Pragati
Maidan ITPO and Zoo,
the entry to the bus stops
is blocked by billboards
9. The live feed panel is
present at all the bus
stops but is functional only
at the bus stops –
Gurudwara Bangla Sahib
and National Archive.
However, route

97
 information is mentioned
at all the bus stops.
10. No provision for
auditory information

East Delhi 1. Anand Vihar 1. All three bus stops are

Bus Station sheltered and have seats
1/5 – Hasanpur
2. Akshardham 2. All bus stops except the Depot
Temple Hasanpur Depot Bus stop
2/5 – Anand Vihar
depict universal symbol of
3.Hasanpur Bus station,
accessibility.
Depot Akshardham
3. Except the temple, Jagatpuri
4. Jagatpuri A-
Akshardham Bus Stop, all A- Block and New
Block
bus stops are present on Rajdhani Enclave
5. New the sidewalk
Rajdhani
4. Tactile Marking is
Enclave
present at all the bus
stops but do not continue
to the sidewalks
5. The name of the bus
stand is mentioned and
visible at all the stops
except Hasanpur Deport
Bus stop where the name
is not mentioned
5. There are no kerb cuts
at any of the bus stop
6. The ramp present only
at the Akshardham temple
which is also blocked by
the billboard
7. The entry to each bus
stop is blocked
8. No live feed or auditory
information at any of the
bus stop
9. The route information is
present at each bus stop
except Hasanpur Depot

98
West Delhi 1. Janakpuri 1. No bus stop was
District Centre constructed at Rajouri
1 Market and District
Centre. The people were
2. Janakpuri
standing on the road
District Centre
amongst the traffic.
2 ( opposite
side) The other 3 bus stops
were sheltered depicting
3. Bharti
universal accessibility
College
symbol. These 3 stops
4. C-2B had route information and
Janakpuri seats.

5. Rajouri
Garden Market
2. The bus stop at C-2B
Janakpuri was the only
one which was away from
the sidewalk. The other 2
(Those which were
present) were on the
sidewalk leaving no
walking space.
3. Tactile Marking present
only at bus stop at Bharti
College and District
Centre However, it did not
continue to the sidewalk.
4. The name of the bus
stop was clearly
mentioned and visible
only at Janakpuri DC 1, C-
2B Janakpuri and Bharti
College.

5. No Kerb cuts.
6. Ramps were present
only at Bharti College and
C-2B Janakpuri, however
they were both blocked.

99
 7. The Bus Stop at District
Centre 1 was encroached
by the construction
material like bricks and
mortar which was laid on
the stop.

South 1. AIIMS 1. All the bus stands are

Delhi sheltered with name of the
2. Khirki Village
bus stand mentioned and
3. Kidwai visible clearly and
Nagar depicting the universal
accessibility symbol.
4. GAIL(
Bhikaji Kama) 2. Except for the AIIMS
bus stop, all the bus stops
5. are on the sidewalk.
Venkateshwar
College 3. The tactile marking are
present at all the stops but
6. ARSD do not extend till the
College sidewalk.
4. No kerb cuts
5. The ramps are present
only at AIIMS, GAIL and
ARSD. However they are
blocked.
6. The entry to each bus
stop is blocked.
7.All bus stops show route
information however there
are no live feed or auditory
information at any bus
stop
8.
South 1. Qutub Minar 1. All the bus stops
West Delhi sheltered, have seats and
depict accessibility sign

100
2. Chatarpur 2. While Qutub Minar Bus All the bus stops
Metro Station stop is present on the are completely
sidewalk, other two are inaccessible.
3. Chatarpur
away from the sidewalk
Xing
3. The tactile marking on
the floor of bus stop is
absent in Qutub Minar
Bus stop and present in
the other two bus stop.
However it continues till
the sidewalk in only bus
stop Chatarpur Metro
Station
4. The name of the bus
stand is clearly visible
only at the Qutub minar
Bus stop and Chatarpur
Xing. Name is absent at
the Chatarpur Metro
Station Bus stop
5. Ramps and kerb cuts
are absent from all the bus
stop
6. Entry to the bus stop is
blocked by billboards and
encroachment by shops
at all 3 bus stops
7. Though the route
information is mentioned
but there is no provision
for live feed or auditory
information

101
Figure 118 Bus Stop Rithala MS. The advertising Figure 119 The bus stop has kerb which is not
board act as barrier. Tactile guide block present accessible due to encroachment by shop
only at bus stop.

Figure 120 Bus Stop SRCC, name not legible Figure 121 Bus Stop Ramjas College
and barrier due to advertising boards

Figure 122 The name of Bus Stop not visible Figure 123 Bus Stop Mori Gate

102
Figure 124 The advertising billoboards are major Figure 125 The bus never stooped at the bus
stop but far away. This picture taken at Red Fort This picture taken at Palika Kendra Bus stop
barriers to bus stop.

Figure 126 Barrier- Bus Stop National Archives Figure 127 The working live feed panel National
Museum

103
Figure 128 The National Stadium Bus Stop is mostly accessible with tactile guide block which are
continuous, there are slope ramps for the ease if wheelchair users, the bus stops are away from the
sidewalk. However, there are no live feed panels or auditory system for persons with hearing and visual
impairments.

Figure 129 Despite Accessible Bus Stops, the stops remain inaccessible due to bad practices by Bus
Drivers who stop buses away from the bus stops.

Figure 130 The bus Stop at District Centre Figure 131 Buses are stopped at large distance from
Janakpuri is completely inaccessible due the stop -Janakpuri District Centre
to barriers

104
Figure 132 Dilapidated Bus Stop - Chatarpur Xing Figure 133 The tactile guide block confined to bus
stops only - Khirki Cossing

105
Chapter 5. Attitude towards person with
disability

5.1. Introduction
The secondary literature suggests that there has been a lack of understanding
about disability. The disability often times is seen as a handicap of the body but
it is rather a handicap of understanding of disability. This handicap of the society
results in lack of empathy towards persons with disability. To create an
environment which is accessible it is of prime importance to understand what
the attitudinal barriers towards accessibility are. To understand how the
persons with no disability view persons with disability, questions were posed to
a total of 165 non-disabled respondents through a self-administered
questionnaire. In this chapter the findings will be discussed.

5.2. The profile of respondents

Out of a total of 166 respondents, 90 were female and 76 male. The age group
was from 14- 70+ years. The maximum number of respondents were in the age
group 26- 40 years. The participant respondents belonged to different walks of
life. While 15 of them were unemployed, 78 were working with either a private
or government organization. In the chart given the work profile of the
respondents is explained. Out of the 166 respondents, 83 respondents, i.e.
exactly 50 percent of the respondent had a person with disability in their social
circle.

70 + 2

61-70 5

76 41-60 16

90 26-40 65

19-25 54

Female 14-18 24
Male

Figure 134 Gender Profile Figure 135 Age of Respondents

106
 School Student
Private Sector 24 Self Employed
employee 8
34
Unemployed
15

Government College
Employee Student
44 41

Figure 136 Professional Profile

5.3. Opinions on a person with disability travelling

independently

In order to ensure mainstreaming the persons with disability in the society it is

important to understand how the society view independence of persons with
disability. Unlike a medical approach towards disability, a human right approach
emphasises that invisibility and exclusion of persons with disability has its roots
in the society and not in the physical or mental condition of the persons with
disability (UNNATI, Handicap International, 2008).
On asked whether the persons with disability should always travel with
someone, 50 respondents which is an approximate of 30 percent of the
respondents answered in negation while the other 70 percent agreed to it
completely or partially.

Figure 137 Responses on PWD should always travel with someone

107
It was observed that an equal number of respondents who had a person with
disability amongst their family or friends felt that the PWD need not to be always
accompanied by someone. An equal number of people who knew a PWD
disagreed and agreed compared to those who did not have a PWD in their
social circle. The familiarity with disability did not seem to change the way they
thought about the independent travelling of persons with disability.

44 47

25 25
14 11

DISAGREE PARTIALLY STRONGLY DISAGREE PARTIALLY STRONGLY

AGREE AGREE AGREE AGREE
NO YES
No PWD amongst friends or family PWD amongst friends or
family

Figure 138 A person with disability should always travel with someone

5.4. Question of inclusion

Inclusion in schools and workplaces is considered to be a stepping stone
towards empowering the persons with disability. Openness of the society in
including persons with disability is often the first step towards creating enabling
environment. This section will discuss the findings based on answers of
respondents when they were questioned regarding various issues concerning
the inclusion at workplaces, educational institutions and public places.
89 percent of the respondents feel that the persons with disability should attend
educational institutes with persons with no disability.

19, 11%

No Yes

147, 89%

Figure 139 Persons of disability should attend educational institute with persons with no disability

108
 28, 17%
48, 29%

Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Partially agree

90, 54%

Figure 140 Mental level of children with disability is not in par with children with no disability

However, when a similar question stating whether they agree or disagree that
children with disability should go to special schools as their mental level of
children with disability is not in par with the children with no disability, a 46
percent, i.e.76 of respondent affirmed either strongly or partially. A 43 percent
of these respondent have a person with disability in their family.
The highest majority, of these respondents were students from schools and
colleges. The classroom is the place where PWDs can have their first
experience with inclusion. Hence, it becomes important to make sure that the
students with no disability feel positive about studying with the students with
disability.

18
16

12
10

6 6
3
2
1 1 1
Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree
Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

College Student Government Private Sector School Self Employed Unemployed

Employee employee Student

Figure 141 Mental Level of PWDs not in par with other student - Responses from people with different
professions

109
When asked about if they should do a job and where, a majority responded that
working for a living should depend on their personal choice. They should avoid
working was also given as an option but no one chose that. 2 percent of the
respondent felt that PWDs should work from home while a 10% felt that they
should be work in office.

4, 2% 16, 10%

Should depend on their personal

choice
Work at home

Work in offices

146, 88%

Figure 142 Responses on Should PWD Work

Apart from the educational institution and workplaces the respondents were
asked about their opinion on PWDs travelling to the recreational places. 155
respondents showed positive response to the question while 11 of the 166
respondents believed that the persons with disability should avoid visiting the
recreational places and other public spaces. These 11 also partially or
completely agreed that the persons with disability are not very outgoing in
nature and should travel alone. 8 out of these 11 respondents had a person
with disability in their social circle.

11, 7%

I disagree
I agree

155, 93%

Figure 143 PWD should avoid visiting recreational and other public spaces

110
A large majority of people seemed positive about people with disability travelling
alone but yet they did not feel like wise about their independent travelling. In
the chart below it could be seen that of the 155 respondents who felt that PWDs
should go out to recreational places, 83 % and 14 % spaces partially and
completely agreed that they should not travel alone.

22, 14%

50, 32%
Disagree
Partially agree
Strongly agree

83, 54%

Figure 144 Persons with disability are not outgoing

91 of the 166 respondent partially agreed that the persons with disability are
not very outgoing in nature while 29 completely agreed to this. Many secondary
data and the primary research on the person with disability however, show
otherwise. The persons with disability often times are seen as not outgoing and
this is reflected in the way how the PWDs are not kept in mind while designing
public spaces and facilities.

Partially agree 91

Completely Disagree 46

Completely Agree 29

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 145 Person with disability are not very outgoing in nature - Responses from all

111
5.5. Women with disability

The secondary research suggested that the women with disability are the most
vulnerable and marginalised section of the society. On the one hand they are
treated as completely “asexual beings” while on the other hands they are not
allowed to interact with the peers outside home. In the primary research, the
respondents were asked to give their opinion on three statements given below:
a) Women with disability should travel alone
b) Women with disability can face harassment
c) A women with disability should be aware of her limitation and hence if she
still travels outside and faces harassment only she can be blamed for that.
When asked about the first statement, 54 of 166 respondents completely
agreed while a 40 completely disagreed. There were 30 who said that they are
not sure while a 42 who partially agreed to women travelling independently. The
percentage of people feeling positive about PWDs’ independent travelling was
30 percent which is less than percentage of people feeling positive about
women travelling independently.

25%
18%

Can’t say

Completely agree

Completely disagree

33% Partially agree

24%

Figure 146 Women with disability should travel alone

Though the people felt positive about independent travelling by women, it is

worthwhile to mention that a majority of people do not feel for sure that they can
face harassment. 82 respondents said that they can’t say for sure if women with
disability can face harassment in public places while 18 respondent disagreed.
There were 66 respondent who completely agreed that women with disability
can face harassment too.

112
Out of those who completely agreed that women with disability should travel
independently, 17 felt that women with disability are equally prone to
harassment while the remaining were either not sure or disagreed.

90
80
70
60
50
40 82
30 66
20
10 18
0
Can’t say Completely agree Completely disagree

Figure 147 Women with disability can face harassment

A total of 148 respondent said that a women with disability cannot be blamed
for any harassment she might face while 18 respondent affirmed that it is
women with disability who should be held responsible as should have
understood her limitation.

18

Completely agree
Completely disagree
148

Figure 148 A women with disability responsible in the circumstance of facing harassment as she
should understand her limitations

113
5.6. Socio-Cultural Beliefs towards Disability

There is a lot of literature supporting the fact that disability in India has been
associated with deceit, bad Karma and deficiency. This is also reflected in the
mythological characters like Shakuni or Manthara who were vicious and have
some form of physical disability. To understand what the current beliefs about
disability are the respondents were asked to express their opinions of various
issues regarding their cultural belief related to disability.
The respondents were asked how much they agree that the disability is a result
of bad Karma in past life. While a 116 of 166 respondents completely disagreed,
there were 34 who partially agreed to it and 16 who completely agreed.

PARTIALLY AGREE 34

COMPLETELY
DISAGREE 116

COMPLETELY AGREE 16

Figure 149 Disability Result of Karma

The majority of those who believe that disability is related to the past life Karma
were found to be in the age group of 14-25 years and were students from
college and schools.

15

9
5 6 6
4
1 2 2
Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree
Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

14-18 19-25 26-40 41-60 70 +

Figure 150 Disability Result of Karma - Responses of different age groups

114
 13

6 6
5 5
4
3
2 2 2
1 1

Partially agree
Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree

Partially agree
Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree

Completely Agree
College Student Government Private Sector School Student Self Employed Unemployed
Employee employee

Figure 151 Disability result of Karma - Different professionals

Out of the 116 who did not agree with associating disability with past life karma,
the majority of 66 respondents were those employed in social and government
sector. This is approximately 85 percent of the private and government sector
employee who were interviewed.

37
40
29
35
23
30
25
13
20
11
15
3
10
5
0
College Government Private Sector School Self Employed Unemployed
Student Employee employee Student
Completely Disagree
Disability is not a result of past life Karma

Figure 152 Disability not a result of karma – opinions across different professionals

When the respondents were asked to give opinion on whether persons with
disability are a burden to the family, 79 percent disagreed while a 20 percent
partially agreed and a 1 percent completely agreed.

115
 2, 1%
33, 20%

Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Partially agree

131, 79%

Figure 153 Persons with disability are a burden to their family

The majority of respondents, 151 out of 166 opined that the organ donation
does not lead to disability in the next life. 8 of the 15 respondents who affirmed
that organ donation lead to disability were in the age group 14-25 years.

160 151

140

120

100

80

60

40

20 10
5
0
Completely Agree Completely Disagree Partially agree

Figure 154 Organ donation lead to disability in next life

While a 59 percent of the respondent felt that PWD face both physical and
social barriers, 15 percent felt otherwise. A 51 percent of the respondent also
agreed that the nature of disability is more social than physical in nature.

116
 15, 9%

53, 32%

Partially agree

Completely Agree

98, 59% Completely Disagree

Figure 155 PWD face both physical and social barriers

Completely Agree
59, 36% Completely Disagree
Partially agree
85, 51%

22, 13%

Figure 156 Disability is more social in nature compared to physical condition

5.7. Awareness about disability and accessibility

The PWD Act 1995 grants right to Indian citizens with disabilities. This is the
first initiative directed towards the welfare of PWDs. The act guarantees the
equal opportunities to PWDs and also lays the guidelines for employers as well
as Government authorities. The awareness of the act is equally important for
persons with disability as well as those with no disability so that none of the
rights of PWDs are violated in any way. The respondents were asked if they
know of any such act.

117
 21, 13%

11, 6%
Do not know

PWD Act 1995

91, 55%
PWD Act 1996

There is no act for Persons

with disability in India
43, 26%

Figure 157 Know about PWD Act 1995

43 out of the 166 respondents answered correctly about the Act. The remaining
123 either answered incorrectly or did not know about the Act at all. The 55
percent of the respondents did not know about the Act and a 13 percent said
that there is no act for persons with disability in India.
Out of the 83 respondent who have a person with disability in their social circle
only 25 knew about the Act. Out of the remaining 58, 50 did not know about
PWD Act 1995, 3 answered that the Act is not PWD Act 1996 instead of 1995
and 5 said that there is no such act for persons with disability in India.
The respondents were presented with the picture of a sidewalk paved with
tactile guide blocks as shown in the picture and they were asked if they knew
about the use of the tactile guide. As already discussed in the previous
chapters, the tactile marking were either absent and if present were usually not
paved in a way that could benefit those with disability. Through the primary data
the goal was to know if people understood the significance of it. A 55 percent,
i.e. 92 of the 166 respondents answered that the tactile marking is used to guide
persons with visual impairments. The remaining 45
percent were unaware of the significance of using
The chart below shows the options that they asked
to choose their answer from. 33 respondents
answered that the tactile marking is for guiding the
wheelchair users, 30 users did not know what is the
purpose of a tactile marking, 10 answered that it is
none of the option given and there was 1 respondent
who felt that it is meant for the beautification of the
streets.
Figure 158 A tactile guide block

118
 1, 1% 30, 18%
33, 20%
Beautification of the street

10, 6% Do not know

None of the above

Tactile marking for guiding

the blind.
92, 55% Tactile marking for
movement of wheelchair.

Figure 159 Purpose of tactile guide blocks on pavement

Respondents were also presented with a picture of ramp and were asked about
its significance. Unlike the tactile pavement, the people seemed to be more
aware of the reason of using
the ramp. 152 of the 166
respondents answered that
the ramp is used because it is
easier to push wheelchair and
strollers on ramp compared to
stairs. 8 responded that it
hurts less if someone falls
from the ramp, 1 said it is
more economical, 2 said it is
beautiful and 3 did not know
about its significance.

Figure 160 An example of ramps as an entry to building

119
 1, 1% 3, 2%
8, 5%

Do not know
2, 1%
If someone falls from the ramp it
will hurt less compared to the
stairs
It is easy to push stroller and
wheelchairs on a ramp
152, 91%
It is economical

Fig,

Figure 161 Purpose of ramps

During the interviews with PWDs it was pointed out that while the persons with
no disability most of the time assist PWDs when they are asked for it, they often
do not know how to do so. In the earlier studies also PWDs reported that even
though people assist them, they do so in a really undignified manner. An
example could be how to help a women with visual impairment cross a road. In
the primary study, 142 out of 166 said that they have assisted PWDs once in
their lifetime. However, only 129 respondents felt that they are completely
aware of how to assist the PWDs in a dignified manner. 23 felt that they do not
know how assist a persons with disability and hence they avoid assisting them
and 14 said that they have never tried to assist any PWD ever.

160

140
142
120

100

80
Total
60

40

20
24
0
No Yes

Figure 162 Assisted PWD at least once

120
The disability activists have been advocating the sensitization for a long time
now. It could be an effective tool in breaking various stereotypes about disability
and also educate people about how to treat PWDs with equality. As mentioned
earlier, most of the respondents are students or working professional, only 19
out of 166 respondents have attended the sensitization for PWDs. 131
respondents answered that they never attended it while 16 said that they do not
know what it means.

Yes 19

No 131

I do not know what it

means 16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Figure 163 Attended sensitization workshop for PWDs

The respondents were presented following definition of accessibility and were

asked about their opinion on how accessible they feel Delhi is.
“If accessibility is ease with which anyone can avail or access any facility or
infrastructure irrespective of their physical condition, age or gender, do you feel
Delhi is accessible?”
The highest majority of respondents voted that Delhi is mostly accessible, 49
% compared to the 19 percent who voted that Delhi is completely inaccessible.
The least number of people voted for Delhi being completely accessible. As it
can be seen from the chart, the majority believe that Delhi is mostly or
completely accessible. However the primary study suggested otherwise.

121
 31, 19%

82, 49%
Mostly accessible
18, 11%
Mostly inaccessible

Strongly feel that Delhi is

accessible
Strongly feel that Delhi is
inaccessible

35, 21%

Figure 164 Accessibility of Delhi according to Persons with no disability

5.8. Takeaways
It was observed that the attitudinal barriers which are present are
not shaped much by the cultural belief but by the lack of awareness
of the abilities of the Persons with disability and their needs. It is
encouraging to see that people acknowledge that persons with
disability face both physical and social barriers and even so the
nature of these barriers is more physical. Society seem to embrace
the idea of inclusion but only selectively.
This section summarises the important findings and patterns
observed.
a) On independent travelling

The society felt positive about persons with disability visiting to

various public places. A large majority said that how to work and
where to work should depend on the individual choice of a PWD.
Yet a majority suggested that they should always travel with
someone. Similarly, a large number of respondents felt that the
mental level of children with physical disability is not in par with the
children with no disability and hence they should enrol in the special
school. This lack of confidence in the ability of persons with disability
was independent of the fact that half of the total respondents had a
person with disability in their social circle.
b) Women with disability

There is a certain lack of awareness regarding the physical and

mental harassment women with disability face. Though almost 1/3rd
122
of the respondent seem to encourage women with disability to travel
independently, almost half of the respondents said that they are
unsure if women with disability face harassment at all. As will be
seen in the coming chapters this is quite contrary to the actual
findings of the report.
c) Students – Future of the country

One may assume that the students might seem to have as

progressive and more open outlook towards disability. The studies
however show that the 65 school students and college students who
responded seemed to have a rather regressive stance on disability.
Almost 50 percent of the students affirmed partially or completely
that the intellectual level of a child with physical disability is lower
than the child with no disability. There were 66 respondents who
agreed to this and of this 36 were students. Similarly, 58 percent of
those who believe completely or partially that disability is a result of
misdeeds in past life were students from schools and colleges (29
of 66 students). 30 students, i.e. almost 1/3rd of these students are
not aware with the purpose of using a tactile guide. 8 of the 15
respondents who believe that organ donation leads to disability were
also students. Only 20 students were aware of the PWD Act.
It is said that the best learning is peer to peer learning. While it is a
good thing that the proportion of those who still believe in cultural
myths and stereotypes is less, the alarming fact however is that out
of those who believe in them, a large proportion is of students.
d) Awareness of what is there and what is needed for PWDs

There is a lack of knowledge about the laws and facilities which are
already present for benefitting the persons with disability. Those
who have a person with disability in their social circle are also
unaware of them. Almost half of the respondent did not know why a
tactile marking is used while only 1/4th of the respondents are aware
of the PWD Act 1995. The disability sensitization workshops have
not been attended by a lot of people.

123
Chapter 6. Experiences of PWDs in Built
Environment

The exercise of ensuring accessibility only by addressing structural barriers is

futile unless it is ensured that the efforts address the issues faced by PWDs at
a ground level. The previous chapter discussed about the structural barriers
present I the environment. It was concluded that though the efforts are been
taken to ensure structural accessibility, there is lacuna in the way these efforts
are being carried out.
This chapter discusses the experiences of the PWD when they navigate in the
built environment. This chapter is aimed at understanding how the accessible
features that are incorporated in the infrastructure translate in actuality and to
what extent. The other aim was to understand the experiences of PWDs with
the other member of the society and how they perceive the societal attitude
towards them.
Just as no two disabilities are of similar nature, the solutions for enhancing the
movement, the concerns and issues of persons with disabilities are of diverse
nature. However, the use of universal design and a positive attitude of society
can result in creating environments which enable users. For that purpose, it is
imperative to understand the relation between the nature of disability, the
mobility devices used, the attitude of persons with disability, the self-perception
of PWDs and assessment of the infrastructure and facilities. For the purpose of
conducting the primary study, 83 persons with different disabilities were
interviewed by the means of structured interviews with the help of a
questionnaire. The questions were directed towards their travelling
preferences, factors affecting the choices they make regarding which transport
to take or which place to visit, the experiences they have with the Street and
Transport infrastructure, their experiences with the other members of the
society and their perception of how people look at them.

6.1. The profile of the respondents

A total of 83 persons between the age group 14- 70 years were interviewed. 21
of the respondents were female while 52 were male. The respondents were
from cross disabilities with a maximum of the persons with loco motor
disabilities.

124
 40 35 36
35
30
25
20
15
10 5
3 2 2
5
0
14-18 19-25 26-40 41-50 51-60 61-70

Figure 165 Age of PWD Respondents

31, 37%

Female
Male

52, 63%

Figure 166 Gender of PWD Respondents

The maximum number of respondents were taking vocational training or were

students from college. There were 9 of the 83 respondents who were neither
engaged in education or job. Hence, most of them need to get out of their
homes on a day to day basis and navigate within the environment.

125
 LOCO MOTOR 43

CEREBRAL PALSY 7

BLINDNESS 20

LOW VISION 2

HARD OF HEARING 11

Figure 167 Disability profile

35
30
30
24
25
20
15
10 8 7 9
5
5
0
Government College Private sector School Student Self employed Unemployed
employee Student/ employee
Vocational
training

Figure 168 Occupation

The majority of PWDs did not require a mobility device for assistance in
movement. All the persons with blindness used white cane while those with low
vision did not require. As the participants were associated with some Non-profit
organizations, all of them were either completely mobility trained or being taught
mobility and orientation. However, secondary data suggests that many not all
the persons with visual impairment are mobility trained and hence are not aware
of how to use white cane to their benefit. 44 percent of the persons with loco
motor disabilities, i.e. 19 out of 43 did not require a mobility device. The majority
of respondents used both calliper and crutches. 10 respondents were
wheelchair users. The mobility devices are a medium to enhance the movement
but it is important to understand that in the absence of enabling environment
their purpose cannot be fulfilled.

126
 19 19

11
6 7
4 4 3
1
2 1 1 2 1 2

Calliper

Crutches

Manual Wheelchair
Walking Stick

Walking Stick
White cane

Both kind of wheelchair

Calliper, crutches and wheelchair

Motorized Wheelchair

Calliper and crutches

Motorized Wheelchair
Do not need an assistive device for

Do not need an assistive device for

Do not need an assistive device for

Do not need an assistive device for

mobility

mobility

mobility

mobility
Hard of Low Blindness Cerebral Palsy Loco motor
Hearing Vision

Figure 169 Mobility devices used by PWDs

6.2. The Travelling Patterns

6.2.1. Independent Travelling

As discussed in earlier chapter, there are several assumptions about persons

with disability in the society with regard to their travelling preferences. A majority
of people with no disability felt that persons with disability (PWDs) are not very
outgoing in nature. There were many who also felt that the PWDs should always
travel with someone. The results of primary study on PWDs showed contrary.
Just like the persons with no disability, PWD also go out to public places for
matters unrelated to work and heath. 33 percent, i.e. 28 PWDs said that they
visit the recreational places a lot, while another 22 percent, i.e. 19 PWDs said
that that they visit recreational places sometimes. Out of 83, there were 22 who
said they rarely go out while 14 said they go out only for work and health related
matters.

127
 SOMETIMES 19

RARELY 22

ONLY DUE TO HEALTH OR WORK RELATED

MATTERS 14

A LOT 28

Figure 170 Visit to the recreational places

More than half of the PWDs, 55 of 83 were found to be independent travellers

whether or not destination is familiar. There is another section of PWDs who
travel independently only to known places and go with a company when visiting
an unknown place. A relatively smaller number of PWDs said that they never
travel alone.4

55

17
9
2

Always whether Never alone. Alone to only known Nature of disability

new or known Always someone places, with such that someone
with me someone when must be with me
alone

Figure 171 PWDs travel independently

It was observed that the dependency on travelling affected the frequency of

going out to public and recreational places. While 23 of the independent

4
The dependency on others for travelling can be attributed to factors other than
disability which will be discussed in the later sections of the chapter.

128
travellers said they visited the recreational places a lot, the number was 1 for
those who travel with company only.

23

12
11
9
7
4 4
3 3 3
1 1 1 1

Can travel alone always Travel alone only to the Always go with Go with someone due to
known place, go with someone nature of disability
company to unknown
places

Visit to a lot of recreational places Visit recreational places only sometimes

Visit to recreational places rarely Go out only for matter of work and health

Figure 172 visiting recreational places w.r.t. independent travelling

It was observed that there is a difference in the travelling habits of men and
women. As the number of male and female respondents are not equal, the
comparison was done on the basis of percentage. While 75 percent of the men
were independent travellers, women independent travellers were found to be
52 percent. The percentage of travellers who require company to only known
places was found to be higher in women. The percentage of PWDs who
required company while travelling to unfamiliar places was higher for female
compared to women. Percentage of completely dependent travellers was found
to be higher in females than males.

129
 1, 3%

9, 29% Always whether new or known

Never alone. Always someone

with me
Alone to only known places, with
someone when alone
Nature of disability such that
someone must be with me

5, 16%
16, 52%

Figure 173 Women as independent travellers

1, 2%
Always whether new or known
8, 15%
Never alone. Always someone
with me
4, 8% Alone to only known places, with
someone when alone
Nature of disability such that
someone must be with me

39, 75%

Figure 174 man as independent traveller

It was observed that the compared to women, men went out to the public places
frequently almost double the times. The percentage of respondents who go out
rarely was double for female compared to men.

130
 32.26%
29.03%

22.58%

16.13%

7 10 5 9

A lot Only due to health or Rarely Sometimes

work related matters

Figure 175 Women travel to recreational places

40.38%

32.69%

19.23%

7.69%

21 4 17 10

A lot Only due to health or Rarely Sometimes

work related matters

Figure 176 Man travelling to recreational places

6.2.2. The Mode of transport

The primary study showed that there are various factors that can be attributed
to the preference of a means of transport. For most of the respondents, the
reason for giving preference to a mode of transport were plural. The ease with
which one can board and de board from a vehicle was the most important factor
that PWDs desire to have while choosing a mode of transport. The number of
votes are counted as the number of times a factor was mentioned whether
singularly or with other factors.

131
 15

13

11

8
7
6
5
4
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1

Figure 177 Desirable features in a means of transport

132
 Rank Factor Votes
1. The ease with which one can board and de board from a 33
vehicle
2. Safety 18
3. Economic 16
4. Only available option 13
5. Time Saving 12
6. Helpful Staff 10
Clear information regarding route and stops 10
Table 23 PWDs vote for the desirable factor in the means of transport

In the primary study it was found that bus was preferred the most amongst all
the mode of transport. Personal vehicle was the second choice followed by
metro. 30 respondents travelled in buses mostly while there were 7 others who
used buses and other means of transport at an equal basis. Hired Taxi was the
least preferred option.

35
30
30

25
22
20

15
14

10

5 3 4
2 2 2 1 2 1
0
Bus Hired Metro Personal Bus and Bus and Bus, Bus, Hired Hired Personal
Auto and auto auto metro Auto and metro Taxi taxi and Vehicle
both both rickshaw and auto auto

Figure 178 Most preferred transport

The reason for which bus is most preferred by the PWDs differs from the most
important factor that PWDs expect with the vehicle for travelling. The bus is
chosen because people found it economic. In Delhi, the PWDs are granted a

133
100% concession in fare charges if they carry the pass for PWDs. The other
common reason for giving bus preference was that since there are many buses
running on several route it saves the time in transit. Out of the 37 frequent bus
travellers, only 5 travellers said that they prefer bus because it is easy to board
and de board. Only 2 travellers chose bus on the account of the staff behaviour.

Clear information regarding route and stops

Easy to board and deboard

5, 14%
5, 13% Economic
1, 3%
1, 3% Only available option
4, 11%
Easy to board deboard and safe
2, 5%

Easy to board-deboard and time saving

2, 5%
2, 5% Economic and time saving
11, 30%
1, 3%
2, 5% 1, 3% Safe

Figure 179 Reasons for choosing bus

The choice of vehicle also was found to be different for male and female
respondents. Bus was the first choice for male respondents while women chose
metro. There were only 2 male respondent who said that they travel in metro
on regular basis. The personal vehicles were also used by many males.

27

20

14

10
8

4 4
3
2 2

Bus Metro Auto Personal Vehicle Hired taxi

Female Male

Figure 180 Preference for transport w.r.t. gender

134
The most common reason for those using the metro was safety followed by the
ease to board and de board. Metro was also the most preferred means of
transport amongst women. Of the 14 female metro users, 11 used it because
they found it safe.
There were 22 respondents who used personal vehicle only as a means of
transport of which 19 were those with loco motor disabilities. A majority of these
vehicle owner use it since they feel that it is the only available option that they
could use. Only 5 of these felt that it is easy to board or de board on the vehicle.
It can be concluded personal vehicle is a compromise for even those who use
it.

12
10
10
8
6 5
4 3
2 1 1 1 1
0

Time saving
Safe and economic
Only available option

Safe
Easy to board and deboard

Easy to board deboard and

Easy to board-deboard and

time saving
safe

Personal Vehicle

Figure 181 Reasons for choosing personal vehicle

6.3. Structural Accessibility - Experiences with the

infrastructure

As discussed in the previous section, PWDs are selective about making the
choices of going out. While majority of them are comfortable in going out alone,
there is are others who either do not go out alone at all or go out only to the
familiar places. Out of the 83 respondents, 28 were either entirely or partially
dependent on someone for moving out in the environment. Lack of the user
friendly infrastructure was pointed out as a major reason by 4 respondents as
the only reason why they cannot move independently while for 9 others it is one
of the reasons which restrict their independent travelling. It was observed that
9 of these 14 respondents were with persons with loco motor disabilities.
Problems in accessing transport was the second most significant reason cited
by 8 respondents followed insecurity of the families of PWD towards their safety
cited by 7 respondents. The other reasons included lack of confidence and

135
attitude towards persons with disability. Only 4 of the 28 respondents felt that
not going out is a personal choice irrespective of anyone or anything.
It was observed that infrastructure plays an important part in helping PWD
determine choices regarding how and till what extent they go out and navigate
in the environment. This will discuss the experiences of PWDs with pedestrian
infrastructure, information system and transport system. The different
components of the transport system like information, staff behaviour and safety
will be discussed in sections 6.3.2,

Family feel insecure and I feel

insecure

I feel insecure about my safety.

Lack of infrastructure for PWD

2 Lack of infrastructure for PWD and

1 3
1 1 problem in accessing transport
4
1 My family feel insecure and
worried to send me out

Behaviour of persons with no

disability towards PWD
4
Going out with someone or alone is
1 a personal choice and not related to
any thing or anyone
Lack of infrastructure and behaviour
7 of people
3
Lack of infrastructure for PWD and
problem in accessing transport

My family feel insecure and worried

to send me out

My family feels insecure and lack of

proper signage and information
system

Figure 182 Reasons for not going out alone

136
6.3.1. The pedestrian infrastructure
The persons with disability need to go out just as any other person with no
disability for work, study and recreational purposes. Depending upon the nature
of disability, they face several issues if the environment is not designed
acknowledging their needs. The mobility devices also fail to aid them in the
absence of an accessible infrastructure. As it could be seen, most of the PWDs
use public transport, it is natural that they need to cross roads, walk on sidewalk
and even roads if the sidewalk are not present. This section discusses their
experiences while they are using the pedestrian infrastructure. From the 83
respondents, 53 said that they have been injured on the road more than once
due to the inconsiderate infrastructure. Almost every one of them mentioned
the sidewalks which were wither not constructed properly or were broken. The
persons with visual impairments have been injured several times due to the
encroachments on the sidewalk or the vehicles that are parked haphazardly.
Those with visual impairments, loco motor disabilities and cerebral palsy were
the ones who have been injured the most. Out of the 20 persons who had
complete blindness, 18 have been injured. From 43 persons with loco motor
disabilities, 29 said that they have been injured and out of 7 persons with
cerebral palsy, 5 said that they have been injured on road.
According to the guidelines issued by the office of Chief Commissioner of
Disability, the field survey should be at least 1500 mm wide, must have tactile
blocks should have no obstruction, must have curb ramp and must not be
height. As observed in the field survey, there was no sidewalk which was
completely accessible w.r.t. the guidelines issued for accessible environments.
The participants were also asked about their experiences when they use the
sidewalk.
The tactile guide block on the sidewalk is a very effective tool to enable mobility
for persons with visual impairment through sensory output. The tactile block
should be used in a manner so that they warn the users if there is a diversion
or the sidewalk if ending. Different texture on tactile blocks indicate whether the
pedestrian have to take a turn, stop or if there is an obstruction. As discussed
in the previous chapters, it was seen that out of the 53 sites, only 10 sites had
tactile blocks on the sidewalks. The participant PWDs were shown the picture
of the tactile block and were asked how often they have seen the sidewalks
with tactile guiding blocks. The primary account of the respondents coincided
with the survey results. It was found that out of 83 respondents 28 said that they
never found any tactile guiding block on the sidewalk while 47 said that it is very
rare they come across a sidewalk with tactile block. There were only 3 who said
that they have always see sidewalks with the tactile guide while 5 said that they
find tactile blocks mostly. Of the 22 persons with visual impairments only 1
respondent had seen sidewalks with tactile guiding block always while 11 have
never and 8 have rarely seen a sidewalk with tactile guide block.

137
 3, 3% Always
5, 6%
Mostly
47, 57%
Never
28, 34% Rarely

Figure 183 The sidewalks have tactile guide block

The sidewalks which are too high to be used lead to the risk of injury and fatigue
not only for persons with disability but also for senior citizens and children. The
persons with loco motor disabilities face a greater risk while using the sidewalks
which are high. 25 out pf the 83 respondents always felt that the sidewalks are
too high to be used while 36 felt that sidewalks are mostly too high. There were
9 who said that they are never high while the other 13 said that they rarely find
that the sidewalks are high. 29 of the 43 persons with loco motor disabilities felt
that the sidewalks are always or mostly too high to use. As pointed out earlier,
this is the major cause for injury amongst the persons with loco motor injury
while they are on road.

15
14 14

7 7
6
5
4
3
2 2 2
1 1
Cerebral Palsy

Cerebral Palsy
Blindness

Blindness

Blindness
Hard of Hearing

Loco motor

Hard of Hearing

Low Vision

Loco motor

Hard of Hearing

Loco motor

Hard of Hearing

Loco motor

Always high Mostly high Never high Rarely high

Figure 184 Height of the sidewalk

It is important to mention that the wheelchair users cannot use sidewalks in the
absence of the kerb ramps. So the persons with disabilities were asked about
how often they come across the sidewalks with the ramped entry and exit. It
was found that 33 PWDs never came across such sidewalk while 34 saw it
rarely. This translates to an approximate 81 percent of the total studied sample.
There were only 10 who said that they have seen sidewalks with ramps always

138
while 6 said they have seen them mostly. All the 7 persons with cerebral palsy
and 32 of the persons with loco motor disabilities said that ramps never or
mostly has no ramps. As will be discussed in detail later, making ramps was
the most common suggestion given by all the persons with disability. This result
also mirrors the field survey where out of 53 sites, ramps were found at only 15
sites. The primary study in the field also showed that in the sights where ramps
were present either the ramps were cluttered or the sidewalks were encroached
by the shops, trees, poles, parked vehicles and litter. All the persons who were
injured while travelling cited encroachment as the most common reason for
their injury. The purpose of tactile block or providing ramps fails if the sidewalk
does not have a smooth passage. Most of the PWDs said that they do not even
use sidewalks

Loco motor 20

Cerebral Palsy 3
Rarely

Blindness 8

Low Vision 1

Hard of Hearing 2

Loco motor 12

Cerebral Palsy 4
Never

Blindness 12

Hard of Hearing 5

Loco motor 5
Mostly

Low Vision 1

Loco motor 6
Always

Hard of Hearing 4

Figure 185 Sidewalk with ramp

due to risk of injury. On the basis of interviews it was observed that, there were
6 PWDs who said that the footpaths are never encroached compared to 36 who
said that the footpaths are always encroached. Another 21 find the sidewalks
encroached mostly while 20 find the sidewalks encroached only sometimes.

139
 20, 24%

Always

36, 44% Mostly

Never
Only Sometimes

6, 7%

21, 25%

Figure 186 Sidewalks encroached

Out of the 22 people with visual impairment and blindness, all agreed that the
sidewalks are always encroached except for one person with low vision who
believed that encroachment is a rare instance. 26 of the 43 persons with loco
motor disabilities said that they find encroachment always or mostly while only
3 said that they have never encountered encroachment. There was only one
person who mentioned that they never faced any encroachment in their
experience. The nature of obstruction could be anything from shops, trees,
parked vehicles, billboards for advertisements which respondents said were
most of the time present together. Shops and vehicles were the most common
encroachment cited by 59 and 58 respondents respectively followed by poles
(47), trees (44) and billboards (42).

140
 30

9 9
8 8
5
3 3 3

Parked Poles Shops Shops, Poles, Tree Tree, parked Trees, Trees,Shops Vehicle and
vehicles Billboards vehicles, Vehicles, and Poles
and vehicles shops shops, poles billboard
and
billboards

Figure 187 Nature of encroachment

15 and 31 respondents mentioned that the sidewalk was comfortably wide

always and mostly respectively. 17 and 20 however mentioned that the
sidewalks are always or mostly narrow respectively. It was pointed out by many
respondents tat though the sidewalks are wide, their width is decreased many
times due to the encroachments present on them.
The respondents were shown a picture of a ramped subway and asked of they
had come across a subway or foot over bridge that gives ramp, escalator or lift
as one means of entering apart or instead of stairs. There were 12 who said
that the subways they have used have ramps. 32 mentioned that they have
come across them a few times only while 39 have never seen any such subway
or foot over bridge.

141
 12

39
Never seen subways
and footover bridges
with ramp

Ramp are present but

in less number
32

Always in all subways

and foot over bridge
used

Figure 188 Foot over Bridge or pedestrian subway with an alternate entry except stairs

6.3.2. The information system

As discussed in the previous chapters, the clear information regarding the travel
is very important to the persons of disability. Those with sensory impairments
however, need the information in a way they can perceive it, e.g. Use of braille
for persons with blindness, strategic use of colours and lettering for the persons
with low vision, sign language and clearly visible information for the persons
with hearing impairment. Signage helps in the way finding. In the study it was
observed that 51 of the 83 respondents felt that the signage is not very helpful
to them. Of the 22 persons with visual impairment including persons with
blindness and low vision both, only one person with low vision felt that the
signage is informative to them. None of them reported coming across any
alternate information system apart from Metro anywhere that could help them
in navigating. The others who felt signage was not useful mentioned that the
signage was usually placed where it is not easily seen, sometimes the sign
boards are not well maintained or the letters are two small to be legible.
According to the accessibility guidelines, each bus stop should have the name
of the bus stop mentioned in a clear format along with the route information.
The information should be available in the formats that could be understood by
all. As discussed in Chapter 4, there were only 2 functional live feed panel with
information while there was no auditory information. In the interviews, 65
percent PWDs mentioned that the information is never present while 23 percent
mentioned it is rarely present in the form of bus numbers that are written. Only
6 percent, i.e. 5 PWDs mentioned information is present mostly. 5 said that they
have never travelled. All the persons with visual impairments mentioned that
information is never present. Out of 11 persons who are hard of hearing 6 said
the information is never present while 5 said that it is present rarely.

142
 5, 6%

19, 23%

Not travelled
Rarely
Mostly
Never
54, 65%
5, 6%

Figure 189 Information on the Bus stop

20 20

14

5 5 6 6
4
1 2
Persons with Cerbral Palsy

Persons with hearing

Persons with hearing

Persons with Cerbral Palsy

Persons with low vision

Persons with blindness

Persons with loco motor

Persons with loco motor

Persons with loco motor

Persons with loco motor

imapirments

imapirments
disabilities

disabilities

disabilities

disabilities

Not travelled Rarely Mostly Never

Figure 190 Information System at the Bus stop

In the absence of information that is readily available, the PWDs were asked if
they receive information from persons with no disability when they are waiting
for a bus, finding an address or a street or any information regarding their travel.
17 from 83 respondents said that they are able to get information always when
asked for it. 28 said that most of the times they are able to receive information
if not from one person maybe from others. 25 mentioned that it is only
sometimes that the persons with no disability help them with information. 8
PWDs mentioned that they person with disability never answer when they try to
ask for an information. There are 5 who mentioned that they feel hesitant in
asking for information from others.

143
 25, 30%
28, 34%
Mostly

Never

Always

5, 6% I feel hesitant in asking

8, 10% information
Sometimes
17, 20%

Figure 191 Persons with no disability share information

Although, PWDs most of the time are able to gain information, they hardly get
it right in a single effort. The inconsiderate design of the bus stops makes the
persons with sensory impairments especially dependent on others. The
persons with hearing impairment face a lot of difficulty in communicating their
query and in understanding what information is shared with them. They feel
hesitant in asking again as people tend to get irritated. For the persons with
visual impairment the most common problem is to know about the bus number.
Mostly, they ask request someone to inform them when their bus arrives. But
people tend to leave without informing them if their bus comes to the stop first.
Many PWDs mentioned that they have waited for many hours for a bus due to
this negligence on the part of others.
The new Low Floor buses running in Delhi have an automatic GPS system
along with the automated hearing system. Not even a single PWD travelling by
bus mentioned that it is currently used. While travelling, information regarding
route and bus stops is never available to the PWDs readily and they have to
ask for it. Of the 83 respondents, 7 mentioned that they never ever travelled in
a bus while 1 travelled only once. Out of 75 those who have travelled in the bus,
there were another 18 who mentioned that while they are travelling they do not
need the help from someone else to ask for the information and they can
manage themselves
Nature of disability Number of PWD
Persons with hearing impairment 11
Cerebral Palsy 1
Persons with Loco motor disabilities 6
Table 24 Need information from others

144
The persons who were hard of hearing mentioned that though they know where
they are going most of the time and get all the useful information even before
they move from their houses, they struggle a lot when they want to ask
something. If they could not understand what is being told to them and they
request to repeat, the passengers and the conductor seem irritated.
There were 57 respondents who said that they need information while they
travel. 45 of these were the ones who travel alone most of the time and thus if
the information is not present they have to rely on others. The 57 who
mentioned that they want information while travelling were asked to rate the
information system on the scale of 1 to 5 where:

Rating Explanation Number

of Votes

1 Extremely poor information system where the information 11

is neither available from the driver nor passengers even
on asking.

2 Able to get information sometimes from either driver, 14

conductor or passengers

3 Information available only sometimes from passengers 21

4 Good information system where driver and conductor 11

themselves share the information, announce the station
name and if are aware of my disability make sure I de
board at right stop.

5 Everything automated. The information shared through 0

live panels and automated hearing system.

Table 25 Vote for the information system of bus

145
As it could be seen the information is not always available on asking for the
PWDs. Many persons with visual impairment mentioned that they usually count
the number of stops themselves to make sure they do not miss the stop but still
at several occasions they have got down the wrong stops. The PWDs rely a lot
on the co-passengers for gaining information. It could be observed that out of
the 22 persons with visual impairments only 2 rate the information system of
the bus as good. The information rarely comes from the staff of the bus
authority. The sense of independence is equally empowering for the PWDs just
like anyone else. 70 PWDs who have travelled in metro mentioned that it has
an excellent information system which respect their needs and makes them
completely independent.

11
10

7 7
5 5
3 3
2 2 2

Person Persons Persons Persons Person Persons Person Persons Person Persons Persons
with with with Loco with low with with Loco with with Loco with with with Loco
blindnes Cerebral motor vision blindnes motor blindnes motor blindnes Cerebral motor
Palsy disabilities disabilities disabilities Palsy disabilities
1= Extremely bad where 2=Information available only 3= Able to get 4= Good information system
conductor, driver and co sometime either through information always where driver and conductor
passengers no one shares passengers or through from passengers always share information
information driver/conductor only

Figure 192 The Information System Rating - Bus

6.3. Attitudinal Accessibility - Experiences with the People

An enabling environment is made only when both the structural and attitudinal
barriers are taken care of. There might be a very good infrastructure aimed at
ensuring maximum mobility for PWDs but it render itself useless if the people
with or without disabilities are not open to welcome it or are aware of its
purpose. E.g. The tactile guide blocks which are present but lead to obstruction,
the ramped sidewalk which is encroached by parked vehicles or shops and the
bus stop which has an advertising billboard at the accessible entry. The lack of

146
intention and ignorance towards the needs of
disability is one of the biggest barrier that if “I was once out with my
overcome could help getting structural accessibility colleagues for a movie.
in place too. Considering the fact that I
am a wheelchair user, my
While travelling there are two section of society colleagues called one of
whom one encounter, the service providers and the the best movie halls in the
other travellers or visitors. The service providers are locality and asked them if
the people with responsibility to ensure that the their hall is accessible for
people they are catering to feel comfortable, the wheelchair users.
satisfied, secure and safe. They can be the staff of They confirmed and we
the public place or the driver and conductor of bus. reached. We discovered
upon reaching there that
The other section is the people who might be the co-
the entry to the hall was
passengers on the same vehicle, the people waiting
through stairs. Upon
in the queue for boarding bus or metro or the reaching there, no one
pedestrian. PWDs just like anyone else meets all helped us. I insisted that
these people on their way to their destination. all my friends enjoy the
However, there experiences with these people make show while I returned
a lot of difference in making their journey a good one. back. I felt so
This section will discuss the experiences of the embarrassed and
PWDs with these two type of people. helpless. From that day
onwards, I have not gone
6.3.1. The service providers to see any movie. What is
The secondary study suggested that PWDs are often the point in going again
denied entry to public places or avail facilities on the and feeling humiliated? “
account of the disability. This reluctance is seen to
- Female CP
be associated with the mind-set pertaining to the
“limitations” PWDs have and the “efforts” that are required to facilitate the
services. During the course of the research, media reported an incident where
a male PWD was denied an entry to a posh restaurant in Delhi on account of
his disability. The respondents were asked if they have faced any such
circumstances. 6 of the 83 respondents said that they have been denied to
entry to a public place. 4 of them were persons with cerebral palsy and 2 were
from loco motor disabilities. Compared to barring the entry to public places, the
incidents where PWD were not allowed to enter a bus have been higher. 27 of
the 83 respondents faced that they were not able to board bus as the drivers
did not stop the bus knowingly. 11 of these were people with loco motor
disabilities while 9 were the persons with blindness. 4 of the 7 persons with
cerebral palsy have been refused to enter the bus. The refusal does not
necessarily comes directly for all. Many PWDs mentioned that the bus stops
away from the bus stop and usually leaves in such a hurry that they are not able
to board the bus. There were only 7 people who said that they have never
travelled in a bus ever. All others have experience of travelling in a bus. As
many as 10 PWDs stopped mentioned that they have stopped travelling in bus
due to the fact that they were not able to board it comfortably as it did not stop
for sufficient time or they have to run to catch it which is not possible for them.
The situation worsens during the peak hours when the co passengers are in

147
rush to get on bus do not let the PWDs enter the bus comfortably. 3 PWDs
mentioned that the bus stop for the sufficient time while 8 felt that it never stops
for sufficient time. A majority, 42 percent felt that it is only sometimes that the
bus stops for sufficient time. There 4 were only 4 PWDs who felt that bus stops
for sufficient time always. The percentage of persons with loco motor disabilities
was highest amongst those who felt that buses do not stop for sufficient time to
board.
At the 44 bus stops, buses were found to stop away from the bus stop.
According to 41 percent of the PWDs bus always stops away from the bus stop.
A 16 percent however felt that bus stops at the bus stop making sure that the
passengers comfortable board the bus.

7, 9%
4, 5%

Not travelled
16, 19%
Always
35, 42%
Mostly
Never
Only Sometimes

21, 25%

Figure 193 Bus stops for sufficient time

7, 8% 13, 16% Always at the stop for the

convenience of the
passengers
Mostly at the stop and
rarely away

Bus always stop away from

the stop

34, 41% 29, 35% Not travelled

Figure 194 The bus stops at destined stop

148
The DTC low floor buses have an automated ramp that can be used for the
benefit of persons with disability. A majority mentioned that though said that
they have travelled in low floor DTC buses Except for 15 respondents, all others
have travelled in the low floor DTC buses. Out of these 68 people who travelled
in low floor buses, 36 mentioned they do not know if there are any buses with
ramps running in Delhi,16 mentioned that they have not travelled in a bus with
ramp while there were only 16 who knew that the low floor DTC buses have a
ramp too. Out of the 11 wheelchair users only 3 were aware that the buses have
ramps. None of the passengers have ever seen any driver opening up a ramp
in a low floor bus. It is important to understand that the cost of travelling for a
wheelchair user in a hired taxi or personal car in a day was mentioned to be
anywhere between ₹200 – ₹1000. It is also important to mention here that even
thee vehicles do not have easy access to wheelchair users compared to the
buses with ramp. Yet, the wheelchair users do not use the bus which is
economical because of the lack of awareness on their part and the lack of
intention on the part of bus drivers and conductors.
The PWDs were asked to rate the behaviour of the staff of different modes of
transport. There were 7 respondents who have never travelled in bus, 17 who
never travelled in metro, 13 who never travelled in an auto and 53 who never
travelled in a hired taxi. The table below shows the rating given to each means
of transport for the behaviour of staff.
Rating & Explanation Bus Metro Hired Hired Auto Cycle
taxi Rickshaw
Total = 74 Total = Total= 70
66 Total=30 Total =58

1
Always unhelpful and 14 2 1 3 1
uncooperative

2
Mostly unhelpful and 16 3 2 10 6
uncooperative

3
Mostly friendly and 34 25 14 39 39
cooperative

149
 4
Always friendly and 10 36 13 18 12
cooperative

Table 26 Behaviour of transport staff of different means of transport

For the purpose of comparing the rating given to each means of transport, the
votes were taken as the percentage votes of the total votes. It could be seen
that respondents felt that staff of all the means of transport is mostly helpful and
cooperative. Compared to all other means of transport, the bus staff was voted
as the most unhelpful an uncooperative staff with 18.92 percent of the
respondents voting the staff as always uncooperative and unhelpful and 21.62
percent of the staff voting it ass mostly unhelpful and uncooperative. A little less
than half percent of the respondents felt that the bus staff is mostly helpful and
uncooperative. Metro was observed to be most popular in terms of the good
staff behaviour where an approximate 92 percent of the respondents felt that
the staff is mostly or always helpful and cooperative. All the 13 women with
visual impairments gave the highest rating to metro. The fact that the staff
assists in boarding on the train, ensuring they get seat and staff is present to
receive them even before their arrival at the destination are the factors due to
which the metro was most popular amongst the women with visual impairments.
Though the respondents were satisfied with the behaviour of the staff of the
auto but majority of them said that they are charged unreasonably. Out of the
70 respondents who have travelled in an auto, 44 percent said that it is very
rare that the fare is according to the metre charges while 26 percent said that
they are never charged according to the metre. The persons with visual
impairments felt that the auto drivers often take advantage of their sensory
impairments and they have to rely on whatever information the driver shares
regarding the auto fare.

150
 55.71 67.24
Bus
Metro 37.88
46.67
Auto 54.55
Hired taxi
45.95
Cycle Rickshaw 43.33

4.55 25.71
10.34 20.69
21.62 14.29
18.92 13.51
4.29 6.67
3.33
3.03 1.72

1= Always unhelpful and 2= Mostly unhelpful and 3= Mostly helpful and 4= Always coopertive and
These are taken as percentageuncooperative
uncooperative votes, i.e. out of 100 cooperative helpful

Figure 195 The behaviour of Staff

7, 10%

18, 26%

14, 20% Never as per the metre

Rarely as per the metre
Mostly as per the metre
Always as per the metre

31, 44%

Figure 196 Auto charges

151
6.3.2. The fellow travellers

The behaviour of the fellow travellers is very important for the persons with
disability. As discussed earlier, in the absence of information system the co
passengers are the most important source of information for the PWDs. Also
discussed inn previous chapters, a large majority of people mentioned that they
have assisted PWDs but there was also a percentage of persons with no
disability who felt that they do not understand how the PWDs should be
approached and assisted. To understand how the PWDs asses the behaviour
of the co passengers, they were asked few questions w.r.t. their interaction with
the PWDs.
Out of the 83 respondents which included 31 female and 52 males, a total of
51 mentioned that they have never faced any ill treatment by others while they
were travelling. However, 32 mentioned that they faced misbehaviour which
included name calling, staring, showing undue sympathy and abuses. These
32 included 12 female and 20 male. The percentage of people facing the
misbehaviour was same for male and female, i.e. 38 percent of their respective
sample population however the persons with blindness were observed to have
faced most ill treatment. Out of the 20, 11 persons with blindness i.e. 55 percent
have faced some sort of ill treatment.
Nature of Sample size Number of PWD Percentage of the
disability (sp) who were sample size = nm/sp
misbehaved (nm) *100

Blindness 20 11 55%
Hard of hearing 11 3 27%
Loco motor 43 15 34%
Cerebral Palsy 7 3 42%
Table 27 Faced misbehaviour while travelling

45 percent of the female respondents, i.e. 14 out of 31 females shared that they
have faced unwelcomed sexual overtures. The women with blindness were
most vulnerable

152
 8

3
2
1

Hard of Hearing Blindness Cerebral Palsy Loco motor

Figure 197 Harassment of sexual nature

to harassment as out of a 13 women who were blind, 8 have faced harassment

of sexual nature. Most of them are college going women who have come to
Delhi for their studies and travel alone.
As mentioned earlier, there were 37 respondents who travelled most frequently
in bus while there were 18 who travelled in metro most frequently. Delhi Metro
and buses have seats reserved for the persons with disability. During the
interviews, PWDs mentioned that in metro with the intervention of the staff and
also the willingness of the passengers, it is easier to get seats while travelling
while in buses people do not get up from the seats even if asked by a PWD. 59
percent PWDs said that the people argue and call names if they are asked to
leave the seats and 8 percent ignore the request. Only 5 percent of the PWD
said that the people voluntarily offer the seat. Compared to bus, in metro people
give the seats more voluntarily and were more sensitive towards PWDs.

7, 19%

5, 14%
22, 59%

3, 8%

Mostly Always Never People argue

Figure 198 Seats for PWD offered if occupied in Bus

153
 3, 17%
5, 28%

4, 22%

6, 33%

Mostly Always Never People argue

Figure 199 Seats for PWD offered in Metro

The persons of different disabilities travel in buses and metro. It could be

observed that in each category, approximately 50 percent of the PWDs have
faced situations where they were either denied seats or have to face argument.
Table 28 faced arguments when asked for Seat in Metro and bus

Nature of Disability Number of PWDs Number of people who

travelling in Metro and face argument or to
bus whom seats are denied
Blindness 20 9
Low vision 1 1
Cerebral Palsy 4 2
Hard of hearing 9 5
Loco motor disabilities 17 11

154
 Many PWDs pointed out that though “In buses, even if people get up for giving us
this kind of uncooperative behaviour is seat, I can see they do that out of sympathy
not new but it also depends upon the and at many occasions make us guilty
background of the people who are conscious. I never ask for a seat if it is
travelling with them. Many PWD believe occupied because I do not want any
sympathy or loathing. I really feel that those
that passsengers from rural areas of seats should not be occupied in the first place
Delhi or those who seem to be less because when they are occupied, most of the
educated are the ones who argue while PWDs either do not ask for them and those
in the urban Delhi people offer seat and who do face misbehaviour. My experience in
behave in a dignified manner. However, travelling in buses has been so bad that I
stopped traveling in buses all together. Now I
this primary study has not established a
go out in my own two wheeler. But what about
definitive relationship between the those who face humiliation and problem on
personal background of a person and daily basis but yet do not have any option but
his/her behaviour towards the PWD. On to travel in bus? It get worse in the morning
the contrary, as discussed in the hours or late evening hours when people are
previous chapter, the students were going to or coming from their offices. I have
myself seen many Persons with disability
found to be most regressive. However, being pushed by others. Situation is even
it is important to understand the worse for persons with visual impairments
importance of reinforcement of whom I have seen many times being pushed
behaviour through messages and staff by fellow co-passengers.”
intervention as done in Metro compared
to the buses. - Male, 24 years, Professional Dancer, Loco
motor disability

6.4. The perception of PWD

“I do not travel in Buses at all. For some
reasons I feel that it is really cumbersome.
To promote the inclusion of PWDs it is Though I have heard there are ramps but I
important to understand their have heard that they are never opened.”
perception towards environment. They
- Female, 26 years, Loco motor disability
might travel independently but while
doing that do they feel secure just like
any other person on the road. As
discussed previously, the perception of
society is more positive than negative
but is it reflected in the similar way onto
the persons with disability is important
to contemplate. The respondents were
asked if safety implies sense of security
and protection from any mental and physical safety, how safe they feel when
they are travelling. Of the 83 respondents, 26 said that they never feel safe on
road while 26 said that they feel safe rarely. There were only 5 who said that
they feel completely safe. These people mentioned that there is a sense of
insecurity with which they travel.

155
 5, 6%
16, 19%
Mostly Safe
Never Safe
Rarely Safe
Completely Safe
36, 44%

26, 31%

Figure 200 Feel safe on road

With the similar definition of safety the respondents were asked to share their
opinion and rating on the safety of different modes of transport on the scale of
1 to 5. The number of persons travelling in each means of transport were
different. So for the comparison purpose the percentage of the votes was also
taken. PWD considered metro as the safest means of transport. Compared to
all other means of transport, none of the PWD mentioned that they find it so
unsafe that they completely avoid it. The PWD mentioned that though the public
transport like bus or metro may be felt that
The rating given are summarised in the

Rating and Explanation Bus Metro Hired Hired Cycle

taxi Auto Rickshaw
Total = 74 Total =
66 Total=30 Total= Total =58
70

1 = So unsafe that completely 6 0 5 17 7

avoid it.

2 = Unsafe but can travel with 20 3 3 24 8

someone

156
 3=Negotiable 23 5 3 14 9

4= Mostly safe 14 32 12 15 20

5= Completely safe 11 26 7 0 14

Table 29 Safety in means of transport

Bus Metro Hired Taxi Hired Auto Cycle Rickshaw

40

38.55
34.48

31.32
28.91 27.71

24.09 23.33
21.42
20.48 20
16.66 16.86
15.51
13.79
12.06 13.25
10 10
8.1
6.02
3.61

1 = So unsafe that 2 = Unsafe but can 3=Negotiable 4= Mostly safe 5= Completely safe
completely avoid it. travel with someone
The votes are from 100, i.e. taken as percentage
of total votes

Figure 201 Sense of safety – How safe in different mode of transport

157
The PWDs were asked if they
have ever visited a place in “I am a female and just like any other women in
Delhi, other states of India or Delhi, I have faced some or the other form of
abroad which they found was harassment towards women. I do not feel it is
totally accessible w.r.t. both because of the fact that I am a person with
disability. I feel it is mostly because of the fact that
infrastructure and people. 55
I am a women. Due to my bad experiences and the
of the 83 said that they have
unsafe environment in Delhi I am extra cautious. I
never come across any place do not travel late evening or night alone. I
while 28 said that they have completely avoid places that I feel are unsafe. I do
come across such places not travel in autos because I feel completely
which were accessible. There unsafe in them, especially once it is dark. I think
were 10 PWDs who have gone for me the handicap is not my disability but the
abroad in countries like United unsafe environment of Delhi.
States, United Kingdom and Female,45 years, Private Sector Employee Loco
Malaysia. What made these motor disability
places accessible for PWDs
was the fact that there was
absolutely no places where When we go out, people look and behave
they cannot go despite any awkwardly. When we try to communicate what we
form of disability. Most of them want, people do not understand. Similarly, if we
enjoyed travelling alone in the request others to repeat what they are saying, they
built environment which had get really irritated.
ramps, tactile blocks, a very Male, 22years Student, Person with hearing
effective transport system and impairments
signage that was
understandable by persons
with sensory impairments. In “I have been harmed by others who are really
India people felt that Banglore, careless and inconsiderate of the needs of people
Chennai and Chandigarh are like us. Now, I have learnt to keep to myself only. I
most accessible. They feel that if I do not talk to anyone, no one can cause
mentioned though the me any harm. Still if someone misbehaves with
infrastructure is not me, I do not believe in creating a scene
necessarily accessible but the unnecessarily. I am really scared of police and I
never approach them even when I am in some
people are very helpful,
trouble. In buses also there has been so many
grocery stores, market and times when people argue if I ask for seat. Now, I
other facilities are not sparsely do not ask for seat and I keep standing for the
located, safety is better whole journey. Sometimes when there is a women
compared to Delhi and there is or an old person standing, I even offer my seat to
not much congestion. them.”
Many persons with disability Male, 28 years, Cerbral Palsy
reported that they feel that they
are still looked upon with pity.
A small percentage of PWDs
mentioned that people
associate their disability with
the Karma of past life. Almost

158
all of them said that there is a
serious lack of understanding of “ I went to Bangkok in 2007. There I was able to
go to restaurants and all other public places. The
the disability. This is reflected
places were so much accessible that no one was
accurately through the
needed to help me in moving wheelchair. I was
experiences of persons with able to travel independently.”
hearing impairments who
mentioned that the problems they Male, Cerebral Palsy
face are not at all physical in “In US, buses always open ramp. There are
nature but are more intangible. ramps on footpath, in parks and every other place.
While they are trying to converse, There are hardly any stairs. There are escalators,
people mock them as if they are lifts and ramps which are for everyone. When I
unintelligent. Safety is another went to US for the first time in my life I was able to
major concern for persons with use the escalators. For me it was like an
disability, especially those who are adventure because in India there had been many
women. Most of them have faced times when the guards in malls forbade me from
using escalators because I might fall. The truth is
unpleasant experiences where
people do not understand that all disabilities are
they felt helpless because there
different. Disability is equated with helplessness
was no way they can ensure and dependence which is not true.”
safety. There were many women
who mentioned that they have Male Loco motor disability
altered their work hours to make
sure they get home before it is
dark. Those who have not faced
any such situation still live under fear because of the incidents their peers had.
The male PWDs mentioned that being a male even despite of their disability
they are expected to not sit on the seats reserved from them. Many male
respondents mentioned that due to the repeated incidents where people started
to argue, they stopped asking for the seat.

6.4. The expectations

PWDs were asked about the things that they would expect in their city to make
it more accessible. Out of 83 PWDs 50 gave suggestions. This section
discusses the most common concerns that PWDs mentioned and the
suggestions they mentioned.

1. Women Safety
Ensure Safety through CCTV cameras, effective channel of communication
between women with disability and the local police authority. There must be a
functional GPS tracking system and LED information panel in each vehicle so
that those with sensory impairments also know where the transport they are
travelling in is taking them.

159
2. Structurally accessible places
Every building even if privately owned must be accessible. Ramps, elevators
must be present in each building whether it is a school, college, workplace or
recreational places

3. The staff of various means of transport should be sensitive of their

needs
The staff must know how to assist the PWDs w.r.t their disability, gender and
age. They should be trained if that is needed.
4. Make information available everywhere in every possible medium
The information of bus which is coming to the bus stop, the route information,
the fare information, the next stop, the directions, and every information must
be available in a form that is understandable by those with sensory disabilities
as well. The auto should have talking metres. Some of them also felt that the
public servants like traffic police, police, and the staff of a public building must
know basics of sign language so that the
information sharing can also happen with “In US, there are TV with sign
persons with disability. language on the streets and other
public spaces. The Police and
5. Change in attitude of people
staff at the public places and
There must be awareness amongst the facilities know a basic minimum of
people with no disability towards disability. sign language. The signage are
It is only when they will know about also informative and concise. Sign
language is very common there.”
disability, they will understand that we are
no different. This could happen through Female, 25 years, College
inclusive education in the best way. Student, Hearing Impairment

6.5. The awareness amongst PWD

As discussed in the previous chapters, there is a serious lack of awareness

amongst the society regarding the disability, their needs, the rights that they are
entitled to and the facilities that must be provided to them. All the PWDs who
were interviewed had narrated at least one instance where they faced barriers
in accessing the environment because the environment and the people had a
handicap towards understanding of their disability. The awareness amongst the
society towards PWDs has been advocated for a long time but it is crucial to
address the awareness amongst the disability sector as well. Knowledge is a
powerful tool through which PWDs can fight their own battles.
In the interviews the PWDs were asked whom they approach or whom they
think they would approach if their rights are violated or they face any bias or

160
unjust behaviour on the ground of their disability. Most of the respondents have
already faced such circumstances in reality.

40, 48%
34, 41%

No

Family and Friends

Yes CCPD

Yes to police
5, 6% 4, 5%

Figure 202 Awareness amongst PWDs on whom to approach when face discrimination

Out of 83 respondents, 40 said that they do not know who they can approach
under these circumstances and usually they try to reason out themselves or
ignore it completely. There were 4 who said that they would call their family and
friends while 34 mentioned that they will call police. 5 out of 83 PWDs
mentioned that they will approach the office of Chief Commissioner for Persons
with Disability under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Apart
from these 5, no PWD was aware that they can approach the office of CCPD
for complaints regarding the discrimination they face.

161
Chapter 7. Recommendations & Best Practices

7.1. Issues Identified

1. Poor implementation
There are many guidelines which have been issued by many organizations like
Central Public Works Department, The Office of Chief Commissioner of
Persons with Disability and Unified Traffic and Transportation and Infrastructure
Planning and Engineering Centre (UTTIPEC). Despite these recommendations
and guidelines the results have been poor. Out of the 53 sites which were
surveyed, none of the sites were found to be completely or mostly accessible
in any respect. Due to the poor design and implementation a majority of PWDs
have been injured while travelling. Almost every bus stop bore the symbol of
universal accessibility. However, it was found that the guidelines were
implemented in tits and bits. None of the bus stop, sidewalk, subway, foot over
bridge or the bus stop was found accessible for persons with all disability. For
the wheelchair users travelling without assistance remains a far cry.
2. Poor Information and Communication System
There is a serious dearth of information available to the persons with disability
while they are travelling. The persons with sensory impairments, especially
those with visual impairments are dependent on others for their travelling
information. The persons with hearing impairment struggle when they want to
ask for any information. Despite the auditory system and the display system in
the buses, none of them is operational according to the travellers. Apart from
Metro, the travellers were not happy with the information system of any
transport. Most of the information that the PWDs are able to gather comes from
the fellow travellers. It is very rare that the information can be gathered in the
first attempt. At bus stops the persons with visual impairment are not able to
know which bus is coming to the stop. Various participants shared incidents
where they asked for someone to inform them when their bus comes but they
left without informing. The PWDs kept waiting for the bus without realising their
bus has come. The live feed panels are present in very limited number at the
bus stop and there are very few which are functional. Almost every person with
blindness felt that they are not charged fare by the auto driver as they do not
know what the actual fare is. It is very important to emphasise that many of the
PWDs are independent travellers who have to depend on others for travelling
related information.
3. The PWDs are not going out much
It was found that the persons with disability go out for very specific reasons,
mostly due to education, work and health. There are very few who go out for
recreational purposes. . Those who are dependent travellers go for recreational
purposes even less. Thus the experiences of PWDs are limited. The persons

162
with no disability also believe that the persons with disability are not very
outgoing in nature. This is a very serious issue because often disability is
associated with “no market” myth which makes the exercise of accessibility
seem less irrelevant. On the other hand the reasons for which the PWDs do not
go out are mostly accessibility related. The 70 percent of persons with no
disability answered in their interviews that Delhi is completely or mostly
accessible. The reason for lack of accessibility lies in the fact that because there
is no accessibility the persons with disability do not go out often and because
they do not go out often the visibility of the issues they face is even less. This
cycle needs to be break.
4. The Women with disability are most insecure
It was found in the research that safety for women with disability is the major
concern which decides how much they travel, with whom to travel and how to
travel. Compared to man with disability women with disability go out less or
rarely. The women with disability preferred metro over any other means of
transport because they felt that it is the safest travelling option for them. 45
percent of the woman have faced misbehaviour in some or the other form.
Women with the visual impairment are the ones who face the brunt the most.
However, the persons with disability in interviews mentioned that they are not
sure if women with disability can face harassment in the public places or while
travelling just like any other women.

5. Persons with disability are compromising when it comes to the choice

they make regarding their means of travel.
For persons with disability, the most expected factor that they prefer to have
while choosing their means of transport is the ease of boarding and de boarding
from a means of transport and the safety. However, in actuality the most used
means of travel is bus. The reasons are mainly economic in nature and not
because they find it easy and secure. There is another group of PWDs who
travel in their personal vehicle but the reason for choosing a personal vehicle is
because it is the only usable option. It is important to understand that currently
here seems to be no means of transport that is not a compromise between
being the preferences and the economic factors. Money is an important factor
that affects the decision that are made by PWDs while travelling.
6. The drivers and conductors of bus are not sensitive to the needs of
persons with disability
Through the field survey and the personal interviews it was found that the role
of the transport staff has been negligible in making the travelling comfortable
for persons with disability. In all the aspects of travelling including getting the
passengers on board, dropping them and information sharing. The field survey
and the personal interviews showed that bus stops mostly away from the bus
stop, they stop for a little time and the ramps are never opened. There were
only a handful of respondents including the persons with disability who even

163
knew that the buses have ramps. Out of all the means of transport, the staff of
bus was found to be least helpful. Even in the buses which do have the
automated information system, it is not functional. Information is rarely shared
by the drivers or conductors. It is important to iterate that if the service providers
make sure that they take initiative on their part to make the journey accessible
for PWDs, bus could be that means of transport which is accessible as well as
economic.
7. Lack of awareness amongst the persons with no disability
Though persons with no disability seemed positive about the inclusion of
persons with disability yet they have limiting beliefs about them. Most of them
felt that persons with disabilities should take up jobs but they should always
travel with someone. Though there is a very small number of people who
associate disability with cultural beliefs but those who do are the young people
in the age 14-25 and are students in educational institutes. It is important to
understand that the schools and colleges are the places where there could be
a lot of learning for both persons with disability and persons with no disability.
It is easier to reinforce positive behaviour in this age.
The people are not aware of the needs of the persons with disability and about
the facilities which benefit them. A large number of people were not even aware
of the purpose of using a tactile guide block. The sidewalks are almost
everywhere encroached with the parked vehicles, poles, shops and advertising
billboards posing discomfort to the persons with disability. Wherever the
sidewalks had kerb ramps or the height was low, the two wheeler drivers were
seen driving on them. The persons with disability have been injured a lot not
due to the physical disability but because the facilities which were supposed to
benefit the PWDs has been compromised by persons with no disability. More
The PWD Act was unknown to even those who had a person with disability in
their social circle. The important issue to ask here is that there are many things
which persons with no disability are doing for their own convenience without
realising the discomfort caused to others. Are they educated enough to know
about the needs of PWD is the most important question that needs to be asked.
In the research there were only a handful who have ever attended a disability
workshop.
8. PWDs do not know about the support they have apart from family
Most of the PWDs have a general sense of abandonment where they feel that
in case of any problem they do not have anyone to fall back on. A large
percentage of persons with disability do not even know whom to turn to if their
rights are violated. There were very few who feel that they can go their family
and friends. There are many who feel that they can turn to police. Though there
is a Chief Commissioner of Persons with disability, there are merely a handful
of people who have even heard of it. Those who know do not know how to
approach. Similarly, many PWDs as discussed were no aware of the ramps in
the buses. The important part to keep in mind is that the PWDs can fight any
injustice better if they know what their rights are.

164
7.2. Recommendations

This section discusses the recommendations that can be implemented to make

the environment more accessible for the persons with disability. The 4 experts
in the field of accessibility were interviewed to understand the areas that need
to be worked upon. The recommendations will be illustrated with the successful
case studies from around the world.
1. There should be a definite legal framework under which accessibility,
accessibility norms, the measures to implement these norms, the support
system for the stakeholder (architects, engineer, town planner,
construction departments) and the punitive measures in case of non-
compliance are stated clearly.
In India, the accessibility guidelines have been present since last 15 years but
are yet not fully implemented. Till date they act as a guideline but there is no
definitive punitive measure that ensures that accessibility becomes the basic
requirement of any construction. Also, the accessibility till date is confined to
buildings of Government authorities only. The pending Rights of Persons with
Disability Act in its section 39, 40, 43 and 45 talks about the need of facilities
that should be provided and the duties of state and Central Government, it but
does not provide a complete framework of implementation. In countries like
Norway, Hong Kong, Berlin, Kuala Lampur and Uganda, the failure to
accessibility guidelines leads to the punitive measures. These countries have a
very definitive accessibility guidelines and compliance standard which are
made available extensively to different organizations. The other differential is
the action plan which was formulated from taking inputs from all the
stakeholders. There are strict laws for enforcement but at the same time the
concerned departments work extensively towards sensitization and training
workshops. The case studies mentioned in this chapter are of recent times

165
 Case Study 1
The Action Plan towards Kuala Lumpur as Accessible City
This action plan came into existence in year 2010. It sets out an
implementation framework including workshops, access auditing and an
overall focus on the three stages of construction process: design,
construction and post construction. Three priority areas: legislation,
enforcement and monitoring, and awareness raising are clearly
highlighted. The Universal Design is the core of the action plan.
Kuala Lumpur’s Uniform Building Bylaw consists of an obligation towards
following accessibility standards. The PWD Act 2008 contains clear
definition of Universal Design and accessibility provisions. Kuala Lumpur
in 2010 created a special secretariat “Innovation and Building Standard
Unit” to set up guidelines, design methods of access, run courses, conduct
access audits, perform upgrades and have a constant dialogue with the
persons with disabilities. There are four enforcement mechanism under
which the secretariat operated: Access Officers, the Access Advisory
Group, Access Inspectors and Access Auditors. All audits are conducted
in the presence of persons with disabilities. The awareness and training
programmes on access audits and stakeholder dialogues are held
frequently. Currently the guidelines are open for public comment.
Under the new Action Plan, it is mandatory that all new construction
should be universally designed and gets a construction permit prior to
actual construction. Every submitting person has to sign a certification
stating they take full responsibility of the compliance to accessibility
standard. They have to issue an accessibility statement mentioning all the
accessibility feature of the construction. During the construction the
access auditors of the Kuala Lumpur City Hall inspect the construction
and have the authority to issue a stop-work order in case of non-
compliance. After the construction, follow up inspections are carried out
by the access auditors who either grant a certificate of compliance or ask
the constructor to re-build or make adaptations depending upon the
compliance. The Periodic Inspection Unit monitors the existing buildings.

166
 Case Study 2
Anti-Discrimination and Accessibility Act and Anti Ombud and
Tribunal, Norway
This Act came into existence in 2008. It established legal safeguards against
the discrimination towards disability. It establishes that inaccessibility is a
matter of discrimination. The act applies to all areas of society, and with
regard to the accessibility its main focus is on the built environment, transport
and Information and Communication Technology. The Act contains the
obligation to implement the universal design which is a a legal standard as
well as minimum requirement. Universal design is defined in accordance to
the original concept defined by the North Caroline State University. The
breach in following the universal design is considered equal to the
discrimination. The act is enforced with the help of a system that consists of
Ombud and Tribunal. Ombud is a reporting and monitoring mechanism
where anyone can appeal without any cost. After receiving complaint,
Ombud reviews the complaint, asks for statement from the perpetrator of
discriminatory act and issues an opinion. The perpetrator is asked to stop
the discriminatory practice. If the case is not solved after the issue of the
statement, the case is forwarded to the Tribunal which is a semi court
consisting of the layers and disability experts. The Tribunal is authorised to
give legally binding statements and impose fine. Ombud receives 320
complaints regarding accessibility every year. Within its 4 years the act
completed 291 cases which did not bind with the legal requirement of
accessibility.
(The Zero Project, 2014)

2. Developing an information system that can be used by the PWDs

independently.
There have been guidelines that recommend the provision of auditory and
visual information made available for persons with disability. Still, till date, the
only information that is present for the persons with disability is written on the
bus stop or in rare instances available through the live feed panels installed in
the bus stop. This information is also inaccessible to the persons with visual
impairments. With the help of making use of technology however, the persons
with disability can have access to information on their own. With respect to
travelling persons with disability need information in two stages:

167
 1. Plannning before journey
• The exact location of the destination
• The feel of the place before arriving
• The place that is to be visited is accessible to all
disabilities?
• The route that can be followed
• The vehicle that should be chosen

2. During Journey
• Directions
• The current location
• If using bus, the number of bus that is
arriving at the stop

The technology must be leveraged to make travelling comfortable for persons

with accessibility. The mobile apps and websites aimed at providing accessible
travelling can help persons with disability to plan and prepare for their journey
in advance and also instil a confidence in them while travelling alone. Such
information mechanism can act as a very effective tool that can act as a
feedback mechanism for persons with disability. This could act as a dialogue
between the different stakeholders( Government authorities, owner of the
recreational place and local authorities) and beneficiaries( persons with
disability, their family and elderly) where the beneficiaries may share their
feedback on the facilities and the service providers can constantly work on
improving what is not present. There are many tools which are already available

168
but not known widely. Efforts must be made to make develop these tools in
local languages for better accessibility.

Case Study 3
Australia For All – The website

The website started in 2007 in Australia devoted entirely to accommodation and

places of recreation. The site is very simple with only a few menus and links Maps
are provided to assist in finding general locations or locations within a particular
geographic location. For the persons who are mobility aid users, the pictures of
the public facilities like washrooms etc. are provided. Since, this website is a huge
source of information for the persons with disability, the public places like
restaurants and movie halls approach the site to be listed. The sites who wish to
be listed in the website are asked to confirm that they have all the accessibility
features. The organizations in this website are monitored closely. Currently the
website has member from 64 countries. This website acts as a rating service for
the various organizations and hence has the power to influence. The website has
won awards like National Disability Award in 2010, award from Rehabilitation and
Assistive Technology Association for “Creating Value through participation” in
2008 and “Community Idol Award” in 2007

(Australia For all, 2007)

Case Study 4
Talking Maps – Austria
Accessible Maps are 'talking city maps' which provide real time geographic
information online and on mobile phone. The target beneficiaries are persons with
visual impairments who can receive the real time information by a loud synthetic
voice. The spoken information is regarding the infrastructure around the person
with disability, shops and parks nearby. The project has been tested in the city of
Vienna and the information is currently available in German only. Data from
OpenStreetMap and Open Government Data of the City of Vienna is used which
is translated into spoken text.
(Zero Project, 2014)

169
 Case Study 5
Wheelchairmap.org
Wheelmap.org is a project initiated by a Berlin based non-profit organization
called SOZIALHELDEN. The website is a free tool and the in the
introduction the website is mentioned to be like Wikipedia where many
people work to make information available for all. The information collected
is concerned with the wheelchair accessibility of public places. Everyone
can contribute to it by marking places according to their wheelchair
accessibility. The website provides a key for marking the place as
completely wheelchair accessible, accessible to a limit or not accessible.
The platform is now available in the ios and Android format as well. People
can add new places anywhere in the globe and add pictures about the place.
The information gathered is completely crowdsourced and give a common
platform for persons with disability and no disability to write comment, have
aa dialogue about the accessibility and share experiences. Till now 360,000
locations marked by contributors. About 300 new entries are marked every
day. The website has received UN World Summit Award (2012), Deutscher
Verzeichnismedien Preis (2012), Vodafone Smart Accessibility Award
(2011), Land der Ideen,
Ausgewählter Ort (2011), INCA Award (Bronze, 2010), Ashoka Fellow
(2010) award.
(Wheelmap, n.d.)

3. Assigning innovation in the hands of students from different

universities
Engaging College students to design solutions for problems faced by persons
with disability. This would promote engage the students in a meaningful
dialogue between persons with disability and persons with no disability. The
solutions generated would be more nuanced as the experiences will be closely
related to the local conditions.

170
 Case Study 6
BUS IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM BY ASSISTECH

ASSISTECH is an inter-disciplinary group of faculty, research staff and

students from Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, engaged in using modern
technology for finding affordable solutions for persons with disability. The bus
Identification system by Assistech is a solution devised to solve the problem
of bus identification by persons with visual impairments. The system uses
radio frequency with two modules: a mobile-like hand-held user module, and
a bus module installed inside the bus. When the passenger waiting at the bus
stop presses the query button to obtain the route numbers of buses in the
vicinity, the numbers are read out loud to the user. Once the desired rout
number is read out, the user needs to select it by pressing the selection
button. This triggers a voice output of the speaker installed at the entry door
of the bus. As the bus reaches the stop, it announces the number thereby
assisting the user in orienting and navigating towards its entry. When the
select button is pressed it also activates a bulb at the driver’s panel informing
the driver about a person with disability who wish to board the bus. The
project is undertaken in collaboration with DIMTS (Delhi Integrated Multi
Modal Transit System Ltd) and with funding support from DST, Govt. Of India.
The city wide user trials are conducted on the orange cluster buses operated
by DIMTS in Delhi.

171
Annexure I: List of tables
Table 1 The Seven Principals of Universal Design and the corresponding guidelines
................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 2 The Checklist for field survey ...................................................................... 19
Table 3 The accessibility measurement ................................................................... 21
Table 4 Sidewalk North West Delhi......................................................................... 34
Table 5 Sidewalk North East Delhi ......................................................................... 38
Table 6 Sidewalks North Delhi ................................................................................ 40
Table 7 Sidewalks Central Delhi .............................................................................. 44
Table 8 Sidewalks New Delhi .................................................................................. 48
Table 9 Sidewalks East Delhi .................................................................................. 57
Table 10 Sidewalks West Delhi ............................................................................... 60
Table 11 Sidewalks South Delhi .............................................................................. 63
Table 12 Sidewalk South West Delhi ....................................................................... 69
Table 13 Pedestrian Crossing NW Delhi .................................................................. 70
Table 14 Pedestrian crossing North Delhi ................................................................ 73
Table 15 Pedestrian crossing NE Delhi ................................................................... 76
Table 16 Pedestrian Crossing Central Delhi ............................................................ 76
Table 17 Pedestrian Crossing New Delhi ................................................................ 79
Table 18 Pedestrian crossing East Delhi ................................................................. 84
Table 19 Pedestrian Crossing West Delhi ............................................................... 86
Table 20 Pedestrian crossing South Delhi ............................................................... 89
Table 21 Pedestrian Crossing SW Delhi .................................................................. 92
Table 22 Field Survey Bus Stops............................................................................. 93
Table 23 PWDs vote for the desirable factor in the means of transport .................. 133
Table 24 Need information from others .................................................................. 144
Table 25 Vote for the information system of bus .................................................... 145
Table 26 Behaviour of transport staff of different means of transport ..................... 150
Table 27 Faced misbehaviour while travelling ....................................................... 152
Table 28 faced arguments when asked for Seat in Metro and bus ......................... 154
Table 29 Safety in means of transport ................................................................... 157

172
Annexure II: Table of Figures

Figure 1: The psychological barriers of persons with disability ................................. 22

Figure 2 The attitudinal barriers of persons with no disability towards disability ....... 23
Figure 3 Condition of sidewalks w.r.t. different aspects of structural accessibility ... 26
Figure 4: Encroachment on the sidewalk ................................................................. 26
Figure 5 Overall accessibility of sidewalk ................................................................. 27
Figure 6: A road divider which is accessible ............................................................ 28
Figure 7: Zebra Crossing on the roads .................................................................... 29
Figure 8 Road crossing levelled up to road but no space to stand- Near RML Hospital
Figure 9 Road crossing near Nehru Planetarium ............................. 29
Figure 10 Barriers at crossing- Red Fort
Figure 11 Barriers at crossing- Red Fort .................................................................. 30
Figure 12 The universal accessible symbol circled in red. This picture was taken at
the Bus stop of National Archives ............................................................................ 31
Figure 13 The accessibility of bus stops based on various parameters ................... 31
Figure 14 Tactile guide block on sidewalk ............................................................... 32
Figure 15 The sidewalk at Delhi Haat Pitampura
Figure 16 The sidewalk at Saroj Hospital Rohini ...................................................... 36
Figure 17 The Sidewalk at Rohini Sector 17
Figure 18 Sidewalk at Shopper’s Stop Rohini 37
Figure 19 The Sidewalk at Netaji Subhash Place
Figure 20The kerb cut at sidewalk in Rohini Sector 7 .............................................. 37
Figure 21 The trees that are planted strategically
Figure 22 The broken entry to the sidewalk was very near Shopper’s Stop Complex
common .................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 23 Tactile Guide blocked by tree with
Figure 24 Blocked Sidewalk at St Stephen
Figure 25 Sidewalks encroached by vehicles
Figure 26 Tactile guide block is redundant due and shops ...................................... to
sidewalks. ................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 27 The sidewalks near Tees Hazari are
Figure 28 The sidewalks dilapidated near Tees encroached at many places .. Hazari
Metro Station ........................................................................................................... 43
Figure 29 Sidewalk at Tees Hazari Court
Figure 30 The tactile marking leading to a tree ........................................................ 43
Figure 31 The sidewalk at ISBT Kashmiri Gate
Figure 32 Obstructed Sidewalks at ISBT Kashmiri Gate having uncovered holes .... 43
Figure 33 The ramp slope present but uneven
Figure 34 The trees and shops act as an .... at Red Fort obstruction at
Red Fort Sidewalk ................................................................................................... 44
Figure 35 The vehicle parked on the sidewalk
Figure 36 The uneven sidewalk at the Old Delhi Railway Station
of Old Delhi Railway Station .................................................................................... 44
Figure 37 Sidewalks at Jama Masjid Figure 38 Tactile Guide block
with tree as ..................................................... obstruction near Liberty Cinema, Karol
Bagh ................................................................................................................... 47

173
Figure 39 The sidewalk with uncovered pit at
Figure 40 Encroached Sidewalks at Karol Bagh ............................................. Karol Bagh
Market ..................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 41 The sidewalk at Karol bagh Metro Station
Figure 42 The Sidewalk with uncovered pits near
Gangaram Hospital

47
Figure 43 The sidewalk at Bangla Sahib
Figure 44 The sidewalks near the bangla Sahib are wide but blocked ............... 53
Figure 45 The sidewalk near Regal Building CP
Figure 46 One of the entry to the Regal Building CP where the shops are on the
tactile guide block through stairs ....................................................................... 54
Figure 47 The other entry to the Regal Building
Figure 48 The entry to the Regal Building CP .....................................................................
Blocked ................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 49 Two wheeler drivers using sidewalk
Figure 50 No tactile prompt near pedestrian crossing ....................................... 54
Figure 51Sidewalks near RML Hospital have ramped
Figure 52 The width of the sidewalk keeps entry but blocked
changing RML Hospital............................................................................................ 55
Figure 53 Wide sidewalks blcoked at Lakshmi
Figure 54 The sidewalk encroached at Lakshmi Narayan Mandir............. Narayan
Mandir ..................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 55 The sidewalk obstructed by Poles at
Figure 56 The sidewalk near Humanyun's Tomb Humayun;s Tomb ........................ 55
Figure 57 The sidewalks near Zoo with
Figure 58 The sidewaks at Pragati Maidan warning unobstructed guide block ..............
blocks wherever there is a tree or other obstruction ................................................. 56
Figure 61 The sidewalk outside National Museum is wide, unencroached and ramped
with tactile guidde blocks ......................................................................................... 56
Figure 62 The blocked siddewalk at
Figure 63 Trees obstructing the sidewalk at Akshardham Templee
Akshardham Temple ............................................................................................... 59
Figure 64 Sidewalk at Anand Vihar Bus Station
Figure 65 Sidewalk at Anand Vihar Bus Station
severely broken ....................................................................................................... 59
Figure 66 Sidewalk near Cross River Mall
Figure 67 Obstructed sidewalks............................................................................... 59
Figure 68 Height of sidewalk near Delhi Haat
Figure 69 Broken sidewalk outside Bharti College Janakpuri
Janakpuri ................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 70 Entry to thr Janakpuri District Centre
Figure 71 Blocked sidewalks at Janakpur District Centre
the shopping complex is through stairs .................................................................... 63
Figure 72
Figure 73 - The dilapidated sidewalk at Rajouri Market ........................................... 63
Figure 74 The sidewalks at BHikaji Kama Place
Figure 75 Vehicles parked on the sidewalk at Bhikaji Kama place .......................... 67
Figure 76 Sidewalk at AIIMS Hospital
Figure 77 The ramp slopes present but blocked - AIIMS ......................................... 68

174
Figure 78 parked vehicles on the sidewalk
Figure 79 Sidewalk atVenkateshwar College
near Venkateshwar College ..................................................................................... 68
Figure 80 Ramps present but poorly
Figure 81 Sidewalk outside Delhi Haat INA
maintained at AIIMS ............................................................................................... 68
Figure 82 Very high sidewalk Chhatarpur Mandir
Figure 83 Obsructed and broken sidewalk Chhatarpur Mandir ................................ 70
Figure 84 Sidewalk Qutub Minar
Figure 85 Sidewalk Qutub Minar .............................................................................. 70
Figure 86 Faded Zebra Crossing Shopper's Stop
Figure 87 The Road Divider high with no kerb cuts ........ and have barriers –
near Saoj Hospital ................................................................................................... 73
Figure 88 Faded Zebra Crossing at Netaji
Figure 89 The barriers on the road divider Netaji Subash Place
Subhash Place ........................................................................................................ 73
Figure 90 No Zebra Crossing
Figure 91 Sidewalks broken .................................................................................... 75
Figure 92 The subway is locked at Tees Hazari
Figure 93 The Road divider's height makes it inaccessible ..................................... 75
Figure 94 The road divider at Red Fort has barriers
Figure 95 The Subway at Red Fort has entry through stairs only ............. 75
Figure 96 The Road Crossing has space for
Figure 97 Road Divider at Karol Bagh Market
standing but no kerb cuts, Liberty Cinema ............................................................... 78
Figure 98 Pedestrian Crossing
Figure 99 The poles standing space of the road crossing act as barrier Ganga Ram
Hospital .................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 100 The road divider is levelled up to street Figure 101 The entry to the
subway through stairs at RML Hospital crossing but space not enough at RML
Hospital ................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 102 Subway Crossing CP
Figure 103 Subway Crossing Humayun's Tomb ...................................................... 83
Figure 104 Pedestrian Subway Humayun's Tomb Figure 105 Foot over Bridge
Pragati Maidan 83
Figure 106 The oedestrian cossing at Pragati Maidan
Figure 107 Road Divider Humayun's Tomb
No Zebra Crossing and height of road divider too high ............................................ 83
Figure 108 Road Cossing near Cross River Mall
Figure 109 Pedestrian Crossing karkardooma Court ............................................... 86
Figure 110 The foot over bridge at Hasanpur
Figure 111 No pedestrian crossing at Akshardham
Depot has escalators but access to escalators Temple
is from stairs ............................................................................................................ 86
Figure 112 Road Divider Delhi Haat Janakpuri
Figure 113 Road Divider at District Centre ................................................................ 88
Figure 114 No Zebra Crossing at Bhikaji Kama place
Figure 115 Subway at Bhikaji Kama Place .............................................................. 92
Figure 116 Faded Zebra Crossing Venkateshwar
Figure 117 The wide space at Pedestrian Crossing at CGO Complex but has Barriers
................................................................................................................................ 92

175
Figure 118 Bus Stop Rithala MS. The advertising
Figure 119 The bus stop has kerb which is not board act as barrier. Tactile guide
block present accessible due to encroachment by shop
only at bus stop. .................................................................................................... 102
Figure 120 Bus Stop SRCC, name not legible
Figure 121 Bus Stop Ramjas College inaccessible
and barrier due to advertising boards .................................................................... 102
Figure 122 The name of Bus Stop not visible
Figure 123 Bus Stop Mori Gate ............................................................................. 102
Figure 124 The advertising billoboards are major barriers
Figure 125 The bus never stooped at the bus stop but far away. This picture taken at
Red Fort This picture taken at Palika Kendra Bus stop
.............................................................................................................................. 103
Figure 126 Barrier- Bus Stop National Archives Figure 127 The working live
feed panel National ..................................................................................................................
Museum ................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 128 The National Stadium Bus Stop is mostly accessible with tactile guide
block which are continuous, there are slope ramps for the ease if wheelchair users,
the bus stops are away from the sidewalk. However, there are no live feed panels or
auditory system for persons with hearing and visual impairments. ....................... 104
Figure 129 Despite Accessible Bus Stops, the stops remain inaccessible due to bad
practices by Bus Drivers who stop buses away from the bus stops. ...................... 104
Figure 130 The bus Stop at District Centre to barriers ........................................... 104
Figure 131 Buses are stopped at large distance from
Figure 132 Dilapidated Bus Stop - Chatarpur Xing Figure 133
The tactile guide block confined to bus stops only - Khirki Cossing........................ 105
Figure 134 Gender Profile
Figure 135 Age of Respondents ............................................................................ 106
Figure 136 Professional Profile .............................................................................. 107
Figure 137 Responses on PWD should always travel with someone ..................... 107
Figure 138 A person with disability should always travel with someone ................. 108
Figure 139 Persons of disability should attend educational institute with persons with
no disability............................................................................................................ 108
Figure 140 Mental level of children with disability is not in par with children with no
disability ................................................................................................................ 109
Figure 141 Mental Level of PWDs not in par with other student - Responses from
people with different professions ........................................................................... 109
Figure 142 Responses on Should PWD Work ....................................................... 110
Figure 143 PWD should avoid visiting recreational and other public spaces .......... 110
Figure 144 Persons with disability are not outgoing ............................................... 111
Figure 145 Person with disability are not very outgoing in nature - Responses from all
.............................................................................................................................. 111
Figure 146 Women with disability should travel alone ............................................ 112
Figure 147 Women with disability can face harassment......................................... 113
Figure 148 A women with disability responsible in the circumstance of facing
harassment as she should understand her limitations ........................................... 113
Figure 149 Disability Result of Karma .................................................................... 114
Figure 150 Disability Result of Karma - Responses of different age groups ........... 114
Figure 151 Disability result of Karma - Different professionals ............................... 115
Figure 152 Disability not a result of karma – opinions across different professionals
.............................................................................................................................. 115

176
Figure 153 Persons with disability are a burden to their family............................... 116
Figure 154 Organ donation lead to disability in next life ......................................... 116
Figure 155 PWD face both physical and social barriers ......................................... 117
Figure 156 Disability is more social in nature compared to physical condition ....... 117
Figure 157 Know about PWD Act 1995 ................................................................. 118
Figure 158 A tactile guide block ............................................................................. 118
Figure 159 Purpose of tactile guide blocks on pavement ....................................... 119
Figure 160 An example of ramps as an entry to building ....................................... 119
Figure 161 Purpose of ramps ................................................................................ 120
Figure 162 Assisted PWD at least once................................................................. 120
Figure 163 Attended sensitization workshop for PWDs ......................................... 121
Figure 164 Accessibility of Delhi according to Persons with no disability ............... 122
Figure 165 Age of PWD Respondents ................................................................... 125
Figure 166 Gender of PWD Respondents.............................................................. 125
Figure 167 Disability profile ................................................................................... 126
Figure 168 Occupation .......................................................................................... 126
Figure 169 Mobility devices used by PWDs ........................................................... 127
Figure 170 Visit to the recreational places ............................................................. 128
Figure 171 PWDs travel independently.................................................................. 128
Figure 172 visiting recreational places w.r.t. independent travelling ....................... 129
Figure 173 Women as independent travellers ........................................................ 130
Figure 174 man as independent traveller ............................................................... 130
Figure 175 Women travel to recreational places .................................................... 131
Figure 176 Man travelling to recreational places .................................................... 131
Figure 177 Desirable features in a means of transport .......................................... 132
Figure 178 Most preferred transport ...................................................................... 133
Figure 179 Reasons for choosing bus ................................................................... 134
Figure 180 Preference for transport w.r.t. gender .................................................. 134
Figure 181 Reasons for choosing personal vehicle................................................ 135
Figure 182 Reasons for not going out alone .......................................................... 136
Figure 183 The sidewalks have tactile guide block ................................................ 138
Figure 184 Height of the sidewalk .......................................................................... 138
Figure 185 Sidewalk with ramp .............................................................................. 139
Figure 186 Sidewalks encroached ......................................................................... 140
Figure 187 Nature of encroachment ...................................................................... 141
Figure 188 Foot over Bridge or pedestrian subway with an alternate entry except
stairs...................................................................................................................... 142
Figure 189 Information on the Bus stop ................................................................. 143
Figure 190 Information System at the Bus stop ..................................................... 143
Figure 191 Persons with no disability share information ........................................ 144
Figure 192 The Information System Rating - Bus .................................................. 146
Figure 193 Bus stops for sufficient time ................................................................. 148
Figure 194 The bus stops at destined stop ............................................................ 148
Figure 195 The behaviour of Staff ......................................................................... 151
Figure 196 Auto charges ....................................................................................... 151
Figure 197 Harassment of sexual nature ............................................................... 153
Figure 198 Seats for PWD offered if occupied in Bus ............................................ 153
Figure 199 Seats for PWD offered in Metro ........................................................... 154
Figure 200 Feel safe on road ................................................................................. 156
Figure 201 Sense of safety – How safe in different mode of transport ................... 157

177
Figure 202 Awareness amongst PWDs on whom to approach when face
discrimination ........................................................................................................ 161

178
Annexure III : Participating Organizations

ORGANIZATION / NAME OF PERSON SAMPLE SIZE

1. National Assocation of Blind for 13 persons with visual impairment

Women, Hauz Khas

2. Ability Foundation 9 persons with loco motor

disabilities
1 person with hearing impairment

3. Aadi 10 persons with Cerebral Palsy

3 persons with loco motor
disabilities
4. Lui Braille Association for Blind 7 Persons with visual impairment

5. Sarthak Education Trust 10 Persons with loco motor

disabilities
11 persons with hearing
impairment

6. Aarth Astha 5 persons with loco motor

disabilities

7. Other individuals 12 persons with loco motor

disabilities
5 persons with visual impairment

179
Annexure IV: Experts Interviewed

Name Designation

1. Ms. Anjali Agarwal Founder Samarthyam

2. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdev Accessibility Expert and Resource

Person on accessibility

3. Mr. Subhash Vashisht Accessibility Expert Svayam

4. Ms. Shivani Gupta Founder AccessAbility

180
Annexure V Questionnaire for Persons with
Disability

Thank you for taking out some time for this questionnaire. I am Jagriti Pande, a student
from NIFT Delhi working as an intern with American India Foundation Trust. I am doing
a research on accessibility of built environment, i.e. the ease of accessing buses,
pavements, roads, parks etc. irrespective of physical disability, age and gender taking
Delhi as a case study. Your responses to the questionnaire will be helpful in gaining a
better understanding of the problem. Filing the questionnaire will take around 20
minutes. If you wish to write something other than the options available, please write
on the blank pages on the back side with the question number. I assure you that your
responses will not bear your identity and will remain confidential. The information
collected will not be used for any commercial purpose. Feel free to give your feedback
at the end. Thank you for your time. For any queries please write to
[email protected]

* This is a confidential document and is the intellectual property of the researcher and
AIF. Please do not disseminate, distribute or copy this document without permission.

Instructions: Please tick whatever answer best suits the question asked.
1. Please choose what describes you best:

Gender Age Group Occupation

a) Male b) Female c) Trans a) 14- 18 a) School Student
b) 19- 25 b) College Student
c) 26- 30 c) Self Employed
d) 31- 35 d) Government
e) 36- 40 Employee
f) 40-50 e) Private sector
g) 51- 60 employee
h) 61- 70 f) Unemployed
i) 70+

2. Nature of disability (Those mentioned here are as per PWD Act 1995. If the disability
is not mentioned her please write under others)
a) Blindness b) Low Vision c) Leprosy cured
d) Hard of hearing e) Loco motor f) Intellectual and
cognitive disabilities g) Others

3. Please mention the mobility devices used

a) White cane b) Calliper c) Walker d)
Crutches e) Motorized Wheelchair f) Manual Wheelchair g)
Walking stick h) I do not need any of this

181
4. Most used mode of transport
a) Bus b) Metro c) Personal Transport d) Hired Taxi
e) Hired Auto f) Rickshaw

5. The reason for choosing the above mode of transport is (check all that apply):
a) The staff is helpful b) Easy to board and alight c) Safe
d) The information regarding the route and stop is clear and concise e)
Economic
f) The only available option that is usable enough

6. You travel alone

a) Whenever I feel like going alone irrespective of whether it is a new place or not

b) Only to the familiar places. Someone always accompanies me when going to an

unknown places
c) Never alone as I do not feel comfortable and secure alone
d) I rarely go out
e) I cannot go alone due to the nature of my disability

7. Do you travel to places other than your school/workplace/hospital?

a) A lot b) Not much c) Rarely
d) I only go out to places related to work or health e) I do not go anywhere

8. If you do not go out alone or go to any new places it is because of (Check all that
apply):
a) My family does not feel comfortable in sending me out alone
b) The people’s attitude towards PWD
c) Difficulty in accessing the transport
d) Lack of proper signage and information system
e) The condition of roads and footpath
f) Nothing to do with the above factors but only because I want to go out with someone
g) I do not face any of the above and I am comfortable travelling alone and to new
places

182
h) Lack of user friendly infrastructure
i)
Other_______________________________________________________________
______

9. If an assistant is hired, the cost for a day is?

a) 500-1000 b) 1000-1500 c) 1500-2000 d) 2000+ e) I go out alone
only
f) I do not hire an assistant but go with family or friend only

10. Out of the situations mentioned below, which one are those that you have faced?
a) Injured due to the road infrastructure ___________________________________ (
If you can describe a bit )
b) Misbehaviour by fellow passengers
c) Not allowed to enter any public place
d) Not allowed to access any public facility
e) If you are a women, faced harassment

11. How safe do you feel from any accident or injury while on the road?
a) Completely safe b) Mostly safe c) Rarely safe d) Always Unsafe

12. Have you travelled in Low floor DTC Buses?

a) Never b) Not much c) A lot

13. If safety implies safety from any physical and mental harm due to driver, co
passengers, conductor and the construction of the vehicle, how would you rate the
personal safety of following means of transport on the scale of 0-5?
a) Bus ______ b) Rail __________ c) Auto _________
d) Cycle Rickshaw_______ e) Metro _________ f) Hired Cab ________

0= Never travelled 1= So unsafe that you completely avoid it 2= Unsafe but can
go if have some company 3= Negotiable
4= Safe mostly 5= So safe that you can travel alone

183
14. How would you rate the behaviour of the staff of following means of transport on
the scale of 1-5?
a) Bus _____ b) Rail ______ c) Auto ______

d) Cycle Rickshaw _____ e) Metro _______ f) Hired Cab ______

1= Inappropriate always 2= Inappropriate mostly 3= Inappropriate

rarely
4= Friendly and helpful mostly 5= Friendly and helpful always

15. How would you rate the information system of following means of transport on the
scale of 1-5?
a) Bus
b) Rail ___ c) Auto ___ d) Cycle Rickshaw ____

e) Metro ____ f) Hired Cab _____

1= Very poor mostly with no information even from driver/conductor
2= Poor but sometimes driver/conductor tell the route
3= Negotiable as driver/conductor mostly guide regarding route and destination
4= Good as driver/conductor always share information
5= Excellent as there are auditory cues, tactile map and helpful driver/conductor to
guide

16. Have you travelled in buses with ramps?

a) Yes b) No c) I have never come across any such buses d) I do not travel in
buses

17. If the ramp is present, does driver open the ramp?

a) Always b) Mostly c) Never c) Only when there is not much rush
d) I do not require a ramp e) Never came across a bus with ramp

18. At bus stop the bus stops at the stop for sufficient time?
a) Always b) Mostly c) Rarely d) Never

184
19. When bus stops it positions itself:
a) Always near to the bus stop while aligning the bus to the height of the stop such that
the passengers board the bus without any difficulty
b) Mostly on the road and not at the stop.
c) Bus always stop at the road and not at the bus stop

20. The bus stop displays the information of the route?

a) Always b) Mostly c) Rarely d) Never

21. The questions below are related to footpath:

1. Footpaths encroached? a) Always b) Mostly

c) Rarely d) Never
2. Have tactile markings? Always b) Mostly
c) Rarely d) Never
3. Nature of encroachment on the a) Trees b) Parked
footpath (check all that apply) vehicles c) The shops d)
The poles e)
Billboards f) No encroachments
4. Ramped entry and exit a) Always b) Mostly c) Rarely
d) Never e) Did not notice

5. Too high to use a) Always b) Mostly

c) Rarely d) Never
6. Appropriate width so that it is a) Always b) Mostly c) Rarely
comfortable to walk d) Never e) Even if narrow I can
walk comfortably

7. Warning blocks wherever there is a) Always b) Mostly

some obstruction or when the footpath c) Rarely d) Never
ends

22. Have you encountered subway and foot over bridge with ramped entry and exit?
a) Yes all of them b) None of them have ramped entry
c) There are very few subways or foot over bridge with ramps

23. The current signage for direction and information regarding places helpful?
a) A lot b) Not much c) Not helpful at all

185
24. If travelling in public transport, in case the reserved seat for persons with disability
is occupied by persons with no disability, they get up and offer it to me voluntarily?
a) Always b) Mostly c) Never d) People argue e) I never
travel in public transport

25. The persons with no disability are helpful if asked about the route, directions or
other travel related information?
a) Always b) Mostly c) Rarely d) Never e) I feel hesitant to
ask for information

26. Apart from Bus and metro, the other means of transport like auto or taxi charge
reasonably?
a) Always b) Mostly c) Rarely d) Never

27. Have you ever been denied any service or entry to a public place due to disability?
a) Yes b) Never

28. In case of facing any difficulty in accessing any public service or place do you know
whom to approach?
a) Yes b) No

29. Your overall experience while navigating in the environment is seamless?

a) Always b) Mostly c) Rarely d) Never

30. Can you share any experience of any place or means of transport in or outside the
city where you felt that the environment was accessible to all?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
_______________________

31. How do you think is the attitude of person with no disability towards PWD?

186
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________

32. 5 suggestions that you feel can make our city more accessible.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________

Any comments or feedback (optional)

Thank You

187
Annexure VI Questionnaire for Persons with no
Disability

Thank you for taking out some time for his questionnaire. I am Jagriti Pande, a student
from NIFT Delhi working as an intern with American India Foundation Trust. I am
doing a research on accessibility of built environment, i.e. the ease of accessing buses,
pavements, roads, parks etc. irrespective of physical disability, age and gender taking
Delhi as a case study. Your responses to the questionnaire will be helpful in gaining a
better understanding of the problem. Filing the questionnaire will take around 10
minutes. I assure you that your responses will not bear your identity and will remain
confidential. Feel free to give your feedback at the end. Thank you for your time.
Instructions: Please tick whatever answer best suits the question asked.
1. You are a

Gender a) Male b) Female c) Transgender

Age group a) 14-18 b) 19-25 c) 26- 40 d) 41-50 e) 51- 60 f) 60+

Occupation a) School Student b) College Student c) Self Employed
d) Government Employee e) Private sector employee f) Unemployed

2) Do you have any Person with disability in your family or social circle?
a) Yes b) No

3) In your opinions, PWD should attend schools and colleges with non-disabled
people?
a) Yes b) No

4) Person with disability should go out for job?

a) Yes they should b) No they should stay at home

5) Person with disability should always travel with someone?

a) Strongly agree b) Partially agree c) Disagree

6) Apart from schools or workplaces person with reduced mobility should avoid
visiting recreational and other public spaces?

188
a) I agree b) I disagree

7) Have you ever tried to help any Person with disability?

a) Yes b) No

8) Do you feel that you can assist someone with disability?

a) Yes, I feel that I am totally aware of how to help someone with disability in a
dignified manner
b) No, I am usually not very sure how to help someone with disability that is why I
avoid helping them.
c) I have never tried helping anyone with disability as I feel that it is the duty of their
family and friends.

9) Do you think that women with disability should travel alone?

a) Completely agree
b) Completely disagree
c) Can’t say

10) Women with disability can face harassment by persons with no disability?
a) Completely agree
b) Completely disagree
c) Can’t say

11) If women with disability face harassment only she can be blamed for it as she
should have avoided going out in the first place.
a) Completely agree
b) Completely disagree

12) How much do you agree with the following?

189
 a) Disability as described in our culture is a result a) Completely Agree
of past life Karma. It may be painful but is b) Partially agree
completely necessary to be born in a normal c) Completely Disagree
body.

b) A person with disability faces both physical and a) Completely Agree

social barriers. b) Partially agree
c) Completely Disagree

c) A person with disability are not very outgoing. a) Completely Agree

b) Partially agree
c) Completely Disagree

d) A child with any physical disability should a) Completely Agree

attend special school as their mental level is not b) Partially agree
usually in par with the no disabled children. c) Completely Disagree

e) A child with disability should study with the a) Completely Agree

non-disabled children in normal school. b) Partially agree
c) Completely Disagree

f) A person with disability is a liability to the family a) Completely Agree

b) Partially agree
c) Completely Disagree

g) The nature of disability is more social in nature a) Completely Agree

and not physical. b) Partially agree
c) Completely Disagree

h) The organ donation in this life can lead to a) Completely Agree

disability in next life b) Partially agree
c) Completely Disagree

13) Have you ever attended any disability sensitization workshop?

a) Yes at ___________________ b) No c) I do not know what it
means

14) Are you aware of PWD Act 1995?

a) Yes b) It is PWD Act 1999 not 1995

c) Yes it is Public Works department Act d)Never heard of it

190
15) Do you know the purpose of the following?

a) Tactile marking for guiding the blind.

b) Tactile marking for movement of wheelchair.
c) Beautification of the street
d) None of the above
e) Do not know

16) Do you know the purpose of using ramped entrance?

a) It looks more beautiful

b) If someone falls from the ramp it will hurt less compared to the stairs

191
c) It is easy to push stroller and wheelchairs on a ramp
d) It is economical
e) Do not know
17) If accessibility is ease of availing any facility irrespective of age, sex or physical
capability how accessible do you think Delhi is?
a) Completely inaccessible
b) Mostly inaccessible
c) Mostly accessible
d) Always accessible

Thank you !

192
Annexure VII: The Questionnaire for Experts

Thank you for taking out some time for his questionnaire. I am Jagriti Pande, a student from
NIFT Delhi working as an intern with American India Foundation Trust. I am doing a research
on accessibility of built environment, i.e. the ease of accessing buses, pavements, roads, parks
etc. irrespective of physical disability, age and gender taking Delhi as a case study. Your
responses to the questionnaire will be helpful in gaining a better understanding of the problem.
Filing the questionnaire will take around 20 minutes. The excerpts from your responses will be
used with your name and you will be given due credits for your contribution in the final report.
If there is any comment that you would like to add as response, please write in the blank pages
along with question number. In case of any queries please write back at
[email protected].

** This document is confidential and is intended for only those who are requested to fill it. It is
the intellectual property of the researcher and AIF. If you have access to this, please be
considerate and do not disseminate or reproduce any part of it without permission. **

Name
Profession

Can you please mention your area of work in

disability sector?

1. On a scale of 1 -5 how would you rate the structural accessibility of Delhi on following
parameters?
PARAMETER 1- Very poor 2 Poor 3- Average 4 - Good 5- Excellent
Sidewalks
Road Dividers
Zebra Crossings
Traffic Light
Signage System
DTC Buses

193
 Bus Stop
Other buses
Metro
Cabs
Auto Rickshaw
Cycle Rickshaw
Movie Halls
Historical Places
Parks
Educational Institutes
Medical Facility

2. The guidelines issued by Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and Unified Traffic and
Transportation and Infrastructure Planning and Engineering Centre (UTTIPEC) are relevant and
useful for ensuring accessibility in the built environment ?

a) Yes all of them b) Not all but most of them c) Only few of them
d) None of them e) I have not accessed the documents

3. The exercise of ensuring accessibility in the built environment fails at what level (Check all
that apply)
a) The implementation of guidelines while construction
b) The maintenance
c) The reluctance and ignorance of the engineers, contactors and space owner to follow the
guidelines
d) The lack of punitive measures against non-compliance
e) The lack of sensitization amongst people regarding the benefits and necessity of accessibility
f) The faulty guidelines
g) The proper understanding of disability
h) All of them

4. Which option from the above according to you must be addressed most of all while ensuring
accessibility?
a) Option a b) Option b c) Option c d) Option d e) Option e f) Option g)
Option g

5. Currently if a person with disability is not able to access any public facility or building can he
complaint regarding that?

a) Yes to ___________________________
b) No there is no authority that can be approached
c) Not sure

6. Making cities more disabled friendly can lead to better education and employment of the
people with disability?
a) Yes
b) No

194
7. Do we currently have a law under which non-compliance to accessibility standards leads to
punishment?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
____________________________

8. The attitudinal barriers can be attributed to what factors?

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__

9. Can you mention any good accessible practices (in India or abroad) that you have come
across and feel that can be replicated in our city as well?

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_____________________

10. Any recommendations to ensure accessibility in the built environment?

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

195
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

References

Bhatnagar, G. V., 2012. Bhikaji Cama Place a symbol of ‘utter disdain for public
property’: Accessibility audit. [Online]
Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/bhikaji-
cama-place-a-symbol-of-utter-disdain-for-public-property-accessibility-
audit/article4089345.ece?css=print
[Accessed 29 01 2015].
Bhatnagar, G. V., 2013. Friendly design,but unfriendly bus conductors. [Online]
Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/friendly-
design-but-unfriendly-bus-conductors/article4994244.ece?css=print
[Accessed 19 01 2015].
Chitlangia, R., 2014. Pavements of no use to disabled people. [Online]
Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Pavements-of-no-use-to-
disabled-people/articleshow/43187243.cms
[Accessed 19 01 2015].
Chowdhuy, S. R., 2014. Teacher’s fall belies Metro ‘accessibility’. [Online]
Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Teachers-fall-belies-Metro-
accessibility/articleshow/45129472.cms
[Accessed 19 01 2015].
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2008. Inclusion By Design :
Equality, Diversity and The Built Environment. UK: Commision for Architecture and
the Built Environment.
European Commision Expert Committe, 2003. 2010: A Europe Accessible For All,
s.l.: European Commission.
Fletcher, V., 2002. Universal Design, Human-Centered Design for the 21st Century.
Design, 02.

196
Ghai, A., 2002. Disabled Women:An Excluded Agenda of Indian Feminism. Hypatia,
17(3), pp. 49-66.
Gulati, S., 2014. The City Fails Them. [Online]
Available at: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/the-city-fails-them/99/
[Accessed 29 01 2015].
Imrie, R., 2014. Designing Inclusive Environments and the Significance of Universal
Design. In: Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments. London: Sage Publication,
pp. 287 - 296.
Indian Institute Of Tourism And Travel Management, Ministry of Tourism, 2010.
Problems And Prospects Of Accessible Tourism In India, Gwalior: Minstry of
Tourism.
International Centre for Evidence in Disability, 2014. The Telengana Disability Study,
India, s.l.: International Centre for Evidence in Disability.
Kerbler, B., 2012. A Toolkit for Detecting and Eliminating Barriers. METU Journal of
Architecture, 29(2), pp. 235-257.
Kleinitz, P., n.d. Including people with disabilities in poverty alleviation: why do it, and
how. [Online]
Available at:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2oKmMq4z9lUoH4A_yznHgx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByN2R
nanRxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NnMwR2dGlkAw--
/RV=2/RE=1423589432/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fsiteproxy.ruqli.workers.dev%3a443%2fhttp%2fwww.worldvision.com.au%2fLib
raries%2fME_2009_presentations%2fMEConf2009Pres_Including_people_wit
[Accessed 2015 02 04].
Michael Fembek, I. H. C. A. d. S. S. B. S. A. L., 2014. Zero Project Report 2014,
Austria: Essl Foundation.
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Department of Disability Affair, 2014.
Annual Report Swavlamban 2013-14, Delhi: Department of Disability Affair.
Ministry of Urban Development, n.d. Urban Transport Facility. [Online]
Available at: http://moud.gov.in/policies
[Accessed 28 01 2015].
Murthy Venkata S Gudlavalleti, N. J. A. J. S. S. K. S. R. a. S. I. D. E. S. G., 2014.
Access to health care and employment status of people with disabilities in South
India, the SIDE(South India Desiability Evidence) study. BMC Public Health,
14(1125).
Niyogi, S., 2012. Airlines insensitive towards disability. [Online]
Available at:
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEnt
ityToPrint_TOINEW&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-
custom&Path=TOIKM/2012/02/23&ID=Ar00501
[Accessed 29 01 2015].
Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 2013. CENSUS OF INDIA
2011 DATA ON DISABILITY, New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General & Census
Commissioner, India.

197
Rama Chari, S. B. a. P. V., 2009. Accessibility to Built Environment and Means of
Transport for People with Disabilities in India, s.l.: NCPDEP.
Salisbury District Council, 2007. Salisbury District Council Core Strategy Consultation
Draft : Creating an inclusive environment, s.l.: Salisbury District Council.
Satyamev Jayate Episode 3 Season 1. 2012. [Film] India: Star Plus.
Shenoy, M., 2011. PersonsWith Disability and the Indian Labour Market: Challenges
and Opportunities, s.l.: International Labour Organization.
Society for Disability and Rehablitation Studies, 2008. Employment of Persons With
Disabilities in Public Sectors in India - Emerging issues and trends, s.l.: Planning
Commission, Government of India.
Svayam, 2013. STATUS OF ACCESSIBILITY IN URBAN TRANSPORT, Delhi:
Svayam Foundation.
The Center For Universal Design, NC State University, 2008. Universal Design
History. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udhistory.htm
[Accessed 05 02 2015].
UNDP India, 2012. Livelihood Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, s.l.: UNDP.
UNICEF, 2013. Take us seriously ! Engaging Children with disabilities in decisions
affecting their lives, s.l.: UNICEF.
United Nations Population Fund, HelpAge International 2012, 2012. Ageing in the
Twenty-First Century:A Celebration and A Challenge, s.l.: United Nations Population
Fund, HelpAge International 2012.
United Nations, 2006. Convention on Rights of Person WIth Disabilities, s.l.: United
Nations.
UNNATI, Handicap International, 2008. Cvil Society Engagement for Mainstreaming
Disability in Development process , Ahemdabad: UNNATI , Handicap International.
Venter, C., 2002. Enhanced Accessibility for People with Disabilities living in urban
areas, s.l.: TRL LIMITED.
WHO, World Bank, 2011. World Report on Disability, s.l.: World Health Organization,
World Bank.
World Bank, 2007. People with Disabilities in India From Commitments to Outcomes,
s.l.: World Bank.
Zając, A. P., 2013. Public space that excludes: A case study of Warsaw. Berlin,
Germany, International RC21 Conference.

198
199