Universal Design as a Way of Thinking About Mobility

  • Jørgen AarhaugEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


The concept of universal design in reference to a strategy to counter social exclusion was first coined by the architect Ronald Mace. He defined Universal design (UD) as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design”. This paper will look into the use of UD as a policy objective for transport policy, using Norwegian experience as an example. UD was adopted as one of the four major policy objectives in Norwegian transport policy in 2009. However, from 2018 onwards UD is no longer a main policy objective. This experience with UD as a policy objective is used as an empirical backdrop for a more principal discussion on the usefulness of UD in transport and mobility. I conclude by pointing at UD as a useful vision, but difficult policy objective.


Universal design Disability Social inclusion Policy objectives Accessibility 



Sections of this paper draws on the work of Aarhaug and Elvebakk (2015).


  1. Aarhaug J, Elvebakk B (2015) The impact of Universally accessible public transport—a before and after study. Transp Policy 44(November):143–150. Scholar
  2. Aarhaug J, Gregersen FA (2016) Vinter, vær og funksjonsnedsettelser—en dybdeanalyse av RVU. TOI report 1543/2016Google Scholar
  3. Anthony RN (1988) The management control function. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Arsenjeva J (2017) Annotated review of European Union law and policy with reference todisability. Academic network of European Disability experts (ANED)Google Scholar
  5. Audirac I (2008) Accessing transit as universal design. J Plann Lit 23(1):4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burchardt T, Le Grand J, Piachaud D (1999) Social exclusion in Britain 1991–1995. Soc Policy Adm 33(3):227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cass N, Shove E, Urry J (2005) Social exclusion, mobility and access. Sociol Rev 539–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crews DE, Zavotka S (2006) Aging, disability and frailty: implications for universal design. J Phys Anthropol 25:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delbusc A, Currie G (2011) The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being. J Transp Geogr 19(2011):1130–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eurostat (2013) Population structure and ageing, available at Last Accessed on Nov 2013
  11. Fearnley N, Leiren MD, Skollerud KH, Aarhaug J (2010) Nytte av tiltak for universell utforming i kollektivtransporten. In: Selected Proceedings from the annual transport conference at Aalborg University. ISSN 1903-1092Google Scholar
  12. Fearnley N, Flügel S, Ramjerdi F (2011) Passengers’ valuations of universal design measures in public transport. In: Research in transportation business & management, vol 2. Elsevier, pp 83–91.
  13. Fearnley N, Aarhaug J, Flügel S, Eliasson J, Madslien A (2015) Measuring the patronage impact of soft quality factors in urban public transport. Paper presented to ITEA Annual conference and summer school (Kuhmo Nectar), Oslo, Norway, June 2015Google Scholar
  14. Hanson J (2004) The Inclusive City: delivering a more accessible human environment through inclusive design. Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University, Social Research in Transport (SORT) Clearinghouse, Jan 2004Google Scholar
  15. Herriot R (2011) Complexity and consultation—inclusive design in public transport projects. Include2011, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Mace R (1997) What is universal design. The center for universal design at North Carolina State University. Retrieved 19 Nov 1997Google Scholar
  17. Meld.St.26 (2013) Nasjonal transportplan 2014–23.
  18. Nordbakke S, Schwanen T (2015) Transport, unmet activity needs and wellbeing in later life: exploring the links. Transportation 42(6):1129–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nordbakke S, Skollerud K (2016) Transport, udekket aktivitetsbehov og velferd blant personer med nedsatt bevegelsesevne. TOI-report 1465/2016Google Scholar
  20. NPRA (2014) Universell utforming av veger og gater, håndbok V129. SVV.
  21. Odeck J, Hagen T, Fearnley N (2010) Economic appraisal of universal design in transport: experiences from Norway. In: Research in transportation economics, vol 30. Elsevier, pp 304–311.
  22. Øksenholt KV, Aarhaug J (2018) Public transport and people with impairments—exploring non-use of public transport through the case of Oslo, Norway. Disabil Society (in press).
  23. Preston J (2009) Epilogue: transport policy and social exclusion—some reflections. Transp Policy 16:140–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preston J, Rajé F (2007) Accessibility, mobility, and transport-related social exclusion. J Transp Geogr 15:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Priya T, Uteng A (2009) Dynamics of transport and social exclusion: effects of expensive driver’s license. Transp policy 16(3):130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rayle L, Dai D, Chan N, Cervero R, Shaheen S (2016) Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ride-sourcing services in San Francisco. Transp Policy 45:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rebstock M (2017) Economic benefits of improved accessibility to the transport systems and the role of transport in fostering tourism for all. Disscussion Paper 2017-04 ITF/OECDGoogle Scholar
  28. Schaller B (2017) Unsustainable? The growth of app-based ride services and traffic, travel, and the future of New York City. Schaller ConsultingGoogle Scholar
  29. Shakespeare T (2006) The social model of disability. In: The disability studies reader, vol 2. pp 197–204Google Scholar
  30. Skartland E-G, Skollerud K (2017). Universell utforming og brukermedvirkning i transportsektoren—en casestudie. TØI rapport 1570/2017Google Scholar
  31. Story M, Mueller J, Mace R (1998) The universal design file: designing for people of all ages and abilities. Des Res Methods J 1.1Google Scholar
  32. Tennøy A, Øksenholt KV, Fearnley N, Matthews B (2015) Standards for usable and safe environments for sight impaired. In: Municipal Engineer. pp 24–31. Scholar
  33. Thompson S (2017) Disability prevalence and trends. K4D Helpdesk Report. Institute of Development Studies, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nations (2006) convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. accessed 15 Nov 2017
  35. Van de Velde D (2004) Reference framework for analyzing targeted competitive tendering in public transport. TØI-report 730/2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Transport EconomicsOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations