Beyond the standardization trap: A critical quantitative perspective on disabilities across transit and public spaces

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the discrepancies between conceived and perceived accessibility. A particularly recurrent critique of accessibility as conceived through planning and measurement standards is that it tends to misjudge the actual difficulties experienced by individuals. This ambivalence must be addressed, as it shapes how decision-makers interpret accessibility issues and ultimately influence policy priorities. In this empirical study, conducted with a panel of persons with reduced mobility—who are particularly affected—we question how citizen participation can advance accessibility policies. Focusing on Greater Strasbourg in France, we first establish a typology of constraints encountered in transit and public spaces. We then attempt to evaluate accessibility inequalities using GTFS data as well as local records on transit vehicles, stops, and the surrounding street network. To better understand common experiences, we developed an interactive atlas mapping the meso-level effects of observed hindrances on travel conditions. Finally, we question the prioritization of accessibility improvements. The proposed methodology, combining exploratory and convergent designs, is structured around three interlinked phases: (i) go-along interviews to document perceptions and inform metric adjustments; (ii) a constraint-based assessment of inequalities in access to the city; and (iii) focus groups and workshops with stakeholders to discuss the results and potential solutions. The local knowledge produced feeds into a broader reflection on prioritization practice in accessibility planning that has relevance beyond the specific context studied. We conclude by discussing the persistent lock-in effects produced by information asymmetries among stakeholders, and the diverging agendas of public transport operators and local governments.