## 4 Results
### Case Study
Figure 5: Observed variables in Francia station: (**a**) during the MPH period; (**b**) during the APH period. international and national manuals from the literature review. As shown in Table 2, the platform meets 18 of the accessibility standards (43 in total), which affects the travel experience. Additionally, 11 accessibility standards were recorded as \"not applicable\", since those elements do not exist in the station. In this way, it could be said that the platform at Francia station meets 56% of accessibility standards. This value is obtained according to Equation (1). This method of measuring accessibility at the platform could serve as an example of how to establish a framework and replicate it in other metro stations. \[\text{Platform accessibility index}=\frac{\text{standards registered as \"yes\"}}{\left(\text{total standards -- standards registered as \"not applicable\"}\right)} \tag{1}\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Physical Element** & **Standard Description to Achieve Accessibility** & **Yes/No** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{The platform must be paved (asphal or ceramic pavement)} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{with a minimum width of 3.0 m.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{The platform width must provide enough space for a 360\({}^{\circ}\)} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{turn of a wheelchair (with a minimum diameter of 1.5 m).} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{In case of uneven levels between the platform access and the platform, it must be resolved with ramps having a maximum} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{slope of 10\%.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{In case ramps are incorporated, they should ideally have} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{handrails at double height.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{The maximum cross slope should not exceed 2\%.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{The platform surface must be slip-resistant.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Pedestrian crossing of the railway line at platform level with a} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{minimum width of 3 m} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Curb cuts at the pedestrian crossing of the railway line with a} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{maximum longitudinal slope of 10\% (ideal 8\%) and a} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{No} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{maximum cross slope of 2\%.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Waiting area with a minimum width of 3 m before the pedestrian crossing of the railway line at platform level.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Footbridge for pedestrian crossing with sufficient width for a} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{360\({}^{\circ}\) turn of a wheelchair (minimum diameter of 1.5 m).} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Footbridge for pedestrian crossing of the railway line with a} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{maximum longitudinal slope of 8\%.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Not applicable} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{The platform must have a specially marked waiting area with} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{a contrasting color to indicate that it is an exclusive zone for} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{people with reduced mobility to wait for the train’s arrival. Its} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{width and length should allow for a 360\({}^{\circ}\) turn of one or more} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{wheelchairs (with a minimum diameter of 1.5 m).} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Additionally, it may have flow-line markings to indicate} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{queues and separation for those boarding or alighting from} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{the train.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Guiding pavement with longitudinal stripes 0.4 m wide.} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{No} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Tactile pavement} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Warning pavement at the edge of the platform, in a} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{contrasting color to the rest of the platform, with a tactile} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Two button-like texture, 0.4–0.8 m wide.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The accessibility standards measured at the platform in Francia station. \begin{table}