Imagine you could travel to only 1% of the city where you live – areas that were easily accessible to other residents. The main problem is it’s not the bus system itself that’s inaccessible. It’s all the infrastructure around it such as footpaths and kerb ramps. That’s the claim by researchers in Columbus, Ohio.
“People with mobility disabilities need to get to and from bus stops to use public transportation, and that isn’t easy in many parts of the city.”
The study of wheelchair users who rely on public transport, found that powered wheelchair users were a little better off than manual users. The researchers used high-resolution, real-time data on the usage of buses by people with and without disabilities.
In one analysis, the researchers found how many of the bus stops could get users to various places in the city within 30 minutes. Manual wheelchair users had 75% fewer bus stops they could use compared with non-disabled users. For powered wheelchair users, they experienced 59% fewer stops. Even when they gave them more time to complete the journey, it was little better. That means wheelchair users are confined to self-segregated parts of the city.
Public transit is not a business, it is not just a social service. It is crucial urban infrastructure and footpaths are part of that.
The title of the article is, Why buses can’t get wheelchair users to most areas of cities.
The research paper is titled, Disparities in public transit accessibility and usage by people with mobility disabilities. You will need institutional access for a free read.
From the abstract
Many people with mobility disabilities rely on public transit to access crucial resources and maintain social interactions. However, they face higher barriers to accessing and using public transit.
We used high-resolution public transit real-time vehicle data, passenger count data, and paratransit usage data from 2018 to 2021 to estimate and compare transit accessibility and usage of people with and without mobility disabilities. We found significant disparities wheelchair users’ accessibility relative to people without disabilities.
The city center has the highest accessibility and ridership, as well as the highest disparities in accessibility. We also find that people with reduced mobility using a fixed-route service are more sensitive to weather conditions. Most will ride in the middle of the day rather than during peak hours.
The spatial pattern of bus stop usage by people with disability is different to people without disabilities. This suggests their destination choices are driven by access concerns.
Bus and tram stops by universal design
Public transport is often perceived as an inefficient way to travel, especially in terms of time taken. Not good for customer service or engagement. A research paper reports on a detailed analysis of bus and tram stop positioning using a holistic universal design approach.
A common story
“To get from my house to the nearest restaurant is a mile-and-a-half walk, which takes me about 30 minutes each way. To get to the same restaurant by bus, I must walk half a mile, then cross a heavily traveled arterial street with no pedestrian protection to arrive at the nearest stop (it’s unprotected) for a route that passes the restaurant.
“Once the bus arrives, I have to ask the driver where the bus is going, since there’s no signage at the stop, pay the fare, and then watch as the bus stops six times in the remaining mile, all of those stops on the same arterial street I just crossed to board the bus. It takes me 10 minutes to walk the half-mile to the bus stop, and according to the Met Transit schedule, it takes the bus another 20 minutes to negotiate the remaining mile to the restaurant, so walking or riding the bus are equivalent in terms of time spent. It’s the sort of bus service that encourages people to drive a car instead.”
Placement and design are critical
The article addresses the placement and design of the stops in detail. There’s some joined up thinking for the eighteen elements identified including: safety, convenience, lighting, routing patterns, width of footpaths and pedestrian activity. The pros and cons of different stop placements are listed in a table. Service frequency and faster travel times were more highly regarded than add-ons, such as WiFi and USB ports. Shelters at stops and up to date information were critical design elements.
A transit stop in itself serves more than one purpose: it signals the presence of a transit service, information about the service, information about surrounding destinations, and a place to wait. This article draws together the many elements that transport designers should consider in providing, what is in essence, a good customer service experience.
The title of the article is: Urban Design of On-Street Stops and Road Environments: A Conceptual Framework.
From the abstract
Transit stops should be situated where they are convenient to use and the safety of passengers and alternative road users has been taken into consideration.
On-street stops and their connecting roads are viewed as a holistic environment, instead of an ordinary place or location to make a stop. This environment includes elements such as: Accessibility through street connectivity, street and road design, and transit stop design. This paper develops a conceptual model that links the various variables together. It highlights how one affects the other and their impact on the overall ability to produce a good passenger experience.
Transit stops are easier to locate when there is high street connectivity which determines how transit passengers gain access to a transit service. The design and configuration of on-street stops and connecting roads lead to increased safety, thereby leading to increased ridership.