Category: Transportation

A literature review from Norway takes an older person’s view of transport equity and accessibility. Being able get out and about on a daily basis to shop, visit friends, and medical appointments is essential for everyone. As people age, this ability becomes even more important in terms of maintaining health and independence. The review proposes that local government implement universal design for mobility.

Older people who do not have access to private transport need to use public transport. Yet they face barriers in the built environment and public transportation infrastructure such as:

The research paper covers the method for the literature review and the search terms used. A three tiered system is one way of solving the problem. First, a traditional fixed route service that suits people with no, or low level limitations. Second, fixed route services offering some flexibility with low floor buses. The third option is a special transport service. The bottom line is that a “one size fits all” is not the answer.

Implementing an equitable mobility design involves an integrated method to address the weaknesses of traditional design approaches. However, this requires a user-centred approach that involves older peoples’ requirements. Hence a universal design approach with co-design methods.

Conclusions

The research paper compares policies and strategies in the UK, Canada and European countries. Investment at a local level is essential for features such as wind shelters, accessible vehicles, level footpaths, and appropriate ways to provide transport information.

Another paper that recommends that the design of public spaces should consider older people at the outset of the design. That is, they should involve older people in the design and redesign of pedestrian and walkway networks. The findings highlight how to employ universal design for mobility equity and compare mobility policies for older people.

The title of the paper is, Exploring mobility equity, equality, and accessibility for older people in the local environment.

From the abstract

People above 65 years of age often have limits to accessing the local environment and participation in society. Their ability to travel independently and freely to participate in society is crucial for their quality of life. The question of how to maintain mobility equity and equality for older people is, however, a complex one.

This is because older people are often faced with physical barriers around the public transportation and built environment. Municipalities have not involved older people in the design of mobility accessibility initiatives.

The findings from our study present factors influencing local environment in achieving mobility equity from the perspectives of older people. Evidence underpins guidelines grounded in a universal design framework to help inform urban transport policies.

Age Friendly Ecosystems: A book

This book examines age friendliness from a place-based approach. It looks at neighbourhoods, campuses and health environments. The topics covered are:

The book emphasises the connection between design and health, examines the age-friendly movement and resources for equity and environmental justice. The full title is, Age-Friendly Ecosystems for Equitable Aging by Design. This is not open access.

Most people need a toilet every 2 to 3 hours. Anyone with a health condition that affects the bladder or bowels usually needs a toilet more often. And it’s surprising how many health conditions that includes. Consequently, no clean public toilets means no going out for more than an hour. The role of public toilets is far more important than many urban and transit planners realise.

A Norwegian study looked at the depth of the issues from the perspective of people with digestive and urinary tract disorders when travelling. They wanted to come up with solutions for this group as it would include the needs of most others.

Previous studies have looked at toilet design, particularly for people with mobility restrictions. The recommendations are based on accessible toilet facilities, signage and information. However, this is not enough to create a universally designed public environment.

Main barriers

The main barriers for people with gastrointestinal problems is the physical need for a toilet, anxiety and pain. This group might need a toilet as much as 20 times a day depending on whether they are having a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ day. What makes it more difficult is that they can become unwell during a journey. Using a car becomes a better option at times.

The research paper covers the three main barriers in more detail. The stories from participants are illuminating and highlight the need for better toilet provision. Participants discussed the differences between trams, subways, light rail, trains, ferries, buses and aircraft.

People with an increased need for a toilet have an invisible disability. Their level of pain sometimes means they would like improvements such as using disabled seating in station areas. The most critical factor is to increase toilet availability as a means of creating universally designed public transit systems.

This study shows why improving the design of buses and trains, stations and stops is insufficient to make transit systems universally designed. Toilets are an essential aspect of being able to travel often and comfortably.

The title of the paper is, The role of toilets in public spaces: An interview study with individuals experiencing gastrointestinal issues. Some of the toilet availability issues are specific to Norway, and perhaps similar in other European countries. In Australia public toilets are free to use and do not require payment. Nevertheless, an illuminating study on why we must join the dots for an inclusive world.

The New South Wales Parliament has extended the submission date on its Inquiry Into Public Toilets. The closing date is now 2 December 2024.

From the abstract

This Norwegian study addresses the issue of inadequate access to toilets in public spaces and transportation systems, particularly individuals who have heightened needs of toilets. The study interviewed individuals experiencing various gastrointestinal issues, including bladder-related problems.

Telephone interviews avoided potential travel difficulties and also leveraged previous successes with sensitive topics. A sample size of 10 interviews was chosen based on prior research indicating that key themes typically emerge within this range.

Key findings indicate significant barriers to participation in societal activities due to insufficient toilet facilities. For transport in particular, boats and trains emerge as preferred modes over buses, trams and subways due to the presence of onboard toilets.

Notably, urban areas, parks and beaches suffer from a lack of restroom facilities. In order to improve these facilities, informants highlighted measures such as provision of open, hygienic toilets with barrier-free access. These measures also need clear signage and awareness campaigns regarding toilet facilities tailored to individuals with diverse health needs.

The study highlights the critical role of toilets in maintaining public health and acknowledges the right to access toilets as recognised by the United Nations.

Testimonials from individuals with disabilities underscore the profound impact of toilet accessibility on their daily lives. They reveal instances of social isolation and restricted activities due to inadequate facilities. Proposed interventions encompass improved hygiene standards, increased toilet availability, and enhanced staff training to cater to the diverse needs of users. The study advocates for legislative reforms and policy guidelines to address the pressing issue of toilet accessibility, aiming to foster inclusivity and equal participation in public life for individuals with disabilities

Toilets and social participation

Public toilets are not dinner party conversation, but they are essential to our wellbeing. They are costly to build and maintain yet we need more of them. They also need to be fit for purpose because they are about social and economic participation. The Changing Places toilet campaign is a case in point. There wouldn’t be many people passionate about public toilets, but Katherine Webber had plenty to say at the UD2021 Conference. 

Katherine’s presentation was titled, Access and Inclusion in Public Toilets: Impacts on social and economic participation. The presentation slides show lots of different examples. Toilet design is often dismissed as just needing to be functional and designs vary little. But public toilets are “difficult to get right. And no wonder. They are mired in cultural baggage, struck in the fixedness of fixtures and bound by massive, often ancient infrastructure (Lowe 2018:49). 

Public amenities also support tourism and economic development, night-time economy, and access to public spaces and public art. Toilets also need good signage, clean conditions and be regularly available .

Katherine describes more in her written paper on this topic based on her studies in other countries as part of a Churchill Fellowship.

Are the lives of children really considered in our planning processes? The main reason for not walking to school is not the distance. There are several other factors at play here, particularly safety. However, getting to school and other activities is not a priority in land use and transport planning. Consequently, many schools are not conveniently and safely accessible by footpath or public transport. Result – they are reliant on cars.

Hulya Gilbert and Ian Woodcock discuss the issues in an article in The Fifth Estate. Road trauma is the leading cause of death for 1-14 year olds. That’s one issue. The other is that using the car for safety and convenience reduces physical activity. Getting to school on foot is good for gaining independence and opens up opportunities for social interaction.

School drop-off danger zone

Poor planning on the placement of schools often results in chaotic and dangerous school drop-offs. Gilbert and Woodcock say the afternoon pick ups are the most dangerous of all. Local school travel plans attempt to overcome some of the issues, but it is a piecemeal approach.

An alternative approach: Child Friendly Index

With a focus on population ageing there is a risk of leaving children out of urban planning decisions. However, what is good for children is good for everyone. Gilbert and Woodcock have devised a Child-Friendliness Index which combines social and built environment attributes. The Index demonstrates that areas with higher levels of friendliness have higher levels of walking, cycling and public transport when accessing schools.

The Index enhances understanding of what attributes make a ‘local school’. It provides concrete pointers towards specific actions and interventions. As such it supports the development of clear polices so that children can reach a wider range of environments.

Once again, designing for a marginalised group has benefits for everyone. Children should always be part of a universal design approach. Their experiences matter too.

The title of the magazine article is, Rethinking the school drop off: an effective and lasting approach.

The title of the research paper is, Is School Travel too Complex to Handle Without a Car? Assessing “Child-Friendliness” as a Pathway to Reducing Private Car use for Children’s Transport.

Pedestrians and cyclists sharing space is based on the idea of everyone being socially responsible. It’s expected that whoever is present in the space will politely negotiate the right of way. That’s because there are few, if any traffic controls, barriers or road markings. More recently, shared space has come under scrutiny because some pedestrians avoid such routes. So what are the preferences for shared space design? Researchers in Germany used a video-based survey to find out.

For some people who do not drive or own a car, a bike is a good way to get around. However, everyone needs to feel safe. Safety is all down to perception and that’s why dedicated lanes for pedestrians, bikes and cars is the optimum.

The title of the article is, Exploring pedestrian and cyclist preferences for shared space design: A video-based online survey. There’s a lot of detail in this paper.

From the abstract

The results indicate that pedestrians and cyclists do favour similar attributes and space configurations. Both find motor vehicles undesirable, but they hold a positive view of the central placement of design elements and protective barriers.

Do Bike Lanes Slow Traffic?

Compared to many other countries, Australia has a low rate of bike riding. Researchers from Swinburne and Melbourne universities decided to check out the issue of cycling infrastructure. That’s because cities that prioritise cycling infrastructure have higher rates of people cycling. But there is community resistance to this infrastructure with comments such as bike lanes slow traffic

The researchers used a modelling technique to find out if retrofitting separate bike lanes into residential streets slowed traffic. When done well, it increased car travel times by 7%. Cycling times increased marginally due to avoiding streets without bike lanes.

Images from the article. Cycle lanes are narrow (less than 0.6 m wide) with no physical separation by a concrete kerb. (left) Kensington and (right) Collins Street Melbourne.

Reduction in vehicle speeds are another key factor, but this alone does not prevent traffic injuries for cyclists. Running into car doors due to poor separation is the reason for most accidents. Safe and separated cycling lanes are good for pedestrians too, especially those who fear shared paths.

The title of the article is, Do Safe Bike Lanes Really Slow Down Cars? A Simulation-Based Approach to Investigate the Effect of Retrofitting Safe Cycling Lanes on Vehicular Traffic. There is much more to this research project to digest.

From the abstract

This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. That’s because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.

This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. This is because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.

We investigated the effects on traffic behaviour of retrofitting safe, separate cycling lanes into existing residential streets in a Melbourne suburb. We utilised only the widths available on the existing roadway of these streets.

Travel demand was modelled using travel demand that suits suburban trips to services and shops. We also selectively applied separate cycling lanes to suitable residential streets and varied the effect of lowering speed limits.

Simulations showed at worst case the selective inclusion of safe cycling lanes leads to a 7% increase in the average car travel times. And cyclists only increase their travel distance marginally to avoid streets without dedicated cycling lanes.