Category: Transportation

Gender inclusive transit planning

Data on travel behaviours is essential in transit planning, but are there some gaps in whose data are collected. Without knowing the specific travel behaviours of women it is not possible to know how they differ from men. Consequently, it is not possible to include the travel needs of women in transit planning. So the key to gender inclusive transit planning is to separate their travel data from that of men.

Gender-inclusive public transportation systems that are safe, reliable, and affordable are crucial in ensuring women’s access to education, economic security, childcare, and health services, thereby contributing to gender equality.

A young woman is sitting in a seat on a bus. She is wearing sunglasses and listening to her phone.

The voices of women

A study in the US compares nine transit agencies to see how they gather data for gender inclusive planning. Agencies that have separated women from men in data gathering techniques have enhanced their services and updated their policies. And it’s not just about surveying women. Hearing their stories and voices is essential as well.

“It helps you better understand the community who is going to be impacted by a project, when you hear it in their own voices and the way that they speak, rather than me trying to talk about a woman’s experience while crossing the street with her four-year-olds.” Study participant

A small child is reaching into a woman's hand and the look like they are walking together.

Partnering and consulting with advocacy groups is another technique that provides additional and essential information. This helps with revealing mobility patterns and disparities in service quality across demographic groups.

Down to the design

The paper covers vehicle and station design, safety and security enhancements, and inclusive infrastructure design. Operational practices and service policies include increasing the frequency of off-peak services. Hospitals function with shift workers, the majority of whom are women. Increasing night-time services for these routes makes sense. One agency increased their night-time services and thereby increased the number female riders.

Having the evidence is one thing, but in the end it is the staff that implement policies. Consequently, staff training in using this evidence is critical. From an operational perspective, staff need to recognise discrimination and violence for both riders and female staff. In terms of safety, one solution is to shorten train cars which makes them easier to supervise.

Gender inclusive planning good for men too

Agencies are mindful that what is good for women is also good for men. Fathers travelling with children also benefit from stroller policies. While the term “gender-inclusive” is used to focus on women, people who are non-binary or gender diverse also benefit.

Resistance to change

Staff, management and the public are resistance to change. One way to overcome this is to have more women in decision-making roles. However, it is not difficult for resisters to slow down necessary changes. This is also the case in updating transit planning and design guides to reflect the needs of women.

The title of the paper is, Mind the Gender Gap: A Case Study Analysis of Transit Policies and Design Guidelines for Gender-Inclusive Transit Planning.

Or you can see the full thesis that underpins this paper.

From the abstract

Women typically engage in shorter, more complex trips due to caregiving and household responsibilities. They often face additional challenges such as safety concerns and inadequate infrastructure for strollers and belongings.

This research includes interviews with staff from nine transit agencies about practices, and an analysis of five transit design and operations manuals. Key findings reveal progress in gender-sensitive data collection and design initiatives. That’s despite significant barriers, including resource limitations, resistance to change, and infrastructural constraints.

While some agencies have made advancements, transit design manuals do not include explicit gender sensitive principles. Recommendations offer valuable insights for agencies aiming to create equitable and inclusive transportation environments.

Gender inclusion: not code for ‘women’

The term ‘diversity’ is often used in workplaces as code for people from different cultural backgrounds. But it is more than this. Likewise, gender diversity is not code for women. Image courtesy Teenvogue

A colourful graphic of five women with male and female symbols over them indicating gender diversity.

Kiri Crossland’s short piece on Linked In is about gender equity in transport. Focusing on the inequities between women and men serves to reinforce the gender binary. As more people become comfortable about declaring their non-binary identity, they will become more visible. Consequently, this is not an issue to ignore and we need to adapt binary style thinking.

Crossland gives an example of how some women can feel safer on public transport with uniformed officers present. However, trans people are often the subject of negative experiences with police.  Consequently, making women feel safe is not the answer for everyone. Transport equity needs four things.

Transport equity

Transport equity needs four things.

  • Collect data: what kind of trips do gender non-conforming people make? How do they differ? Why?
  • Challenge your assumptions and that of colleagues: engage with people with have a different lived experiences.
  • Hire a gender diverse workforce: having people with lived experience to hand keeps keeps the thinking on track
  • Support interest groups for gender equity: Crossland says she is keen to work with other queer people in the transport sector.

Crossland says, “I’m sick of reading statistics about gender and cycling uptake which only measure women cyclists. I’m sick of attending webinars about gender diversity in transport which reduce trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people to a single line at the beginning of the webinar when they mention “other identities”.

The title of the article is, “Gender diversity”​ shouldn’t be code for “women”.  ​

Everyone who thinks they belong to the “us” (not left out ) group has a responsibility to understand they have privilege and do something with it.

The Teenvogue.com website has some simple tips on How to use gender neutral words.

Editor’s comment: When we talk of diversity we shouldn’t think of ‘left out groups’. That’s an ‘us including them’ approach. (Who is us anyway?) We should think ‘humanity’ in all its forms, colours, beliefs, sizes, ages, genders, wealth, geography, politics, and capabilities. Almost all people belong to multiple ‘left out groups’ at any one time.

Active travel design

The aim of South Australia’s Active Travel Design Guide is to provide design principles for a more inclusive and sustainable future for all who walk and wheel. However, the guide could have benefitted from more than one page on accessibility.

“This Guide aims to enhance design outcomes for people walking and wheeling, simplifying the process of designing for active travel and promoting uniformity in outcomes across South Australia.”

Front cover of the Active Travel Design Guide showing walkers, a cyclist and a wheelchair user.

For clarity, cycling and e-mobility are terms for ‘wheeling’, and the term pedestrian includes wheelchair users. Inclusive design is explained under the heading of ‘universal access’ which is given one page. The seven principles of universal design are presented without introduction alongside a few additional dot points. “Children, seniors and people with disabilities” are listed as vulnerable pedestrians. Such terminology continues to segregate and perpetuate stereotyping by measuring them against a mythical norm.

The list of bullet points for design considerations are good for everyone. The next iteration of the document should weave these throughout the document. It is too easy to forget the diverse nature of pedestrians in design processes that include numerous technical specifications. Inclusion by exception is not inclusiveness.

The section on road intersections provides different treatments for where people, vehicles and bicycles come together. The orange markings indicates an infrastructure element. The green indicates pavement marking is applicable. Image from the Guide. (Looks like a kerb ramp is missing.)

Diagram of a signalised protected intersection from the Active Travel Guide. It shows the road layout of pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle areas.

Well structured and comprehensive

The structure of the Guide makes it easy to reference the different sections. Photographs of places and streets give light relief, and the diagrams, line drawings and charts illustrate concepts. Wheelchair and mobility scooter users feature in one set of drawings but are absent from all other parts of the document. The number of photographs featuring cyclists emphasise the focus on cycling as the key to active travel in this guide.

The Guide covers all aspects of road and street design and has sections on:

  • Movement and Place
  • Road safety
  • Basic dimensions
  • Walking facilities
  • Cycling facilities
  • Intersections
  • Greening
  • Shared streets
View of a shared street for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Street trees are also present.

Kerbless streets, or shared streets, are where a diverse range of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists find ways of avoiding each other. Kerbs clearly delineate and separate traffic from pedestrians. Consequently, the lack of kerbs is a problem for children, and people using a guide dog or a cane for mobility. In some cases, it makes the street unusable for some people and can lead to journeys not made.

The South Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport published The Active Travel Design Guide. It is based on technical documents rather than any co-design or community consultation methods.

Getting to school: the car or the footpath?

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.

Traffic, personal safety, convenience in busy schedules, lack of safe, reliable public transport are key issues. Consequently, driving is seen as the only viable option to ensure children arrive safely and on time.

A small boy wearing jeans and a large red backpack is walking away from the camera on a gravel path in a park. He could be walking to school.

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.

Preferences for shared space design

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.

Shared space revolves around integrating different road users into a common physical space. 408 participants evaluated different case designs and considered the placement of street furniture. Image of a street in Frankfurt, Germany.

A street in Frankfurt Germany with old and new buildings, a wide footpath with bollards on the kerbside and bike racks on one side of the road.

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

This paper explores the preferences of pedestrians and cyclists for shared space design. It looks at configurations that emphasise the sense of place, integration, and informal segregation. In an online survey, 408 participants experienced videos of virtual environments with different designs. They were asked to assess various attributes and their influence on the perception of the space and crossing behaviour.

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.

Two street images showing bike lanes for cyclists, pedestrian footpaths and a roadway.

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

Cycling is a sustainable transportation mode that provides many health, economic and environmental benefits. Cities with high rates of cycling can better address challenges of densification, and carbon-neutral goals. Participation rates in Australian cities are critically low and declining.

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.

Pedestrians: Are guidelines inclusive?

Do footpath and crossing retrofits actually encourage walking for all people? Are guidelines inclusive of all potential walkers (and wheelers)? Are planners using statistical modelling to guide retrofit decisions. Or are they using the lived experience of pedestrians? New research offers insights into how to improve current guidelines for pedestrians.

Three New Zealand researchers decided to check out the walkability characteristics of crossings to provide insights for retrofits. Then they looked at whether local design guidelines were providing appropriate advice.

Research highlights are:

• Encouraging walking requires addressing experienced barriers.

•We objectively characterised pedestrian crossings perceived as barriers to walking.

• We compared characteristics with local design guidelines and Healthy Streets.

•Technical documents not specific enough to inform retrofit.

A red traffic sign in a street saying stop. Beneath the red sign is a yellow sign with a black stick person indicating a pedestrian on a crossing.

The 56 interview participants were aged 20 to 89 years and living in Auckland. Almost half had some difficulty with either walking, seeing, hearing, or remembering. They reported the attributes that made walking trips difficult or unpleasant, or discouraged them from walking.

Non-signalised crossings were the most frequent barrier mentioned and would fail the Healthy Streets Check assessment. Tight cornering radii, complexity, traffic volumes and speed were also factors in making walking difficult or unpleasant. The authors explain more about this in their article.

Guidelines – how useful are they for inclusive planning?

Guidelines mostly focus on best practice, naming all the aspects that should ideally be in place for a “walkable” environment. However, aspects that could be perceived as barriers are absent from the guidelines. For planners, knowing what to improve first makes for a difficult decision process.

The title of the study is, Pedestrian crossings: Design recommendations do not reflect users’ experiences in a car-dominated environment in Auckland, New Zealand Highlights.

From the abstract

Pedestrian crossings are a key feature both in terms of risk of road trauma and impacts on pedestrian experience. In car-dominated environments, retrofitting existing infrastructure to enable and encourage walking is a challenge. It is unclear what difficulties people experience and whether current design guidelines encompass these.

This study aims to provide a real-world perspective on local design guidelines and the Healthy Streets metrics. We use objective measures of the built environment and users’ perceptions of unfeasibility or difficulty.

Interview participants considered non-signalised crossing points as barriers to access. The Healthy Streets metrics are not set up to enable cities to easily identify these difficult crossings.

These findings provide information needed to improve local guidelines and Healthy Streets metrics to enable them to support proactive retrofit.

Walkability Improvement Tool


Queensland’s Walkability Improvement Tool is part of their healthy and active communities strategy. It’s about retrofitting neighbourhood enhancements – not an easy task. The key elements are connectivity, block lengths, footpaths, parks or open space, and one street tree every 15 metres.

Five graphics in a row. Connectivity, Block Lengths, Footpaths, Park or OpenSpace, and Street Trees.

The advice includes identifying the primary audience for the improvement. Examples are given such as schools, shopping precincts and public transport nodes. However, children don’t just go to schools and shoppers don’t just go to shops. The danger of focusing on a single audience is that others risk getting left out of the designs. The result is journeys not made.

Older people and people with disability live in all neighbourhoods which include school zones and shopping precincts. Therefore, “special” treatments are needed for connectivity for everyone across neighbourhoods. One missing kerb ramp, street crossing or footpath is enough to discourage walking.

The retrofitting challenge

Many Queenslanders are living in established communities which are unwalkable, with few footpaths, unconnected street layouts and few street trees to provide shade and shelter. People walk for health and wellbeing, relaxation and recreation, and as a transport option for short trips.

People are deterred from walking because of inadequate or no footpaths, safety concerns, insufficient shade, very long blocks.

Infographic with six things that would encourage Queensladers to walk more.

Footpaths

The desktop analysis stresses the importance of footpaths but only on one side of the street in residential areas. Nevertheless, this will be an improvement in areas where no footpaths exist. Footpaths also need lighting, shade trees and kerb ramps, and to be clear of vegetation. A line of concrete is insufficient in itself to encourage walking.

a concrete footpath with grass encroaching from both edges and in between the cracks. Attempts were made to grind down the raised edges in the concrete.

Observations of pedestrian and vehicle counts are useful, but they do not measure pedestrians who use the car because the neighbourhood is not walkable or wheelable for them. It doesn’t measure those who stay home and get their goods delivered. Similarly surveys must have accessible questionnaires in different formats to capture the diverse experiences of pedestrians.

Images illustrate some of the difficulties in providing footpaths such as the location of stormwater drains, narrow verges, and large street trees. The Walkability Improvement Tool is a downloadable assessment tool.

Walking in Sydney

The City of Sydney has updated its strategy and action plan for walking in Sydney. It begins with a note on terminology. Walking covers people using any means to mobilise on a footpath other than a bicycle or an e-scooter. Children can continue to cycle on footpaths.

Because street and transport designers have traditionally left out mobility device users, other terms have crept into use such as ‘walking and wheeling’. Adding ‘wheeling’ is a reminder to designers to remember everyone and design universally. It is easy to forget this unless specific reminders appear regularly in policies and plans, not just as a note at the beginning.

Hierarch of walking needs in Sydney. 1. Can I walk? 2. am I safe to walk? 3. Am I comfortable walking? 4. Am I having fun walking?

The key to the walking strategy is the hierarchy of walking needs from Can I walk? to Do I want to walk? Wanting to walk is the aim if we are to be less reliant on cars. Making not just possible, but enjoyable and comfortable is essential. The hierarchy is shown below and is used to frame the City’s strategy and principles.

Raised pedestrian crossings are good for pedestrians and serve to reduce the speed of traffic. That is, as long as they are designed to access standards. Continuous footpath treatments create visually distinct pathways across side roads and driveways. They indicate that people walking have the right of way, not the vehicles.

A City for Walking Strategy and Action Plan: Continuing the Vision addresses street design, traffic calming and pedestrian amenity. Footpaths are essential, but there are other necessary features to encourage and support walking. Toilets, seating, wayfinding and lighting are important too.

Public toilets

The City of Sydney plans to install public toilets within 400m of any point within Central Sydney. Village centres, and major neighbourhood parks will also have toilets. The planned toilets are unisex wheelchair accessible.

Interior of the new automated public toilets showing wheelchair circulation space and transfer rails, wheelchair accessible sink with sensor operated taps and fold-up baby change table.

Interior of the new automated public toilets showing wheelchair circulation space and transfer rails, wheelchair accessible sink with sensor operated taps and fold-up baby change table. Walking in Sydney.

The strategy has interesting information in graphs and case studies. The speed limit change from 50 m/h to 40 km/h in the city centre continues to reduce crashes significantly.

Road space allocation is not fair

Some of Sydney’s busiest footpaths have as much traffic as some motorways. 85% of people are walking but only get 40% of the space.

And note, designs such as kerbless shared spaces are not good for everyone, especially people who are blind or have low vision.

Bus stops: pedestrians and cyclists

We are all encouraged to leave the car at home and walk or cycle more. However, road and street infrastructure was built at a time when vehicle movements were the focus. That means a lot of retrofitting and work-arounds are needed now. The intersection of bus stops, pedestrians and cyclists is a good example of this vexed issue. The Living Streets report reviews the literature and the status of cycle tracks in the UK. The case studies in the appendices are highly instructive.

Are infrastructure designs for bus stops with cycle tracks making streets less inclusive? Image from Inclusive design at bus stops, by Living Streets.

graphic showing one design of a cycleway bypass at a bus stop.

What do you do when a cycle lane continues past a bus stop? What do pedestrians do and what do cyclists do? Who has right of way? Are design solutions inclusive? Living Streets in the UK investigated these questions and produced a report.

The most consistent concerns were reported by people who are blind or have low vision. But other pedestrians have problems too. Confusion reigns over who has the right of way on cycle tracks that are not part of the footpath or carriageway.

 Several design options were studied and four are presented in the report in the image below. 

Four bus stop designs for cyclist bus stop bypasses.

The researchers found that it was not possible to choose one design over another. While they provide a useful framework, they don’t solve all the design problems in the real world. Consequently, this leads to case-by-case solutions, not a one-size-fits-all ruling or guide.   

The main factors

Some of the main factors are whether:

  • The cycle track passes in front of, behind, or between, elements of the bus stop area.
  • Passengers wait on an island or on an ordinary stretch of the pavement, and whether they alight onto the cycle track, near the cycle track, or onto an obvious island
  • A bus stop island is part of something bigger (e.g. with multiple shelters, seats, trees, etc), smaller and well defined (e.g. dominated by a single bus shelter), or so small and/or insignificant that people wouldn’t wait on it.
  • Cycle tracks are one-way or two-way (unidirectional / bi-directional).
  • A bus stop island is separated from the rest of the pavement by a cycle track, by a road, or by some less conventional access arrangement (e.g. mostly used by cyclists, but open to some other vehicles)
  • Pedestrians are crossing an area of cycle track, cyclists are crossing an area of pavement, or whether cyclists and pedestrians both cross something that feels to be neither quite part of the pavement nor of the cycle track.

Recommendations for bus stops

Briefly, the 11 recommendations focus on:

  • working with the disability community on local projects
  • amending design guidance to be clear that cycle tracks are not part of the footpath or carriageway, and options for designs
  • the risks of disadvantage to a wider group of pedestrians, particularly people who are blind, should be acknowledged.

Appendices are instructive

There are 6 appendices to the main report with details of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and bus stops. Photographs illustrate the text and provide examples of what does and does not work. A great toolbox of ideas to work with. 

Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendix 1 – (Detailed study sites.) Instructive graphics show the level of both cycling and pedestrian movements in each design type. Key observations are enlightening especially where the bus stop island is used instead of the signalised crossing to cross the road. This is a good example of how people will take the shortest route possible, not necessarily the safest. 

Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendices 2-6 – MARCH 2024. Appendix 6 is titled Transport for All – a summary of the main report written in 2023. It addresses accessibility, floating bus stops and continuous footways.

There is much more to this document titled, Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks – MARCH 2024. Kerb designs, colour, separation of pedestrians and cyclists, kerb-free crossings and signalised crossings. A pertinent point raised by people with disability was about the emphasis on this aspect of street design. That’s because they see so many other serious problems with street design and maintenance. 

Better Bus Stops

How difficult can designing a bus stop be? Turns out there are lots of elements to consider. Bus stops are one element of an accessible and inclusive travel chain. Each country has their own format or standards for bus stops. But this doesn’t help visitors who are unfamiliar with the design and how it works. 

The roadway is marked with the words "bus stop" in yellow lettering.

Accessible bus stops are more than a stop sign and perhaps a seat with a shelter. It has to fit within an accessible urban environment. Footpath materials, information and communication and street furniture all have a part to play. A bus stop outside an airport in Portugal is the subject of a case study. The researchers looked specifically at older travellers. They were able to compare bus stops back home with the one at the airport and give useful feedback and share ideas. Portugal is a favourite destination within Europe so there were many comparisons.

The results were generally consistent across the responses regardless whether the respondent had a disability. Many of the responses were fairly obvious, such as barrier-free footpaths and no obstacles around the bus stop. Shelters with seats at a suitable height and easy to read timetables rated as important. Of course, a bus stop is useless if you can’t use the bus, so low floor buses were important. 

The paper is titled, An Evaluation of the Universal Accessibility of Bus Stop Environments by Senior Tourists. It was published in the International Information and Engineering Technology Association. It is open access.

See also:

Contributions of tourism to social inclusion of persons with disability for more about inclusive tourism in Portugal. 

Tactile paving surfaces at bus stops. The need of homogeneous technical solutions for accessible tourism.

From the abstract

Sustainable mobility demands an integrated approach covering all modes of transport in a built environment designed for everyone. Social inclusion strategies requires the improvement of transportation for people with reduced mobility. Accessibility is incorporated into urban renovation processes, settlement, housing and transportation.

Assessments measured the performance of spatial indicators and considered technical parameters and/or user perception. In the context of accessible tourism, infrastructures and services were adapted to be inclusive for all.

Accessible built environments are required hence urban spaces, buildings, transport vehicles, information technology and communication, and services must bear in mind the approach of Age Sensitive Design.

Findings indicate that older tourists with disabilities are more critical of the existing accessibility conditions, and have a greater perception of the inclusive characteristics of bus stops. Although older people take barrier-free spaces into account, there is some criticism around pedestrian crossings, bench design and the lack of room for wheelchair users.

Air travel with a wheelchair

Air travel is an anxious affair for many, but for people with disability the worries are multiplied. The Australian Government has produced an Aviation White Paper which highlights the difficulties people with disability experience travelling by air. For wheelchair users, the US Transport Board’s report found there is no engineering reason why power chairs can’t be secured in the aircraft.

Melbourne Airport trials disability access hubs

Beginning from September 2024, Melbourne Airport will trial a four-month Airport Assist program. The program will help passengers navigate the airport precinct, check-in and pick-up and drop-off zones.

The hub is open from 10am to 6pm and offers buggy transfers between T4 ground transport areas and departure areas. It will also have lanyard for the Hidden Disability Sunflower Program.

A man sitting in a wheelchair is talking to a woman standing at a kiosk. The sign says Melbourne Airport Assist.

Air travel with a wheelchair

Wheelchair users can stay in their powered wheelchair in taxis, trains and buses, but not in aircraft. Every wheelchair user takes a deep breath and hopes their wheelchair will come through the flight without damage. The risk of personal injury in wheelchair to seat transfers is also a worry. The other inconveniences and indignities just add to air travel with a wheelchair.

Currently, people are potentially put on a flight in a seat that is not appropriate for them. Travellers and airlines risk injury in transfer and in flight. It also risks serious damage to their wheelchair which is set up for their individual requirements.

Close up of a row of aircraft seats which are bright blue with grey backs.

Preliminary research from the US Transport Research Board (TRB) found no major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing personal power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft. The TRB concluded that installing wheelchair securements is a win-win for wheelchair users, airlines, and everyone else involved in transporting wheelchair users. Consequently, that means it is up to the willingness of airlines to make the necessary changes.

No major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft.

Transport Research Board.
Photo credit Heike Fabig (in Daily Mail)
A 12 year old girl is distressed in an aircraft aisle chair after her power wheelchair was taken away.

Airport experience begins arrival kerbside

While there are mandates for minimum standards for the built environment, airport layout design make life difficult for people with disability and older people. Many airports were designed decades ago when traveller comforts were not considered. Arriving kerbside or at the drop-off is where the problems begin.

Assistance is not available outside the terminal entrance which becomes the first hurdle to overcome. In many instances, help is not available until check-in processes are complete. A kerbside or drop-off check-in would solve that. Or at least provide a means for travellers to contact service staff to help them from the kerbside point.

The US Airport Cooperative Research Program has a detailed report that identifies the issues and provides solutions. The title of the report is, Assessing Airport Programs for Travelers with Disabilities and Older Adults. The aim is to assist airport designers and airline operators to make their places and services accessible and inclusive. There are 8 chapters to the report.

Airport facilities

Chapter 7 of the report is about Facility Accessibility. It begins with access on arrival at the airport and the provision of accessible ground transportation. The advice for the design of terminals is to adopt a universal, inclusive approach. That includes addressing long distances between the key points for travellers who don’t use a mobility device.

Self-service kiosks, elevators, power outlets, seating and lighting, along with catering for people with a diversity of cognitive conditions are covered in detail. Case studies provide information about restrooms, adult sanitary change facilities, provisions for assistance animals, and quiet rooms.

August 2024 Update

The Commonwealth Government is proposing to update the transport disability standards to include aviation standards. The standards will require airlines to set up assistance profiles for passengers which lists what they need. The list could include things like wheelchair battery specifications and assistance animals. The two wheelchair policies will also be under review. A new Aviation Ombudsman will replace the industry-funded Airline Consumer Advocate. This information was taken from a Crikey article.

Older people, mobility and cars

An older man in a blue and white t shirt sits at the wheel of a car and is driving down the road.The policy push to encourage people to walk and use public transport is one way to reduce emissions and improve health. However, whether to choose the car or public transport, or not to go out at all, depends on many factors. So, do people choose the car because they are constrained from using other forms of transport? Or do they use the car because it just suits them better? 

A review of the literature found that people with poor health, older age, low income and lack of access to a car are less likely to get out and about. Difficulties with public transport are linked with walking difficulties. So the design of the public transport system itself is not the total problem. 

Some retirees might engage in several activities in one day making public transport a time consuming business. On the other hand, some retirees may only leave the house for medical appointments and grocery shopping. The paper based on the literature review goes into these issues in depth. 

Some conclusions

Policies aimed at reducing car usage by older people with physical and mental impairments, must be approached with caution. Car mobility represents a crucial means of maintaining independence for older people. 

The advantages of allowing older people to drive, despite minor disabilities, often outweigh the risks they may pose to themselves and others. It is noteworthy that France, togethr with the Netherlands and the UK, are nations with the most lenient procedures and minimal medical examination requirements for driving license renewal. However, these countries also report the lowest fatality rates for car drivers within this age group.

The links between mobility, safety, and older people shows that people aged over 65 are considerably more vulnerable to fatal incidents as pedestrians than as drivers. So there is an intricate balance between considering the mobility needs and safety of the older drivers and pedestrians.

Universal design helps

Researchers found that physical difficulties are contextual, and decrease when universal design measures are taken. Universal design is not a luxury for a few individuals. Physical accessibility helps a lot a people to move around more smoothly and comfortably. 

The title of the article is, Older adults’ immobility: disentangling choice and constraint. It looks at people who are not in the workforce and spend most of their daily lives in their homes.

In a nutshell: the motor car becomes a mobility device as people age and walking becomes more difficult. 

From the abstract

Our research challenges the prevailing notion that immobility only occurs in exceptional circumstances. Our work shows instead a close link with individuals’ activity levels and constraints on their schedules.

Retirees and non-working population groups exhibit higher immobility levels than workers. This is influenced by factors such as poor health, old age, low income, lack of access to a car, or rural residency.

Driving and walking difficulties are significant contributors to immobility, with age being a primary explanatory factor. However, living in dense urban areas tends to reduce immobility levels across household categories. Difficulties with public transport, as such, do not trigger immobility, but they are entangled with walking difficulties.

Implications for public action include targeting age-specific interventions for reducing car dependency, and approaching policies aimed at curbing car use by older people cautiously.

Implementing universal design measures to enhance physical accessibility also helps to make mobility smoother and decrease perceived walking difficulties. Finally, this paper underlines the interconnectedness of mobility, social isolation, and sedentary lifestyles.