Category: Transportation

Transport and age-friendly cities

Unintended consequences from policy actions are not new. Sometimes things come undone in those little details that seemed unimportant at the time. Sometimes it’s because policy actions come from different parts of an overall system. Transport is a case in point. Transport is about the whole journey – from the front gate to the destination and home again. It’s more than cars, buses and trains – it’s footpaths, information systems and supporting infrastructure. And transport is a key element of age-friendly cities.

Transportation is a social determinant of health – particularly for older people. According to the World Health Organization their “lives are guided by the available transportation system”.

One potential policy outcome is that distinct actions, which address different facets of the same overall approach, undermine one another.

An older man and woman are walking away from the camera down a street. They are wearing backpacks and holding hands. Where do you want to live when you grow older?

Australian researchers set about assessing policy actions for supporting older people’s transportation in Greater Sydney. The analysis revealed unwanted consequences because some actions were undermining each other. They also found systemic constraints and the failure to account for small, but important, details.

Older people’s mobility applies to land use, open and public space, supplementary transport, and community transport. This means that policy makers need to examine interactions between different parts of the system so they can foresee potential unwanted consequences. Then they can do something about it.

The title of the article is, Using systems thinking to assess the functioning of an “Age-Friendly City” governance network in Australia.

The authors also produced a Policy Brief based on the research with their recommendations:

  • 1. Coordinate plans for residential and public transport development.
  • 2. Establish key performance indicators for creating and funding new footpaths.
  • 3. Improve cross-sector information flow.
  • 4. Increase the predictability of funding for health and social care transport services.
Front page of the Policy Brief showing a man and a woman on a bus wearing masks. Age friendly cities.

From the abstract

Age-Friendly Cities (AFC) is a framework for promoting healthy ageing through local actions. We use systems thinking to assess potential outcomes of actions to support older people’s mobility, undertaken within an AFC commitment in Greater Sydney.

Four approaches to support older people’s mobility were identified and situated to the Multiple Governance Framework: land use, open and public space, supplementary transport, and community transport.

Analysis revealed potential for unwanted consequences associated with each, which can be generalised into three generic potential outcomes for other jurisdictions to consider.
One recommendation is for policy actors to examine feedback interactions between actions so that they can foresee a wider range of outcomes and take defensive action against those unwanted.

This research identifies what to look for, in terms of potential outcomes, and where to look, in terms of the level of decision-making. This research offers a new way to assess the functioning of AFC governance networks by their collective outcomes and challenges the standards for the evaluation of AFC.

Ageing and Mobility: Getting out and about

An older woman using a walking cane walks over a paved section towards the roadway. Ageing and mobility, getting out and about. Jane Bringolf participated in a webinar or the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management, which includes anyone involved in transport. She covered 5 basic features older people need to encourage them to continue getting out and about. The content of the presentation, Ageing and Mobility, is on the YouTube video below.

After running 23 workshops with older people and local government across NSW, five key elements emerged. They are footpaths, seating, lighting, wayfinding and toilets. In rural areas, parking was also an issue. These were covered in a previous post along with a straightforward checklist on do’s and don’ts. 

The car becomes a mobility device as people get older, which puts them at odds with the policy push to get out of the car. Older people feel safer either as a driver or a passenger. The fear of tripping and falling reduces their confidence for walking on uneven footpaths.

Parking adjacent to shops and services in rural towns was also an issue. This was sometimes due to the main street also being the main highway where street parking is restricted. 

Ageing and mobility is more than cycles, buses and trains. Many older people just want to access their local neighbourhood to shop and socialise. 

 

Inclusive and accessible street guides

Which street guide is the best? Well, that depends on which perspective you are coming from. Urban designers, transport planners, pedestrians and drivers all have a stake in streets. Here are four inclusive and accessible street guides from previous posts for reference.

If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places.

Attributed to Fred Kent
five lane city highway full of cars.. We need car free zones.

Global Designing Cities website has the Global Street Design Guide available for download. The guide has sections for designing streets for kids, and implementing street transformations. Launched in 2014, the Global Designing Cities initiative takes an international view. The website has a series of short films, and a guide for designing streets for children.

Front cover of the guide. It is blue with white text. It has outlines of pedestrians trees, buildings and transport

A Citizen’s Guide to Better Streets takes a holistic look at street design from land planning and zoning to streets as public spaces. The main concerns of traffic engineers, such as safety and function are also covered. The guide was published in 2008 but the issues are current today. It is on the 880cities.org website.

logo of 880 cities initiative.

The Guide to the Healthy Streets Indicators from the UK has information and checklists in an easy to use format. It focuses on walkability without the express inclusion of people using wheeled mobility, but alludes to them. The guide covers feelings of safety, places to stop and rest, not too noisy, shade and shelter, easy to cross roads, and pedestrians from all walks of life.

Front cover of the guide to healthy streets indicators

The American Society of Landscape Architects promotes green, universally designed streets. These safely separate pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and public transport and use strategies to reduce reckless driving behaviour. The video below indicates the sensory overload that busy streets can create for some.

Prototype of a universally design street with separate pathways for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

Designing cities with AI: Should we?

A long view down a street with houses and cars on each side. Designing cities with AI - should we? Facelift is a new AI system that allows urban planers to redesign the look of city streets. 

A FastCompany article explains how volunteers from 162 countries rated Google street images. Then the data was put through the AI process. The results were obvious – plazas are beautiful and construction sites aren’t. The next step was to create an interactive tool to generate before and after images – Facelift. Urban planners can use this tool to improve the design of existing places. But there is a question about this: is it beautification or gentrification? 

The title of the FastCompany article is, AI can now design cities. Should we let it?  

Autism and sensory overload

.

Older road users and pedestrians

As the share of older road users increases it’s important to pay more attention to their safety as road users and pedestrians. Transport planners have to draw together urban design, street and road design as well as traffic signal technology. This makes the design landscape crowded with regulations and competing interests between vehicles and people.

A road crossing with a confusing arrangement of tactile markers.

The mobility and road safety of older people relies on the design of the whole transport system. This includes infrastructure, traffic engineering, traffic signals, signs, and markings. They all impact on safe, barrier-free and inclusive transport.

A conference paper from Germany outlines some important findings on the safety and mobility of older people.

Basic requirements

Basic requirements for transport system design are:

Two women using wheelie walkers are crossing the road in a country town.
    • Reduction of complexity of traffic situations
    • Improvement of the perception of traffic regulations and systems
    • Design of safe crossings
    • Avoiding detours for pedestrians and cyclists

For traffic engineers this raises conflicting needs and goals but there should still be good compromises. Of course, considering older people in design solutions usually have benefits for all road users.

The paper covers traffic signal standards and regulations in different countries and the design and timings of traffic and pedestrian signals. Green signals and arrows at intersections can be confusing for drivers and pedestrians alike. Countdown and “don’t walk” signals are beneficial for all. These are common in the United States, Japan and Singapore. Older pedestrians can have more confidence about clearing the intersection.

The Green Man + card in Singapore is like a Seniors Card, and tapping this at the signal button provides more time to cross. Another idea is special buttons or sensors to request a longer time. However, the risk of misuse and the technical complexity rendered this idea unworkable in Germany.

The paper discusses intersection layout, routing of pedestrians and cyclists and control strategies. The author notes there is also a responsibility for pedestrians to enter the crossing at the beginning of the green signal, not some time afterwards.

The title of the conference paper is, Considering the requirements of elderly road users in traffic signal control. Or you can download the PDF version.

Note on language

Terms such as “seniors” and “elderly” can lead to stereotyping and should be replaced with “older persons”. “Special requirements” make roads and transport safer for everyone. 

From the abstract

The share of older road users in total traffic is increasing in Germany as well as in most other OECD countries. To ensure mobility and road safety for this group, special requirements have to be considered in transport system design.

Besides basic requirements in transport planning, traffic engineering can significantly improve mobility and road safety for older people. This paper outlines older road users’ requirements in traffic signal control. The paper discusses standards from Germany, United States, United Kingdom and other selected countries as well as examples from practice.

Signal program design, intersection layout, control strategies, and technical design of signal lights are covered. The paper closes with conclusions on how well older road users are considered in traffic signal standards already. It also highlights the need to apply such regulations in practice, despite goal conflicts and financial constraints.

Inclusive future mobility

To make future mobility inclusive and accessible automotive practitioners and researchers need to understand the fundamentals of universal design. People from diverse backgrounds and levels of capability should be included in the design processes of future mobility services. That’s the conclusion of a group of automotive researchers and they’ve come up with a framework to help.

A mobile phone is lying flat with a pop up cityscape rising out of it. Inclusive future mobility.

The framework helps designers to think of essential design dimensions for inclusive design. There are possible trade-offs, synergies/new options, or other impacts that a decision for a particular design option has. Using a fictional case study they showcase the design process.

The design framework serves as a tool for automotive practitioners and researchers for communication, ideation, or reflection. Following the universal design process the researchers explain how they created the framework and then how to use it. The framework is built on previous work, and the mobility experiences of experts that work in inclusive facilities.

Case study using the framework

The authors advise that sticking to the standard principles of universal design could result in overly complex processes and products. However, thinking about potential users and their abilities increases the chance of identifying synergies. That is, finding solutions that suit the wider population as well as “non-average” users.

Technology will be a major influence on future mobility and connections with web interfaces will form part of the design solutions. The authors take readers through a step by step process. Key sections of the framework cover:

  • The users’ needs and capabilities
  • The journey’s context
  • What does the transportation service look like?
  • How do people interact with the service?
  • Training for the journey.

The application of the framework is based on fictional designers, not mobility users. This is very useful for designers new to the universal design concept. By using two designers in the case study scenario, they discuss the pros and cons of each method and idea.

The title of the paper is, An Emergent Design Framework for Accessible and Inclusive Future Mobility. For non-tech people the last part is most useful. For technical people the paper speaks to many aspects of automotive design.

From the abstract

Future mobility will be highly automated, multimodal, and ubiquitous and thus have the potential to address a broader range of users. Yet non-average users are often underrepresented or simply not thought of in design processes of vehicles and mobility services. this leads to exclusion from standard transportation.

Consequently, it is crucial for designers of such vehicles and services to consider the needs of non-average users from the begining. In this paper, we present a design framework that helps designers take the perspective and thinking of the needs of non-average users.

We present a set of exemplary applications from the literature and interviews and show how they fit into the framework, indicating room for further developments. We demonstrate how the framework supports the universal design approach in a fictional design process.

Inclusive Autonomous Vehicle Design

Ergonomists and engineers are considering ways to design autonomous vehicles to include a diversity of users. That includes people with disability and impairments. However, it’s not just a case of adding universal design principles into the design process. Designing an inclusive autonomous vehicle requires attention to many other factors. It’s an interdisciplinary design process.

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) present an opportunity for redefining the standard ergonomic design approaches especially when designing for people with disability and impairments.

A blue and white drawing of a small car against taller blue buildings signifying an autonomous vehicle.

Researchers in Europe have come up with a way to integrate relevant design data to ensure designs meet standards and the diversity of users. Overall user perception is linked to user perception and satisfaction and this is where ergonomics come into play. The paper is very technical and mainly of interest to engineers and ergonomists. The researchers claim that this platform will turn attention to “human-centric” design rather than engineering design.

For those who advocate for inclusive vehicle design, it shows the complexity designers have to deal with. However, it is good to see this important issue addressed at this early stage of future mass production.

The title of the paper is, Inclusive Autonomous Vehicle Interior Design (IAVID) Platform. Click on the “Article” button to download the open access copy.

From the abstract

Passenger comfort in vehicles is a complex, human-centric segment of the vehicle interior design process. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) present an opportunity for redefining standard design approaches. There are options for improved ergonomics and meeting the needs of a wide range of users, including persons with impairments.

However, the complexity of incorporating universal design principles together with all other interdisciplinary information in the development process requires a suitable method to systematize the data and simplify their use.

This paper proposes a platform for inclusive autonomous vehicle interior design (IAVID) which can be used as a tool to support the creation of ergonomic and inclusive AV interiors. The proposed IAVID platform is based on model-based systems engineering. It is intended for organizing and updating all relevant interdisciplinary information to input in the AV interior development. By doing so, the interdisciplinary collaboration among vehicle development teams is strengthened.

On the road with autonomous vehicles

A yellow autonomous vehicle on the road. It is box shaped with large windows and small wheels.

What will the future of transport look like post COVID-19 pandemic and what will it mean for autonomous vehicles? For people who don’t or can’t drive, autonomous vehicles seem a wonderful invention. But will the designs and technology be inclusive?  

It’s not that no-one is thinking about access and inclusion – they are. But it’s not all about the technology. Some of the problems are related to the way vehicles connect with the built environment. Wheelchair accessible features, such as a ramp, can be rendered unsafe on steep inclines. If the wheelchair is not locked down, bumps in the road could cause the chair to tip or fall. 

Some riders will need specific assistive technologies for eye tracking, gesture recognition, and voice control. These would give people with tactile, mobility, and hearing impairments a sense of control without the need to make physical contact. Other practical challenges are around pick up and drop-off, and loading and unloading groceries. Some people will still require human assistance at certain points of the journey. 

These issues and others are discussed in an article, Autonomous vehicles should benefit those with disabilities, but progress remains slow.

Related articles

For a more academic study and design details see, Accessible Personal Transportation for People with Disabilities Using Autonomous Vehicles. They include the principles of universal design in the text and conclude with a list of recommendations. 

The motoring body, NRMA, predicted in 2017 that autonomous vehicles will be rolling out in significant numbers by 2020. Their report on the Future of Car Ownership shows the step by step progress. You can also get a summary of the report in an infographic. 

UTT: A Conceptual Model to Guide the Universal Design of Autonomous Vehicles requires institutional access for a free read.

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are closer to becoming a reality in changing the landscape of commercial and personal transportation. The launch of these vehicles comes with the promise of improved road safety, reduced traffic fatalities, and enhanced mobility. However, there are questions as to whether the design of AVs will meet the needs of everyone, including people with disabilities and older adults.

We argue that there exists no conceptual model that guides the inclusive design of autonomous vehicles to benefit all intended users. This paper proposes such a model, called the User Transportation-Activity Technology (UTT) model, which supports the inclusive design of AVs. We present a review of current models of assistive technology design and their drawbacks followed by an introduction of the UTT model and its application in AV design.

This paper may benefit researchers, designers, and developers of autonomous vehicles interested in addressing accessible design issues in such vehicles.

Micro-transit and AVs

Will we have truly inclusive automated vehicles (AVs) or will we need specialised vehicles for some people with specific disabilities? According to a research paper, several companies are creating prototypes of AVs for people with disability. These include both micro-transit and paratransit services.

Under the right circumstances, automated vehicles can offer a decrease in social isolation, access to vital services, and personal independence. But it will take more than access standards – it requires a universal design approach.

A yellow autonomous vehicle on the road. It is box shaped with large windows and small wheels. Micro-transit and AVs.

Minimum accessibility standards should be treated as a subset of inclusive design principles. This is what the AV revolution should aim for. In the long run, ensuring access at the beginning is more cost-effective than later retrofits.

Basically there are seven trip-making stages in three categories when thinking about Accessible Automated Vehicles (AAVs).

  • Pre-trip concierge (Information system Design)
    • Trip planning and booking
  • Wayfinding and naviagions (Accessible Infrastructure Design)
    • Navigating to the AAV pick-up point
    • Waiting at the AAV pick-up point
    • Navigating from the AAV drop-off point to the destination
  • Robotics and Utomating (Vehicle Design)
    • Boarding AAV
    • Riding AAV
    • Alighting AAV

In terms of accessibility, there are three distinct but interconnected areas of concern. The pre-trip concierge relates to the design of information systems that will inform the travellers; wayfinding and navigation relate to accessible infrastructure design; and the boarding, riding, and alighting from AAV without any human attendant relates to the design of the vehicles themselves.

The paper discusses all aspects of the design and operation of autonomous vehicles and access for people with a range of disabilities. It references a wide range of existing research on the topic and mobility, sensory and cognitive disabilities.

The case studies

Nine short case studies include five customised models and four paratransit prototypes. Briefly they are:

  1. Wheelchair accessible AV – for a shuttle service
  2. Customised minivans – oversize vehicles are more flexible
  3. Luxury concept car with tall roof and wide doors
  4. Urban robo-taxi – hail using an app
  5. Single occupancy design – best suited for city travel
  6. Detroit medical campus shuttle – fits 15 people
  7. US Army Catapult – for wounded veterans
  8. Jacksonville Transportation Authority – specified full ADA compliance
  9. ELATE project – purpose-built AAV in two sites

The authors conclude that AAVs offer promise of mobility for people with disability through on-demand options. In Stockholm an automated shuttle bus has been sharing the roads alongside cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Apps should be compliant with web content accessibility as a minimum. The design simplicity of vehicles must also account for cognitive disabilities. Simple and intuitive layouts and system controls are good for everyone.

The title of the paper is, On-demand Microtransit and Paratransit Service Using Autonomous Vehicles: Gaps and Opportunities in Accessibility Policy.

From the abstract

Autonomous vehicle (AV) technology can help disabled Americans achieve their desired level of mobility. However, vehicle manufacturers, policymakers, and state and municipal agencies have to collaborate to achieve support disabled individuals. It requires collaboration for different stages of trip making through information system design, vehicle design, and infrastructure design.

Integrating accessibility at this stage of the AV revolution would finally allow us to develop a transportation system that treats accessibility as a guiding principle, not as an afterthought.

The review of regulations is followed by a review of nine case studies, five corresponding to the on-demand microtransit service model and four corresponding to the paratransit service model. These case studies are essentially different prototypes currently being deployed on a pilot basis.

Recommendations are based on the review of relevant research, ADA regulations, and case studies. Researchers, private firms, policymakers, and agencies involved in AV development and deployment are covered in the recommendations.

The recommendations include better collaboration and adoption of best practices to address the needs of individuals with different disability types. ADA regulations are one of the tools in addition to universal design principles and assistive technologies.

Designing bus transit infrastructure with universal design

Norway has a long-held commitment to universal design across all sectors. However, with the best will in the world the concept is still poorly understood in transport infrastructure. When Trondheim initiated its new rapid bus transit system, universal design underpinned the design parameters. But designing bus transit infrastructure requires some joined up thinking and joined up standards.

The Trondheim infrastructure experience

The case study of Trondheim in Norway shows how the best laid plans can go awry if there isn’t joined up thinking at the planning stage. Once this was realised the next step was finding ways to remedy the situation. That’s because Trondheim replaced their whole fleet with the new metro buses.

The new bus transit infrastructure in Trondheim. A long articulated bus in bright lime green and dark grey.

At a late stage in the planning process, with construction of the stations and delivery of the buses well underway, it was discovered that the stations and the buses had been built to different accessibility standards.

Photo of the Trondheim bus transit

In a conference paper Jacob Deichmann outlines the issues and the different ideas and lists them in a handy table. All the stations were built to Norwegian State guidelines for accessible design. The “kneeling” buses were designed and built in Belgium. But there was a big gap between bus and kerb edge. The size of the gap also depended on the skill of the driver in getting as close as possible to the kerb.

Once this discrepancy was discovered advocacy groups complained to the media and to politicians. The response was that they met the access standards, but manual flip ramps would be added. However, this does not provide equitable access as someone has to deploy the ramp taking up valuable travel time. And efficient travel times was a key element of the system.

The paper has a chart giving an overview of the different remedies suggested based on product research. It lists the various ramp systems, gap-fillers and bus pads at kerbside. The chosen solutions were training of drivers in the short term. In the medium term there was to be a trial of motorised ramps, the bus pad and a guiding system. Longer term solutions were the gap-filler method and raised platforms.

When standards and guidelines aren’t enough

Both the platform designer and the bus manufacturer followed valid guidelines and best practice. The lack of consistency in the guidelines makes it difficult for non experts in universal design to make the best choices. In the worst case scenario, following standards can prevent a universal design approach.

More training on universal design is required at the planning and procurement stage. The underlying concept of providing an equitable and accessible means of transport needs to be fully understood.

The title of the conference paper is Universal Design in the Metrobuss System of Trondheim, Norway – Challenges and Solutions.

The short video below shows the convenience of an automated Perth bus ramp deployed for a wheelchair user and then everyone else used it.

Automatic ramp on a Perth bus was used for a wheelchair user and then everyone else.

A better example of universal design is the Bergen Light Rail project.

Using technology to plan travel

Transport services are only useful for people who can access and use them effectively. Groups who benefit most from improved physical access to transport are more likely to lack access to technology to plan travel. This was a finding by the Inclusive Design Team at the University of Cambridge.

Older people, people with disability, and people with low education had lower levels of access and understanding of technology.

Two hands of an older person are poised above the keyboard of a laptop computer.

A survey carried out in Germany asked questions about access to technology, ability to use the technology, and using it for transport planning. Vulnerable and excluded groups included women, older people, people with low education, and people with low incomes. Older people and people with disability were the least likely to use a device to access information about transport.

Owning a smartphone does not guarantee the ability to operate complex digital services.

A pair of hands belonging to an older man hold a mobile phone.

Three groups – people with low education, older people and people with disability had the lowest level of interaction with technology. For people who have low incomes, acquiring devices and being able to afford internet connections is also a barrier.

Older people and people with disability are limited in regular travel because they can’t plan travel or use transport.

A man stands on a train platform looking at his smartphone. He is wearing a hat and has a bright yellow backpack.

The title of the article is Toward Inclusive Digital Mobility Services: a Population Perspective. This research project is one of four similar projects conducted in Europe and UK. The reference list is useful for further reading.

From the abstract

Digital mobility services have great potential to increase passengers’ transportation options, improve their experiences and reduce exclusion. However, these advantages are only available to those who can access and use these services effectively.

We needed to find out the range of potential users’ technology access, use, attitudes and capabilities. In 2020, a survey examining these characteristics was carried out with 1010 participants in Germany.

The results showed that older people, people with disabilities and people with low education levels had particularly low levels of all technology variables.

Rolling out digital mobility services requires caution and planning. Non-digital alternatives should be provided to ensure an inclusive service. Digital interfaces must be designed carefully to be usable by and reassuring to digital novices.

Accessible cities and public transport

Public transport is the focus of the latest quarterly magazine from the Association of Consultants in Access. The articles cover streetscapes, buses and trains, and the personal experiences of a wheelchair user.

The upgrade to the Como Rail Station showing the long flight of steps and the level pathway to the elevator.

Como Railway Station has received a significant upgrade for accessibility

The opening article is by Kiersten Fishburn who is Deputy Secretary, Cities and Active Transport at Transport for NSW. She covers a lot of ground: improvements to infrastructure, micro-mobility, on-demand service and the taxi subsidy scheme.

Julie Sawchuk is Chair of the Ontario Standards Development Committee in Canada. She discusses her experiences as a traveller using a wheelchair. She makes an important point:

You’ll have noticed that my tales have addressed only my own experiences as a wheelchair user: that is, after all, my area of expertise. We need to listen to all users.

Julie Sawchuk

Jane Bryce’s topic is accessible streetscapes and public transport for people who are blind or vision impaired. Silent e-vehicles are an obvious issue for this group, as are shared pathways.

Toe bone connected to the foot bone, Foot bone connected to the heel bone, Heel bone connected to the ankle bone…

Dem Bones

The song “Dem Bones” is a good analogy of the needs of people who are blind or vision impaired who wants to leave their house, to be independent. Everything needs to fit together; each part is essential. Each element that makes up a part of a journey, whether on public transport or not, in a city or elsewhere, needs to be accessible for people who are blind or vision impaired.

Francis Lenny talks about his view of accessible bus travel. He reiterates the need for passengers to be at the centre of design decision-making processes. Confusion with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (DSAPT) is a key issue.

Inter-city train design and the outcomes achieved is the topic of Jen Barling’s article. Designers and operators are encouraged to go beyond the DSAPT. Indeed, DSAPT encourages alternative means of access to public transport, not just the specified standards:

…using methods, equipment and facilities that provide alternative means of access to the public transport service concerned (but not using separate or parallel services) with equivalence of amenity, availability, comfort, convenience, dignity, price and safety.

DSAPT 33.3 Equivalent Access

Howard Moutrie discusses handrail height and Cathryn Grant covers off the Smart Cities for All Toolkit.

You can access the online version of the magazine or download the 8MB PDF version.

How can Melbourne be more accessible?

A Melbourne street scene showing pedestrians and a tram.

Melbourne is one of the most ‘liveable’ cities in the world and the Victorian Government wants to keep it that way. But Melbourne can’t be truly liveable if it isn’t inclusive and accessible for all. Infrastructure projects, buildings, open space, and transportation need to link together seamlessly. 

Melbourne has done some good work. Retrofitting tactile footpath indicators and Auslan-interpreted performances are a start. But steep ramps at railway stations are still a problem and Federation Square has a multitude of stairs and rough tiles. An article in the Smart Cities Library says that developers are not on the same page as the Victorian Government. 

Front cover of the report.

A report from the University of Melbourne looks at some of the issues for people with disability. Academics worked with City of Melbourne staff and disability advocates to brainstorm ideas that would work. They assessed these ideas to see which were the most important and feasible.

Transportation was the key issue across all disability types, and issues with footpaths were high on the list. This links with another report about Victoria’s Public Transport Journey Planner.

Transportation is key

 Victoria’s Public Transport Journey Planner enables travellers to plan ahead for their journey. But does it work for wheelchair users? 

Distance view of a major train station showing platforms and trains.

Three case studies of train stations in suburban Melbourne show that in spite of a policy aim of going beyond the Transport Standards to take a whole of journey approach, there is some way to go when it comes to full accessibility. 

A nicely written report with a detailed methodology that can be used as the basis of further studies across Australia. The title is: “Does information from Public Transport Victoria’s Journey Planner align with real life accessibility for people in wheelchairs?”  Perhaps another case of bureaucrats not actually knowing what constitutes accessibility? Sometimes it is more than “access”.

Front cover Melbourne Transport Strategy 2030

Melbourne published their Transport Strategy 2030 which has updated information. There’s a lot about bikes but not much about inclusion and accessibility.