Category: Transportation

Much of our transportation infrastructure was designed last century when the focus was on getting people to work and school. People with disability were not considered as part of the working or school populations at that time. But times have changed and “average” must evolve to “inclusive” because there is no such thing as the average user. The time has come for a universal design approach to transportation.

A magazine article on inclusive transit systems suggests one way to think about the transit system is to recall an experience in another country. Was it easy to use? Did you feel you could confidently and independently navigate your way to your destination? How was buying a ticket? If you got confused, potentially, new users will be confused at home too. These are good benchmarks for home country design. 

Transit Universal Design Guidelines

The Transit Universal Design Guidelines (TUDG) promote the value of implementing a universal design approach that supports all user groups. And it doesn’t start and end at the station door. The environment leading up to the transit system must be part of the plan. That includes footpaths. The article picks out three key elements.

Key elements

User Groups: consider who you are ultimately designing for. This section includes accommodations required to satisfy the needs of specific user groups. This includes individuals with visual, hearing, speech, or mobility disabilities and needs, among others.

Aspects of Accommodation: identify features and techniques that can enhance the end user experience — from handrails, to hearing assistant systems, to tactile pathways, to mobile ticketing apps.

Implementation: understand the process and approach for implementing universal design through advocacy, engagement, and evaluating and finalizing design options. With this approach, transit agencies can attract new and retain existing ridership and provide solutions that are inclusive and universal from the start.

The Transit Universal Design Guidelines are comprehensive and stretch to 53 pages. The document aims to be a decision-making tool for transit agencies, designers and policy-makers.

A good question to ask about automated driverless vehicles – where are we? Five years ago there was much talk about how automated driverless vehicles would change the way we get around. While the promise is still there in terms of technology, we are still a long way from regulation and planning. That means accessible self-driving vehicles are a long way off.

An article in The Conversation explains the six levels of automation from driver assistance to full automation. Many new cars have a level of driver assistance such as keeping the car in lane, and speed control. But they require the driver to take over if necessary.

Regulators are struggling to keep pace. They need to come up with standard tests for safety and benchmarking their algorithms. The public is unsure about automation, but can see advantages especially for those who cannot currently drive. 

What do drivers think?

What do people really think about autonomous vehicles? A survey found two main types of response: one cognitive and one emotional. Overall there is a general acceptance of autonomous vehicles – the cognitive response. However, concerns were expressed over safety, trust and control – the emotional responses.

Negative views held by a few tended to be based on emotional factors. The key point is that assumed resistance factors, such as those relating to ethics, hacking and liability, are not top of mind in the community. This means education and information can be better tailored with this information in mind. 

The title of the article is, Dimensions of attitudes to autonomous vehicles.  Published in Urban, Planning and Transport Research, it is open access.

It will be about passengers

Driverless cars will be about passengers not drivers. Although a subtle difference, it focuses thought on users as passengers rather than drivers. And this is important because there will be more diversity of users than there are currently drivers. But this raises accessibility and other issues which are discussed in two papers.

When it comes to assistance it is usually the driver that helps riders with disabilities with getting in and out, and pointing them in the right direction. A report from Intelligent Transport Systems discusses these issues in a matter of fact way. Policy makers and vehicle designers need to think across all these issues. The title of the report is, Driverless Cars and Accessibility. 

David Williams in his article alerts us to the size and influence of tech giants and how they can utilise the data they can collect. His concern is for high-tech companies manipulating and controlling our lives further. He provides a table of vehicle enhancements and the time it took or is taking for the market to fully embrace them. The title of the article is, Driverless cars: benefit to humanity or road to an Orwellian dystopia?

What about trust?

The race is on for designing a self driving car that everyone trusts. While this is essential, it also needs to be a car that everyone can use. Mark Wilson writes for FastCompany about his test “drive” experiences of these vehicles. Reading his detailed experiences from a universal design perspective, there is still a way to go in the overall design. The developments so far show much thought about convenience, such as your smartphone linking to the car so it knows it’s you. They are using the phone to give instructions. This is a technology that needs to be followed closely as it has the potential to improve inclusion or inadvertently cause more exclusion. A very interesting article; “The fate of self-driving cars hangs on a $7 trillion design problem“.

 

Transportation professionals are aware of the connection with health, but are public health professionals making the links? In general terms we know that the design of the built environment impacts on health. Transportation systems are part of the built environment and therefore impact health as well. From the USA comes a well-researched transport and health guidebook that joins the dots. 

The guidebook is primarily for transportation practitioners. It has a set of tools and resources for planning at all levels and for collaborating with health stakeholders. The guidebook also serves as reference for public health practitioners to learn more about how to contribute to transport planning.

The guidebook is titled, “Connecting Transportation and Health: A Guide to Communication and Collaboration”. It contains, tips, tools, case examples, process steps and integration opportunities. The intersections between transport and health are presented in table format. While the guide is based on USA organisations, it is applicable in other countries.

The research project underpinning the guide found communication challenges between health and transportation professionals. The challenges included the different jargon and terminology, and the different planning processes. Acquiring relevant data for analysis was another issue. Consequently, the researchers needed to find out how the two disciplines could work together more effectively.

The aim of the guidebook is to foster partnerships between transport agencies and public health organisations. Each have their jargon and assumptions and these need to be clarified throughout the process. There are two documents:

1. 1. 1. The full guide, Connecting Transportation & Health: A Guide to Communication and Collaboration. This is an 84 page document that includes information on the underpinning research.
      2. The Quick Reference Key Tables and Tools has the key elements for practitioners.

Public mental health

Delegates at an international conference in Barcelona participated in a workshop that provided some useful insights into transport related factors that could impact public mental health. While there are many factors that influence mental health, urban design can provide protective factors.

The title of the article is Scoping assessment of transport design target to improve public mental health.

Barriers in public transport for people with mental health conditions include crowds, waiting times and lack of information. For more on this, see  Universal Design of Public Transport Systems for People with Mental Health Impairments. 

Accessible Transport Guide

Improving Transport Accessibility for All: Guide to Good Practice, covers transport information, the road and pedestrian environment, infrastructure, vehicles, private cars, and emerging transport services.

The information is detailed and specific in this OECD guide. Examples from different member countries are provided. Although the Guide was published in 2006, the information is still relevant as progress has been slow, particularly in Australia. You can download the guide in PDF from the OECD International Transport Forum website. It is interesting to note that the guide is following its own advice on best practice in the presentation of information.

Accessible Transport: The Economics

Inaccessible transport can be a major barrier to participation in social and civic life, and this has a knock-on effect for the economy. Transport is not usually something we do for its own sake. We use transport in one form or another to achieve something else, such as shopping, going to work or school, or for social activities. It is the glue that holds together the many activities people undertake in their daily lives. But not all transport systems and facilities are accessible to everyone – and it is not just about users of mobility devices. 

A discussion paper from New Zealand recognises that some disabilities are invisible, “… given that arguably everyone is a beneficiary of universal design some of the time; that many factors influencing participation are invisible, such as mental illness or hearing difficulty, for example; if an observational measurement method is going to be used, then it must necessarily involve a proxy measure for ‘beneficiary of universal design’.”

This is an encouraging approach because many studies measure ability and disability of individuals at one point in time, and not across the lifespan. The paper includes a road crossing case study from Hamilton in New Zealand. It concludes with the need for mutual understanding between those who plan and build transport and those that use it. The discussion paper on estimating the costs and benefits of participation was prepared by the Roundtable on Economics of Accessible Transport, part of the OECD International Transport Forum.

The OECD website has an iLibrary of discussion papers for this Forum. Filtering for “accessibility” brings up several papers, many of them recent.   

 

Having different contractors for different parts of an infrastructure project is a risk for accessibility. It can literally fall between the cracks. Having overarching principles of universal design is not enough to ensure accessibility of interconnecting infrastructure. When different companies build stations and buses we need to make sure they join up well. This was not the case in Norway.

A conference paper explains the situation for the new Metrobuss System in Trondheim. When the construction of stations and buses was well underway, they discovered they were built to different access standards. This made is impossible for wheelchair users and others to use the new system. Norway has a reputation for promoting universal design. So what did they learn from this situation?

First, there are always challenges in implementing universal design. It’s one thing to have it on a page, and another to have it in real life. Both bus and station manufacturers followed valid guidelines. Harmonising guidelines was the first lesson. 

The people involved were lacking knowledge about the ideas an principles of universal design. Second lesson is to have user and expert involvement throughout the process. When issues arise, it is easier to find solutions before it’s too late.

The paper describes some ‘work-arounds’ – some worked better than others. As with other projects, a ramp is not always a workable solution to patch up a design. The paper has 13 solutions specifically designed to overcome the access issues.

The title of the paper is, Universal Design in the Metrobuss System of Trondheim, Norway – Challenges and Solutions presented at the International Universal Design Conference in 2021 in Finland. It is open access or you can download the PDF version directly. 

Abstract

The presentation describes challenges and possible solutions for achieving truly accessible high-class urban public transportation based on a case from Trondheim. The implemented solution did not reflect the wheelchair user’s needs– despite clearly stated ambitions for accessibility.

Ramboll conducted a study comprising a screening of the international market for relevant solutions, combined with interviews with representatives of Public transport authorities. The results were presented to the local user’s representatives, and some solutions tested on location. Based on this process, recommendations were made for short, medium, and long-term solutions.

The project highlights the need for involvement of sufficient professional knowledge of universal design in the planning phase as well as in the implementation phase.

A study in Sweden tackles the issue of ‘vulnerable’ road users, particularly powered wheelchair users and older people. European Union data show that fatal accidents involving vulnerable road users is equal to vehicle accidents. So what are the issues for the road safety for wheelchair users?

Researchers watched wheelchair users moving around the streets to see how they interacted with the built environment. Dealing with traffic was one aspect, but uneven surfaces, steep slopes and other pedestrians also play a part in safety.

Traffic conditions have not adapted to vulnerable road users and this is an area for improvement. Safety relies on individual coping strategies to deal with risks. Researchers found that one third of accidents were due to differences in ground level, typically the kerb. 

The title of the article is, Obstacles and risks in the traffic environment for users of powered wheelchairs in Sweden. It is open access. The study was included different disciplines: design, physiotherapy, disability studies and biomechanics. The long term goal is to reduce accidents and reinforce active participation for people with disability.

Highlights from the study 

• • • Video observation and interviews can identify risks and obstacles in traffic environment.
    • The degree of accessibility affects the degree of risk taking in traffic environment.
    • Identified risks were due to deficiencies in built environment and poor maintenance.
    • Other risks were related to interaction with other road users and poor visibility
    • Negative impacts of coldness, precipitation and poor snow clearing.

From the Abstract

The aim of this interdisciplinary qualitative study was to identify obstacles and risks for Powered Wheelchair (PWC) users by exploring their behaviour and experiences in traffic environments.

Videos and in-depth interviews with 13 PWC users aged 20–66 were analysed for this study. The videos include real-life outdoor observations exploring experiences of PWC use on a daily basis in Sweden. 

Participants faced and dealt with various obstacles and risks in order to reach their destination. For example, uneven surfaces, differences in ground levels, steep slopes, as well as interactions with other road users and the influence of weather conditions. This resulted in PWC users constantly accommodating and coping with the shortcomings of the vehicle and the environment.

There are still major challenges for preventing obstacles and risks in the traffic environment for PWC users. To discern PWC users in traffic accident and injury data bases, a start would be to register type of aid used for persons involved in an accident.

Furthermore, to emphasise PWC users’ role as vulnerable road users, it may also be advantageous to describe them as drivers rather than users when navigating the traffic environment.

By incorporating emerging knowledge of PWC users’ prerequisites and needs, and including them in research and traffic planning, the society will grow safer and more inclusive, and become better prepared for meeting future demands on accessibility from an ageing population.

Transportation systems are more than buses and bus stops, or trains and stations. They consist of infrastructure, customer service, regulations, and system organisation. Taking a universal design approach is a good way to frame and achieve inclusive mobility systems.

The chart below shows the conceptual framework for inclusive mobility. It was used as the basis for a research project. 

The 7 Principles of Universal Design are translated into mobility and transportation language. Different sectors have responsibility for these components: government, private, academia, and advocacy groups. The title of the article is, Composing a Conceptual Framework for an Inclusive Mobility System. The article goes into more detail of the various components of the system. The final table identifies eight inclusive components:

1. 1. 1. Vehicle equipment
      2. Environment
      3. Trip management
      4. Assistance
      5. Operational organisation
      6. Regulations and standards
      7. Awareness raising
      8. Funding

It is good to see the practical application of the Principles of Universal Design in relation to inclusive mobility. This framework brings components together nicely. 

From the Abstract

This paper addresses the question how a future mobility system can be accessible to everyone regardless whether or not they have a disability. The purpose of a conceptional framework is to show how to design and organise an inclusive mobility system.

The research question is based on the seven Principles of Universal Design”, the “UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” as well as on the UN goals on sustainable development.  These theoretical principles on inclusion and inclusive design are transferred to the interdisciplinary concerns of spatial planning.

The identified accessibility and mobility requirements of individuals with disabilities are assigned to the roles and responsibilities of government, the private sector, academia and civil society and advocacy groups.

This approach identifies innovative solutions that constitute an inclusive mobility system by considering technology and non-technological driven aspects. Eight inclusive components (called i components) for the future design and organisation of an inclusive mobility system are formulated: i-Car, i-Environment, i-Ride, i-Assist, i-Organize, i-Code, i-Image and i-Funding.

 

How do you find the people who are most disadvantaged by transport system design when they don’t or can’t travel? If you can’t find them then how will you know what an inclusive transport system looks like? A guide to disability sector engagement for transport professionals is a great idea.

One of Bridget Burdett’s research interests within the transport sector is transport inequity.  Her paper, which includes a good practice guide, explains the issues and how to address them. One of the key issues is for professionals and users to understand each other. The language of transport takes time for professionals to learn, let alone community members. So that’s one place to start.

Burdett’s paper sets out recommended practice for transport and lists specific terms of engagement. The research for the Guide was commissioned by the New Zealand Transport Agency. The title of the paper is, Disability sector engagement: Good practice guide.  The Guide will be useful for engaging with the disability sector for any infrastructure project. 

Bridget has also written a case study about a wheelchair user and her experiences. It’s titled, Transport and Disability: Brook’s Story.  Here’s one of the quotes from Brook: 

“I was told by a security guard, “you can’t be here, it’s a fire risk”. And I said, Why? Am I more flammable than other people?”

If you are a wheelchair user and want to travel by train, the best places are in Asia and Europe. That’s according to a global study on accessible rail systems. The key points of the study are:

• • The lack of accessibility is not only an issue in developing countries.
  • The systems’ accessibility level varies even among cities of the same country.
  • 62% of all systems with good accessibility are located in Asia and Europe.
  • 19% of the systems do not provide any information about their accessibility status.

The title of the article is, Wheelchair accessibility of urban rail systems: Some preliminary findings of a global overview. It is open access from ScienceDirect. 

The article has a graphic showing the level of accessibility by city (shown above). It shows Sydney as “fully accessible”. However, in 2021 Sydney is still retrofitting lifts into urban rail stations. The historical context of accessibility, or lack thereof, in each country is a key factor in the current accessibility status. 

The authors conclude,

“This study aimed to present a preliminary and general overview that can be valuable as a starting point for other studies on this subject. Thus, we encourage future studies to consider the real accessibility at the stations (and the availability of all the required infrastructure), not just the accessibility that is declared by the systems’ operators on their official website, as that information may not be updated nor even realistic.”

The research was carried out by an international team funded by institutions in Taiwan, Brazil and Chile.