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 the travel data for women 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.
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
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
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.