Mediate – Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
Project Number: 218684
Deliverable Number: D2.1 Deliverable Name: Review of previous and existing
initiatives and methods for defining and measuring accessibility in public transport
Due Date of Deliverable: M3 Completion Date of Deliverable: M11 Start Date of Project: 1 December, 2008 Duration: 24 Months Deliverable Lead Partner: TIS.pt Deliverable Author(s): Carlos Marques, Alexandra Rodrigues, Daniela Carvalho
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Program for Research and Technological Development (FP7)
Dissemination Level PU Public x
PP Restricted to other program participants (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including Commission Services)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
2 of 126
Document History Version Date Description/Changes
1 2009-03-10 Abridged version
2 2009-05-11 First draft
3 2009-08-14 Second draft New chapter on standards and the revision of the QUATTRO project, includes your comments on the assessment tables as well as a final table highlighting the projects referred as high or exceptional for Mediate including a short description of the reasons they have been classified as such
4 2009-09-14 Final Inclusion of indicators presented at ASK-IT Final conference
Document flow Sent Date
Task leader 2009-03-10
All partners 2009-03-13
Task leader 2009-05-19
All partners 2009-06-10
All partners 2009-08-14
Executive Board 2009-09-25
Task leader 2009-09-25
Executive Board 2009-10-01
Approval By Approval date
Executive Board 2009-10-05
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
3 of 126
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................5 2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................7 3 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ..................................................................................7 4 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INITIATIVES.............................................................................9
4.1 EU INITIATIVES AND STANDARDS .................................................................................9 4.1.1 European standard EN 13816 ......................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 CEN CENELEC Workshop CWA 45546:1 ...................................................................... 19
4.2 PROJECTS FOCUSED ON CROSS SECTIONAL ISSUES ON ACCESSIBILITY.....................22 4.2.1 ACCESS2ALL.................................................................................................................. 22 4.2.2 ASKIT............................................................................................................................... 23 4.2.3 AUNT-SUE....................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.4 ECA - European Concept for Accessibility ...................................................................... 30 4.2.5 EUROACCESS................................................................................................................ 32 4.2.6 MASCARA - Demand Responsive Transport Service in urban/rural areas .................... 35 4.2.7 MAPLE............................................................................................................................. 39 4.2.8 MOBILATE....................................................................................................................... 40 4.2.9 NICHES +, ....................................................................................................................... 42 4.2.10 PT ACCESS ................................................................................................................ 45 4.2.11 TELSCAN.................................................................................................................... 48 4.2.12 UNIACCESS................................................................................................................ 49
4.3 PROJECTS FOCUSED ON INTERMODALITY/CO-MODALITY............................................53 4.3.1 EuPI - Towards Passenger Intermodality in the EU ........................................................ 53 4.3.2 KITE - Knowledge Base for Intermodal passenger travel ............................................... 55 4.3.3 LINK - European Forum on Intermodal Passenger Travel .............................................. 65
4.4 PROJECTS FOCUSED ON SUSTAINABLE/EFFICIENT TRANSPORT ..................................68 4.4.1 AENEAS- Energy-Efficient Mobility in an Ageing Society ............................................... 68 4.4.2 BEST - Benchmarking European Sustainable Transport ................................................ 70 4.4.3 BESTRANS...................................................................................................................... 72 4.4.4 DISTILLATE - Improved Indicators for Sustainable Transport ........................................ 76 4.4.5 MILLENNIUM CITIES DATABASE.................................................................................. 78 4.4.6 MOST - Mobility Management Strategies for the Next Decades..................................... 85 4.4.7 URBACT - Urban Development Network ........................................................................ 88
4.5 PROJECTS FOCUSED ON MOBILITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ...............................89 4.5.1 Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative....................................................................... 89 4.5.2 CoMET/NOVA.................................................................................................................. 95 4.5.3 BOB International Railway Benchmarking..................................................................... 100 4.5.4 Nordic Initiatives on Accessibility................................................................................... 102
4.6 PROJECTS FOCUSED ON QUALITY ISSUES IN MOBILITY .............................................110 4.6.1 EBSF European Bus System of the Future ................................................................... 110 4.6.2 QUATTRO - Quality approach in tendering urban public transport operations............ 112 4.6.3 EQUIP - Extending the quality of public transport ......................................................... 113
5 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................115 5.1 MAIN RESULTS.......................................................................................................115
5.1.1 European Standards...................................................................................................... 116 5.1.2 Cross Sectional Issues Related to Accessibility ............................................................ 116
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
4 of 126
5.1.3 Intermodality/Co-modality .............................................................................................. 117 5.1.4 Sustainable/efficient transport ....................................................................................... 117 5.1.5 Mobility performance assessment ................................................................................. 118 5.1.6 Quality issues in mobility ............................................................................................... 118 5.1.7 Most relevant projects for Mediate................................................................................. 118
5.2 SETTING UP COMMON INDICATORS FOR ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT ......................123 5.2.1 Accessibility Evaluation Issues...................................................................................... 123 5.2.2 Identification and description of accessibility features................................................... 123 5.2.3 Defining Performance Indicators ................................................................................... 125 5.2.4 Inputs for next stages of Mediate................................................................................... 125
Index of Tables Table 1: Four level classification of public transport stop accessibility in Helsinki .... 24
Table 2 – KITE - Package of measures of type A: Intermodal integration of Modes. 59
Table 3 - Actions and measures about Passenger services to support intermodality62
Table 4 - Design aspects of the intermodal interchange........................................... 63
Table 5 – Additional services for passengers’ conveniences ................................... 64
Table 6 - Travel Chain Indicator Themes as suggested by the Deltasenteret .........105
Table 7 – European Standards................................................................................116
Table 8 - Projects Focused on Cross Sectional Issues Related to Accessibility......116
Table 9 - Projects Focused On Intermodality...........................................................117
Table 10 - Projects Focused On Sustainable/Efficient Transport ............................117
Table 11 - Projects Focused on Mobility Performance Assessment........................118
Table 12 - Projects Focused On Quality Issues in Mobility......................................118
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
5 of 126
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The overall objective for Mediate WP2 is to identify and select a set of common indicators in order to
measure accessibility in public urban transport in Europe. The selected indicators will form the basis
for the self assessment tool that will be developed in WP4 and for the data collection in WP3. Hence,
WP2 has the following specific objectives:
Review relevant initiatives and methodological approaches used in identify and describe
accessibility in public transport systems.
Identify and selected common indicators to measure accessibility in public transport
In view of the above, Task 2.1 aimed at providing a contribution for the development of WP2, namely
Deliverable 2.1: Review on methods for measuring accessibility in public transport systems. The work
was therefore anchored on a review of initiatives in relevant EU projects and initiatives focusing on
access to public transport and on measuring levels of accessibility. Such initiatives were reviewed
addressing in particular the methodological approaches used in identifying and describing accessibility
in public transport systems.
An assessment of information and indicators used in these initiatives was made, including review of
standards and existing initiatives and methods for defining and measuring accessibility to public
transport. Some of the key issues covered in this review included issues such as:
What is the focus of the project? (Accessibility Management, Accessibility Technology, ICT
support to accessibility, Transport Planning, Standardization Issues, Co-modal Transport, etc…)
What does the project bring regarding the way accessibility is or should be assessed?
Does it provide a framework for Assessment of Accessibility/Description of Accessibility?
Does it contribute with indicators and, if so, what kind of indicators are suggested?
Does it identify barriers to the development of a framework for Assessment of Accessibility?
What does it say about Accessibility Assessment depending on specific regional/local contexts?
Cooperation with relevant initiatives was also explored as some projects are running in parallel to
Mediate. Indeed, some of these projects have been identified and are expected to add value in
relation to development of indicators and general assessment of accessibility initiatives. An example of
cooperation is the case of ACCESS2ALL, whereas all information collected by partners for the
literature review will be gathered together and possibly shared with Mediate. The lay-out for this
project in terms of it “Good Practice Guide” will also be shared with Mediate for comments.
While reviewing the extended list of projects identified in this respect, it became clear that the core
topic addressed in each such projects had diverse nature. While some projects were clearly dedicated
to accessibility issues, other were concerned with ICT for mobility management, quality issues in
transportation systems, sustainable mobility and energy, etc.. For this reason, also the contents and
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
6 of 126
the orientation of each such project was different, addressing the theme envisaged in this task through
different perspectives, sometimes even with limited objective interest for Mediate. Nevertheless, we
have tried to seize the most out of this review, in the attempt to identify features that could be helpful
for the development of Mediate, not only regarding the objectives of WP2 but of the whole project.
The understanding described above resulted in the following clustering of projects
Existent standards on public transport;
Projects on Cross sectional issues related to accessibility;
Projects on Intermodality;
Projects on Sustainable/efficient transport;
Projects on Mobility performance assessment;
Projects on Quality issues in mobility.
The initiatives and projects identified that are classified of exceptional high relevance for Mediate are
two standardisations initiatives, two European projects and the Nordic collaboration initiative on
accessibility.
European standard EN 13816 on Public Passenger Transport - Service quality definition,
targeting and measurement. This is a standard promoting a quality approach to public
transport operations and focusing on customers’ needs and expectations.
CEN-CENELEC Workshop CWA 45546-1, entitled "Accessibility in Collective Transport
Systems" (ACTS) is a guidance document in the field of safety and usability of products by
people with special needs (e.g. elderly and disabled).
EUROACCESS - European accessibility of public transport for people with disabilities“ is a
European Project envisaging the development of EU policies on the accessibility of the
transport systems in Europe in view of promoting social integration and active participation in
society of people with disabilities.
Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative is a European project promoting good local and
regional transport by involving cities and regions throughout Europe to compare and assess
the performance of their local transport systems.
Nordic Initiatives on Accessibility is a coordinated Nordic initiative to identify a set of
common accessibility indicators enabling the Nordic countries to collect comparable data. Two
working groups, on road transport and rail transport, were established in 2007 by the Nordic
Council on Disability Policy.
A full review of identified projects and their relevance and contributions to Mediate are presented
in this report.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
7 of 126
2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The overall objective for WP2 within Mediate project is to identify and select a set of common
indicators in order to measure accessibility in public urban transport in Europe. The selected indicators
will form the basis for the self assessment tool to be developed in WP4 and for the data collection in
WP3.
The WP2 has the following specific objectives:
to review relevant initiatives and methodological approaches used in identify and describe
accessibility in public transport systems.
to identify and selected common indicators to measure accessibility in public transport
Hence, task 2.1 is aimed at providing a contribution for the development of WP2, namely through the
Review on methods for measuring accessibility in public transport systems, which is the scope of D2.1
3 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
The work was anchored on a review of a sample of some 30 projects and initiatives undertaken at
National, European and International level, with either a clear or a potential focus on accessibility to
public transport and on measuring levels of accessibility. Such initiatives were reviewed addressing
the approaches used in identifying and describing accessibility in public transport systems. A first
insight into the available standards was done.
An assessment of some 30 pre-selected initiatives was made, reviewing standards and existing
initiatives and methods for defining and measuring accessibility to public transport.
Some of the key questions addresses in such review were:
What is the focus of the project/initiative? (Accessibility Management, Accessibility Technology,
ICT support to accessibility, Transport Planning, Standardization Issues, Co-modal Transport,
etc…)
What does the project bring regarding the way accessibility is or should be assessed?
Does it provide a framework for Assessment of Accessibility/Description of Accessibility?
Does it contributes with indicators and, if so, what kind of indicators are suggested?
Does it identify barriers to the development of a framework for Assessment of Accessibility?
What does it say about Accessibility Assessment depending on specific regional/local contexts?
Opportunities for cooperation with relevant initiatives were also explored, as some such projects are
currently running in parallel with Mediate. A few projects were identified and are expected to add value
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
8 of 126
in relation to development of indicators and general assessment of accessibility initiatives. An example
of cooperation is the case of the project ACCESS2ALL, whereas all information collected by partners
for the literature review will be gathered together and possibly shared with Mediate.
In terms of organisation of the information, while reviewing the selected list of projects it became clear
that the core topic addressed in each such projects had a diverse nature. While some projects were
clearly dedicated to accessibility issues, other were more concerned with e.g. ICT for mobility
management, quality issues in transportation systems, sustainable mobility and energy, etc.. For this
reason, the contents and the orientation of each such project was different by addressing the theme
envisaged in this task through different perspectives, sometimes with limited objective interest for
Mediate, so it was concluded after the reviewing process.
Nevertheless, we have tried to seize the most out of all reviews, in the attempt to identify features that
could be helpful for the development of Mediate, not only regarding the objectives of WP2 but of the
whole project.
The understanding described above resulted in the following clustering of projects described in
CHAPTER 4 dedicated to Review of Relevant Initiatives:
EU initiatives and standards
Projects on Cross Sectional Issues Related To Accessibility
Projects on Intermodality/Co-modality
Projects on Sustainable/Efficient Transport
Projects on Mobility Performance Assessment
Projects on Quality Issues In Mobility
Each such project was subject to a detailed characterisation along the following lines:
Summary/Abstract
Detailed Overview
○ Description of the project
○ Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment
○ Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility
○ Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility
The respective relevance assessment of each project in terms of the development of Mediate is
assessed in CHAPTER 5 dedicated to Conclusions
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
9 of 126
4 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INITIATIVES A summary assessment of the relevance of the contents and contributions to Mediate and respective
descriptions are presented below regarding each of the five different natures of project above
identified:
The work was anchored on a review of a sample of some 30 projects and initiatives undertaken at
National, European and International levels. This selection was made upon the perceived potential
relevance in terms of description and assessment of public transport systems and accessibility issues.
4.1 EU initiatives and standards
Demographic change of the population of the EU is contributing to an aging population. A larger
proportion of society, and hence a larger potential transport service consumer group will in the future
have some form of reduced mobility, due to old age or a disability. Designing public transport modes
for all passengers, including those with reduced mobility, means making the transport safer, inclusive
and more user friendly for all passengers.
A charter on access to transport services and infrastructure adopted by the ECMT Council of
Ministers, on May 1999, recognises that and therefore underlines the political commitment in Europe
to ensuring that all new transport infrastructure should be constructed to take into account the needs
of people with disabilities.
Also in the its communication “Towards a barrier free Europe for people with disabilities” (COM
(2000)284), the Commission emphasised that “mobility plays a crucial role in ensuring participation in
economic and social activity and the lack of it is an inhibiting factor against the participation rights of
people with disabilities …it also asserts that positive developments in improving access for people with
disabilities have positive implications for other areas such as quality of working life, protection of
consumer and competitiveness of EU industry”. Furthermore it is referred that “mobility should not be
regarded simply as a convenience or even a social and economic necessity. It should be regarded as
a right to which everyone should be entitled…, being widely accepted that making transport easier to
use for people with disabilities would contribute to meeting broader policy objectives…”. From this
communication it is clear that accessibility and mobility issues are now dealt with in the light of equal
opportunities and the right to participate.
In fact, during the last years, the needs of PRM were assessed in several EU research programmes.
Examples of that were the COST actions, the UITP and ECMT tasks forces and the projects running
under the FP programmes, including those under the action line “research relating to people with
disabilities” (key action Ageing population of the 5th RTD framework programme). The review of
previous initiatives presented in this deliverable covers a large part of those projects.
Within this general overview of EU initiates and standards, two documents are reviewed:
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
10 of 126
• European standard EN 13816: Transportation - Logistics and services - Public passenger
transport - Service quality definition, targeting and measurement
• CEN-CENELEC workshop CWA 45546-1: Guidelines to standardises of Collective Transport
Systems - Needs of older people and persons with disabilities - Part 1: Basic Guidelines
It should be noticed that, in the scope of this deliverable, the COST actions and the ECMT guides
have not been considered as such review is part of previous projects herewith included (e.g.
EuroAccess).
4.1.1 European standard EN 13816
(i) Description of the project The main purpose of this standard is to promote a quality approach to public transport operations and
focus interest on customers’ needs and expectations. This is done by specifying procedures and
indicators to measure the quality of service in urban public transport.
Jointly initiated by the QUATTRO EC project and CEN-TC 320, the finalisation of the standard was
ensured directly by CEN, though some partners from QUATTRO were engaged as national
representatives.
The standard includes recommendations for the preferred form and contents of agreements regarding
quality between parties sharing responsibility for a public passenger transport (PPT) system, and
invitations to tender. The recommendations include a guideline for allocation of responsibilities for the
relevant quality parameters. The standard also includes recommendations for the measurement of
service quality, enabling authorities in a tendering/contracting situation to follow its guidance to require
that the service be provided in accordance with this standard.
In summary, the standard specifies the requirement to define, target and measure quality of service in
public passenger transport (PPT), and provides guidance for the selection of related measurement
methods. It is intended to be used by service providers in the presentation and monitoring of their
services but is also recommended for use by authorities and agencies responsible for the procurement
of PPT services in the preparation of invitations to tender.
Its use promotes the translation of customer expectations and perceptions of quality into viable,
measurable, and manageable quality parameters.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
11 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment
Besides the direct outputs (i.e. comprehensive list of quality criteria and performance measurement), it
includes relevant information in terms of a glossary of related terms and definitions. A key definition of
particular interest to Mediate is the one that specifies the characteristics of a public passenger
transport
Public passenger transport – refer to services which have the following characteristics: • are open to all, whether travelling singly or in groups; • are publicly advertised; • have fixed times or frequencies, and periods of operation; • have fixed routes and stopping places, or defined origins and destinations, or a defined operating area; • are provided on a continuing basis, and • have a published fare. It is not limited by reference to: • mode of transport; • vehicle and infrastructure ownership; • journey length; • any necessity for pre-booking or the method of payment for travel; • legal status of the service providers
Furthermore the standard is based on the concept of the quality loop, which definition of quality is
decoupled into four main concepts, as illustrated in figure below:
• Expected Quality (QE) – the level of quality which implicitly or explicitly is expected by the
customer and understood as a composition of movable criteria that vary with several factors,
mostly related with customer direct and indirect experience.;
• Targeted Quality (QT) – the level of quality which the service provider or manager is aiming
to provide to the customers as a consequence of his understanding of the customer
expectations and of the capabilities of the productive side of the system. TQ must be set in a
objective way and decoupled through the different services available;
• Delivered Quality (QD) – the level of quality effectively achieved in the provision of services
by the different components of the system, although not necessarily a coincident image to
what is visible by the customers. DE must be measured also from the customer viewpoint and
not only from the supply side perspective that is, it should be assessed against the client’s
criteria;
• Perceived Quality (QP) – the level of quality perceived by the customer. This is influenced by
several factors, such as their personal experience of the service or from associated or similar
services, the information received about the service, from the provider or other sources, the
non-service elements (e.g. convenience, etc), or even the personal environment and needs. In
the more recently explored domains of marketing (in its different approaches: mass, one-to-
one, relational, affluent) this concept is very close the one of “customer experience”.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
12 of 126
The adoption of this loop and the operationalisation of these concepts vary significantly against the
type of service in discussion, however they can be grouped in two different categories: one represents
the production perspective - targeted and delivered quality and another representing the consumption
perspective – expected and perceived quality. This can also be understood per reference to the two
concepts above highlighted: the level of service (the production / service provider perspective) and
quality of service (the customer perspective).
This concept was further elaborated by Macário (2005), highlighting that the relation between these
four concepts is of utmost importance to adjust the service both to the stated and to the real (revealed)
needs of the external customer, reducing the gaps resultant from the interaction of several agents and
processes at the different decision (or planning) levels (see figure below). Those relations can be
observed at the service and organizational scale, but their complexity increases substantially when we
consider the system as a whole.
Source – Macário (2005)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
13 of 126
Gaps highlighted in the figure above can be detailed as follows:
• The difference between expected quality (QE) and targeted quality (QT) reveals the existence
of deficiencies in the process of identifying needs of the external customers and sometimes to
distinguish between stated needs and real needs, that is, difficulties in reading market signs.
• Deviations between targeted quality (QT) and delivered quality (QD) can be caused by several
reasons that might be related either with the service design or production, that is any situation
of under performance related with the provision of the services. This performance gap is either
a measure of the effectiveness of one (or more) of the several service providers in achieving
their own targets or of the effectiveness in decomposing targeted quality through the different
service components.
• Perceived quality (QP) often holds little similitude to delivered quality (QD). This disturbance
has several causes; it can result from customer’s accumulated knowledge about service
delivered and of personal or reported experiences with the service under assessment or with
similar ones, and of personal background and environment, which create an expectation on
the service provided. Consequently, perceived quality is assessed having an expectations
scale as a filter for this assessment.
The operationalisation of this “gap” concept to the objectives of Mediate is of utmost importance, in
particular for the definition of the self assessment tool. As in any assessment, this implies:
• To define and assess explicitly and/or implicitly the customers’ expectation;
• To specify a viable and deliverable service, taking those expectations into account, (for
instance specifying a reference service, a level of achievement and a threshold of
unacceptable performance),
• To produce a service that complies with the agreed specifications (including measurement of
performance and corrective action);
• To create procedures to communicate the results to the customers, where appropriate;
• To create routines to measure customers’ satisfaction;
• To establish procedures to analyse the results and taking of appropriate corrective action
The quality approach defined in this standard considers the following criteria, which is then
desegregated into three levels. It should be referred that the standard foresees that this applies to all
customer segments, including mobility impaired customers.1
1 However it should be advisable in the context of Mediate to establish the criteria and the assessment methods specifically for the elderly and disabled people.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
14 of 126
The standard considers a desegregation of components into three levels, as follows. Such matrix
offers a comprehensive framework for analysing both functional and technical quality determinants in
urban public transport.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1.1 Modes1.2 Network 1.2.1 distance to b/a-point
1.2.2 need for transfers1.2.3 area covered
1.3 Operation 1.3.1 operating hours1.3.2 frequency1.3.3 vehicle load factor
1.4 Suitability1.5 Dependability2.1 External interface 2.1.1 to pedestrians
2.1.2 to cyclists2.1.3 to taxi users2.1.4 to private car users
2.2 Internal interface 2.2.1 entrances/exits2.2.2 internal movement2.2.3 transfer to other PPT modes
2.3 Ticketing availability 2.3.1 acquisition on network2.3.2 acquisition off network2.3.3 validation
3.1 General information 3.1.1 about availability3.1.2 about accessibility3.1.3 about sources of information3.1.4 about travelling time3.1.5 about customer care3.1.6 about comfort3.1.7 about security3.1.8 about environmental impact
3.2 Travel information (normal conditions) 3.2.1 street directions3.2.2 b/a-point identification3.2.3 vehicle direction signs3.2.4 about route3.2.5 about time3.2.6 about fare3.2.7 about type of ticket
3.3 Travel information (abnormal conditions) 3.3.1 about current/forecast network status3.3.2 about alternatives available3.3.3 about refund/redress3.3.4 about suggestions & complaints3.3.5 about lost property
1. Availability
2. Accessibility
3. Information
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
15 of 126
4.1 Length of trip time 4.1.1 trip planning4.1.2 access/egress4.1.3 at b/a-points and transfer points4.1.4 in vehicle
4.2 Adherence to schedule 4.2.1 punctuality4.2.2 regularity
5.1 Commitment 5.1.1 customer orientation5.1.2 innovation and initiative
5.2 Customer interface 5.2.1 enquiries5.2.2 complaints5.2.3 redress
5.3 Staff 5.3.1 availability5.3.2 commercial attitude5.3.3 skills5.3.4 appearance
5.4 Assistance 5.4.1 at service interruptions5.4.2 for customers needing help
5.5 Ticketing options 5.5.1 flexibility5.5.2 concessionary tariffs5.5.3 through ticketing5.5.4 payment options5.5.5 consistent price calculations
6.1 Useability of passenger facilities 6.1.1 at b/a points6.1.2 on vehicles
6.2 Seating and personal space 6.2.1 in vehicle6.2.2 at b/a-points
6.3 Ride comfort 6.3.1 driving6.3.2 starting/stopping6.3.3 external factors
6.4 Ambient conditions 6.4.1 atmosphere6.4.2 weather protection6.4.3 cleanliness6.4.4 brightness6.4.5 congestion6.4.6 noise6.4.7 other undesired activity
6.5 Complementary facilities 6.5.1 toilets/washing6.5.2 luggage & other objects6.5.3 communication6.5.4 refreshments6.5.5 commercial services6.5.6 entertainment
6.6 Ergonomy 6.6.1 ease of movement6.6.2 furniture design
7.1 Freedom from crime 7.1.1 preventative design7.1.2 lighting7.1.3 visible monitoring7.1.4 staff/police presence7.1.5 identified help points
7.2 Freedom from accident 7.2.1 presence/visibility of supports, e.g. Handrails7.2.2 avoidance/visibility of hazards7.2.3 active safeguarding by staff
7.3 Emergency management 7.3.1 facilities and plans
8.1 Pollution 8.1.1 exhaust8.1.2 noise8.1.3 visual pollution8.1.4 vibration8.1.5 dust & dirt8.1.6 odour8.1.7 waste8.1.8 electromagnetic interference
8.2 Natural resources 8.2.1 energy8.2.2 space
8.3 Infrastructure 8.3.1 effect of vibration8.3.2 wear on road/rail etc.8.3.3 demands on available resources
5. Customer care
6. Comfort
7. Security
8. Environmental impact
4. Time
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
16 of 126
(iii) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility
Within this standard some general examples of indicators to measure both the satisfaction and
performance of service are included, however this only relates with measurement and not data
collection per se, which would include additional techniques such as stated preference, revealed
preference and direct observations. This means that it is left to the users of the standard to decide on
the most appropriate measures and targets bearing in mind their own circumstances.
Tables below present some suggestion of those measures. It should be noticed that since the
adoption of this standard, several public transport operators in Europe have already been certified
against it and several cases of public transport tenders follow this guidance for the definition of
service.
Furthermore, in some countries (e.g. Portugal), this standard was already subject to more detailed
versions specifying the requirements for bus, tram and underground modes.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
17 of 126
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
18 of 126
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
19 of 126
4.1.2 CEN CENELEC Workshop CWA 45546:1
(i) Description of the project
This CEN/CENELEC Workshop Agreement document Part 1 has been prepared by CEN/CENELEC
Workshop 16, entitled "Accessibility in Collective Transport Systems" (ACTS) as a guidance document
in the field of safety and usability of products by people with special needs (e.g. elderly and disabled).
Specifically, this text provides guidance to writers of relevant standards relating to collective transport
on how to take account of the needs of all passengers with reduced mobility, especially elderly people
and people with impairments. This document pursues the furtherance of globally accessible collective
transport, that is to say, transport that can be used by everyone. In particular, it aims to:
• Provide information and raise awareness on how passenger transport systems should be
designed and the circumstances that should be taken into account so each of their elements is
fully accessible.
• Draw attention to the importance of taking into account the different needs of people with
impairments when developing standards.
• Raise awareness for the social importance aspect of providing accessible collective transport
(transport services for all).
• To demonstrate that the benefits of accessible transport improve the quality of service (comfort,
safety, convenience, etc.) for all users.
• Make more apparent the potential increase in economic trading benefits through extending
accessible transport to a wider population.
The document is applicable to all means of collective transport used at any time, in any place or for
any reason, referring in particular to:
• accessible collective transport service: collective transport service, including infrastructure, as
a sequence designed both to allow the access to the vehicle, and be practical in all aspects of
use, by all passengers.
• collective transport service: transport service designed to move passengers and, as
appropriate, their personal belongings. Taxis are considered as collective transport.
• collective transport infrastructure: series of elements, other than the vehicle, associated with
passenger transport and including information, ticket sales, waiting, boarding and alighting.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
20 of 126
A key issue underlying the development of this guide is the consideration of the whole transport chain,
and not specifically a transport mode, as presented in the figure below. Thus, for the journey to be
accessible, each element must be accessible, and so must the links between them. This means:
• getting to, and using collective transport, including infrastructure, any combination of the
different transport services and interchange possibilities between these;
• information among others to ensure that every passenger is given real time information of
stations, bus stops, etc, before and during the travel;
• possibility to make a reservation, buy tickets and pay for them before or during the trip.
The document specifies two main aspects to be taken into consideration whenever the transport is
designed: a) the identification of passengers’ / users’ types and b) the need of informative systems
targeted to those passengers.
Type of Passengers’ / users
Refer to the types of limitations (sensorial, physical and cognitive) that should be taken into account
when designing the specifications for the services.
Type of users / passengers Aspects to be taken into account
Reduced Vision
Vision impaired
Poor sight - Limited sharpness in vision/area of vision/orientation
Blind - Lighting conditions, contrasts, glare, standardisation location, logical
architectural solution, design, obstacles in the road/hazards. Leading line,
tactile surface, signs, staircase leading line, glass markers, sounds.
Reduced Hearing
Hard of hearing
Reduced hearing, hard of hearing, Deaf
Background noise, acoustics, hearing aid, lip reading good lightning condition,
visual signs, information, minimum of noise, "inductive coupling", sound
insulation, loudspeaker quality, "induction coil in handset", optical warning
system
Reduced Movement
(Mobility impaired)
Walking problems, Reduced sensitivity in hands and arms, Wheelchair users
(Reduced sensitivity), (Heart and lung disease)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
21 of 126
Functionality, space, broad passage, remove obstacles, user friendly access-
controls (turnstiles, etc), stairs+ramp /elevator, short walking distance, easy to
open doors, carrousel doors, flat areas of movement avoid steps, slide safe,
toilet, non slip floor, heavy fire doors
Environmentally challenged
Allergic
Allergic asthmatic, eczema, Asthmatic, Epileptic
Right building materials, regulation of inner climate, cleaning, plants with low
pollen, ventilation, smoke free, avoid humidity, , food options, sound level and
flashing light frequency
Cognitively challenged Lower comprehension, lower concentration, language difficulties, orientation
Written, symbol and picture, easy to grasp, separate different messages,
leading line, recognisable areas, logical placing and functions and orientation
Information
Refer to the elements to be taken into account during the whole travel chain
• Travel maps (Travel journey assistance)
Develop and maintain a passenger oriented road map. The roadmap should start with users (e.g.
access with wheelchair) and be structured round the travel chain, not with technological solutions.
The road map should be used to help coordinate and prioritise the many different standardisation
stakeholders and activities, and links to non-standardisation activities. (e.g. access to hotels,
shops, etc.)
• Timetables
Timetables, with regard to definitions, abbreviations, symbols, colour coding, and structure of
information presentation-information must be accessible according to user needs.
• Passenger information
Provide a set of key passenger information to cover both content (for example, definition of day
pass) and presentation, to cover relevant price information, information about location and access
to location, obstacles etc. Architecture, transportation vehicle, way to terminal/stop, available lifts
etc, doors open / close automatically.
• Real time information - Traceable actions in transport system.
Allow real time information throughout the travel chain so that the traveller is given updated
information, (eg. delays) can change travel itinerary during trip and can receive feedback on the
actions/ decisions taken as well as inform interested parties about changes made. (e.g. Persons
people waiting to receive passengers at stations / platform). Include necessary feedback
information to passengers through the total travel chain.
• Interoperability of travel Information (channels: internet, mobile, Short Message Service (sms),
Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), etc.)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
22 of 126
Ensure interoperability of passenger information (Intelligent Transportation System, TS) with other
information providers (Geographic Information System, GIS) and infrastructures, other
transportation providers (taxis) and assistive technologies.
• Presentation of information according to personal profile.
Provide access to information in preferred channel, (e.g. choice of visual, audio or tactilely
presented information), preferred language and character set. Provide information relevant to
individuals’ personal profile (e.g. needs information on openings for wheelchairs, no smoking,
facilities for deaf and children’s facilities).
• Signs, Pictograms, Icons, symbols, fonts
Provide set of icons, symbols and pictograms to be used throughout the travel chain. Symbols
should be accessible by audio/ tactile means (i.e. talking signs).
The document also includes detailed tables providing the identification of key areas (access area,
terminals, boarding and vehicles) of possible interaction between the elements of a collective transport
system and human abilities (physical, sensorial, cognitive and allergies, according to the MGLC -
Motion, Grasp, Location, Communication requirements, which must be met to ensure accessibility.
(iii) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility No indicators have been developed.
4.2 Projects Focused on Cross Sectional Issues on Accessibility
4.2.1 ACCESS2ALL
4.2.1.1 Summary
A major aim of ACCESS2SALL Mobility Schemes Ensuring Accessibility of Public Transport
for All Users, a project that is currently running, is to provide a database of accessible public
transport and accessible design, which could be shared with Mediate. An early activity for
ACCESS2ALL is to develop a structure for this database. Another early task will be the clustering of
public transport users according to their functional capabilities and needs when using public transport.
The information collected for the literature review may be shared with Mediate and the lay-out for this
project in terms of it “Good Practice Guide”, will be sent to Mediate for comments.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
23 of 126
4.2.1.2 Project Overview
This project is currently underway. Mediate has already established links to this project which will be
explored in further stages of the project.
4.2.2 ASKIT
4.2.2.1 Summary Regarding ASKIT - Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-Based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users, this ICT related project comprises a framework for assessing
or describing accessibility. This is achieved by means of matrices that break down each journey
(mono-modal) into a small set of activities (eg, trip planning, purchasing the ticket, boarding) and each
activity into a set of actions (eg, choosing destination, choosing transport, approaching driver).
A set of attributes is then defined (eg, width of wheelchair, ramp length/gradient, availability of
assistance) which can be scored against the type of disability. This set of attributes is the ‘check list’.
Efforts to build up the content required for test site activities, checklists were agreed upon between the
project and the authorities and end users to assess specific accessibility features. Of interest for
Mediate are the transport accessibility checklists, which break down the journey into a series of
scoreable attributes. This enables the development of a homogenous database to compare and
process data in relation to user profiles (e.g. by type of disability).
4.2.2.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project ASK-IT is an integrated project, partly funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework
Programme, e-Inclusion. The driving vision behind the ASK-IT project was to develop services based
on Information Communication Technologies (ICT) that will allow Mobility Impaired people to live more
independently.
Through a device (mobile phone, PDA), users have access to relevant and real-time information
primarily for travelling but also whilst at home, for work and leisure services. The emphasis is on a
seamless service provision and a device that is intelligent enough to address the personal needs and
preferences of the user. For example, information for a visually impaired person will be given orally,
while for an illiterate person mostly in graphics. The project involved a demonstration phase during
which the ASK-IT system was tested and evaluated in 8 cities across Europe. ASK-IT was coordinated
by SIEMENS (Spain) and CERTH/HIT (Hellenic Institute of Transport, Greece).
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
24 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment In order to build up the content required for the Ask-IT system to be deployed in each of the test sites,
checklists were agreed upon between the researcher and the test sites (authorities and end users) to
assess specific accessibility features. Of interest for Mediate are the transport accessibility checklists,
which break down the journey into a series of scoreable attributes. This enables an homogenous
database to be built up that makes comparison and processing of data in relation to user profiles (e.g.
type of disability) possible.
An algorithm was developed to describe functions by user group. For a particular journey, the
algorithm can in theory define those user groups for which the entire journey, or parts thereof, are
accessible. Nonetheless is not clear whether the algorithm can indeed take into account every single
attribute and therefore users are required to really test a system or service in order to determine
whether it is fully accessible.
Of particular interest to Mediate is the approach followed in Helsinki presented in the chapter below.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility ASK-IT has developed matrices that break down each journey (mono-modal) into a small set of
activities (eg, trip planning, purchasing the ticket, boarding) and each activity into a set of actions (eg,
choosing destination, choosing transport, approaching driver). Then a set of attributes have been
defined (eg, width of wheelchair, ramp length/gradient, availability of assistance) which can be scored
against the type of disability. This set of attributes is the ‘check list’.
As part of the work to offer journey planners, dynamic travel information and map information, the
accessibility of 1358 bus and tram stops in Helsinki were assessed in 2008 and presented in the final
ASK-IT conference. The aspects assessed are described in the table below.
Table 1: Four level classification of public transport stop accessibility in Helsinki
Accessibility level
Measures Equipment
1 Fully accessible
- the distance between the stop shelter and the roadway 1.5 m at minimum
- height difference between the pavement and roadway between 25 and 30 cm for trams, 16–25 cm for buses
- longitudinal gradient max. 3 % - lateral gradient max. 2 %
- no dangerous items/ equipment posing collision danger
- warning area near the stop - bench exists - light exists - shelter exists
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
25 of 126
Accessibility level
Measures Equipment
2 Partly accessible
- the distance between the stop shelter and the roadway 1.5 m at minimum
- height difference between the pavement and roadway between 25 and 30 cm for trams, 16–25 cm for buses
- longitudinal gradient max. 5 %
- lateral gradient max. 3 %
- no dangerous items/ equipment posing collision danger
- warning area near the stop - bench exists - light exists - shelter exists
3 Difficult access
- the distance between the stop shelter and the roadway 1.2 m at minimum
- height difference between the pavement and roadway at least 20 cm for trams, at least 12 cm for buses
- longitudinal gradient max. 8 %
- lateral gradient max. 5 %
no requirements
4 Not accessible
- the distance between the stop shelter and the roadway less than 1.2 m height difference between the
pavement and roadway less than 20 cm for trams, less than 12 cm for buses
longitudinal gradient over 8 %
lateral gradient over 5 %
no requirements
Source: Elina Aittoniemi, Pirjo-Liisa Kotiranta, Mervi Vatanen, Ari Virtanen (2008): Integrating existing service content into ASK-
IT, Accessibility information on bus and tram stops and departures on the Internet. Paper presented at the ASK-IT International
Conference June 2008
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
26 of 126
Source: Elina Aittoniemi, Pirjo-Liisa Kotiranta, Mervi Vatanen, Ari Virtanen (2008): Integrating existing service content into ASK-
IT. Accessibility information on bus and tram stops and departures on the Internet. Powerpoint presentation ASK-IT International
Conference June 2008
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The checklists are built up using international, European or best available national standards.
Indicators developed within the ASK-IT program are therefore at national or local level, and not
universally agreed upon.
SSoommee mmeeaassuurreess eexxppllaaiinneedd
width of bus stop longitudinal gradient
elevation (kerb) lateral gradient
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
27 of 126
4.2.3 AUNT-SUE
4.2.3.1 Summary The AUNT-SUE project (Accessibility & User Needs in Transport for Sustainable Urban Environments) started in 2004 and is a cross-disciplinary team of leading researchers in transport, design and social
inclusion. This consortium brings together the expertise of leading research centres in London
Metropolitan University, Loughborough University and University College London among other
partners. The aim of this research project was to develop and test sustainable policies and practice to
deliver effective socially inclusive design and operation in transport and the associated public realm
from macro down to micro level. This is mostly a knowledge transfer project on accessibility. Of
interest for Mediate is the assessment of transport accessibility critical features of the journey
environment from an early stage of the design and planning process.
4.2.3.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The purpose of AUNT-SUE is to develop a comprehensive ‘tool-kit’ that can be used at different
scales, from city-regions down to the micro-level of streets, vehicles and facilities such as bus stops,
signage and ticket machines. Central to its approach is the integration of policy, design and operations
throughout the whole journey environment. The tool-kit was expected to enable scenarios building and
visualisation of critical features of the journey environment from an early stage of the design and
planning process. These will range in scale from the micro-level of passenger facilities, entrances/exits
and portals, information/way finding and street furniture - to spaces and walking routes in and around
bus/light rail stops, stations and major interchanges that provide the focus for urban regeneration. The
emphasis is on the development of a shared knowledge base of techniques to enhance
communication between professionals that contribute their specialist expertise to the challenge of
improving community safety and reducing barriers to access.
From its inception in 2004, the research team has worked closely with people who experience various
degrees of difficulty in negotiating the ‘journey chain’, as well as practitioners responsible for
implementing transport policy and provision. The main research programme is working with a wide
network of central and local government, transport operators, designers and user groups. In particular,
the project will develop decision-support tools that will establish new benchmarks and incorporate
inclusion into policies, and the design and operation of sustainable journey environments. The tools
have been piloted in real-world but controlled ‘testbeds’ in the London Borough of Camden and
Hertfordshire County Council. The tools will be tested and transferred to other case study areas and
sites.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
28 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment A publication2 developed by AUNT-SUE, has reviewed the Draft Accessibility Planning Guidance by
the UK Department for Transport, using the following core accessibility indicators:
Percentage of:
a) pupils of compulsory school age;
b) pupils of compulsory school age in receipt of free school meals, within 15 and 30 minutes of a primary school, and 20 and 40 minutes of a further education establishment by public transport
c) Percentage of 16-19 years olds within 30 and 60 minutes of a further education establishment by public transport
d) Percentage of a) people of working age ; b) people in receipt of jobseekers allowance, within 20 and 40 minutes of work by public transport
e) Percentage of a) households: b) households without access to a car, within 30 and 60 minutes of a hospital by public transport
f) Percentage of a) households: b) households without access to a car, within15 and 30 minutes of a GP by public transport
g) Percentage of a) households; b) households without access to a car, within 15 and 30 minutes of a major centre by public transport.
The document acknowledged that the definition of any indicators at all is a great leap forward in the
policy arena and that the reasoning behind these choices is unclear; as no cost indicators have been
defined and no research appears to have yet been carried out to test potential user reaction to these
indicators. Furthermore, the indicators are framed in terms of aggregate numbers of people within an
area, rather than relating to (what is more common) much more household based problems.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility One of the aims of the AUNT-SUE study was to develop accessibility standards; involving the public.
The first task in the overall study has as its aims "To establish standards of ‘reasonable’ access, and
to develop techniques to help planners incorporate social inclusion into policies to ensure these
standards are met in a sustainable environment."
The original outlook was based around the whole of the literature on transport and social exclusion,
but specifically on two key documents of wide general application in the UK. These are the
DETR/TRaC (2000) report on Social Exclusion and the Provision and Availability of Public Transport;
and the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2003) report –Making the Connections: Transport and Social
Exclusion.
2 http://www.aunt-sue.info/WP%20Reports%20and%20summary%20docs/Final%20Web%20Versions/PDF%20Versions/Accessibility%20Planning%20and%20the%20Need%20for%20Benchmarking.pdf
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
29 of 126
The DETR/TRaC (2000) refers to four ways in which people’s accessibility to desired activities can be
limited:
○ Spatially – they cannot get there at all;
○ Temporally – they cannot get there at the appropriate time;
○ Financially – they cannot afford to get there;
○ Personally – they lack the mental or physical capabilities to use the available means of mobility
DETR/TRaC (2000) also identified four attributes of what they refer to as adequate transport. These
are affordability, availability, accessibility and acceptability. These mirror (to some extent) the four
ways in which people can be socially excluded by transport. What constitutes “adequate” transport
provision has not been defined, and is one of the major purposes of the current study.
The SEU (2003) report concentrates on the accessibility of services and activities. It classifies a
service or activity as accessible if it can be reached “at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with
reasonable ease” The concept of "reasonable" is not substantially defined. Whilst this report is not
explicitly about the role of public transport in reducing social exclusion, problems and solutions relating
to public transport, and in particular buses – both conventional fixed route and DRT – dominate it.
Overall, and according to the AUT-SUE report aforementioned, it is emphasized that difficult journeys
are a result of the isolated or remote nature of communities, high transport costs, dispersed activities,
and infrequent and/or unreliable bus services. Walk trips are mentioned in relation to crime around
transport hubs and child pedestrian casualties.
An interim conclusion of the project is that in order to establish mobility/accessibility norms and/or
standards, a first step is to establish mobility and accessibility norms appropriate to different
individuals/groups in society, different locations, and different journey purposes, and to compare these
norms with people’s expectations.
The first stage in the establishing of those standards (which might, incidentally, prove unsustainable)
is to develop a methodology which will be fairly generally applicable, or which could be slightly
modified where necessary to suit different user groups, although not so much that consistency would
be compromised.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility In order to be able to involve a fairly wide sample of people, a survey methodology was adopted
consisting of the administration of questionnaires. This was done upon a questionnaire to gain the
maximum possible number and type of respondents, while susceptible to be used in different
situations, viz.
○ interviewer-administered to individuals and completed, either face-to-face or on the telephone,
on computer or on paper
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
30 of 126
○ Administered in supervised groups, e.g. in day centres, school classes, etc.
o by individuals on their own
o on paper
o on computer/the Internet
The interim conclusion of this contribution for the AUNT-SUE project was that although there are clear
relationships between accessibility possibilities and life chances, it is almost impossible to make
meaningful statements about what types of access deprivation lead to social exclusion, since those
access constraints which might adversely affect one group may have no impact at all on others. The
project therefore believes that there is a need for a new and more people-focussed approach to
accessibility policy and planning from what was currently used if we are to make meaningful
statements about the impact of accessibility on people’s life chances, hopes and aspirations,
seemingly an extremely complex task3.
4.2.4 ECA - European Concept for Accessibility
4.2.4.1 Summary ECA is a network of members active in the field of accessibility all over Europe. ECA represents a
well-known reference framework in urban planning and for improving the accessibility of the built
environment for people with disabilities. In the case of ECA - European Concept for Accessibility, the exchange of best practices, templates and data might be a useful source of information for the
Mediate project. Further links might be found in future ECA’s projects or publications.
4.2.4.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The ECA Guide for Administrations provides an overall framework related to accessibility with a focus
on built environments. It offers best practices examples on how to manage and succeed (from the
definition of the interventions areas till the communication and marketing stages) as well as practical
application examples (real case studies and simulated cases), useful for administrators and
stakeholders that can rely also on a template for Project development and self-assessment. Also the
“Build-for-All” Reference Manual aims to provide assistance for the inclusion of accessibility criteria in
public calls for tender under the Public Procurement Directive of the European Union.
3 For further information, please refer to the link: http://www.aunt-sue.info/publications.html
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
31 of 126
This Reference Manual is the tangible result of work carried out by the ECA partners in the European
funded project known as “Build-for-All”. The principal objectives of the project are to raise awareness
of accessibility to the built environment (buildings, outdoor spaces and facilities), and to provide
practical guidance to those who prepare calls for tender for design and construction Works under the
Public Procurement Directives of the European Union. It consists of two documents - a Handbook and
a Toolkit:
The Handbook provides background information for raising the awareness of decision makers
and public servants about the importance of accessibility in the built environment for all
citizens and the supporting role that Public Procurement can play in achieving this.
The Toolkit gives a practical approach for contracting authorities to include certain procedures
and technical requirements in procurement, so as to ensure that accessibility criteria are met
in design and construction work
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The partners of the Build-for-All initiative draw on the Report of the Expert Group of the European
Commission, titled "Europe, accessible to all by 2010" (2003), chapters 1.2, 1.3 and 2, to recommend
the following basic accessibility criteria, that should guide Contracting Authorities in ensuring that
accessibility of the built environment is achieved, whatever the project considered:
The built environment must be fully accessible to all, keeping the mobility chain unimpaired
and applying state-of-the-art safety
All buildings should have horizontal and vertical easy access, to all floors or other spaces,
suitable to all people
Where circumstances dictate, all main entrance and exit doors will be powered
No public building should be built without a lift if it has more than one floor
Level differences should be compensated by ramps or lifting platforms. No step(s) up or down
will hamper the access if no ramp is provided
All lifts should be equipped with audio and visual signals & controls which are designed for
ease of use by every user and positioned at the right height in the lift car and on landings
Sanitary facilities should be accessible to all and will satisfy local requirements in terms of size
and organization
Buildings signage must be integrated and displayed so that they may fulfil their functions
without being visually-discriminating, including the clear identification of glass areas for people
with impaired vision
Lighting of public spaces should be sufficient to read signage in all conditions
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
32 of 126
Every public building must provide means for the evacuation of ALL present in the building at
all floors, in case of a fire or other emergency. The accessibility of firefighters and the
evacuation of people with disabilities are priorities for officers writing public tenders
External connections of buildings with the public transport infrastructure should be optimised,
with the necessary means, taking distance into account, avoiding level differences and
enabling access to all able and less-able citizens.
Further Measures that can be taken by Procurement bodies to achieve accessibility include:
Identification of the main issues affecting accessibility and inclusion
Establishment of consultation groups
Cooperation with representative organisations of and for disabled people
Bringing accessibility expertise into construction projects
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not provide a clear insight on a framework for assessing or describing accessibility,
although it identifies several major features that contribute for accessibility
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators on accessibility, beyond the
scope already mentioned above
4.2.5 EUROACCESS
4.2.5.1 Summary The EUROACCESS - European accessibility of public transport for people with disabilities“ is
EC a Project envisaging the development of EU policies on the accessibility of the transport systems
in Europe in view of promoting social integration and active participation in society of people with
disabilities. In face of the variety of aspects involved in the development and implementation of
measures on improved accessibility, best practice approaches were discussed against the (i) nature of
the measures (Soft/Hard), (ii) scale of cost, (iii) likely impact per target group and (iv) expected
severity of barriers Involved. Of interest for Mediate (in terms of development of indicators to describe
accessibility) is certainly the division proposed and adopted for these dimensions under
complementary vectors/sub-vectors, as follows:
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
33 of 126
Transport Planning & Operation: Logical Modal Integration, Physical Modal Integration, Vehicle
Accessibility, On Board Security, On Board Safety/Health Issues, Information and Assistance
Infrastructure Planning / Management: Accessibility of Railway Stations and Tram/Bus stops,
Security, Safety of Walking Sites, Safety of Railway Stations and Tram/Bus Stops, Information and
Assistance to Users
4.2.5.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The “European accessibility of public transport for people with disabilities“ was a SSA funded project
by FP6 supported by ECTRI (European Conference of Transport Research Initiatives).
The project envisaged the development of EU policies on the accessibility of the transport systems in
Europe in view of promoting social integration and active participation in society of people with
disabilities. This objective is linked in particular to the need to establish improved access to
employment opportunities by people with disabilities. The work was is anchored on a review of the
current legal framework at EU level, as well as in the identification of needs and expectations from
particular user groups, linking to the identification of best practices in the field of accessible public
transport systems.
From the variety of the policy areas officially set by the European Commission, the following ones
have been considered most relevant, for which specific recommendations were developed:
Transport/Environment/Energy Policies
Cross-cutting policies (Sustainable transport, Public Health, Social inclusion, demography and
migration)
Consumers Rights
Science and Technology Policies
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The approach on policy recommendation for accessibility has been developed beyond the
conventional scope of Transportation and Mobility Policies, looking for “policy convergence” across
complementary EU policy areas. A successful implementation of accessibility measures requires a
cross sectoral understanding of the underlying issues in order to match both planning and user
perspectives. This is possibly a major cause to justify the discrepancy in the current status of
accessibility across Europe. These circumstances underscored the importance of improved co-
operation between operational service providers, infrastructure managers and local authorities, so that
measures match and support each other. However, and apart from some scattered information, there
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
34 of 126
was little consistent information to judge and compare accessibility and usability in order to provide a
thorough comparison of initiatives likely to become best practices. It concluded therefore for the
importance of learning from other areas in the transport field bringing to accessibility higher standards
of operation supported on state-of-the-art methodologies.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project has concluded that, apart from some scattered information, there is little consistent
information to judge and compare accessibility in order to provide a thorough comparison of initiatives
likely to become best practices. It is therefore important to learn from other areas in the transport field
and bring also to accessibility higher standards of operation supported on state-of-the-art
methodologies. One such approach is represented by benchmarking, which if supported by a reliable
set of performance indicators should be capable of facilitating comparability between cities, regions
and countries in relation to accessibility performance while providing clues to identifying opportunities
for improvement.
About benchmarking “Accessibility”
Numerous definitions of benchmarking have been developed. The most successful exponents
emphasize action, processes and the implementation of change, not accuracy in data comparisons:
For main “benchmarking is the art of finding out, in a perfectly legal and aboveboard way, how others
do something better than you do - so that you can imitate - and improve upon - their techniques".
Camp quoting Kearns says that “benchmarking is the continuous process of measuring products,
services and practices against the toughest competitors or those companies recognised as industry
leaders.” In other words, benchmarking is the process of identifying the best practices and approaches
by comparing performance in specific areas with the performance of other organisations. However,
“the aim should not be to bring back targets from benchmarking programmes, but to integrate ideas for
improvement.” The following definition of benchmarking is suggested to be adopted in the scope of
accessibility: “Benchmarking is a practical tool for improving accessibility performance by learning
from best practices and understanding the processes by which they are achieved.”
The development of a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for benchmarking of accessibility
features in transport systems would be a major step towards achieving some degree of common
understanding on what should be the core objectives of accessibility initiatives.
The development of KPIs should take into consideration not only accessibility as often considered
(e.g. physical accessibility indicators) but also the usability that is actually delivered by the system and
experienced by users. The establishment of performance indicators that measure what is critical to the
success of accessibility measures is therefore not only a measure of what a particular operator is
doing in this respect but how it could improve the overall experience of the transport system, including
issues such as increased rider ship, user surveying results, etc
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
35 of 126
Of course, different stakeholders in different countries also see things in different ways, even when
they measure similar things. There might be a question of definitions and categories, which can
become a barrier to accessibility benchmarking. It is therefore recommended to use as core KPIs
those measures that have already proved to be valuable to assess accessibility. Some benefits can be
achieved right away even with incomplete comparable data. However, it may take years to achieve a
fully satisfactory level of comparability in the way KPIs are measured. For this reason; KPIs must be
developed with involvement and buy-in from key stakeholders, namely operators and infrastructure
managers. This is all the more important considering that KPIs may be attached to contractual
obligations set by transport authorities Finally, the development of a performance monitoring and
benchmarking system for accessibility will be facilitated by the adoption of information systems such
as transport service punctuality, a major element in the scope of transport service reliability standards
deemed important by vulnerable users.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility,
beyond the scope already mentioned above.
4.2.6 MASCARA - Demand Responsive Transport Service in urban/rural areas
4.2.6.1 Summary The main objectives of MASCARA Demand responsive transport service for increasing social cohesion in urban/rural areas are to create a common evaluation framework (i.e. a methodology
and a set of tools to assess the performance of existing or future DRT systems) and to provide an
assessment of all studies and trials performed in the project, in a multiple perspective way, taking into
account Social Inclusion, Sustainable Mobility and Technical Performance. An interesting aspect of
this project is that it uses different types of indicators: measurable, descriptive, estimations or goals.
Together with a weight, a score is given, ranking from 1–bad to 5–excellent. The chapters of its
handbook give an indication of the important themes in Demand Responsive Transport, which can
also be deemed relevant for accessibility of Public Transport. The assessment methodology for
Mediate will consider three types of themes: Planning, Actions and Evaluation. The themes from the
handbook might be organized according to a similar subdivision.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
36 of 126
4.2.6.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The main objectives of Mascara is to create a common evaluation framework (i.e. a methodology and
a set of tools to assess the performance of existing or future DRT systems); to provide an assessment
of all studies and trials performed in the project, in a multiple perspective way, taking into account the
3 main, global, high-level criteria.
Social Inclusion
Sustainable Mobility
Technical Performance
The framework should allow (i) an easy (multi-attribute) evaluation and comparison of alternatives; (ii)
an “absolute” assessment of an existing DRT and alternatives; (iii) the estimation of impacts of a
potential solution / policy (simulate “prospective” alternatives for new sites).
Its handbook is divided in chapters with the following themes:
The concept of flexible transport services
Regulation, institutional and legal issues
Involved stakeholders and organisational framework
Service design and vehicle selection
Supporting technologies for demand responsive transport solutions
Marketing and promotion
Economic sustainability and business perspectives
Integration of multiple flexible services
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Volume 2 of the Final Evaluation gives an overview of criteria, objectives and indicators on e.g. Social Inclusion Objectives
a. Improving attractiveness of rural areas of Angus for families and visitors
b. Greater opportunities for travel to aid social inclusion
c. Acceptability of Videoroute for passengers
d. Acceptability of Web portal for passengers
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The themes from the handbook can be organized according to the following ivision:
Planning:
a. The concept of flexible transport services (userneeds)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
37 of 126
b. Regulation, institutional and legal issues
c. Involved stakeholders and organisational framework
Actions:
d. Service design and vehicle selection
e. Supporting technologies for demand responsive transport solutions
f. Marketing and promotion
g. Economic sustainability and business perspectives
h. Integration of multiple flexible services
Evaluation: is not mentioned separately in the Handbook but should be added to complete the cycle of quality management.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The methodology used in MASCARA allows different types of indicators, stating the nature of each indicator:
- D: descriptive
- M: measurable
- EL: estimated with the (site) local knowledge and experience
- EO: estimated based on external (other sites) knowledge
- G: desired value (goal) is set to be achieved
Example on improving attractiveness of rural areas
Support Indicators D, M, EL Measurement units
Rejection rate of customers requesting a trip EL %
Average response time M Min (avg. over 1 week)
Number of passengers per call M Average over 1 week (NB: group bookings)
Number of trips booked per call M Average over 1 week (NB: group bookings)
% of passengers that were prebooked M Average over 1 week
% of resident population served in area (all PT services) EL %
Characteristics of target population M % in categories
Characteristics of passengers EL % in categories
Service utilisation by passengers EL % in categories
Change in travel patterns EL % in categories
Accessibility of passengers to vehicles EL % yes/no
Perception of transfer ease EL % in categories
Comfort of passengers on-vehicle EL % in categories
Service convenience (passenger) EL % in categories
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
38 of 126
Safety and security on-vehicle EL % in categories
Reasons for using public transport EL % in categories
Ease of making reservations EL % in categories
Greater opportunities for travel to aid social inclusion
Support Indicators D, M, EL Measurement units
Reasons for using public transport EL % in categories
Ease of making reservations EL % in categories
Ease of obtaining information EL % in categories
Source of information EL % yes/no
Quality of information EL % in categories
Membership of political party EL % in categories
Type of area represented by politician EL % in categories
Impact on transport policy EL % in categories
Impact on social inclusion EL % in categories
Acceptability of Videoroute for passengers
Support Indicators D, M, EL Measurement units
Driver attitudes towards features of Videoroute system EL % in categories
Driver attitudes towards performance of Videoroute system EL % in categories
TDC staff attitudes towards features of Videoroute system EL % in categories
TDC staff attitudes towards performance of Videoroute system EL % in categories
Operator's attitudes towards benefits of Videoroute system EL % in categories
Acceptability of Web Portal for passengers
Support Indicators D, M, EL Measurement units
Access to Portal M No. of hits per day (average 1 week)
Links from Portal to other sites M No. of hits per day (average 1 week)
Stakeholder attitudes towards performance of Portal EL % in categories
Stakeholder attitudes towards content of Portal EL % in categories
Usability of on line surveys EL % in categories
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
39 of 126
4.2.7 MAPLE
4.2.7.1 Summary The project MAPLE Improving Mobility and Accessibility for People with Learning Disabilities in Europe is a European undertaking to discover more about the current situation, with respect to how
people with cognitive impairments travel, and the extent to which public transport in Europe is
accessible. The potential interest for Mediate lies in understanding user requirements associated with
People with Cognitive Impairments, a growing type of generic users due to ageing population.
4.2.7.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The MAPLE project is a European undertaking to discover more about the current situation, with
respect to how people with cognitive impairments travel, and the extent to which public transport in
Europe is accessible to them. The work being carried out in the UK runs in parallel with that done in
Ireland, Greece, France and Sweden, where partners conducted national sub-studies of provisions
that were in place for making travelling easier for people with cognitive impairments. The MAPLE
project aims to promote the mobility, and encourage the social inclusion, of two very broad and
heterogeneous groups of people: people with learning difficulties and people with mental health
problems. This will be done by identifying, investigating and disseminating measures that will improve
the accessibility of public transport systems in Europe, so both facilitating the movement of these
people within the physical environment, and encouraging their participation in society.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment A key part of this research was to target and uncover what public transport operators, authorities,
charities and interest/advocacy groups have done so far, with respect to making provisions for people
with cognitive impairments, in order to simplify their overall travel requirements. In addition, another
component of the work is to target definitions of “cognitive disability” by public transport operators. The
report titled “Can People with Cognitive Impairments Use Public Transport Effectively ?: Europe-wide
Review” prepared for DG Employment and Social Affairs reports on findings of a survey of provisions
that are in place both in the Member States of the European Commission not covered by National
Studies, and some selected non-EU European countries.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include any relevant development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as it is required by Mediate
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
40 of 126
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility,
beyond the scope already mentioned above as it is required by Mediate.
4.2.8 MOBILATE
4.2.8.1 Summary Regarding the FP5 Programme project MOBILATE - Enhancing outdoor mobility in later life, this
interdisciplinary project had six objectives: Comprehensive description of the outdoor mobility patterns
of older adults in urban and non-urban settings in northern, southern, central, and eastern Europe,
explanation of the outdoor mobility by use of a broad set of both personal, environmental and technical
data, description of age-related as well as of cohort changes in outdoor mobility, explanation of
change in outdoor mobility, identification of the relation between outdoor mobility and well-being, and
enhancement of mobility in old age by concrete application actions. The likely interest for Mediate lies
in understanding specific user IT requirements associated with ageing, as it may favour the use of the
transportation systems, allowing the development of characterisation parameters for accessibility for
elderly and contributing to introduce the gender dimension in the project.
4.2.8.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project
The MOBILATE project aims to better understand the complex interplay between personal
competencies and coping efforts of older people and aspects of the physical and social environment,
all of which significantly impinge upon the outdoor mobility of ageing men and women. In order to
achieve this goal, the project combines different data sources (person, environment, including urban
versus non-urban regions) as well as different data-collection strategies (generation of a cross-
sectional and cross-country data set MOBILATE Survey and MOBILATE follow-up data).
In the survey, patterns of outdoor mobility and activity are examined in roughly 300 men and women
aged 55 years or older from six urban and rural regions, representing five European countries (eastern
and western Germany, Finland, Italy, Hungary, and the Netherlands). The sample of altogether 3,941
respondents was disproportionately stratified according to gender and age. The MOBILATE survey is
based on a standardised questionnaire including items on the basic personal and environmental
components of mobility as well as psychological measures on coping, well-being and cognitive
functioning, and a mobility diary which spans two days. The MOBILATE follow-up covers a total of
862. At one research site, an evaluation of a demand-responsive transport system is conducted.
Furthermore, a comparative analysis of mobility-relevant European regulations was provided.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
41 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment
The project offers data describing the use and acceptance of new technologies as one of the key
contributions to help designing a method to improve accessibility measurement and/or assessment.
Insight was gained in MOBILATE into the characteristics of users and non-users of more or less
common technologies like ATM, ticket dispensers, and PIN payments. Findings show that in the
present generation of people aged 55 years and older, the share of users for most technologies (PC,
internet, electronic banking) is low, but these users are rather satisfied with these. Commonly
available technologies like ATM or PIN-payment are used by many older persons. Their experiences
are mostly positive. Ticket dispensers are most used by public transport users, but these machines
are rather complicated even for the users. Apparently, elderly people feel barriers to start using new
technologies. A high educational level, a high income, and a good health offer good conditions for
overcoming these barriers. Indeed, as of 2002, MOBILATE acknowledged that most of the common
assumptions on the difficult use of technologies by older adults were confirmed by the MOBILATE
data. The usage of some of the new technologies by older people is really low; especially people with
low income and a low education level use new technologies less than people with a high income or a
high education. Furthermore, access to some of the new technologies was deemed rather expensive
for a number of older people. An important precondition for using new technologies is the cognitive
abilities of older adults, which may decrease at high age. In a logistic regression developed ion this
project on the usage of some new technologies, it was possible to trace the role of these variables. On
the one hand cognitive abilities, education, and income are relevant factors; on the other hand the
physical access of these equipments also plays a role. Age seems to be a kind of intervening variable
in which is reflected a reduction of abilities by old age.
One of the most promising finding for the future was that users are mostly happy with the new
technology once they have started using it. They experience the devices as ‘making life easier’. This
may justify that new technologies be introduced, even when at the start objected to by older people.
However, introduction should be careful and tailor-made.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include relevant development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility,
beyond the scope already mentioned above as required by Mediate.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
42 of 126
4.2.9 NICHES +,
4.2.9.1 Summary Niches+ a project just started in 2008, will produce consolidated recommendations on the three
accessibility concepts. Hence, good practice from around Europe will be brought together and
analysed. Specifically transferability will be examined. Two demonstrator cities (Burgos and Artois-
Gohelle) will have implementation plans on accessibility issues drawn up. This activity could be linked
to the user group methodology within Mediate
4.2.9.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project NICHES + promotes the exchange of good practice on niche urban transport concepts which are
divided into 4 themes. One of the themes concerns accessibility and the three niche concepts are (1)
travel training for public transport, (2) neighbourhood accessibility planning and (3) tailored traveller
information for users with reduced mobility. A working group of experts has been set up to facilitate
networking activities. Ultimately, Niches+ will produce consolidated recommendations on the three
accessibility concepts. Hence, good practice from around Europe will be brought together and
analysed. Specifically transferability will be examined. Two demonstrator cities (Burgos and Artois-
Gohelle) will have implementation plans on accessibility issues drawn up. This activity could be linked
to the user group methodology within Mediate
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Niches+ will facilitate the exchange of experiences, building up of knowledge and make
recommendations in relation to:
Travel training for public transport mainly targeting older people, disabled, people with learning
difficulties and children to enable the independent use of public transport. This can also help to
gain new customers for public transport. An important long-term marketing aspect with regard to
children is that they are also potential future public transport users when grown up. The training
can be offered by public transport operators or associations, public authorities or NGOs. The
content of the training needs to be tailored to the needs of the trainees and should cover a range
of aspects. Besides the physical accessibility, for example also the planning of a trip, the handling
of information sources, ticketing and behavioural aspects can be important training elements. The
training may have different formats and needs to be tailored to the specific target group. Possible
formats are for examples short term courses to achieve familiarity with the transport system,
longer term training to learn necessary skills and achieve confidence or playful travel games for
children.
Neighbourhood accessibility planning which aims at improving local conditions for walking and
cycling as well as safe access to local facilities (e.g. schools, shops) and public transport
services. The process should involve consultation with the community and identify in a
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
43 of 126
participatory process the main issues to be addressed. Based on the results a list of actions is
drafted. This can include for example measures on engineering, education, marketing,
encouragement, enforcement, environmental and policy initiatives. Usually local authorities have
a key role as initiator and actor in the planning process. The concept can not only help to
enhance the accessibility of the urban environment of many citizens, it can also contribute to a
better quality of public space and create opportunities for better social interaction of people. This
can also help to reduce car use on short trips.
Tailored travel information aims at providing people with reduced mobility with tailored travel
information, particularly on public transport. Different kinds of impairments need to be taken into
account when providing information on barrier-free travel options. The internet can become a very
convenient means of planning a trip by providing accessible information on barrier-free travelling
options that is tailored to different user groups. Possibly combined with information by telephone
and cell phone, such a service can have a considerable impact on independent living for many
people. The content of information is crucial: it needs to be accurate, useful and understandable
for a wide range of users and meet the specific needs of different target groups. This includes also
the need to integrate information for example about which stations are equipped with a lift, where
personal assistance is available or simply where the next toilet can be found. Key actors for
initiating and implementing the concept are often public transport operators, public authorities,
user representatives as well as companies or research institutes that support the technical and
organisational implementation.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility Niches+ will draw up ‘implementation scenarios’ for 7 champion cities across the 4 themes, including 2
cities addressing different accessibility concepts. The methodology defined for the preparation of
these implementation scenarios comprises four steps:
Step 1: Assessment of the context and concepts
• Definition of problem: Why does the city want/need to address this topic?
• Vision and objectives of city with regard to the action field
• Assessment of the availability of promising context conditions for implementation in the
champion cities. These context conditions include: o Components relevant to transferability (cf. WP3 Document: NICHES+ transferability of innovative
concepts)
o Existing plans and strategies,
o Available resources
o (This could also lead to a definition of data gaps, which should be dealt with along the process, if
relevant).
• Prioritisation of most suitable innovative concepts for implementation for the different champion
cities, in consultation with local stakeholders, in order to quite early define the focus of the work.
• Definition of real starting point for implementation: what have they been doing on the topic?
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
44 of 126
Step 2: Needs of users and stakeholders
• Mobility needs and expectations
• Usability needs and expectations
• Needs and expectations regarding timeframe
• Project team definition: the organisation plan of stakeholders closely involved in realising the
innovative concept implementation scenario
• Participatory approach definition: the description of the method that will be followed to reach out to
stakeholders. Champion Cities are asked to set up a stakeholder consultation body. This
reference group would be the minimum required structure. (Recommendations on further
communication and public involvement will be included as a separate section in the
implementation scenario as such.)
Step 3: Transferability of existing solutions
In this phase, the project investigates the possible success factors and barriers for implementation
(legal, financial, technical, cooperation set-up, participatory processes). An analysis is made of the
transferability of comparable measures that have been implemented across Europe. This refers back
to the context conditions that were described in step 1.
Step 4: Action Planning
o Implementation plan: Specification of activities and responsibilities (to cover items such as
contracting– and the identification of the project management team, specification of works,
feasibility study, tendering etc. – all if necessary)
o Timeline and budget plan
o Innovative stakeholder relations and involvement schemes
o Awareness raising and branding, target-group specific marketing;
o Innovative packaging of services;
o Innovative funding and financing mechanisms for innovative concepts such as PPP, land value
taxation, pricing concepts
o Guidelines for monitoring and evaluation
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not specifically include the adoption or development of indicators to describe
accessibility, beyond the framework mentioned above.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
45 of 126
4.2.10 PT ACCESS
4.2.10.1 Summary One specific area, for which there is lack of EU level data is the accessibility of public transport for
people with disabilities and its impact on the employment and social integration prospects of people
with disabilities. The project PT Access - Public Transport Systems' Accessibility for People with Disabilities in Europe attempted to fill this gap in knowledge by obtaining actual information on the
current state of accessibility of urban and rural public transport systems in 25 EU member states. In
order to draw a comprehensive picture of the current state of the accessibility of public transport in
Europe, the following topics have been discussed with the interviewed national experts. This project
was supported through the Research for policy support heading of the European Union's Sixth
Framework Programme, PRIORITY 8.1 Policy-oriented research, Scientific support to policies – SSP
CALL IDENTIFIER: FP6-2005.SSP-5A
This might be an interesting project for Mediate to look at, specially regarding organisational
framework conditions (level of cooperation amongst the stakeholder-groups), accessibility of
passenger information (level of accessibility of pre-trip information and of on-trip information),
accessibility issues in ticketing, accessibility of stops and stations, accessibility of vehicles and safety,
reliability and services.
4.2.10.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project For each member state PTaccess analysed the state of accessibility of public transport from the point
of view of national disabled organisations, national transport operators, and governmental authorities.
For regions where public transport is not accessible PTaccess identified and analysed applied
alternative transport solutions (WP1).
PTaccess also identified and analysed good practices and innovation in making public transport
accessible, and enhance the scientific base of policy assessment of the costs and benefits of making
public transport accessible (WP2).
Furthermore PTaccess addressed the transport-related contexts of social exclusion of disabled
people, in order to draw conclusions about the effect which accessible public transport has on
employment and social inclusion prospects for disabled people. (WP3). The PTaccess-project ran
from the 1st of February 2007 until the 31st of March 2009
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
46 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Possibly interesting for Mediate are the following strands of analysis:
o Organisational framework conditions (level of cooperation amongst the stakeholder-groups),
o Accessibility of passenger information (level of accessibility of pre-trip information and of on-trip information),
o Accessibility issues in ticketing,
o Accessibility of stops and stations,
o Accessibility of vehicles and
o Safety, reliability and services.
Organisational framework conditions
In order to get an impression of the organisational framework conditions in the investigated countries, the interviewed national experts have been asked: ‘which authorities are responsible for public transport and for social inclusion of people with disabilities’? Furthermore the interview-partners have also been asked to assess the attitudes of stakeholders regarding the importance of the accessibility of public transport, and the level of cooperation between the stakeholder-groups when planning and implementing public transport.
According to the interviewed national experts, the level of cooperation amongst the stakeholder-groups is:
- low in 5 countries (EE, LV, MT, PL, PT) - low/moderate in 8 countries (CY, DK, FR, HU, IT, LU, SI, SK) - moderate in 4 countries (AT, BE, LT, SE) - moderate/high in 5 countries (CZ, DE, GB, GR, NL) - high in 3 countries (ES, FI, IE) Accessibility of passenger information
According to the interviewed national experts, the level of accessibility of pre-trip information is:
- low in 5 countries (CY, ES, FR, HU, SI) - low/moderate in 3 countries (CZ, LV, NL) - moderate in 6 countries (FI, GB, GR, LT, MT, SE) - moderate/high in 3 countries (DE, PL, SK) - high in 8 countries (AT, BE, DK, EE, IE, IT, PT, LU) According to the interviewed national experts, the level of accessibility of on-trip information is:
- low in 6 countries (CY, ES, HU, LU, MT, SI) - low/moderate in 8 countries (CZ, EE, FI, FR, GR, LV, NL, SK) - moderate in 6 countries (AT, DK, IT, PL, PT, SE) - moderate/high in 4 countries (BE, DE, GB, LT) - high in 1 country (IE) In general it can be said that the accessibility of on-trip information in all countries is much better in (larger) cities than in rural areas.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
47 of 126
Accessibility issues in ticketing:
According to the interviewed national experts, in most countries people with disabilities can use public transport at reduced fares, and in some they can even travel by public transport free of charge. The location of where public transport tickets can be purchased varies from country to country (and even from city to city). But it is common for all countries where ticket vending machines are in use, that these ticket vending machines are (mostly) inaccessible for people with visual impairments and the majority of these ticket vending machines are also inaccessible for many people with motor impairments.
Accessibility of stops and stations
According to the interviewed national experts, in general it can be said that in most countries stops and stations in cities are much more accessible than stops and stations in city-outskirts or in rural areas. It can also be stated, that, in general, in most countries accessibility issues are taken into account for new construction or the renewal of stations and of urban stops. According to the interviewed national experts, currently in most countries the accessibility of stops and stations is not good (it is especially bad for people with motor impairments and for people with visual impairments), but many countries have strategies/plans for the gradual improvement of the accessibility of stops and stations in the coming years.
Accessibility of vehicles
The accessibility of public transport vehicles varies a lot among the European member states, and it strongly depends on the mode of transport: for example city-buses are already quite accessible in a lot of countries (e.g. the accessibility of city-buses has been assessed to be high in AT, DE, FI, IE, LU, NL, PL, and the accessibility of city-buses has been assessed to be moderate/high in GB, GR, IT); but all interview-partners stated that regional buses are not very accessible in their country. Some cities already have fully accessible underground systems, while other cities only recently started to gradually improve the accessibility of their underground systems. According to the interview-partners, the accessibility of trains is a problem in most European countries.
In most countries the strategy towards the improvement of the accessibility of public transport vehicles is only to purchase accessible vehicles and so, over time, the public transport vehicle fleet will become more and more accessible. However there are few strategies to improve the accessibility of existing public transport vehicles (Such a strategy would be especially necessary for rail-vehicles, as these vehicles have a very long life-span.).
Safety, reliability and services
In order to get an impression of the perception of safety and reliability of public transport by people with disabilities national experts have been asked: whether most people with disabilities in their country think that riding by public transport is safe; whether there are special safety equipments for people with disabilities in public transport vehicles and stops/stations; and whether public transport is usually delayed or punctual. Furthermore the interview-partners have also been asked whether there are special customer services offered by public transport operators for people with disabilities, and whether there are special training schemes for the public transport staff in place.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
48 of 126
According to the interviewed national experts, in 10 countries (CY, EE, ES, IT, LU, LV, MT, PT, SK, SE) most people with disabilities think that riding by certain modes of PT is dangerous, whereas in the other 14 countries most people with disabilities think that riding by PT is quite safe.
According to the interviewed national experts, in most countries public transport operators’ staff get (at least some) training with respect to the special needs of people with disabilities. However, according to the interviewed national experts in 9 countries (CY, EE, ES, FI, HU, LT, LV, PT, SI) there is no such staff training.
Alternatives to public transport
According to the interviewed national experts, in most countries there exist alternative transport-services for people with disabilities. However, the conditions vary a lot between among the countries: e.g. in the Scandinavian countries the individual demand-oriented travel based on taxis and minibuses is widespread, whereas in most other countries special taxi-/minibus-based transport services exist merely in the larger cities, and, e.g. in Lithuania, the only alternative to public transport are cars.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include relevant development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility,
beyond the scope already mentioned above as required by Mediate.
4.2.11 TELSCAN
4.2.11.1 Summary Regarding TELSCAN TELematic Standards and Coordination of ATT systems in relatioN to elderly and disabled travellers, this was a ITS related project developed in 1997, with no ambition to
identify and describe accessibility. Nevertheless, the concerns with the technical issues make it a
potential source of knowledge for Mediate when it comes to select and characterize key parameters to
describe and evaluate accessibility.
4.2.11.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project TELSCAN is a supporting action funded by the CEC to assist TRANSPORT TELEMATIC projects to
achieve the following objectives:
Take full account of the needs of Elderly and Disabled travellers
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
49 of 126
Report on the impacts on the Elderly and Disabled travellers of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)
and assess costs and benefits of applying these systems.
Create awareness in industry and responsible authorities of the issues relevant to E&D users.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The project does not include relevant information clearly contributing to improve accessibility
measurement / assessment as required by Mediate. Nevertheless, it provides some insight on matters
such as “Requirements for Elderly and Disabled Travellers”, bringing an overview of the main
impairment groups having difficulties with components of the travelling task, what their requirements
are in general, and those specific to telematic systems. Although containing some detailed information
(see “Handbook”4) it may be considered a somewhat outdated project considering all the
developments occurred in the last 10 years in the use and deployment of IT as well as in evolving
patterns of IT acquaintance by e.g. elderly people.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include relevant development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
4.2.12 UNIACCESS
4.2.12.1 Summary Regarding UNIACCESS, funded under the Sixth Framework Program for Research its goal is to
promote and support the networking and coordination of research and innovation activities in the field
of universal design of accessibility systems for public transport. The UNIACCESS project brings
together a comprehensive group of stakeholders (end users, designers and manufacturers, operators,
authorities) with a view to achieving quality and equality of access to public transport in the E.U. The
project emphasize the importance that all stakeholders should be committed to create a barrier-free
environment, rather than pointing to the individual’s disability. The detailed context indicators used can
be very helpful for Mediate.
4 http://hermes.civil.auth.gr/telscan/D5_2.pdf
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
50 of 126
4.2.12.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project Uniaccess was a 2-year project whose aim is to define concepts for universal accessibility in public
transport. The project promotes and supports the networking and coordination of research and
innovation activities in the field of universal design of accessibility systems for public transport with a
view to achieving equality of access to public transport in the EU. These are the main activities of the
project:
A state of the art exercise to provide a picture of current situation in relation to public transport
infrastructure and vehicles and relevant legislation and standards.
The establishment of a Research & Development roadmap
Building an understanding of the frequency & intensity of interaction between the different
stakeholders (designers/manufacturers, operators, authorities and end users)
Awareness raising activities to sensitise the stakeholder groups, media and public to the
Uniaccess project and public transport accessibility in general
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The project focuses on the different steps of the journey, from the travel preparation to the arrival, and
highlights the needs and issues for each step (especially for people with disabilities), as follows:
The preparation phase:
Information about timetables, fares, alternative transport, peak hours, accessibility devices of
the area, and its working conditions, specific services availability for people with disability…
Ticketing services (adapted booking and information system on tickets)
The way to the public transport station
Safe and accessible pedestrian environment (town planning, road safety)
Getting on the platforms and waiting at the bus
Surroundings and waiting modalities
Getting to the larger terminal
Displays, services and assistance (waiting facilities, assistance, luggage solutions)
Boarding and disembarking the vehicle:
Gaps between the vehicle and platform, aid devices facilities, pushbuttons, driver’s
awareness.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
51 of 126
During the journey
Information display system (visual and audio) on next stops
Existence of priority signalling and seating
Vertical and horizontal handles and grips
The height of ticketing machines
The non existence of obstacles
Visual and audio information on next stops
Colour contrast among elements: holding bars, seats,
Emergency escapes
The “Reference Manual” of UNIACCESS, designated “Understanding the evolution from accessibility
to Universal Design” gathered the guidelines to improve the Universal design for all in the mobility
area, and contains also a collaborative innovation process guide for local/regional authorities,
transport operators and end users. Within the project, the seven principles of the Universal design
have been set up to improve the accessibility by all stakeholders.
1. Equitable Use
2. Flexibility in Use
3. Simple and Intuitive
4. Perceptible Information
5. Tolerance for Error
6. Low Physical Effort
7. Size and Space for Approach and Use
The Project also raised the complexity of the accessibility for the people with disabilities focusing on
possible conflicts between disabled people and other people with reduced mobility on the following:
limited access : it can occur that others PRM will not be not allowed to use specific public service
transport for people officially recognised as disabled ; consequently older persons will not be able
to use such public supported transport
Psychological obstacles: i.e older persons would not like to use specific public transport service
organised for disabled or wheelchair persons. Besides which wheelchair persons would like better
to have access to non stigmatizing public transport services.
Space available at the same time for example in a bus, for both wheelchair users, push car ,
people travelling with heavy luggage may be not sufficient. Design for all principle will help to
avoid or limit such conflicts
Finally, the project also highlighted a possible conflict between restoring proximity, urban and
suburban development and traffic policy. According the project, the classic urban area daily travelling
concept still rely upon complementarily between Individual motorised transport coming from suburban
areas and Public transport in town and this idea does not lead to sustainable solutions and finally
result in deadlocks.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
52 of 126
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project detailed context indicators (divided by main difficulties and solutions proposed) according
to the transport means. Below is organized the information between two building blocks – Transport
Planning & Operation and Infrastructure Planning & Management – although but some points seem to
include both transport and infrastructure.
Main points Sub points
Transport /infrastructure
issues BUS/TRAM
Gaps between sidewalk (curb stone) and vehicle
narrow gaps if there is no ramp , no steps Infrastructure
Difference of levels retractile step, tilting bus-system infrastructure
little time available increasing the stop and go time individually if there is a need required, pushbuttons for longer door opening (inside and outside)
Infrastructure /transport
heavy luggage handrails near the entrance transport
narrow doors wide doors to be able to entrance with double
pram transport
autonomy until end of trip
illuminated entrance area, reflective floor end-edges, easy identification of blind people
Infrastructure /transport
requirement of aid communication systems outside, Infrastructure
METRO
Gaps between platform and vehicle
small gaps, no step infrastructure
Difference of levels flat levels in order to entrance easily with
wheelchair, standardized platforms infrastructure
little time available increasing the stop and go time individually if there is a need required, pushbuttons for longer door opening (inside and outside)
Infrastructure /transport
heavy luggage handrails near the entrance transport
narrow doors wide doors to be able to entrance with double pram and wheelchairs, sensible obstacle detection
transport
autonomy until end of trip
illuminated entrance area, reflective floor end-edges, easily to entrance the vehicle without aid, easy identification for blind people
Infrastructure /transport
requirement of aid communication to the driver or staff on platform Infrastructure
/transport
ramp availability too large gap requires a ramp Infrastructure
TRAIN
Gaps between platform and vehicle
standardized platforms and vehicle gauge Infrastructure
Seats Space between seats (gangway in the train)
sufficient for wheelchair users. Transport
Difference of levels retractile steps, same platform levels on all
stations - standardized Infrastructure
little time available increasing the stop and go time individually if there is a need required, pushbuttons or communication to the guard (conductor) for longer door opening (inside and outside)
Infrastructure /transport
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
53 of 126
Main points Sub points
Transport /infrastructure
issues heavy luggage handrails near the entrance Transport
narrow doors wide doors to be able to entrance with double pram and wheelchairs, sensible obstacle detection
Transport
autonomy until end of trip
easily to entrance the vehicle without aid, illuminated entrance area, reflective floor end-edges, easy identification for blind people
Infrastructure /transport
requirement of aid communication to the conductor or staff on
platform Infrastructure /transport
ramp availability each train should have a ramp available Transport
wheelchair possibility to use the own wheelchair and possibility to fix the wheelchair on the floor in order to must not use the seat (free space for wheelchair)
Transport
Toilets large toilettes useable for wheelchair users, other handicapped people and also for elderly people
Transport
Need personnel should know the need of PRM before
enter the train Transport
AUTOMOTIVE/TAXI
Seats transformable for wheelchair adoption Transport
Doors large doors with ramp or lift for wheelchair Transport
Pram secured safe, securing children Transport
Blind identification of the entrance Transport
Need taxi driver should know the need of the
passenger before arriving Transport
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not specifically include the adoption or development of indicators to describe
accessibility, beyond the context framework indicators mentioned above.
4.3 Projects Focused on Intermodality/Co-modality
4.3.1 EuPI - Towards Passenger Intermodality in the EU
4.3.1.1 Summary Intermodality is certainly an important issue to look at when addressing accessibility. One of the most
recent research studies EuPI (Towards Passenger Intermodality in the EU, 2004) revealed significant
deficiencies in the knowledge about intermodal travel demand and supply. As no sufficient information
is at hand, decision makers lack the information that is necessary to support assessment (e.g. for
reliable cost-benefit analyses). Thus, transport operators are not willing to develop and offer new
intermodal services as this market is not well-known and the investments can not be evaluated
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
54 of 126
accordingly. For the interest of Mediate development, EuPI stressed the need for clarification through
research, further suggesting that a range of well developed indicators, which is harmonised across
Europe could help to establish and evaluate actions to promote passenger intermodality with a view to
accessibility concerns.
4.3.1.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project To get a better understanding of intermodal travel issues and to evaluate a possible European
approach to the subject, the European Commission commissioned the study "Towards passenger
intermodality in the EU" in 2003 to investigate the current activities in the sector and to propose
concrete action at European level. The focus was on international and cross-border travel, mainly
long-distance travel but also including the “first and last mile”. Work was undertaken in 2004 involving
a team of experts from all over Europe.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Intermodal passenger travel includes very heterogeneous trips and travel related activites (e.g.
information, ticketing) depending on trip length and mode use, which should be reflected in concepts
and measurements. The share of intermodal trips in the modal split is only one possible indicator.
However, depending on the question this indicator is not always sufficient to provide a full
understanding of the principle of intermodality. It seems to be more adequate to use a portfolio of
indicators for different purposes, taking also into account intramodal transfers within public transport
chains where necessary.
To promote passenger intermodality it is important to look at other fields than the modal split that
make it possible to evaluate the market and the commercial potential of intermodal products and
services. There are no defined concepts for achieving this as yet, but a range of measurements is
possible.
The potential for intermodality among users for example may be a measure that still has to be be
further elaborated and may be highly interesting to operators that want to establish new intermodal
products and services. Another possible measure would be to compare the share of spending for
services related to passenger intermodality (e.g. in form of a rail and air ticket) in a person’s individual
budget for passenger transport compared to the share of spending for self performed services (e.g.
driving a car).
Such a measurement would also need further elaboration, but could help to clarify another dimension
of intermodality related to the market for intermodal services. However, it has to be stressed that the
discussion about possible measures for intermodality that fit different purposes is not very advanced
and needs clarification through research. The project concluded that a range of well developed
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
55 of 126
indicators harmonised across Europe could help to establish and evaluate actions to promote
passenger intermodal.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include clear development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
4.3.2 KITE - Knowledge Base for Intermodal passenger travel
4.3.2.1 Summary As a follower project to EuPI, the KITE Knowledge Base for Intermodal passenger travel is a
project which although still on-going, has already determined relevant aspects supporting seamless
intermodal travelling, by addressing five main helpful fields to describe accessibility.
4.3.2.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The EuPI study revealed significant deficiencies in the knowledge about intermodal travel demand and
supply. As no sufficient information is at hand, decision makers lack the information that is necessary
to support assessment (e.g. for reliable cost-benefit analyses). Thus, transport operators are not
willing to develop and offer new intermodal services as this market is not well-known and the
investments can not be evaluated accordingly. Additionally travellers often lack the experience and
competence to use other modes than their private car, while missing standards hamper the easy use
of public transport modes especially abroad.
A wide range of relevant information exists in different scientific disciplines. Thus, a multidisciplinary
approach is required to integrate the wide spread and fragmented knowledge. The integration of the
necessary data and knowledge in a “one-stop shop” will ease the access and use of this information
for decision makers. The main objective of the project is therefore the development of a knowledge
base in which all relevant information about intermodality will be collected and easily be made
accessible. This will provide politics, authorities, planners and transport providers with a coherent
source of information, from which measures towards improved passenger intermodality can be
developed. (D2, D19, D20)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
56 of 126
Scientifically the project aims at identifying, collecting and combining all relevant information
necessary for decision makers and to foster the intermodal passenger transport in Europe. Although a
variety of trips are already performed intermodality today only limited information is at hand that
reveals insight in the matters that facilitates or hampers journeys combining various transport modes.
Thus, the project aims at the relevant aspects (e.g. information, ticketing, baggage handling) a user
needs to be enabled to act intermodality. (D1) Additionally to this system-related issues it is necessary
to know more about the current state of user’s behaviour and abilities in using and integrating different
modes. Knowledge is also crucial about the users’ attitudes and their willingness to pay for services
(D8), as well as about technological deficits and transport system-related obstacles. The results will
help to make investments where optimal benefit can be generated.
Identifying existing and future market potentials will enable politics and service providers to develop
tailor-made supplies to meet the demand given. Therefore, available European data sources
(statistics, mobility surveys) have to be analysed concerning intermodal travel behaviour. (D4) Based
on its long-term experience in this field the consortium foresees that only limited information will be
available from the existing data. Therefore the project will derive recommendations for sufficient
statistics (D5) and will additionally develop a suitable survey methodology to close remaining
informational gaps (D6, D7). In-depth analyses of existing intermodal infrastructure, as well as
intermodal information and ticketing services (D15) will enlighten the requirements for easy-to-use
interfaces from a user perspective (D16).
Based on the findings the project will provide recommendations for standards in these areas that
support travellers at best. (D17) The gathered information will also be condensed in a catalogue of
intermodality fostering measures (D13) and guidelines for their implementation (D14). It will be
completed with an assessment methodology (D11) based on cost-benefit-technique to evaluate the
impacts on intermodality (D10). This will provide politics, planners and operators with an easy-to-use
instrument (D12) to show the impacts, the potential benefits and the economic feasibility of different
intermodal measures. Altogether the proposed project will elaborate applicable methods and solutions
to depict the current situation, quantify the demand for intermodal passenger transport and to give
advice how measures can be developed and assessed.
Finally all gathered information will be integrated in a web-based knowledge base. On this
informational platform interested parties can search the scientific state of the art in passenger
intermodality, disseminate their own experiences, search an extensive database on related issues
(legal framework, statistical data, research results, best practice etc.).
Beyond that the knowledge base will be a core element to support the complementary European
Forum on Intermodal Passenger Travel (LINK). Once it is available the knowledge base can become a
tool to exchange information to a wide audience and to integrate and disseminate future research
results, statistics etc. Thus it can be the central data and information source for planners and decision
makers to derive approaches and actions to develop intermodal measures.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
57 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Regarding Intermodal integration of modes services, facilities and characteristics defined include
availability of long distance modes and high quality of connections, availability of public transport
(urban train, underground, bus, tram) for access to and egress from the terminal (“first/last urban
mile”), integration into the superior road network (e. g. connection to an existing motorway), supply of
car parks or parking garages, reliability of taxis in central position, existence of cycle lanes leading
to/from or passing the interchange point, availability of deposit boxes and stands for bicycles and
coordination & cooperation (between the various transport operators).
Regarding Passenger services to support intermodality: Services, facilities and characteristics defined
include short transfer times between long distance modes (coordination between transport operators,
dynamic schedule synchronization etc.), sufficient information about arrival and departure times and
about further connections (integrating all modes); short waiting times at all capacity restraint points
(check-in, ticket counter etc.), easy ticketing (ticket vending machines, integrated tickets etc.) and
Intermodal luggage handling. Regarding Design aspects of the intermodal interchange, we have that
services, facilities and characteristics defined include short distances for transfer between long
distance modes (between gates, platforms etc.), short distances between transport modes and service
facilities within the terminal, barrier free accessibility and interchange for handicapped persons, easy
way finding (good and understandable signage) and good feeling of safety – design of the terminal.
Regarding Additional services for passengers’ conveniences , the study supports that passengers
travelling on long-distance journeys for private as well as for business purpose need to feel
comfortable during their stopover at an interchange terminal. This implies convenient waiting
conditions (e. g. enough seats), good feeling of safety – security services, availability of left-luggage
offices and lockers, etc. Finally, the Legal & regulatory framework at intermodal interchange needs to
be addressed as they are not defined in terms of services for passengers
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility This project has developed guidelines (D11) to assess intermodal / accessibility measures and is
designed in the format of a catalogue to assist the CBA Tool also developed in KITE. The catalogue is
organized per package of measures. Such packages of measures result from the analysis conducted
in other parts of the KITE project, in particular in WP5 (Intermodal Interchange points and Related
Services) and WP6 (Intermodal Information and Ticketing Services) and is presented in detail in the
Deliverables D13 and D14.
The 4 packages of measures considered are detailed next:
1 - Intermodal integration of modes
This package of measures is analysed at an interchange terminal that integrate and optimise the
usage of all public transport modes (long-distance modes and local public transport) as well as
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
58 of 126
individual transport modes for passengers. Most of the services, facilities and characteristics that can
be assigned to this field require a good coordination and cooperation between the various transport
operators.
The next table presents the different measures included under this package and the guidance for the
assessment of measures related to Intermodal integration of modes. It shows how to estimate the
measures and the benefit, on which the measure has impact and what are the data needs.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
Table 2 – KITE - Package of measures of type A: Intermodal integration of Modes
Measures Estimation method Benefit (actual demand) Impacts on Data needs A1 - Availability of long distance nodes and high quality of connections A1.1 Increase number of vehicles movements (per passenger
and mode) ∆ Transfer Time = ∆ Transfer-waiting Time = ∆ Average mode-waiting time = LDMd departure time - LDMa arrival time
D0 * ∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Waiting) Transfer-waiting Time ∆ Average mode-waiting time = LDMd departure time - LDMa arrival time
A1.2 Reduce Travel time (e.g. introduction of a new mode, a new destination)
∆ Travel Time = ∆ Average travel time from A to B; ∆ Trip Price
D0 * ∆ travel Time * VOT(Travel) + ∆ Trip Time Travel Time Trip Price
∆ Average travel time from A to B; ∆ Trip Price
A1.3 Increase the supply of new destinations - - - - A1.4 Reduce transfer time between long-distance modes ∆ Transfer Time D0 * ∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Walking) Transfer Time ∆ Transfer Time A2 - Availability of local public transport for access to and egress from the terminal A2.1 Reduce access/egress time by urban public transport
(reduce access travel-time, increase frequency, extend operating period)
∆ Access/Egress-Time = ∆ Access/Egress-UrbanPublicTransport Time
D0 * ∆ Access/Egress-Time * VOT(Travel) Access/Egress-LocalPublicTransport Time ∆ Access/Egress-LocalPublicTransport Time Local Public Transport disutility
A2.2 Reduce urban public transport fare - D0 * ∆ Trip Time Trip Price ∆ Trip Price A2.3 Reduce walking distance between urban public transport
stops and the Terminal ∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * APEG D0 * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking path distance Average passenger walking speed (APWS);
Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (APEG); ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (∆ APD);
A2.4 Introduce lifts, escalators, travelators, shuttles or eliminate stairs on the pathway between urban public transport stops and the Terminal
∆ Walking Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * ∆ APEG + ∆ ANWT
D0 * ∆ Walking Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking path distance Access/Egress-NonWalking Time
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD); ∆ Access/Egress-NonWalking Time (ANWT);
A2.5 Improve information about pathway directions between urban public transport stops and the Terminal
∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG D0* ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
A2.6 Reduce shuttle waiting time (average) between urban public transport stops and the terminal(better timetables, increase number of shuttles, etc)
∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ ASWT D0,shuttle * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Waiting) Access/Egress-waiting Time ∆ Average shuttle waiting time (ASWT)
A2.7 Increase the supply of urban public transport to access/egress the Terminal
- - - -
A3 - Integration into the superior road network and Good supply of car parks A3.1 Improve integration into the higher level road ∆ ANWT = ∆ Average trip time D0 * [∆ Access/Egress-nonWalking Time * VOT(Travel) + ∆
Trip Price] Trip Price Access/Egress-nonWalking Time
∆ Average trip time; Private Car disutility; ∆ trip Price
A3.2 Improve private car parking facilities (e.g Parking garages + open side car parks, number of parking spaces, Dedicated parking spaces)
∆ Access/Egress-nonWalking Time = ∆ ACPPST D0 * ∆[ Access/Egress-nonWalking Time * VOT(Travel) + ∆ Trip Price]
Trip Price Access/Egress-nonWalking Time
∆ Average car parking place search time (∆ ACPPST); ∆ Trip Price
A3.3 Reduce walking distance between car-parking places and the Terminal
∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * APEG D0 * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking path distance Average passenger walking speed (APWS); Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (APEG); ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (∆ APD);
A3.4 Introduce lifts, escalators, travelators, shuttles or eliminate stairs on the pathway between car-parking places and the Terminal
∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * ∆ APEG + ∆ ANWT
D0 * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking path distance Access/Egress-NonWalking Time
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD); ∆ Access/Egress-NonWalking Time (ANWT);
A3.5 Improve Information about pathway directions between car-parking places and the Terminal
∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG D0* ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
A3.6 Reduce shuttle waiting time (average) between car-parking places and the Terminal(better timetables, increase number of shuttles, etc)
∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ ASWT D0,shuttle * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Waiting) Access/Egress-waiting Time ∆ Average shuttle waiting time (ASWT)
A4 - Availability of taxis in central position A4.1 Reduce access/egress time by taxi (e.g. increase number
of taxis in peak time, frequency) ∆ Access/Egress-Time = ∆ Access/Egress-Taxi*Taxi disutility
D0 * ∆ Access/Egress-Time * VOT(Travel) Access/Egress-TaxiTime ∆ Access/Egress-Taxi Time Taxi disutility
A4.2 Reduce taxi fare - D0 * ∆ Trip Time Trip Price ∆ Trip Price A4.3 Reduce walking distance between taxis stop and the
Terminal ∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * APEG D0 * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(AWalking) Access/Egress-walking path distance Average passenger walking speed (APWS);
Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (APEG); ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (∆ APD);
A4.4 Introduce lifts, escalators, travelators, shuttles or eliminate stairs on the pathway between taxi stops and the Terminal
∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * ∆ APEG + ∆ ANWT
D0 * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking path distance Access/Egress-NonWalking Time
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD); ∆ Access/Egress-NonWalking Time (ANWT);
59 of 126
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
60 of 126
Measures Estimation method Benefit (actual demand) Impacts on Data needs A4.5 Improve information about pathway directions between taxi
stops and the Terminal ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG D0* ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Average passenger walking speed (APWS);
∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
A4.6 Reduce shuttle waiting time (average) between taxi stops and the Terminal (e.g. better timetables, increase number of shuttles, etc)
∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ ASWT D0,shuttle * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Waiting) Access/Egress-waiting Time ∆ Average shuttle waiting time (ASWT)
A5 - Existence of cycle lanes and availability of deposit boxes and stands for bicycles A5.1 Improve integration in the surrounding bicycle network ∆ ANWT = ∆ Average trip time D0 * [∆ Access/Egress-nonWalking Time * VOT(Travel) + ∆
Trip Price] Trip Price Access/Egress-nonWalking Time
∆ Average trip time; ∆ Trip Price Bike disutility
A5.2 Improve bicycle parking facilities (e.g number of bicycle parking spaces, number of deposit boxes, number of stands)
∆ Access/Egress-nonWaking Time = ∆ ABPPST D0 * ∆[ Access/Egress-nonWalking Time * VOT(Travel) + ∆ Trip Price]
Trip Price Access/Egress-nonWalking Time
∆ Average bike parking place search time (∆ ABPPST); ∆ Trip Price
A5.3 Reduce walking distance between bicycle-parking places and the Terminal
∆ Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * APEG D0 * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking path distance Average passenger walking speed (APWS); Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (APEG); ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (∆ APD);
A5.4 Introduce lifts, escalators, travelators, shuttles or eliminate stairs on the pathway between bicycle-parking places and the Terminal
∆ Walking Access/Egress Time = ∆ APD * APWS * ∆ APEG + ∆ ANWT
D0 * ∆ Walking Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking path distance Access/Egress-NonWalking Time
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) ∆ Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD); ∆ Access/Egress-NonWalking Time (ANWT);
A5.5 Improve information about pathway directions between bicycle-parking places and the Terminal
∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG D0* ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Walking) Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
A5.6 Reduce shuttle waiting time (average) between bicycle-parking places and the Terminal(better timetables, increase number of shuttles, etc)
∆ Access/Egress Time = - ∆ ASWT D0,shuttle * ∆ Access/Egress Time * VOT(Waiting) Access/Egress-waiting Time ∆ Average shuttle waiting time (ASWT)
Source; KITE (D11)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
61 of 126
Some measures have higher importance for the package than others. In KITE (D14), the stakeholders
evaluated some measures according theirs importance in the passengers and operators point of view
(please see below an example).
Average value (standard derivation)
Ranked from 1 to 5 (1=most important, 5 = not important), whereby each rating had to be used 5 times at most (values rounded up) all 15 7 6 2
1.5 1.4 1.2 3.0 Easy way finding (good and understandable signage)
1,06 0,41 0,53 2,83 1.7 2.4 1.0 1.5
Availability of long-distance modes and high quality of connections 0,96 0,00 0,98 0,71 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.5
Easy ticketing (ticket vending machines. integrated tickets etc.) 0,70 0,98 0,49 0,71 1.8 1.4 1.7 3.5 Sufficient information about arrival and departure times and further connections
(integrating all modes) 1,21 1,03 0,79 2,12 1.9 1.6 2.0 3.0 Availability of public transport for access to and egress from the terminal
(“first/last urban mile”) 1,25 1,17 0,49 2,83 1.9 1.3 2.2 3.0
Good feeling of safety – design of the terminal and security services 1,28 1,67 0,79 1,41 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Short transfer times between long-distance modes (co-ordination between
transport operators. dynamic schedule synchronization etc.) 0,93 1,10 1,00 0,00 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.0
Short waiting times at capacity restraint points (e. g. check-in. ticket counter) 0,96 0,75 1,11 0,00 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.5
Short distances between transport modes and service facilities within terminal 1,06 0,82 1,27 0,71 2.3 1.7 3.0 2.5
Supply of car parks or parking garages 1,18 1,26 0,49 2,12 2.5 2.9 2.5 1.5
Integration into the superior road network (e. g. connection to motorway) 0,83 0,75 0,98 0,00 2.5 2.6 2.2 3.0
Availability of taxis in central position 1,55 1,97 1,35 0,71 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 Short distances for transfer between long-distance modes (between gates.
platforms etc.) 0,74 0,84 0,79 0,71 2.6 1.7 3.0 4.5
Barrier free accessibility and interchange for handicapped persons etc. 1,35 1,26 0,76 0,71 2.6 2.3 2.8 3.0
Good supply of shops and facilities for daily use and consumption 0,91 0,75 1,11 0,00 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0
Convenient waiting conditions (e. g. enough seats) 1,07 1,03 1,37 0,00 2.9 2.3 3.2 4.5
Availability of baggage rooms and lockers 1,28 1,47 0,76 0,71 3.3 3.6 2.7 4.5
Intermodal luggage handling 1,40 1,21 1,51 0,71 3.4 2.4 4.5 3.5
Availability of deposit boxes and stands for bicycles 1,24 0,55 0,98 0,71 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.5
Availability of information about destination (e. g. hotels. sights. events) 1,13 1,10 1,35 0,71 4.1 3.4 4.8 4.5
Existence of cycle lanes leading to/from or passing the interchange point 0,92 0,41 0,79 0,71
- railway stations - airports - ports
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
2 - Passenger services to support intermodality
Beside the optimal availability and integration of different transport modes at the terminal, supporting services for their use are crucial for seamless passenger travel. The category includes services, facilities and characteristics treats
transfer and waiting times, offer of information, easy ticketing and luggage handling. Measures included under this category are presented below
Table 3 - Actions and measures about Passenger services to support intermodality
Measures Estimation method Benefit (actual demand) Impacts on Data needs B. B.1 VOT(.)
B.1.1 B.1.1 Reduce walking-transfer distance ∆ Transfer Time = ∆ PD * APWS * PEG D0 * ∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Transfer-walking) Transfer-walking path distance Average passenger walking speed (APWS); Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (PEG); ∆ Transfer-walking path distance (∆ PD);
B.1.2 B.1.2 Introduce lifts, escalators, travelators, shuttles or eliminate stairs on the pathway between long-distance modes and the Terminal
∆ Walking Transfer Time = ∆ PD * APWS * ∆ PEG + ∆ NWT D0 * ∆ Walking Transfer Time * VOT(Transfer-walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Transfer-walking path distance Transfer-NonWalking Time
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) ∆ Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Transfer-NonWalking Time (NWT);
B.1.3 B.1.3 Improve information about transfer path directions and further passenger services ∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG D0* ∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Tranfer-walking) Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD);
B.1.4 B.1.4. Reduce shuttle waiting time (average) better time-tables, more shuttles, etc) ∆ Transfer Time = - ∆ ASWT D0,shuttle * ∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Waiting) Transfer-waiting Time ∆ Average shuttle waiting time (ASWT)
B.1.5 B.1.5 Improve schedule coordination between long distance modes
∆ Transfer Time = ∆ Transfer-waiting Time = ∆ Average mode-waiting time = LDMd departure time - LDMa arrival time
D0 * ∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Waiting) Transfer-waiting Time ∆ Average mode-waiting time = LDMd departure time - LDMa arrival time
B.2
B.2.1 B.2.1 Improve information about transfer-shuttle times and trip duration, transfer-walking trip duration, LDMd arrival-departure times and status.
∆ Useful Time = ATWT * ∆ ULWT * WC&SF D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT) Average Transfer Waiting Time (TT) ∆ Usage Level of Waiting Time (∆ ULWT) Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (WC&SF)
B.2.2 B.2.2 Improve design, passenger services and facilities ∆ Useful Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (WC&SF) Average Transfer Waiting Time (TT) Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT) ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF) Share of Demand that uses Waiting and Services Facilities
B.3
B.3.1 B.3.1 Improve the capacity of restraint points (check-in desks/ticket counters/info-points/security checks/passport) - D0 * ∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time * VOT(Waiting) Restraint Points Waiting Time ∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time
Share of Demand that waits on targeted Restraint Points
B.3.2 B.3.2 Improve flows management in restraint points (better signage, different possibilities (e. g. self-check-in, advance check-in) and locations, modernization )
- D0 * ∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time * VOT(Waiting) Restraint Points Waiting Time ∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time Share of Demand that waits on targeted Restraint Points
B.4
B.4.1 B.4.1 Introduce integrated ticketing D0 * ∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time * VOT(Waiting) + ∆ Trip Price
Restraint Points Waiting Time Trip Price
∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time ∆ Trip Price
B.4.2 B.4.2 Improve ticket-services (diversification, number and location) - D0 * ∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time * VOT(Waiting) Restraint Points Waiting Time ∆ Restraint Points Waiting Time
B.5
B.5.1 B.5.1 Improve intermodal luggage services (including the management and location of pick-up and collecting points)
∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Useful Time = ATWT * ∆ ULWT * WC&SF
D0,luggage * ∆ Trip Price + D0 * [∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Tranfer-walking) + ∆ Useful Time * VOT(leisure)]
Trip Price Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT) Share of Demand that travels with luggage
∆ Trip Price ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade ∆ Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT) Share of Demand that travels with luggage
62 of 126
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
Measures Estimation method Benefit (actual demand) Impacts on Data needs
B.5.2 B.5.2 Increase the provision of trolleys and porters ∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Useful Time = ATWT * ∆ ULWT * WC&SF
D0,luggage * ∆ Trip Price + D0 * [∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Tranfer-walking) + ∆ Useful Time * VOT(leisure)]
Trip Price Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT)
∆ Trip Price ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade ∆ Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT) Share of Demand that travels with luggage
B.5.3 B.5.3 Improve left luggage places (e.g amount of left luggage lockers, availability, maximum storage and location)
∆ Useful Time = ATWT * ∆ ULWT * WC&SF D0,luggage * ∆ Trip Price + D0 * ∆ Useful Time * VOT(leisure) Trip Price Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT)
∆ Trip Price ∆ Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT) Share of Demand that travels with luggage
B.5.4 B.5.4 Reduce luggage services price (e.g. Lockers, etc D0,luggage * ∆ Trip Price Trip Price ∆ Trip Price Share of Demand that travels with luggage
D – Demand; PD - Path distance; VOT – Value of time; APWS - Average passenger walking speed; PEG - Path Effort Grade; Source; KITE (D11)
3 - Design aspects of the intermodal interchange
At interchanges, the constructional design and interior equipment also plays an important role to guarantee seamless travel for passengers. Aesthetic design is important but should be linked to functionality, though spectacular and
bold art design can bring the benefits of making the interchange a ‘landmark’. Therefore architectural and transport-use related issues as well as the characteristics of the site have to be taken into account when planning an
interchange terminal. The measures considered under this package and how to estimate the measures and the benefit, on which the measure has impact and what are the data needsare below presented.
Table 4 - Design aspects of the intermodal interchange
Measures Estimation method Benefit (actual demand) Impacts on Data needs C.
C.1. C.1.1 C.1.1 Reduce distance between transport modes and
service facilities within the terminal ∆ Useful Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF D0 * ∆ Useful Time * VOT(Leisure) Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (WC&SF) Average Transfer Waiting Time (TT)
Usage Level of Waiting Time (ULWT) ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF) Share of Demand that uses Waiting and Services Facilities
C.1.2 C.1.2 Reduce distance between long distance transport modes
∆ Transfer Time = ∆ PD * APWS * PEG D0 * ∆ Transfer Time * VOT(Transfer-walking) Transfer-walking path distance Average passenger walking speed (APWS); Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (PEG); ∆ Transfer-walking path distance (∆ PD);
C.1.3 C.1.3 Improve the passenger's walking paths protection from weather
∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG
D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
C.2
C.2.1 C.2.1 Improve elevators and ramps (e.g. number, location,etc)
∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG
D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
C.2.2 C.2.2 Improve guidance facilities (voice messages+braile+tactile stripes onthe floor+induction loops)
∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG
D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
C.2.3 C.2.3 Improve dedicated parking places ∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG
D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
63 of 126
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
64 of 126
Measures Estimation method Benefit (actual demand) Impacts on Data needs C.2.4 C.2.4 Improve shuttle services for access/egress
to/from/between the long distance modes + parking facilities shuttle service
∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG
D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
C.2.5 C.2.5 Improved special services (special skilled supporting staff+supply of wheel chairs+help phones)
∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG
D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
C.3 C.3.1 C.3.1 Improve the signage (e.g. location, number,etc) ∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG
∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
C.3.2 C.3.2 Improve standard design (e.g standard design of colours, fonts, size and pictograms)
∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG
D0* [∆ Access/Egress Time + ∆ Transfer Time] * VOT(Walking)
Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade
Average passenger walking speed (APWS); ∆ Transfer-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ PEG) Transfer-walking path distance (PD); ∆ Access/Egress-walking Path Effort Grade (∆ APEG) Access/Egress-walking path distance (APD);
C.4 see D Source; KITE (D11)
4 - Additional services for passengers’ conveniences
Further services, facilities and characteristics were identified to support that passengers travelling on long-distance journeys for private as well as for business purpose feel comfortable during their stopover at an interchange
terminal. Measures included under this package are:
Table 5 – Additional services for passengers’ conveniences
Measures Estimation method Benefit (actual demand) Impacts on Data needs D.
D.1
D.1.1 D.1.1 Improve waiting areas (e.g. Location, number of rooms, terminal design, etc) D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
D.1.2 D.1.2 Improve waiting areas conditions (e.g. Weather protection, equipment, etc) D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
D.2.1
D.2.1 Improve the shops (e.g. Location, number,coordination of the opening hours with the transpor modes timetables, types of shops,etc) D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions
∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
D.2.2 D.2.2 Improve passenger service facilities D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF) Waiting + Walking conditions
D.3.1
D.3.1 Improve the security facilities (e.g Location of security and police offices, location of surveilance cameras) D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions
∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
D.3.2 D.3.2 Improve constructional aspects D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF) D3.3 D3.3 Improve organisational/operating aspects D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
D.4.1
D.4.1 Improve the information (e.g amount, location, facilities to provide information, multilingual supply of information, etc) D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions
∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
D.4.2 D.4.2 Improve the information system (e.g. on real time, ticketing integration D0 * ∆ Leisure Time * VOT(leisure) ∆ Leisure Time = ATWT * ULWT * ∆ WC&SF Waiting + Walking conditions ∆ Waiting Conditions and Services Facilities (∆ WC&SF)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of further indicators to describe accessibility,
beyond the scope already mentioned above.
4.3.3 LINK - European Forum on Intermodal Passenger Travel
4.3.3.1 Summary
In the case of LINK this is a project launched in April 2007 with the main task of setting up a European
Forum on Intermodal Passenger Travel. This is expected to enhance intermodality in passenger
transport, achieving a more efficient and integrated transport system which improves ease of travelling
while at the same time minimises the environmental impact. The LINK Forum is composed of 17
representatives of different transport modes from 13 countries in Europe, becoming a focal point on
passenger intermodality for authorities, associations, operators, user and industry.
The contribution of LINK to improving accessibility or the way it should be assessed is so far rather limited
as there is very little reference to accessibility, however, the visions and recommendations from each of
the WGs could be beneficial to travellers with reduced mobility, e.g. seamless door-to-door information
and ticketing, intermodal information and ticketing customer-oriented not operator-driven, the well-being
of the passenger in terms of safety, comfort and cleanliness, accessibility of interchange facilities to all
categories of users.
4.3.3.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project LINK was launched in April 2007 with the main task of setting up a European Forum on Intermodal
Passenger Travel and with the main goal of enhancing intermodality in passenger transport in order to
achieve a more efficient and integrated transport system which improves ease of travelling while at the
same time minimises the environmental impact. The LINK Forum is composed of 17 representatives of
different transport modes from 13 countries in Europe and its aim is to become a focal point on passenger
intermodality for authorities, associations, operators, user and industry. The 3 year project is co-funded
under FP6 by DG TREN. The core of the Forum activities lies in network activities which include
conferences, national workshops and five Working Groups set up to develop strategies for rolling out high
quality passenger intermodality:
• Door-to-door information and ticketing
• Intermodal networks and interchanges
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
66 of 126
• Integration of long distance transport and the “first/last urban mile”
• Planning and implementation
• Context conditions
Each WG has defined a 2020 vision and a set of recommendations
In March 2009 this project has published it deliverable 23a designated “Identification of needs for further
research”. This document stated that despite considerable efforts to map various stakeholders’ ideas
about future intermodality research, EUPI recommendations are still very much valid. It also says that
passenger travel by more than one mode is certainly not new, but the concept of passenger intermodality
is fairly recent. In some member states intermodality is mainly a freight word, for passenger travel other
terms such as seamless mobility, whole journey etc. are used instead. This may be one reason why it has
been so difficult to get ideas for future research. However, the work in the LINK Working Groups has
shown that there is a lot of activity around Europe to improve intermodal passenger travel, perhaps so
much that the long term research perspective is neglected. The 2nd LINK Stakeholder consultation is
scheduled for March 2009, and a special request for research ideas will be part of it. The 3rd LINK
Working Group meeting will take place in March 2009; These results and an analysis of what has been
accomplished will be presented in LINK D23b, yet to be produced as of early May 2009.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment There is very little specific reference to accessibility. However, the visions and recommendations from
each of the WGs could be beneficial to travellers with reduced mobility, eg, Seamless door-to-door
information and ticketing, Intermodal information and ticketing, customer-oriented not operator-driven, the
well-being of the passenger in terms of safety, comfort and cleanliness, accessibility of interchange
facilities to all categories of users.
Seamless door-to-door information and ticketing - Vision 2020
A whole series of visions related to providing seamless information and ticketing services across Europe
were defined:
Door-to-door integrating the whole of Europe
Cross-border travelling should form no problem
Complete homogenous location-to-location information comparing and integrating all sensible
kinds of modes accessible from anywhere and offering all necessary elements for a journey
“Everybody local everywhere”: this vision reverses the perspective to emphasize the
responsibility on the provider of unfamiliar legs of a journey to make the journey experience for
the non-regular traveller as local and familiar as possible. Examples here would be to provide all
necessary information pre-trip (timetable, fares, maps, reservation, ticketing, differences in
cultural context in comparison to requester home, etc.) or to allow ticketing payments with the use
of a standard credit card.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
67 of 126
Main topics are:
Integration of information sources
Continuous public transport navigation
Plan-book-pay-ticket one system - pioneer groups
Combined media for information and ticketing
Intermodal information always up to date and free of charge
Intermodal ticketing - easy to understand, transparent and fair
Intermodal information and ticketing customer-oriented not operator-driven (service and
technology) Intermodality = user friendliness, widespread information
Well-being of the passenger in terms of safety, comfort and cleanliness (WG 2.1)
The main issues under this vision are: safety, comfort and cleanliness. In a customer-driven approach,
this well-being is doubtless a core ingredient for passenger intermodality. The potential impact of this
vision was described by the experts as follows: a disruption from one mode to another one in a journey is
always seen as a drawback or a handicap. Therefore anything that can help this disruption to be seen as
smooth or as “seamless” as possible can change the perception of the passenger and have an impact on
his behaviour. LINK states that in the discussion with the experts it was commented that this results from
a mix of economic constraints (the cost of infrastructure and equipment), technological opportunities
(available information systems for example) and organisational matters.
Accessibility of interchange facilities to all categories of users (WG 2.3)
The vision element here was described as the integration of transport - related and non-transport-related
services, and a good organisation of support activities which ensure a smooth monitoring of premises
maintenance, equipment availability, income from shops, advertising and other services. Various
categories of stakeholders can be involved in this task: transport operators, real estate managers, and/ or
any type of contractor for local communities. Related challenges to this vision have to deal with matters
that are supposed to be invisible for the passenger, but that are in the background of the extent and
quality of services provided to him, due to the impact of managerial issues on economic performances
and available resources. It was concluded that this is all highly dependent on local culture and practices
about management and governance.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
68 of 126
4.4 Projects focused on Sustainable/efficient transport
4.4.1 AENEAS- Energy-Efficient Mobility in an Ageing Society
4.4.1.1 Summary Launched in August 2008, AENEAS (Attaining Energy-Efficient Mobility in an Ageing Society) is a
new STEER co-funded project to promote sustainable travel among older people. It is based on the
growing recognition that Europe is faced with a car driving generation that is growing old, while there are
still quite a number of non-technical barriers to alternative transport. Therefore, a mix of enabling and
encouraging soft measures is needed to achieve modal shift to public transport to maintain independent
mobility and fitness. Further results of this project in terms of assessment of mobility and accessibility
features is expected to include feedback in relation to the stakeholders’ involvement at local and regional
level. Besides, the fact sheets and good practice database developed within the AENEAS project could
be shared among the two projects, to be widened and deepened with new data and different approaches,
although each project will maintain its own specific identity. It is maybe to early to establish how AENEAS
project could directly contribute to the setting up of the common European indicators, provided by the
Mediate project. Nevertheless a fruitful information exchange can be foreseen and it is worth to be
experienced.
4.4.1.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project AENEAS focus on urban mobility and consider all energy efficient modes and mobility concepts – such as
walking, cycling and public transport - not to forget innovative solutions such as carsharing and public
bicycles where users aged 50+ are hardly to be found. It deals with “people beyond working age” – at
least 50 years old, but including as well the oldest citizens, beyond the age of 80 years. Thus ageing is
considered as a process rather than a stage – abilities and requirements are constantly changing. In
order to achieve the best possible results, the issue will be approachedinm AENAS from both sides: The
transport system needs to be adapted to changing demographics while readiness and abilities of ageing
persons to use alternatives to the private car needs to be developed.
Within AENEAS, different soft measures (e.g. mobility management, awareness raising, training, mobility
days) will be applied in order to achieve more energy efficient mobility of the older generations. Energy
efficiency will be the main focus of this project, AENEAS will however add further objectives and policies
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
69 of 126
linked to urban transport, since the main motivation for people to change mobility behaviour are
attractiveness, cost savings or health benefits and not environmental concerns.
These targeted measures will enable and encourage modal shifts towards sustainable modes and raise
the share of walking, cycling and public transport. It will also open innovative schemes such as carsharing
and public bicycles to costumers 50+. This will not only contribute to clean, energy-efficient and safe
urban mobility but influence positively the abilities of older people to live healthy and independently.
As a non-exhaustive overview of what has been established so far (as of early April 2009):
• Stakeholder involvement handbook
• Overview of user needs collected by the partner cities
• Overview of current policies and instruments in partner cities / countries
• Set-up of the good practice database and start of good practice collection
• AENEAS Kick-Off Conference in Salzburg 15-16 September 08
• Project website (www.aeneas-project.eu)
• Release of the 1st newsletter
• AENEAS Brochure
• Planning of the 1st Training Workshop in Kraków (17-18 June 09)
• Presentations on AENEAS at various European events
Local Measures
• First meeting with Older people Service Centre representatives
• First exchanges with older people and other stakeholders
• Detailed planning of local measures
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The AENEAS project could provide some relevant feedbacks in relation to the stakeholders’ involvement
at local and regional level. Besides, the fact sheets and good practice database developed within the
AENEAS project could be shared among the two projects, to be widened and deepened with new data
and different approaches, although each project will maintain its own specific identity.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility It is maybe to early to establish how AENEAS project could directly contribute to the setting up of the a
framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility. Nevertheless a fruitful information exchange can be
foreseen and it is worth to be experienced.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
70 of 126
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility It is maybe to early to establish how AENEAS project could directly contribute to the setting up of the
common European indicators, provided by the Mediate project. Nevertheless a fruitful information
exchange can be foreseen and it is worth to be experienced.
4.4.2 BEST - Benchmarking European Sustainable Transport
4.4.2.1 Summary The Benchmarking European Sustainable Transport (BEST) (2000-2003) aimed at sharing expertise
and experiences with transport benchmarking among policy makers, the transport sector and experts.
This project is linked to the sister-project “BOB” also reviewed and described in this report.
BEST has been organised as a Thematic Network and has organised several conferences to share
information about, and experiences with, benchmarking among European transport authorities. The three
pilots are: Passenger Railways, Professional Road Transport Safety, and Airport Accessibility. Its
prevailing interest on accessibility to airports in broad sense, does not allow significant insight on
accessibility issues in which Mediate is mostly focused, nevertheless, also as a benchmarking project, it
might be worthing to consider specific aspects related to accessibility in airport contexts.
4.4.2.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The objectives of this project were to:
Develop the potential of benchmarking at a European level in the field of transport.
Provide a European framework for benchmarking in the transport sector.
Raise awareness of the techniques and benefits of benchmarking in the transport sector.
Compare European benchmarking projects with those in other regions of the world.
Organise a series of six conferences over three years to address key issues for benchmarking in
the transport sector.
Produce specific recommendations to the European Commission in relation to the development
and application of benchmarking in fields covered by transport policy.
Provide input to the BOB1 project, a “sister project” in which three practical benchmarking pilots
were carried out.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
71 of 126
The structure and activities of the network were based on the following approach:
Series of conferences: The BEST network was based on a series of six conferences over three
years. Each conference addressed a specific topic related to benchmarking.
Recommendations to the European Commission: The findings and conclusions of the six
conferences were used as the basis of reports and recommendations to the European
Commission on how to maximise the potential benefits of benchmarking in implementing
sustainable transport policies in Europe.
Links to BOB: BEST provided input to the three BOB pilots, and in turn, the results of BOB were
fed into BEST.
Dissemination activities: Several dedicated dissemination tools were produced for BEST: a
project brochure, regular newsletters and a website. In addition, the project was presented at
relevant events and articles about it were written for a range of publications.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment
Although not clearly pointing at the sort of accessibility issues covered in Mediate, the main results of this
project might be deemed somewhat interesting as it was a forerunner for subsequent projects focused on
measurement and assessment of mobility conditions and contexts. In that sense, major results of BEST
that may shed some light in relation to the way accessibility may be assessed were the following:
The creation of a comprehensive network of transport policy makers and other stakeholders: BEST
created the first international network that addressed the use of benchmarking in the transport sector.
During three years of activity, the network brought together over 100 representatives of public
authorities, operators, associations, organisations, research institutes and consultants from all sectors
of transport (passenger and freight, rail, air, road, intermodal, urban, cycling etc.), as well as non
transport sectors (telecommunications, manufacturing, business etc.), and from different levels
(international, European, national, regional and local). An important added value of the project has
been its diversity and outward-looking approach, involving experts and professionals from different
countries within and outside Europe (EU Member States, Accession Countries, Norway, Switzerland,
USA, Canada and New Zealand). This approach increased the learning potential of network
participants who were exposed to a wide range of expertise and experiences. It also contributed to a
better understanding of the work being carried out by transport policy makers in different countries
(and continents) and different transport sub-sectors. In this way, the network identified synergies and
facilitated dialogue between related initiatives and projects.
Increased awareness of the potential of benchmarking in the transport sector: The series of six BEST
conferences, together with the project website and newsletter, helped to increase significantly
awareness of benchmarking (methodology, benefits and barriers) among transport policy makers and
other stakeholders in the transport sector. BEST provided expert and practical information about
benchmarking methodology, key success factors, benefits, limitations, and the challenges involved in
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
72 of 126
benchmarking. Through the presentation of examples of successful benchmarking projects,
participants learned about the benefits of benchmarking as well as the challenges and problems that
can be encountered.
Increased understanding of the use of benchmarking in relation to policy: BEST was a particularly
innovative project because it addressed the issue of benchmarking in relation to policy. Before BEST,
benchmarking was most commonly known in the transport sector as a tool to improve operations and
production. Building on the successful experiences of benchmarking in other sectors and at other
levels, BEST covered new ground by exploring the potential of benchmarking at the levels of policy
and strategy. As a result of the debates and exchanges at BEST conferences, five types of
benchmarking in relation to policy have been identified9: (i) policy on benchmarking; (ii)
benchmarking into policy; (iii) benchmarking for policy; (iv) benchmarking of policy; and (v)
benchmarking of policy making. The identification of these different types of benchmarking has led to
a clearer understanding of why and how benchmarking should be used to support the development of
EU sustainable transport policies.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
4.4.3 BESTRANS
4.4.3.1 Summary In the case of BESTRANS “Benchmarking of Energy and emiSsion performance in urban public TRANSport operations” this project has developed a benchmarking methodology for energy and
emission performance in the urban public passenger transport with a number of European operators. The
variables used refer to the buses and correspond to the main performance indicators. Yet, the use of
indicators was limited to energy efficiency issues. Therefore, and although not clearly aligned with the
specific objectives of Mediate for this task, BESTRANS can still provide complementary operative
efficiency notions to combine with accessibility. Indeed, if properly seized, these inputs may cast light on
the costs and benefits of “accessibility” features, inasmuch as they may impact on energy efficiency,
either negatively or positively.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
73 of 126
4.4.3.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project
BESTRANS was a project co-financed by the EC SAVE programme, started in April 2002 and was
finalised in June 2004. The main objectives of this project were:
to develop an internal and external benchmarking methodology for energy and emission
performance in the urban public passenger transport sector usable all over Europe (including
Eastern Europe);
to successfully carry out a benchmarking exercise with a large number of public transport
operators from different European countries and with different characteristics;
to synthesise the results of the benchmarking exercise into a valuable promotional tool;
to produce a benchmarking guide.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Benchmarking includes the process of identifying good practices in other organisations and learning from
them. At the same time it is a useful tool to identify one’s own strengths and weaknesses and allows
monitoring the development process in the company by comparing results over time. It is considered as a
most valuable tool to gather standards for improvement and insights, which can lead to better
performance.
A well-known concept related with benchmarking is the Benchmark-Wheel5. The wheel divides the
benchmark methodology in 5 stages. The main conceptual idea that can be taken from this scheme is
that benchmarking is a continuing process of steps.
5 Camp 1998
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
74 of 126
Benchmark Wheel
1. Plan Identify Critical success factors, select process for benchmarking and develop performance measures
4. Analysis and Interpretation Identify gaps in performance and find the root causes for this performance gaps
3. Observe Understand and document the performance of the partners’ processes
2. Search Identify the benchmark partners and processes to compare with
5. Adapt Adapt own energy management to better practice
Benchmarking is a comparative tool which can be used when different entities are operating within
different environments, as it can take into account multiple, and not only quantitative, elements of
comparison. One of the aims of benchmarking is to identify “best practices” for transfer within and
between organisations, avoiding a convergence towards average performance.
This project has further developed a framework for setting up indicators in order to allow the measurement
and analysis of relevant performance and its determinants, which should fit a number of criteria:
• Relevance (to the objectives, meaning if the selected indicators measure the accessibility
performances and its determinants);
• Reliability (clarity of definition and ease of aggregation);
• Availability (often this means to be pragmatic (realistic) when selecting the indicators);
• Quantification (ability to set targets and, where appropriate, establish baseline).
Additionally the way of performance measurement should be taken into account:
• Assuming the behaviour of the "best of the class" (relative measurement); or
• Assuming other measurable benchmarks (absolute measurement).
In relation to the BESTRANS research, the first criterion was clear and easy to apply yet was somewhat
limited due to our choice to measure possible achievable improvements in relation to the performance of
the best performer of the participating operators. Also the latter performance might, in turn, be sensible to
further improvements.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
75 of 126
Achieving the second criterion was more complicated due to the fact that the majority of the indicators
measured ratios between technical performances and economic and operational data. The third and
fourth criteria were a trade-off between the relatively large number of operators from different countries
with different performance measurement systems and the necessity of precise and comparable figures.
In public transport operations, there are a number of variables that could be used to define performance
indicators. The first useful indicator is energy consumption per vehicle-kilometre. This is especially an
indicator of efficiency as this determining how well the production tools, especially vehicle and drivers
skills, are performing. The second type of indicators are energy consumption per passenger-kilometre
and per place (seat)-kilometre. These are more useful in determining the effectiveness to the services, as
to say how well we are able to achieve our energy and emission objectives in relation to a certain level of
PT services and given the vehicle and driver efficiency.
When setting up indicators for accessibility as devised in Mediate, one should take into consideration that
“better accessibility” should be made compatible with a set of energy sustainability measures as given in
BESTRANS. This means that when describing accessibility performances associated e,g, with transport
on demand (TOD), there are several other conditions that should be considered and made compatible as
much as possible.
In other words, there is probably a trade-off to consider between the benefit of a certain
transport/accessibility feature and its implications in terms of energy and environmental performance,
confronting the benefits against the variation in the following indicators:
Energy consumption per passenger-kilometre
This indicator is primarily a measure of the energy effectiveness of the provision of the service i.e. the
energy required to transport one passenger one kilometre. The overwhelming determinant of this
performance index is the number of passengers or occupancy rate, and is therefore especially useful in
determining the energy effectiveness of the tactical planning of the PT network. Changes to the energy
performance of the vehicle through, for instance, improved maintenance, will not make as significant an
impact on this figure as an increase in the passenger density. However, this is an important indicator in
that, in global terms, it is the best means of comparison between fleets and particularly with other
transport modes – the environmental case for public transport rests on the differential in emissions per
passenger-km between that and the private car.
Energy consumption per vehicle-kilometre
This indicator measures the energy efficiency in the provision of a vehicle. It is dependent on internal
policies and practices which have an impact on vehicle efficiency such as vehicle specification, size, fuel
type, driver performance, maintenance procedures etc. It is also a result of external determinants such
as terrain and factors affecting commercial speed.
Energy consumption per vehicle-km is a useful indicator for monitoring the performance of an individual
vehicle over time and for analysing the impact of measures to improve performance, such as driver
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
76 of 126
training. It is also an important measure for comparing the efficiency of different vehicles of similar types
(to input to maintenance requirements), or between different types of vehicle (to input to route planning
and vehicle specification).
Energy consumption per seat-kilometre (or seat -kilometre)
This measures the specific energy consumption of each available passenger place. As such, it takes
some account of demand (in cases where vehicle capacity has been matched to demand) and also
measures the technical efficiency of the vehicle. It is useful for comparing the efficiency between fleets,
and between different types of vehicle within a fleet. It can also be used to monitor the performance of an
individual vehicle over time. The choice of indicator depends on the use to which the data is being put.
For comparison of vehicle efficiency between fleets, and for monitoring within a fleet, energy consumption
per seat-km is probably the most useful. Energy consumption per passenger-km is the most useful
comparative measure of the effectiveness of a service/fleet, and for comparison with other modes. It is
also an explanatory factor in comparing the vehicle efficiency between fleets.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
4.4.4 DISTILLATE - Improved Indicators for Sustainable Transport
4.4.4.1 Summary Regarding DISTILLATE - Improved Indicators for Sustainable Transport and Planning, again, few
indicators are relevant for Mediate. Yet, there are some potential interesting points especially in the
‘economy’ and ‘social’ indicator, which can be of value for Mediate, as in the case of ‘efficiency of
operation’, ‘end user satisfaction’, ‘basic access’ and ‘fairness’.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
77 of 126
4.4.4.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The main goals of the project were to:
complement the scoping study review of indicators with a survey of local authorities’
experience in measuring, predicting and using indicators;
determine the extent to which current indicators correspond to stakeholders’ understanding of
sustainability and quality of life;
specify the requirements for a core set of indicators at each stage in the decision-making
process; and
identify a core set of outcome indicators that best meets those requirements
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment An overview of indicators in the following domains is distinguished:
1. Environment a. Limits emissions within planet’s ability to absorb them b. Protects human health c. Uses of renewable sources d. Minimises noise genearation e. Minimises the impact on land or water
2. Economy a. Supports a competitive economy b. Supports balanced regional growth c. Operates efficiently
3. Social a. Meeting society’s needs safely b. Quality of life c. End user satisfaction d. Basic access e. Fairness
By order of importance, the following concerns regarding indicators have been identified:
Their use in the development of well-founded targets Cost effectiveness of monitoring Ability to capture year-on-year improvements Ease of measurement Ease of understanding by politicians Ease of understanding by the general public Poor Consistency between transport and planning indicators Poor Consistency between transport and sustainability indicators
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
78 of 126
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
4.4.5 MILLENNIUM CITIES DATABASE
4.4.5.1 Summary Regarding the MILLENNIUM CITIES DATABASE for sustainable transport Cities (MCD), this UITP
project developed a database, known as the "Millennium Cities Database" concerning 100 world's cities.
The collected data concerns population, the economy and urban structure, the number of road vehicles,
taxis, the road network, parking, public transport networks (offer, usage and cost), individual mobility and
choice of transport mode, transport system efficiency and environmental impact (duration and cost of
transport, energy consumption, accidents, pollution, etc.). In total, 69 indicators (175 basic indicators) are
being compiled for each city. The MCD fact sheets and results, as well as the database itself can provide
useful information to the Mediate project and, besides, Mediate can contribute back to update the pieces
of information and data on the MCD. In producing this database and analyzing the results obtained, UITP
aimed at drawing up a set of arguments in favour of sustainable mobility and public transport and provide
its members with information that will allow them to evaluate the performances of their cities and their
own public transport networks and construct an argument adapted to their own particular situation.
The main conclusion drawn from this massive study was that the supply of public transport per hectare
provides a better correlation with higher modal share than public transport length. In other words, public
transport use was greater in those cities offering good public transport capillarity, implying that a good
spread of public transport located close to where people live and shop – ie, a good feeder and backbone
service, would certainly benefit accessibility, constituting an important descriptor to be considered in
Mediate.
4.4.5.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The Mobility in Cities Database provides data on urban public transport in 50 cities across the world
based on 120 public transport indicators. The purpose of this exercise was to understand the contribution
of public transport to sustainability. The main conclusion drawn from this massive study was that the
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
79 of 126
supply of public transport per hectare provides a better correlation with higher modal share than public
transport length. In other words, public transport use was greater in those cities offering good public
transport capillarity, in other words a good spread of public transport located close to where people live
and shop – ie, a good feeder and backbone service.
The MCD approach & outcome
About 100 cities (see list below) have been classified into socio-geographic regions, with indications of
public transport modes available, population and surface data.
The MCD report examines each variable able to explain the market of transfers, its size and urban
density, its level of development, the household’s rate of motorization, prices and speed of transport
means and the competition among them. The second part of the report presented the control of urban
development and shows different approaches and studies.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
80 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The MCD fact sheets and results, as well as the database its self can provide useful information to the
Mediate project and, besides, Mediate can contribute to update the pieces of information and data of the
MCD. A total of 120 indicators were collected in a sample of 52 cities worldwide for the year 2001. The
respective analysis and recommendations report includes fact sheets enabling to interpret the evolution of
key indicators between 1995 and 2001 in the light of transport policies in more than 30 cities, and a
graphical tool for comparisons across cities.
The following is a list of general indicators adopted in MCD:
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA - Urban density. - Job density. - Proportion of jobs in CBD. - Metropolitan gross domestic product per capita. SUPPLY INDICATORS Private Transport Infrastructure Indicators - Length of road per 1000 people. - Length of freeway per 1000 people. - Length of road per urban hectare. - Length of freeway per urban hectare. - Parking spaces per 1000 CBD jobs. Public Transport Infrastructure Indicators - Total length of public transport lines per 1000 people. - Total length of reserved public transport routes per 1000 people.
° Bus reserved route length per 1000 people. ° Minibus reserved route length per 1000 people. ° Segregated tram network length per 1000 people. ° Light rail network length per 1000 people. ° Metro network length per 1000 people. ° Suburban rail network length per 1000 people. ° Heavy rail network length per 1000 people.
- Total length of reserved public transport routes per urban hectare. ° Bus reserved route length per urban hectare. ° Minibus reserved route length per urban hectare. ° Segregated tram network length per urban hectare. ° Light rail network length per urban hectare. ° Metro network length per urban hectare. ° Suburban rail network length per urban hectare. ° Heavy rail network length per urban hectare.
Intermodal Transport Infrastructure Indicators. - Number of park and ride facilities per kilometre of reserved public transport route. - Number of park and ride spaces per kilometre of reserved public transport route. - Number of park and ride facilities per 10,000 urban hectare. - Car equivalents per number of park and ride spaces. Private transport supply cars and motorcycles - Passenger cars per 1000 people.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
81 of 126
- Motor cycles per 1000 people. - Total private passenger vehicles per 1000 people. - Passenger car kilometres per car. - Motor cycle kilometres per motor cycle. Private collective transport supply taxis and shared taxis - Taxis per million people. - Shared taxis per million people. - Taxi vehicle kilometres per capita. - Shared taxi vehicle kilometres per capita. Traffic Intensity Indicators - Passenger cars per kilometre of road. - Motor cycles per kilometre of road. - Total private passenger vehicles per kilometre of road. - Total single and collective private passenger vehicles per kilometre of road. - Passenger car kilometres per kilometre of road. - Motor cycle kilometres per kilometre of road. - Total private passenger vehicle kilometres per kilometre of road. - Total private and collective passenger vehicle kilometres per kilometer of road. - Passenger car kilometres per urban hectare. - Total private passenger vehicle kilometres per urban hectare. - Total private and collective passenger vehicle kilometres per urban hectare. Public Transport Supply and Service - Total public transport vehicles per million people.
° Buses per million people. ° Minibuses per million people. ° Tram units per million people. ° Light rail units per million people. ° Metro units per million people. ° Heavy rail units per million people. - Total public transport vehicle kilometres of service per capita. ° Bus vehicle kilometres per capita. ° Minibus vehicle kilometres per capita. ° Tram wagon kilometres per capita. ° Light rail wagon kilometres per capita. ° Metro wagon kilometres per capita. ° Suburban rail wagon kilometres per capita. ° Heavy rail wagon kilometres per capita.
- Total public transport vehicle kilometres of service per urban hectare. ° Bus vehicle kilometres per urban hectare. ° Minibus vehicle kilometres per urban hectare. ° Tram wagon kilometres per urban hectare. ° Light rail wagon kilometres per urban hectare. ° Metro wagon kilometres per urban hectare. ° Suburban rail wagon kilometres per urban hectare. ° Heavy rail wagon kilometres per urban hectare.
- Total public transport seat kilometres of service per capita. ° Bus seat kilometres per capita. ° Minibus seat kilometres per capita. ° Tram seat kilometres per capita. ° Light rail seat kilometres per capita. ° Metro seat kilometres per capita. ° Suburban rail seat kilometres per capita. ° Heavy rail seat kilometres per capita.
- Overall average speed of public transport .
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
82 of 126
° Average speed of buses. ° Average speed of minibuses. ° Average speed of trams. ° Average speed of light rail. ° Average speed of metro. ° Average speed of suburban rail. ° Average speed of heavy rail.
MOBILITY INDICATORS - Overall mobility - Daily trips by foot per capita. - Daily trips by mechanized, non motorised modes per capita. - Daily public transport trips per capita. - Daily private transport trips per capita. - Total daily trips per capita.
° Percentage of non motorised modes over all trips. ° Percentage of motorised public modes over all trips. ° Percentage of motorised private modes over all trips. ° Percentage of mechanised, non motorised modes over mechanised trips. ° Percentage of motorised public modes over mechanized trips. ° Motorised private modes.
- Overall average trip distance. - Overall average trip distance by car. - Overall average trip distance by public transport. - Average distance of mechanised trips. - Overall average distance of the journey-to-work. - Average distance of the journey-to-work by mechanised modes. - Average time of a car trip. - Average time of a public transport trip. Private Mobility Indicators cars and motorcycles - Passenger car kilometres per capita. - Motor cycle kilometres per capita. - Total private passenger vehicle kilometres per capita. - Passenger car passenger kilometres per capita. - Motor cycle passenger kilometres per capita. - Total private passenger kilometres per capita. Private Mobility Indicators taxis and shared taxis - Taxi passenger kilometres per capita. - Shared taxi passenger kilometres per capita. - Taxi trips per capita. - Shared taxi trips per capita. Public Transport Mobility Indicators - Total public transport boardings per capita.
° Bus boardings per capita. ° Tram boardings per capita. ° Light rail boardings per capita. ° Metro boardings per capita. ° Suburban rail boardings per capita. ° Heavy rail boardings per capita.
- Total public transport passenger kilometres per capita. ° Bus passenger kilometres per capita. ° Minibus passenger kilometres per capita. ° Tram passenger kilometres per capita.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
83 of 126
° Light rail passenger kilometres per capita. ° Metro passenger kilometres per capita. ° Heavy rail passenger kilometres per capita.
User cost of transport - Average user cost of a car trip. - Average user cost of a public transport trip. - Price of fuel per km. - User cost of private transport per passenger kilometre. - User cost of public transport per passenger kilometre. - Maximum charge for on-street parking in the CBD. - Maximum charge for off-street parking in the CBD. - Average of the maximum parking charges in the CBD. - Fine for parking in no parking zone. - Fine for obstructing public transport. - Fine for exceeding parking time in a paying parking place. PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRODUCTIVITY - Overall public transport vehicle occupancy.
° Bus vehicle occupancy. ° Minibus vehicle occupancy. ° Tram wagon occupancy. ° Light rail wagon occupancy. ° Metro wagon occupancy. ° Suburban rail wagon occupancy. ° Heavy rail wagon occupancy.
- Overall public transport seat occupancy. ° Bus seat occupancy. ° Minibus seat occupancy. ° Tram seat occupancy. ° Light rail seat occupancy. ° Metro seat occupancy. ° Suburban rail seat occupancy. ° Heavy rail seat occupancy.
- Public transport operating cost recovery. - Average public transport farebox revenue per boarding. - Average public transport farebox revenue per passenger kilometre. - Average public transport farebox revenue per vehicle kilometre. TRANSPORT FINANCIAL COST Public Transport Cost - Percentage of metropolitan GDP spent on public transport investment. - Public transport investment per capita. - Public transport operating cost per vehicle kilometre. - Public transport operating cost per passenger kilometre. - Public transport operating cost per capita. - Percentage of metropolitan GDP spent on public transport operating costs. Private Transport Cost - Percentage of metropolitan GDP spent on road investment. - Road investment per capita. - Annual road investment per kilometre of road. - Private transport operating cost per vehicle kilometre. - Private transport operating cost per passenger kilometre.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
84 of 126
- Private transport operating cost per capita. - Percentage of metropolitan GDP spent on private transport operating costs. Overall Transport Cost - Overall transport cost per passenger kilometre. - Overall private transport cost per passenger kilometre. - Overall public transport cost per passenger kilometre. - Total passenger transport cost per capita. - Total private passenger transport cost per capita. - Total public passenger transport cost per capita. - Total passenger transport cost as percentage of metropolitan GDP. - Total private passenger transport cost as percentage of metropolitan GDP. - Total public passenger transport cost as percentage of metropolitan GDP. - Private passenger transport energy use per capita. TRANSPORT EXTERNALITIES INDICATORS Transport Energy Indicators - Public transport energy use per capita. - Total transport energy use per capita. - Energy use per private passenger vehicle kilometre. - Energy use per public transport vehicle kilometre.
° Energy use per bus vehicle kilometre. ° Energy use per minibus vehicle kilometre. ° Energy use per tram wagon kilometre. ° Energy use per light rail wagon kilometre. ° Energy use per metro wagon kilometre. ° Energy use per suburban rail wagon kilometre. ° Energy use per heavy rail wagon kilometre.
- Energy use per private passenger kilometre. - Energy use per public transport passenger kilometre.
° Energy use per bus passenger kilometre. ° Energy use per minibus passenger kilometre. ° Energy use per tram passenger kilometre. ° Energy use per light rail passenger kilometre. ° Energy use per metro passenger kilometre. ° Energy use per suburban rail passenger kilometre. ° Energy use per heavy rail passenger kilometre.
- Overall energy use per passenger kilometre. TRANSPORT EXTERNALITIES INDICATORS Air Pollution Indicators - Total emissions per capita
° Emissions of CO per capita. ° Emissions of SO2 per capita. ° Emissions of VHC per capita. ° Emissions of NOx per capita.
- Total emissions per urban hectare. - Total emissions per total hectare. TRANSPORT EXTERNALITIES INDICATORS Transport Fatalities Indicators - Total transport deaths per million people.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
85 of 126
- Total transport deaths per billion vehicle kilometres. - Total transport deaths per billion passenger kilometres. PUBLIC/PRIVATE TRANSPORT BALANCE INDICATORS - Proportion of total motorised passenger kilometres on public transport. - Ratio of annual investment in public transport versus private transport infrastructure. - Ratio of segregated public transport infrastructure versus expressways. - Ratio of public versus private transport energy use per passenger kilometre. - Ratio of public vs private transport total cost. - Ratio of public versus private transport user cost per passenger kilometre.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include specific development of indicators on Accessibility as required by Mediate,
although it provides a wide base of indicators that might be useful to help feeding a possible
complementary set of indicators fulfilling the requirements of accessibility.
4.4.6 MOST - Mobility Management Strategies for the Next Decades
4.4.6.1 Summary
In the case of MOST - Mobility Management Strategies for the Next Decades, this was a pilot projects
in 32 European locations implemented Mobility Management strategies both in “traditional” (companies,
schools) and new thematic sectors (tourism, events and new sites in their planning stage). This led to
improved accessibility and a change in attitudes towards sustainable mobility. Although no specific
indicators to describe accessibility are provided, there might still be an interest for Mediate linked to the
set of standardised monitoring and evaluation tools developed in MOST.
4.4.6.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project MOST stands for "Mobility Management Strategies for the Next Decades" and was a research and
demonstration project funded by the European Commission, DG Energy and Transport (TREN), under
the 5th Framework Programme. MOST has analysed the framework conditions for Mobility Management
across Europe with a focus on factors that influence Mobility Management on the local, national and the
European level, aiming to:
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
86 of 126
• Consolidating the know-how developed in previous national and EU-projects and analysing
existing Mobility Management strategies, especially their impacts,
• Developing innovative Mobility Management strategies and initiating Mobility Management in
regions of Europe where it is not so well established,
• Developing and applying a European monitoring and evaluation strategy that enabled
comparisons of all MOST research and demonstration sites and allowed to draw general
conclusions,
• Analysing framework conditions to Mobility Management and, on this basis, formulating policy
and implementation strategies and scenarios, producing a framework and recommendations
for the design and implementation of future Mobility Management applications,
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment MOST was designed to test and demonstrate the feasibility of Mobility Management services in practice.
In more than thirty cities throughout Europe, mobility management was tested in different settings. These
sites were grouped into six thematic fields (Educational Institutions, Tourism, Health Facilities, Site
Development, Temporary Sites and Mobility Consulting /Centres) providing an opportunity to apply
mobility management strategies to new fields and develop innovative schemes and tools.
Within the project a tool designated as MET – Monitoring and Evaluation Checklist was designed. It starts
by defining the objectives and ends with the evaluation of the implemented measures and services,
passing through the definition of assessment levels (see figure below) and indicators.
Of main interest is the development of a quality management model that provides useful insights for the
self assessment envisaged in Mediate.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
87 of 126
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
88 of 126
4.4.7 URBACT - Urban Development Network
4.4.7.1 Summary
Regarding URBACT (I&II) - Urban Development Network, this is a European Programme, funded by
the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which aims to foster the exchange of experience
among European cities and the capitalisation-dissemination of knowledge on all issues related to
sustainable urban development. Its main priority is to improve the effectiveness of sustainable integrated
urban development policies in Europe with a view to implementing the Lisbon-Gothenburg Strategy. This
is a rather cross sectional project covering multiple vectors of sustainability, without a specific focus on
transportation and mobility. However, the activities involved in some of the thematic networks of this
initiative, including Age (Impact of demographic ageing for cities) and Environment have close links to
mobility and accessibility, which may be interesting for Mediate, yet with no specific added value in terms
of quantified descriptors.
4.4.7.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project URBACT aims to foster the exchange of experience among European cities and the capitalisation-
dissemination of knowledge on all issues related to sustainable urban development. The second cycle of
the Programme, URBACT II (2007-2013), follows in the footsteps of URBACT I (2002-2006).
There are three URBACT Thematic Poles
- Cities, Engines of Growth and Job Creation
- Cities, Social Inclusion and Governance
- Cities and Integrated, Sustainable Development
The URBACT Objectives are to:
Provide an exchange and learning tool for policy decision-makers, practitioners and other actors
involved in developing urban policies. URBACT II is an exchange platform used to set up Thematic
Networks and Working Groups, known as "Projects". Each project is essentially composed of cities,
but local authorities, universities and research centres can also get involved.
Learn from the exchanges between URBACT partners that share experiences and good practices.
Draw conclusions and build on them using a thematic approach and expertise.
Disseminate good practices and lessons learned from exchanges to all European cities. In this way,
URBACT II encourages "cities to work for cities".
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
89 of 126
Assist city policy-makers, practioners and managers of operational programmes to define action
plans. The URBACT activities must have an actual impact on local urban sustainable development
practices and policies.
Regarding the thematic pole “Cities, Social Inclusion and Governance”, lead Experts of the URBACT II
Projects have prioritised inclusion as the Thematic Pole main sub-theme to begin with, and sprawl and
segregation as secondary themes. They have also identified several additional sub-themes of interest to
this pole's projects, including governance, neighbourhoods, regions and regional governance, social
housing, cohesion, sustainability of community involvement, neighbourhood voices, migration, health,
ageing, quality of life, youth inclusion & employment, and employment & enterprise. This Thematic Pole
includes 8 URBACT Thematic Networks, including Age (Impact of demographic ageing for cities) and
Building Healthier Communities which are of particular interest. The Building Healthier Communities
proposes a thematic network which aims to capitalise knowledge and practice on urban factors
influencing health, notably Health Impact Assessments & Urban Health Indicators.
Anyway, whilst it is not explicit, accessible transport is an understated pre-requisite to all the social
inclusion sub themes here
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The project does not include specific contributions to improve accessibility measurement / assessment as
required by Mediate
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
4.5 Projects focused on Mobility performance assessment
4.5.1 Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative
4.5.1.1 Summary Regarding the Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative, this project was launched by the EU
Commission as a wide scale project in order to promote good local and regional transport by involving
cities and regions throughout Europe to compare and assess the performance of their local transport
systems. The aim was to enable each of the cities and regions to assess the strengths and needs of its
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
90 of 126
transport system, to compare it with those of the others and decide what could be improved and how. The
participating cities and regions measured and compared their transport systems' performance on the
basis of common indicators. A comparison of accessibility opportunities for non disabled users and for
users with disabilities was included in the suite of indicators. This is a very interesting project for Mediate,
as it combines a good geographical coverage with a quantified approach to mobility and accessibility,
characterised by rather rich set of accessibility and mobility descriptors.
4.5.1.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project This project was launched by the EU Commission as a wide scale project in order to promote good local
and regional transport by involving cities and regions throughout Europe to compare and assess the
performance of their local transport systems. The aim was to enable each of the cities and regions to
assess the strengths and needs of its transport system, to compare it with those of the others and decide
what could be improved and how. The participating cities and regions measured and compared their
transport systems' performance on the basis of common indicators. These indicators addressed a number
of questions: what transport services do people want, and how well is the system meeting these
requirements? What is the impact of transport on the environment? How safe is it to travel? Common
Indicators were grouped according to different themes which generally corresponded to the transport
topic areas or concepts to which they were linked.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment In order to promote good local and regional transport the EU Commission launched a wide scale project
aimed at involving cities and regions from throughout Europe to compare and assess the performance of
their local transport systems. The aim was to enable each of the cities and regions to assess the
strengths and needs of its transport system, to compare it with those of the others and decide what could
be improved and how. The participating cities and regions measured and compared their transport
systems' performance on the basis of common indicators. These indicators addressed a number of
questions:
What transport services do people want, and how well is the system meeting these requirements?
What is the impact of transport on the environment?
How safe is it to travel?
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
91 of 126
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility Common Indicators were grouped according to different themes which generally corresponded to the
transport topic areas or concepts to which they were linked. 6 . The Common Indicator themes were:
A. Background information
Population
Surface area
Employment and commuting
Average income / GDP
B. How people travel
Number of trips
Average trip distance
Passenger-kilometres
Children’s school journeys
Trips per day and user group
C. Road transport
Length of the road network
Investment into road infrastructure
Investment into road telematics
Private car and powered two-wheeler ownership
Cost of car use
Road traffic management technologies
Average road network speed
Provision of park-and-ride facilities
D. Public transport
Length of the public transport network
Number of stops and stations
Number of vehicles
Seat-km and passenger-km
Priority for public transport
Average speed
Accessibility for users with special needs
6 http://www.citizensnetwork.org/uk/common_indicators.asp
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
92 of 126
Public transport real time information
Investment into public transport infrastructure
Operating costs and revenues
Tickets
Taxis
E. Walking
Pedestrianised area
Speed limited zones
Investment into pedestrian infrastructure
F. Cycling
Length of cycle paths
Bicycle parking spaces
Investment into bicycle infrastructure
G. Socio-environmental impacts
Air pollution
Noise
Traffic accident injuries
Traffic accident fatalities
Data collection was undertaken by the participating authorities on the basis of instructions and
documentation provided by the project management office. Methodology sheets containing technical
guidelines for data compilation and data collection reporting formats were sent to the local and regional
authorities taking part in the initiative, requesting participants to fill in a questionnaire (data input sheet) by
providing data for the years 1990 and 2000 (or the closest years for which data are available) for the
described set of 39 indicators.
The results of the common indicators were presented as individual graphs, accompanied with brief
comments where applicable.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
93 of 126
For example, the Indicator A4: Commuting (see figure below):
In-commuters out-commuters
Fig 1: Indicator A4 Commuting: share of in- and out-commuters sorted by
area population (2000)
Fig 2: Indicator D9 Low floor vehicles .Accessibility for disabled people
Metro stations accessible for disabled people (2000)
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility For instance, a comparison of accessibility opportunities for non disabled users and for users with
disabilities was included in the suite of indicators. Data was collected according to the process and
procedures outline below for “Indicator D7”
Methodology sheet no.: D 07 Theme: Public transport
Indicator title Accessibility for people with special needs
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
94 of 126
1. Indicator question
How many vehicles adapted for people with special needs are there in the public transport fleet of
your city/region?
a) Buses
b) Tram/Light-rail
c) Metro/Heavy-rail
How many stops and stations are equipped with facilities for people with reduced mobility in your
city/region?
d) Bus-stops
e) Tram/Light-rail-stops
f) Metro/heavy-rail stations
A screen snapshot of the Spreadsheet input model developed by this project is presented below:
D 07 Theme: Public transport
Accesibility for people with special needsYear of reference 1990 2000 unit
If you have data from another year, please tell us in these fields
If you use another unit please choose or note below
Accesible buses
Accesible trollleybus/trams/light-rail vehicles
Accesible metro/heavy-rail vehicles
Accesible busstops
Accesible trolleybus/tram/light-rail stations
Accesible metro/heavy-rail stations
buses
busstops
vehicles
carriages
stops/staions
stations
2. Indicator definition
Data should be given for the sub-indicators a) – f) for the years 1990 and 2000, or for the nearest
years for which data is available.
Unit of measurement for a) - c): number of busses, trams, trains
Unit of measurement for d) – f): number of stops and station
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
95 of 126
Vehicles equipped with facilities for people with special needs are defined as vehicles that allow wheel-
chairs or parents with a pram to enter the vehicle without help. This can be reached by ramps, low-floors,
'kneeling' buses, etc.
A vehicle unit is defined as an autonomous one. Therefore figures for trams and rail vehicles should
reflect the number of complete trains and not the number individual carriages.
Stops and stations equipped with facilities for people with special needs are defined as stations that allow
wheel-chairers or parents with a pram to get from the street level into the vehicle without help of others.
The stop or station should be adapted to the vehicles serving that station. This aim can be reached by
access ramps, elevators, low kerbs, high platforms, bus- and tram-caps etc.
3. Purpose and relevance
Public transport should be easily and readily accessible for people with reduced mobility such as the
disabled and the elderly, as well as for people travelling with young children or carrying loads. These
people are often dependent on public transport and have no alternatives to it. To increase the mobility of
all potential travellers whose travel choices and opportunities are restricted by physical barriers should
therefore be one mayor aim of transport policy.
A complete set of documents containing detailed information on the achievements of this project in terms
of development of indicators for possible use by Mediate is available for download at:
http://www.citizensnetwork.org/uk/download/Indicator_Handbook_EN.zip
4.5.2 CoMET/NOVA
4.5.2.1 Summary
The CoMET/NOVA initiative started with CoMET - the Community of Metros – a consortium of nine of the
world’s largest urban railways and established in 1995 to assist metro railways to identify and implement
best practice through benchmarking comparisons and analytical case studies. The core of the
benchmarking process was the development of a key performance indicator system. The “NOVA” was a
second benchmarking for medium sized metro systems later established in 1998, and used the same
methodology. For the interest of Mediate, we see that CoMET and Nova established three types of
performance indicator:
Operations based - a system of 32 operational performance indicators, 17 top level and 15 secondary
indicators representing six functional areas of the railway business.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
96 of 126
Customer focused - a standardised customer survey was used to develop a set of “soft” indicators
and data is now collected every two years through a standardised customer satisfaction survey. This
allows the project to benchmark customer satisfaction over a range of issues between the 16
participants.
City Context – structured indicators were being developed for the relationship between metros and
cities in which they are situated. For example city effects - such as demographics, land use and city
governance, demand – modal share, relative prices, and the relationship between cities and metro
performance.
Although with a focus on railway systems alone, this project provides a good and structured approach to
the development of indicators on mobility, calling the attention of Mediate to the fact that whilst
Performance indicators are essential to the benchmarking process, they do not provide complete answers
in themselves. They act as pointers to identify areas or subjects for further analysis and it is through this
additional focused work that the real value from benchmarking can be achieved.
4.5.2.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project CoMET - the Community of Metros –is a consortium of nine of the world’s largest urban railways and
established in 1995. The participant metros were : Berlin, Hong Kong (MTRC), London, Mexico City,
Moscow, Paris, New York, Sao Paulo, and Tokyo (TRTA).This project assisted metro railways to identify
and implement best practice through benchmarking comparisons and analytical case studies. The core of
the benchmarking process had been the development of a key performance indicator system.
NOVA, a second benchmarking for medium sized metro systems was established in 1998, and used the
same methodology. Nova had seven participants: Glasgow, Hong Kong (KCRC), Lisbon, Madrid,
Newcastle, Oslo, and Singapore. The original objectives of CoMET were to:
build a system of indicators to identify best practice, which could then be accepted and used by the participants,
use this system of indicators for internal management,
help prioritise areas for improvement internally, and
provide comparative information for a Board, Government or Regulator
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The project has developed key criteria for establishing a successful key performance indicator system:
• To identify and understand the sectors of the operation which they were attempting to
benchmark.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
97 of 126
• The set of indicators used must be comprehensive, representing all the relevant dimensions of
the business, yet concise enough to be used practically and effectively.
• To have a logical hierarchy, of tiered indicators (a Board will want to use a different set of
indicators to middle management for example )
• Indicators, therefore, needed to be structured, but also need to retain a flexibility so that they can
evolve over time, as the process matures.
• Definitions and data sources must remain consistent both within each organisation and between
the participants.
• A robust set of indicators must be supported by a data set, which is collected, controlled and
analysed.
• It is not sufficient to collect a set of data, and then to analyse it. The participant organisations, and
the environments in which they operate, must be understood. Background and environmental
data is required to provide this context.
• It was important to develop consistent definitions. This allows comparison between participants
on a like for like basis, and also for comparison over time for each organisation.
• Adjustments must be made for costs and standards of living, particularly for international
comparisons, e.g. GDP per capita or Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).
• It is beneficial to collect data frequently, as the database becomes more and more valuable as
time series data is accrued. The increase in the data volume is not only valuable for use in
statistical analyses, but in general the quality of the data improves as the process matures, and
the participants get a better understanding of both the process and their own organisation.
• It is helpful to have a confidentiality agreement as this gives the participants more confidence to
share data and information, and can enhance the openness of the benchmarking process.
Confidential is often a matter of perception.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility CoMET and Nova have also established three types of performance indicators:
Operations Based - a system of 32 operational performance indicators, 17 top level and 15
secondary indicators representing six functional areas of the railway business. These Six KPI
dimensions represented the major functions of the business
1. · Asset Utilisation, 2. · Efficiency, 3. · Reliability, 4. · Service Quality, 5. · Financial, and 6. · Safety
Customer Focused - a standardised customer survey was used to develop a set of “soft”
indicators and data is now collected every two years through a standardised customer
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
98 of 126
satisfaction survey. This allows the project to benchmark customer satisfaction over a range of
issues between the 16 participants.
City Context – structured indicators were being developed for the relationship between metros
and cities in which they are situated. For example: city effects - such as demographics, land use
and city governance, demand – modal share, relative prices, and the relationship between cities
and metro performance.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of specific indicators to describe accessibility,
as required by Mediate. Yet, it brings an enriching insight on the process of developing and evaluating
indicators, therefore contributing in a broad sense to help meeting the objectives of Mediate. Indeed, the
project has set a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), as follows
Background B1 Network Size and Passenger Volumes B2 Operated Capacity km and Passenger Journeys B3 Car km and Network Route km Asset Utilisation A1 Capacity km / Route km A2 Passenger km / Capacity km a3 Passenger Journeys / Station a4 Proportion of Cars used in Peak Hour Reliability / Service Quality R1 Revenue Operating Car km between Incidents R2 Car hours between Incidents R3 Car hours / hour Train Delay r4 Car Operating hours / Total hours Train Delay r5 Total Passenger hours Delay /Passenger Journeys r6 Trains On Time / Total Trains Efficiency E1 Passenger Journeys / Total Staff + Contractor hours E2 Revenue Car km / Total Staff + Contractor hours e3 Revenue Capacity km / Total Staff + Contractor hours e4 Number of Scheduled Trains / Year / Driver Financial F1 Total Commercial Revenue / Operating Cost F2 Total Cost / Revenue Car Operating km F3 Service Operations Cost & Staff hours / Car km
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
99 of 126
F4 Maintenance Cost & Staff hours / Car km F5 Administrative cost & Staff hours / Car km F6 Investment cost / Revenue Car Operating km f7 Total Cost / Passenger Journey f8 Operations Cost / Passenger Journey f9 Fare Revenue / Passenger Journey f10 Average Operating Cost / Station Safety S1 Total Fatalities / Total Passenger Journeys s2 Suicides / Total Passenger Journeys s3 Medical Conditions / Total Passenger Journeys s4 Illegal Activity / Total Passenger Journeys s5 Accidents / Total Passenger Journeys
A guide to data collection and analysis was produced which highlighted specific areas for consideration:
• Understand the systems and environments,
• background and city data to provide context,
• important to develop consistent definitions,
• use appropriate adjustment factors to make international
• comparisons -- e.g. city GDP per capita, PPP,
• value of database over a period of time (currently 6 years),
• data quality improves as the process matures
The project team concluded that whilst Performance Indicators (PI) were essential to the benchmarking
process, however they did not provide complete answers in themselves. Performance indicators should
be used to identify differences between benchmarking partners, and changes in organisations over time.
They act as pointers to identify areas or subjects for further analysis and it is through this additional
focused work that the real value from benchmarking can be achieved.
Lessons learned included:
importance of a small, effective group,
good communication and data-flow,
effective KPI system,
cause / effect key -- identify key analyses,
implementable results which add value - the case study approach
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
100 of 126
4.5.3 BOB International Railway Benchmarking
4.5.3.1 Summary (BOB) International Railway Benchmarking is a project submitted to DG-TREN within the 5th
framework research program and part of the BEST (Benchmarking European Sustainable Transport)
initiative. It is dedicated to testing the usefulness of benchmarking methods for the benefit of transport
policy development. Although a bit far from what Mediate is looking at, namely regarding performance
assessment focused on the user viewpoint in order to describe accessibility, it provides an interesting
description of the steps to establish the benchmarking system, the split between input and outcome
indicators, and methodological challenges in developing (qualitative) indicators which allow for
comparison between countries.
4.5.3.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project The objective of the BOB International Railway Benchmarking is to assess, by means of practical pilot
studies, performance measures and benchmarking methods in relation to transport policy issues. The
project involved three pilot actions, a railway pilot, an airport accessibility pilot and a road safety pilot, in
which a complete performance assessment and benchmarking process were carried out.
The objective of the Railway pilot is to evaluate to what extent benchmarking can provide a valuable tool
to improve the performance of railway passenger services both from the point of view of operators
seeking methods to improve performance and from the point of authorities seeking the best management
and funding mechanisms.
Participants include authorities and operators from Austria, Finland, France, Hungary, Japan, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Scotland.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Two topics were found of interest, the analysis of the institutional set up (such as contractual
relationships) and the analysis of some performance criteria (such as punctuality and customer
satisfaction). Specific benchmarks were therefore identified and analysed in this project for these topics.
|In any case, they are focused solely on railway systems.
The benchmarking exercise for the railway case was constituted of the following steps:
1. Identification of areas for benchmarking
2. Identification of relevant dimensions
3. Identification of indicators and of data needed
4. Collection and collation of data
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
101 of 126
5. Identification of benchmarks and choice of indicators
6. Analysis of the reasons for performance differences
7. Analysis of possible remedial measures
8. Proposals for action and continuous improvement programmes
9. Monitoring of results
As an example, we see that one of the issues that are often raised when it comes to discuss the
performance of a transport system from the viewpoint of accessibility features is Punctuality. So far, no
European-wide standardized definition for punctuality and no Europe wide standardized classifications for
causes of train delay exist. The principal indicators of punctuality are:
- Minutes of delay for trains at a measurement point expressed as a percentage of all services
operated
- Aggregate total of minutes delay for trains during the measurement period
This project concluded that further work is necessary in order to draw strong conclusions regarding
punctuality, and that any benchmark on punctuality should be on a provisional basis:
- Start with a methodological approach that either prescribed the way punctuality is measured (if ex
ante measurement is possible) or prescribes which types of measurements will be allowed (ex post).
Moreover uncertainty margins etc have to be fixed
- Agree beforehand on the definition of punctuality
- Agree upon a fixed list of causes for delay
- Take into account the crucial position of infrastructures and infrastructure management
- Let impartial external experts that have no interest in any specific outcomes take the lead
- Acknowledge the interaction with institutional factors when interpreting the final results (for example
under certain financial, geographical or network circumstances a performance of 80% punctuality
Any benchmark on punctuality should:
- Agree upon an approach for confidential information (take into account that a competitive
organisation of railway service providers exists/is becoming part of practice)
- A ‘do nothing’ scenario for each network to be compared (current situation and prospects are
necessary before any realistic comparison between growth figures is possible)
- A dependency analysis for each network to be compared is necessary that shows to what extent
growth results from autonomous developments/choices within the railways
- Isolate the impact of the tariff structure and development
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
102 of 126
- Isolate the impact and restrictions caused by hardware (stations, wagons, safety systems)
- Analyse further the (possible) tension between growth and quality of services
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project does not include specific development of a Framework for Assessing / Describing
Accessibility as required by Mediate
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include the adoption or development of indicators to describe accessibility, as
required by Mediate.
4.5.4 Nordic Initiatives on Accessibility
4.5.4.1 Summary Regarding the Nordic Initiatives on Accessibility, this is a coordinated Nordic initiative to work out and
agree on a set of common accessibility indicators to be able to collect comparable data in the Nordic
countries. Two working groups, on road transport and rail transport, were established in 2007 by the
Nordic Council on Disability Policy. The working groups presented the outcomes during the spring of
2009. This is an extremely valuable project for Mediate, based on the contributions it gives to assess all
elements in the travel chain from the perspectives of locomotion barriers, orientation barriers and
environmental barriers (concerning allergies, sensibilities etc.).
4.5.4.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project Two working groups, on road transport and rail transport, were established in 2007 by the Nordic Council
on Disability Policy. A few commonly agreed indicators measuring physical accessibility (which can be
divided into a set of indicators on a more detailed level) are being produced and several very interesting
developments are already available for Mediate.
The development of six indicator themes to cover the travel chain, by the Norwegian Deltasenter was a
starting point for the Nordic initiative.
The aim of the initiative is to improve usability for all travellers. The task is to identify and describe:
A set of indicators covering the total travel chain, based on laws and directives at European and
national level.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
103 of 126
These indicators need to be easy to understand and may be used by politicians, national and local
authorities, transport providers, and individual travellers.
The target groups for the indicators are politicians, national and local authorities, transport providers, and
the individual travellers, matching the political, the strategic, and the concrete and personal level.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment Sweden already has an indicator system (www.handicare.se) and the Finnish Transport Ministry
proposed to establish a system to monitor the development of accessible public transport. The transport
network within the Nordic Council on Disability Policy initiated in 2006 an initiative to coordinate the
indicator systems for the Nordic countries.
Two working groups on road transport and rail transport have cooperated and deliver one report together.
This report covers the infrastructure and vehicles within the responsibility of the working groups (road and
rail transport), meaning train, bus, tram, light rail and related modes.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility The project has started by defining that accessibility means that people with reduced mobility (PRM) can
travel on a similar terms as other people. For existing facilities this means striving for accessibility; where
it still may be necessary to use specific equipment like mobile ramps, lifts etc, and requirements that at
least one entrance is hinder free. While accessibility is the aim for existing environments, universal design
is the ambition when constructing new facilities. Universal design implies that all parts of society, in a
wide sense, is designed and organised to be usable for all inhabitants. Universal design is an obligation
for those nations which have ratified UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008).
The working groups have agreed to focus on efforts providing solutions for large groups that can be
helped by physical measures, which they identify as persons with locomotion limitations, visual limitations
and hearing limitations. They claim that it is more challenging to improve public transport according to, for
example, the needs of people with allergic reactions.
The project addressed the development of “accessibility indicators”, by setting up a suitable definition. It is
supported that indicators should be seen as tools to examine or measure if the tempo and direction of the
development is satisfactory.
Indicators are chosen to communicate and simplify a complicated reality. These should be chosen
between several measurable units because they are representative for the situation to be described. On
the other hand, it reinforces the notion that Indicators only measure what they are designed to measure.
They may measure quality or quantity, in the same way at certain intervals, compared to a preferred
standard and whether the development is in the right direction.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
104 of 126
Finally, it is acknowledged, (likewise several other projects reviewed in this report have implied) that
existing data may restrict the indicators that may be used, but on the other hand, it may lead to improve
data requirements.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility
Regarding the requirements for the accessibility indicators, this initiative has set up a number of guiding
principles:
- The accessibility indicators should enable us to assess the direction of development for all parts
of the public transport travel chain, and especially about the critical factors for disabled people to
use public transport. Entering the vehicle from the platform is an example of a critical trip
element.
- The indicators correspond to the level of service for all passengers and should cover the needs of
large groups of persons with reduced mobility (identified as identify as persons with locomotion
limitations, visual limitations and hearing limitations).
- The accessibility indicators should be able to communicate the level of development to a wide set
of target groups, and to compare the situation between countries.
- It is also expected that the indicators may be used to communicate the accessibility of the
elements of the transport system to travellers in a consistent way.
- At political level an overview is needed of the accessibility and the possibility for people with
reduced mobility to travel on equal terms with all passengers, and especially the level of
accessibility on connections with a high number of passengers.
- At strategic level an overview is needed to ensure that developments are in line with planned,
while detailed indicators are needed for planning, strategies, detailed instructions for
procurement, construction, the level of transport service etc.
Moreover, the indicators focus on information (on accessibility), infrastructure (stops and terminals, the
way to/from stops and terminals), vehicles, and accessibility in general.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
105 of 126
Table 6 - Travel Chain Indicator Themes as suggested by the Deltasenteret
(Lid, I.M. 2006, the translation into English is entirely the responsibility of Mediate members)
Indicator Themes - Information Indicator Themes - Ticketing
- Visual (readable) and auditory presentation of all information.
- Accessibility information is present before travelling.
- Dynamic information on vehicle.
- Accessibility information about stops/terminals is available on vehicle.
- Service information is understandable for all.
- Safety information and emergency information is understandable for all.
- Different ways of purchasing tickets (desk, internet, phone etc) do not cause difference in prize.
- The system is easy and intuitive to use, also for people with visual impairments.
- Visual and auditory information about ticketing.
- The validation system must be usable for all, also visually impaired persons, places in a reachable height (0.9-1.1 m).
- Ticket machines must be designed and places so that they are easy to find, reach and use for all.
Indicator Themes - Vehicle Indicator Themes - Stop/terminal
- Vehicle is designed according to the latest European Commission directives.
- Visual and auditory information for boarding, trip information on board, and emergency information.
- Wheelchairs can board. Any gap more than 5 cm, vertically or horizontally, is compensated for (ramp, lift). The responsibility for ramps, lifts etc. is clear, and personnel has the necessary training.
- Step-free access to functions on board, and service is available on equal terms.
- It is possible to sit in the wheelchair during the trip and to fasten the wheelchair.
- Space is available for wheelchair and child carriage.
- There are accessible toilets on board or at stops on the route.
- There is reserved space for guide dogs.
- Visual contrast is used to clarify design features.
- There are personnel onboard which can assist and may easily be called on.
- The station/stop/ terminal comply with accepted standards
- Train platform heights comply with European standards, 76 cm
- Any distance more than 5 cm, vertically or horizontally, between vehicle and platform, is compensated for (ramp, lift).
- There should be at least one area (marked out) where wheelchair users may embark the vehicle.
- Assistance is available when necessary.
- Entrance without steps to station/stop/terminal and to platform.
- Visual and tactile warning of platform edge and top of stairs.
- Visual and tactile guidance to important points.
- Maintenance plan and routines include accessibility for all.
- Materials causing allergic reactions are not used.
- Information is presented visually and auditory, monitors have an ideal height of about 140 cm, induction loops available at desks, and necessary information is not overshadowed by advertisement.
- Toilets are available for all Indicator Themes - Pathway - Main exchange points
- Pedestrian paths are safe and without hindrances.
- The path is level, not slippery, without steps and gradient less than 1:15.
- The path provides clear directional guidance (with or without tactile pavement).
- There is a warning indicator on the top of stairs.
- At crossings kerbs are lowered to 2 cm.
- The path and stop is well lighted without causing glare.
- The public transport stop is easy to find and well marked out.
- Same as for stops/terminals
+
- Information available for all about the layout and complexity of the exchange point, and the distances between functions.
- Available information (auditory, visual, pictograms) about all vehicles serving the exchange point at one place.
- It is easy to find the way from one vehicle to another.
- Visual and tactile guidance between important spots.
- Step free entrances to all vehicles and functions.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
106 of 126
- Plants causing allergic reactions are removed.
- Maintenance plan and routines include the accessibility for all.
- Seating is provided for waiting passengers
Input for Mediate: The Proposed Common Nordic Indicators
The proposal is that all involved parties assess the accessibility for the information, infrastructure and
vehicles within each party’s responsibility and report it on national level within June 2010. The established
working groups then report the accessibility on a Nordic level. The established working groups propose
the following as common Nordic minimum accessibility requirements for public transport, which may be
supplemented with stricter national requirements.
The indicators about infrastructure and vehicles are split in two groups,
1) Basic accessibility,
2) Facilities and service on equal terms with others.
For each indicator several questions have to be answered addressed against a check list. The
compliance of basal accessibility is most important and is implicit in the accessibility symbol for
visualisation of indicators that can be seen below.
Compliance with the facilities and service on equal terms with others allows for a plus or a star, to
represent visually a “full accessibility”.
A total of 17 indicators are suggested to help assessing “accessibility”, under the following headings:
PLANNING INDICATORS
INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS
VEHICLES
GENERAL ACCESSIBILITY (OVERVIEW INDICATORS)
PLANNING INDICATORS
Indicator 1: Planning the trip
It should be possible from home – via timetables, websites, public transport service phones etc – to
establish knowledge on the accessibility of the terminal/stop of departure, the vehicle and the destination.
Main question to be asked are:
Is information about the accessibility of the station/terminal for departure available for all? Yes / no
Is information about the accessibility of the station/terminal for arrival available for all? Yes / no
Is information about the accessibility of the station/terminal for departure available for all? Yes / no
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
107 of 126
INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS
Indicator 2: Hinder free way to/from platform at stations and terminals
Railway stations, terminals for bus, tram, light rail etc. With hinder free ways to platforms for departure or
arrival. The indicator implies:
Locomotion barriers: Is suitable parking for persons with locomotion limitations available? Yes / no Do all doors have a minimum width of xx cm? Yes / no
No level difference with a gradient more than xx %, unless an elevator (lift) and ramp is provided?
Yes / no
Vision barriers: Are there acoustic signals at traffic lights and danger spots on the way? Yes / no Are there tactile paving guidelines Yes / no Are there tactile paving warning surfaces, marking the edge of platforms etc.
Yes / no
Are glass doors, sign posts etc. marked (colour contrast, tactile contrast) Yes / no
Indicator 3: Accessible platforms
Railway stations, terminals for bus, tram, light rail etc. where the platforms are accessible for all. The
indicator implies:
Locomotion barriers: Is there wheelchair accessibility to platform (same level or ramps, elevator)?
Yes / no
Is there step free entrance to vehicle, platform and vehicle entrance at the same level?
Yes / no
No level difference with a gradient more than xx %, unless an elevator (lift) and ramp is provided?
Yes / no
Locomotion barriers – need for assistance:
Are there equipment to overcome the level difference to enter the vehicle; ramps, lifts etc.?
Yes / no
Locomotion barriers: Are there accessible toilets for all? Yes / no
Is purchase of tickets accessible for all? Hinder free way to ticket machine/desk, a level area of 1,5 x 1,5 m, and desk height 1,2 m (operator height for ticket machines).
Yes / no
Indicator 4: Information at departure and destination is accessible
Railway stations, terminals for bus, tram, light rail etc. where information is accessible for all. The
indicator implies:
Hearing barriers:
Is there visual information about departures and arrivals? Yes / no
Vision barriers: Is there audio information about departures and arrivals? Yes / no
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
108 of 126
Indicator 5: Service facilities are accessible for all
Railway stations, terminals for bus, tram, light rail etc. where service facilities are accessible for all. The
indicator implies:
Fully accessible concerning locomotion barriers:
+
Is the waiting room accessible? Door width minimum 80 cm, and space for turning around at least 1,5 x 1,5 m.
Yes / no
Indicator 6: Hinder free way to/from the vehicle at stops
Stops for bus, tram, light rail etc. where one can move around hinder free to the entrance for departure or
arrival. The indicator implies:
Locomotion barriers: Do doors have a minimum width of xx cm? Yes / no
Is there no level difference with a gradient more than xx %, or the choice to use an elevator or ramp?
Yes / no
Vision barriers:
Are there tactile paving guidelines, and acoustic signals at traffic lights? Yes / no Are platform edges, glass doors, sign posts etc. marked (colour/tactile
contrast)? Yes / no
Indicator 7: Accessible stops
Stops for bus, tram, light rail etc. are accessible, implying:
Locomotion barriers:
Is the public transport stop usable for wheelchair users with sufficient space and a level surface?
Yes / no
Vision barriers:
Are visual and tactile elements established, to mark platform edges, and mark where to enter the vehicle from the platform?
Yes / no
Indicator 8: Information at the stop is available
Information about which bus lines serve the stop and the time for departure are accessible, meaning:
- Visual information about bus lines serving the stop and the departure times (yes/no)
- Audio information about bus lines serving the stop and the departure times (yes/no)
Indicator 9: Service facilities at the stop are accessible (this indicator is not presented with a more
detailed table)
The service facilities at the stop are established and accessible. The indicator implies:
- There is a shelter at the stop with sufficient space for a wheelchair user (yes/no)
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
109 of 126
- Seating is available (yes/no)
VEHICLES
The requirements for trains are based on TSI-PRM and the requirements for buses are based on EU-
directive 2001/85/EF.
Indicator 10: Accessible train
Trains which are accessible for all, meaning:
Locomotion barriers:
Are there low floor trains with designated seats and space for wheelchair users, and accessible toilets?
Yes / no
Locomotion barriers – requiring assistance:
Do the trains have ramps or lifts, designated seats and space for wheelchair users, and accessible toilets?
Yes / no
Indicator 11: Trains with facilities for all
Fully accessible concerning locomotion barriers: May all travellers choose between 1st and 2nd class (or the different categories available)?
Yes / no
+ May all travellers shop in the coffee shop etc. on the train? Yes / no
Indicator 12: Trains with accessible information
Trains with information accessible for all, meaning:
Hearing barriers:
On board the train; is there visual information about stations, connections, delays etc.?
Yes / no
Vision barriers:
On board the train; is there audio information about stations, connections, delays etc.?
Yes / no
Indicator 13: Busses and trams accessible for all
Locomotion barriers:
Are there low floor buses and trams? Yes / no
Locomotion barriers – requiring assistance:
Do buses and trams have ramps or lifts? Yes / no
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
110 of 126
Indicator 14: Buses and trams with information for all
Hearing barriers:
Is there visual information on board about stops, connections, etc.? Yes / no
Vision barriers:
Is there audio information on board about stops, connections, etc.? Yes / no
Accessibility in general (overview indicators)
Indicator 15: Overall assessment on accessibility
This indicator is based on a joint assessment of the indicators 1-12 about information, infrastructure and
vehicles, assessing the percentage of stops, terminals, and vehicles etc. that are accessible. This
indicator can be compared for local, regional and national level.
Indicator 16: Overall assessment on accessibility in relation to the number of travellers
This indicator is based on an overall assessment of the indicators for information, infrastructure and
vehicles, in relation to the connection with the majority of travellers. This indicator indicates, in a simplified
form, the utility for society and may be used for economic priorities among measures.
Indicator 17: The passengers’ assessments
This indicator is based on annual surveys among the passengers with equal questions and answer
categories in each of the Nordic countries. The survey assesses the satisfaction with implemented
measures concerning accessibility, revealing of the need for more measures etc.
4.6 Projects focused on Quality issues in mobility
4.6.1 EBSF European Bus System of the Future
4.6.1.1 Summary The EBSF European Bus System of the Future, currently ongoing, is conceived as a driver to increase
the attractiveness and raise the image of bus systems in urban areas, by means of developing new
vehicles and infrastructure technologies in combination with operational best practices. This project builds
upon state-of-the-art clean vehicular technologies and concentrates on improving the bus system as a
whole. Seven European cities will test and validate the project headways. The development of the urban
bus system of new generation is expected to stimulate European cities to deploy new bus lines making
public transport more attractive.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
111 of 126
4.6.1.2 Project Overview
(i) Description of the project EBSF aims at defining a new generation of bus networks for European cities and developing an
innovative high quality Bus System with:
State-of-the art clean vehicles
Buses fully integrated to the urban environment
Services meeting passengers’ needs of today and tomorrow
To achieve its mission, EBSF will carry out a deep analysis of the needs of today and tomorrow of the
main stakeholders of Bus Systems: users, operators and authorities. The project will also identify all
requirements of Bus Systems and their components (vehicle, infrastructure, operation).
Prototypes of sub-systems, demonstrator buses and infrastructures, and new operations will be tested
and validated in seven European cities: Bremerhaven, Budapest, Gothenburg, Lyon, Madrid, Rome and
Rouen.
EBSF will demonstrate the full potential of the new "European Bus System" bus concept, producing a
final handbook "EBSF Vision" to guide and recommend authorities and operators, giving crucial keys on
implementing the new generation of bus networks.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The chances of contribution of EBSF to improving the way accessibility should be assessed are linked to
its following workpackages:
SP1- The user needs, the Key Performance Indicators and the System - Approach to the EU Bus
System: the main aim is to define the needs of the passengers, operators and authorities. This part
will also identify Key Performances Indicators and establish evaluation methodology to assess the
performance of the bus system.
SP3-The development and implementation of the EU Bus System in urban environment
(infrastructure and operation) - the objective is to ensure a smooth integration of the bus system in
the urban environment (considering traffic light cycle, station design and urban life), and to enhance
the organization of intermodality in the urban area. Particular attention will be paid to improve the
efficiency of operations and the bus attractiveness to clients; in this sense dedicated bus lanes, road
profiles, and station platform designs will be studied
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
112 of 126
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility This project has started in September 2008 and so far no results have been published. EBSF will take a
major part of the 58th UITP World Congress, “Public Transport: Making the right mobility choices”. The
Information Session dedicated to EBSF will be the occasion to officially launch the First EBSF Vision.
This central document, to be evaluated by Mediate, is expected to bring the main message of the
Consortium to demonstrate how urban buses can be the right mobility choices for European cities,
hopefully with a link to related accessibility features.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility See previous note.
4.6.2 QUATTRO - Quality approach in tendering urban public transport operations
4.6.2.1 Summary Quattro was a research project from the Fourth Framework Programme dealing with the adoption of a
quality approaches in urban public transport, in particular how to include those aspects in the design of
tenders and contracts.
Within QUATTRO, a joint task force has been set up with the European Committee for Standardisation
(CEN TC 320 WG5) based on which a specific standard for quality in collective passenger transport has
been developed. The result was a list of quality elements, a passenger transport quality mix, which were
afterwards finalised by CEN (this corresponds to the European standard presented in the beginning of
this deliverable).
(i) Description of the project
Quattro was a research project from the Fourth Framework Programme, which objectives refer to:
• to identify current and emerging quality management practices in the contracting and tendering of
urban public transport (UPT) provision with a particular emphasis on issues of quality definition and
measurement, on the clarification of the contracting parties’ responsibilities, as well as on evaluation
procedures and their impact on continuous improvement programmes;
• to evaluate these practices and to figure out how they could be improved by looking at quality
management trends and best practices in other fields than UPT;
• to propose a series of guidelines to authorities and operators involved or interested in tendering,
contracting and performance monitoring in UPT, with a strong focus on quality.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
113 of 126
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The elements provide a functional definition of quality in UPT, which may be progressively applied
technically and adapted to the characteristics of each UPT system in terms of infrastructure and
equipment and to local service demands, with the main advantage to provide operators and authorities
with a common language in their analysis, negotiation and monitoring of quality issues. QUATTRO
emphasises that the concept of quality in UPT services must be strongly user-oriented, that is, based on
their preferences, characteristics and attitudes, with the list of quality determinants being prioritised and
converted into verifiable indicators and measurable targets.
Specific attention has been paid to the methods available to tighten up the link that should exist between
those quality indicators and the expectations of passengers. In particular the project provides useful
information on methods (Revealed Preference and Stated Preference methods) that can be used in
different quality assessments (quality loops, self-assessment methods; benchmarking; standardisation
and certification; quality partnerships; guarantee of service and service charters).
A critical aspect analysed in the project and of particular interest for Mediate, concerns the design of
contracts and tenders. The contracting authorities must be able to get to grips with the characteristics of
expected quality (What are the most pressing demands of passengers? What improvements do they
expect from the system?), to translate them coherently into clear contractual assignments as well as in
appropriate monitoring criteria (Does the system indeed provide the expected quality?).
This part of the research also outlines the connection that exists between quality and financial
performance as a result of the impact of quality on the system's revenues and operating costs. The idea
is that quality management does not only bring extra users (and revenues) in the system and increases
the willingness to pay for the service provided it may also result in improved processes and in a reduction
of non quality costs.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility This project deals with local public transport generally and not accessibility specifically.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility The project does not include specific development of indicators on Accessibility as required by Mediate.
4.6.3 EQUIP - Extending the quality of public transport
4.6.3.1 Summary The objective of EQUIP - Extending the quality of public transport was to develop and test a toolbox in
the form of a Handbook for the self-assessment of internal quality performance by urban passenger
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
114 of 126
transport operators and to ensure, by means of awareness raising activities and liaison activities, that as
many potential users as possible are aware of its existence. EQUIP focused primarily on the provision of
local public transport.
(i) Description of the project
EQUIP focused primarily on the provision of local public transport. The major, and most tangible, output
of EQUIP is a Handbook for the self-assessment of internal quality performance by local public transport
operators. The Handbook has dealt with all aspects of the service as provided by the public transport
operator as well as relevant aspects of transport system operation. The main activities of the project were
the definition of indicators on local public transport, data collection and dissemination.
The main activities of the project were the definition of indicators on local public transport, data collection
and dissemination. The major, and most tangible, output of EQUIP is a Handbook for the self-assessment
of internal quality performance by local public transport operators. The Handbook has dealt with all
aspects of the service as provided by the public transport operator as well as relevant aspects of
transport system operation. The main activities of the project were the definition of indicators on local
public transport, data collection and dissemination.
(ii) Contribution to improve accessibility measurement / assessment The main activities of the project found to be possibly interesting for Mediate were only related to the
definition of indicators on local public transport and data collection.
(iii) Framework for Assessing / Describing Accessibility This project deals with local public transport generally and not accessibility specifically.
(iv) Adoption or Development of Indicators on Accessibility One ‘accessibility’ indicator has been defined but this indicator is very broad as it refers to ‘vehicle
accessibility’ and not to specific measures that could made a vehicle accessible (e.g., kneeling bus,
wheelchair access, verbal and written information, etc
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
115 of 126
5 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Main Results
The review undertaken in this report stresses the fact that accessibility cannot be achieved and/or
measured without a holistic approach, i.e. by addressing the whole travel chain. This requires the
integration of multiple dimensions for accessibility measurement, ranging from the need for accurate,
clear and concise information for users, to the provision of a barrier-free built environment, adoption of
universal design, provision of high operational standards, interMediate solution between individual and
mainstream transport options, appropriate, effective and accessible vehicle design, high levels of
perceived comfort and safety, etc..
These elements should therefore be realised in a given transportation system, helping to meet the
expected usability requirements, contributing for global accessibility performance.
This notion suggests that one may find several obstacles in relation to measuring accessibility
performance, also because different groups have different requirements. For instance, mobility impaired
people have major requirements related to physical design, calling for accessible vehicles, reliable
operating conditions, stops and terminal facilities proximate and user-oriented.
In view of such complexity, the diverse nature of the projects reviewed in this task have provided a multi-
perspective framework of what might be required to integrate effectively the different strands of work
involved in achieving the global objectives of Mediate.
Along the next chapters an overview of the overall relevance assessment of the projects reviewed in
terms of their potential contribution for the mission of Mediate is provided. Such evaluation is done
according to the clustering defined, which are:
EU initiatives and standards
Projects on Cross Sectional Issues Related To Accessibility
Projects on Intermodality/Co-modality
Projects on Sustainable/Efficient Transport
Projects on Mobility Performance Assessment
Projects on Quality Issues In Mobility
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
116 of 126
5.1.1 European Standards
Table 7 – European Standards
Project Relevance of Results 1. EN 13816 - Public passenger transport - Service quality
definition, targeting and measurement ☺☺ 2. CEN-CENELEC workshop CWA 45546-1 ☺☺ Legend: - Low - Medium ☺ - High ☺☺ - Exceptional
5.1.2 Cross Sectional Issues Related to Accessibility
Table 8 - Projects Focused on Cross Sectional Issues Related to Accessibility
Project Relevance of Results 3. ACCESS2ALL - Mobility Schemes Ensuring Accessibility of
Public Transport for All Users ☺ 4. AskIT - Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-
Based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users 5. AUNT-SUE - - Accessibility & User Needs in Transport for
Sustainable Urban Environments, ☺ 6. ECA - European Concept for Accessibility 7. EUROACCESS - European accessibility of public transport for
people with disabilities ☺☺ 8. MASCARA - Demand responsive transport service for
increasing social cohesion in urban/rural areas ☺ 9. MAPLE Improving Mobility and Accessibility for People with
Learning Disabilities in Europe ☺ 10. MOBILATE - Enhancing outdoor mobility in later life 11. NICHES + 12. PT Access - Public Transport Systems’ Accessibility for People
with Disabilities in Europe ☺ 13. TELSCAN - TELematic Standards and Coordination of ATT
systems in relatioN to elderly and disabled travellers ☺ 14. UNIACCESS ☺
Legend: - Low - Medium ☺ - High ☺☺ - Exceptional
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
117 of 126
5.1.3 Intermodality/Co-modality
Table 9 - Projects Focused On Intermodality
Project Relevance of Results 15. EuPI - Towards Passenger Intermodality in the EU
16. KITE – Knowledge Base for Intermodal passenger travel 17. LINK - European Forum on Intermodal Passenger Travel
Legend: - Low - Medium ☺ - High ☺☺ - Exceptional
5.1.4 Sustainable/efficient transport
Table 10 - Projects Focused On Sustainable/Efficient Transport
Project Relevance of Results
18. AENEAS -Attaining Energy-Efficient Mobility in an Ageing Society ☺
19. Benchmarking European Sustainable Transport (BEST) 20. BESTRANS - Benchmarking Public Transport Emissions
and Energy Use 21. DISTILLATE - Improved Indicators for Sustainable
Transport and Planning 22. MCD - Millennium City Database for sustainable
transport Cities ☺ 23. MOST - Mobility Management Strategies for the Next
Decades 24. URBACT I & II - Urban Development Network
Legend: - Low - Medium ☺ - High ☺☺ - Exceptional
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
118 of 126
5.1.5 Mobility performance assessment
Table 11 - Projects Focused on Mobility Performance Assessment
Project Relevance of Results
25. Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative ☺ ☺ 26. CoMET/NOVA ☺ 27. International Railway Benchmarking (BOB) 28. Nordic Initiatives on Accessibility ☺ ☺ 29. Scandinavian BEST
Legend: - Low - Medium ☺ - High ☺☺ - Exceptional
5.1.6 Quality issues in mobility
Table 12 - Projects Focused On Quality Issues in Mobility
Project Relevance of Results
30. QUATTRO ☺
31. EBSF – European Bus System of the Future ☺ 32. EQUIP - Extending the quality of public transport
Legend: - Low - Medium ☺ - High ☺☺ - Exceptional
5.1.7 Most relevant projects for Mediate The next table provides a synthesis of the main contribution for Mediate as well as the potential domains of collaboration, for the projects that have been assessed as “high” or “exceptional” by the Mediate consortium, based on their experience and expertise opinion in light with the main objective and purpose of the Mediate project.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
Project Relevance of Results
Main input for Mediate
EN 13816 - Public passenger transport ☺☺ The definition of public transport and eight quality criteria to be considered
according to three levels of desegregation and associated performance measurement. The concept of the quality gap is of utmost importance for the design of the Mediate self assessment tool.
CEN-CENELEC workshop CWA 45546-1
☺☺ Provides guidance to writers of relevant standards relating to collective transport on how to take account of the needs of passengers with reduced mobility, especially older persons and persons with disabilities. The document specifies two main aspects to be taken into consideration whenever the transport is designed: a) the identification of passengers’ / users’ types and b) the need of informative systems targeted to those passengers. It also includes detailed tables providing the identification of key areas (access area, terminals, boarding and vehicles) of possible interaction between the elements of a collective transport system and human abilities (physical, sensorial, cognitive and allergies, according to the MGLC - Motion, Grasp, Location, Communication - requirements.
EUROACCESS
☺☺ Besides the identification of the legal framework for accessibility in different countries ( a key issue for a transferability process), it provides insights on the implementation of accessibility measures, in particular the need for a cross sectoral understanding of the underlying issues in order to match both planning and user perspectives and the importance of improved co-operation between operational service providers, infrastructure managers and local authorities, so that measures match and support each other. Those learning’s are strongly important for the development of the good practice guide.
Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative
☺ ☺ The participating cities and regions measured and compared their transport systems' performance on the basis of common indicators. A comparison of accessibility opportunities for non disabled users and for users with disabilities was included in the suite of indicators. This is a very interesting project for Mediate, as it combines a good geographical coverage with a quantified approach to mobility and accessibility, characterised by rather rich set of accessibility and mobility descriptors.
Nordic Initiatives on Accessibility ☺ ☺ Extremely valuable project for Mediate, based on the contributions it gives to
assess all elements in the travel chain from the perspectives of locomotion barriers, orientation barriers and environmental barriers (concerning allergies, sensibilities etc.).
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
Project Relevance of Main input for Mediate Results
CoMET/NOVA ☺ Although mainly focused only on the metro and rail systems, the interest for Mediate relies on three types of performance indicator: operations based, customer focused and city context.
ACCESS2ALL ☺ Project running in parallel with Mediate with relevant links and synergies
established. Of particular relevance is the database of accessible public transport and accessible design, the clustering of public transport users according to their functional capabilities and needs when using public transport.
AUNT-SUE ☺ Main interest for Mediate is the assessment of transport accessibility critical features of the journey environment from an early stage of the design and planning process.
MAPLE ☺ Although strongly focused in the needs of (a distinct category of) disabled people, it might contribute much to the Mediate Good Practice Guide
PT Access
☺ Provides actual information on the current state of accessibility of urban and rural public transport systems in 25 EU member states as well as on organisational framework conditions (level of cooperation amongst the stakeholder-groups), accessibility of passenger information (level of accessibility of pre-trip information and of on-trip information), accessibility issues in ticketing, accessibility of stops and stations, accessibility of vehicles and safety, reliability and services.
TELSCAN ☺ Provides some insight on matters such as “Requirements for Elderly and
Disabled Travellers”, bringing an overview of the main impairment groups having difficulties with components of the travelling task, what their requirements are in general, and those specific to telematic systems.
UNIACCESS ☺ The “Reference Manual” of UNIACCESS provides detailed guidelines to
improve the Universal design for all in the mobility area, and contains also a collaborative innovation process guide for local/regional authorities, transport operators and end users. The project also details context indicators (divided by main difficulties and solutions proposed) according to the transport means.
MASCARA ☺ Use of different types of indicators: measurable, descriptive, estimations or
goals. Together with a weight, a score is given, ranking from 1–bad to 5–excellent. The chapters of the handbook give an indication of the important themes in Demand Responsive Transport, but will be relevant as well for
120 of 126
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
Project Relevance of Main input for Mediate Results
accessibility of Public Transport, as the assessment methodology for Mediate will consider three types of themes: Planning, Actions and Evaluation. It includes an explicit mentioning of the type of information, which is important when looking and interpreting the information later on.
AENEAS
☺ Although it could to early to establish how AENEAS project could directly contribute to the setting up of the common European indicators, provided by the Mediate project, the fact sheets and good practice database developed within the AENEAS project could be shared among the two projects, to be widened and deepened with new data and different approaches, although each project will maintain its own specific identity. A fruitful information exchange can be foreseen and it is worth to be experienced
Millennium City Database
☺ The Mobility in Cities Database provides data on urban public transport in 50 cities across the world based on 120 public transport indicators The MCD fact sheets and results, as well as the database its self can provide useful information to the Mediate project and, besides, Mediate can contribute to update the pieces of information and data of the MCD The respective analysis and recommendations report includes fact sheets enabling to interpret the evolution of key indicators between 1995 and 2001 in the light of transport policies in more than 30 cities, and a graphical tool for comparisons across cities
121 of 126
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
122 of 126
Project Relevance of Results
Main input for Mediate
European Bus System of the Future
☺ The EBSF European Bus System of the Future, currently ongoing, is conceived as a driver to increase the attractiveness and raise the image of bus systems in urban areas, by means of developing new vehicles and infrastructure technologies in combination with operational best practices. This project builds upon state-of-the-art clean vehicular technologies and concentrates on improving the bus system as a whole The chances of contribution of EBSF to improving the way accessibility should be assessed are linked to its workpackages: SP1- The user needs, the Key Performance Indicators and the System and SP3-The development and implementation of the EU Bus System in urban environment (infrastructure and operation)
QUATTRO ☺ Main interest of QUATTRO for Mediate refers to the assessment methods and
the incorporation of quality criteria in tenders and contracts for urban public transport operation. Its learning’s could be extremely valuable for the Mediate handbook and its translation into contractual basis for specifications for transport operations focusing on elderly and disabled
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
5.2 Setting up Common indicators for Accessibility Assessment
5.2.1 Accessibility Evaluation Issues Apart from rather scattered information, it is often difficult to find consistent information to judge and
compare accessibility and usability in order to provide a thorough assessment on accessibility. It is
therefore important to learn from other areas in the transport field and bring also to accessibility higher
standards of operation supported by state-of-the-art methodologies. One such approach is represented
by benchmarking, which if supported by a reliable set of performance indicators is capable of facilitating
comparability between cities, regions and countries in relation to accessibility performance while providing
clues to identify opportunities for improvement. Numerous definitions of benchmarking have been
developed, with the focus placed on action, processes and the implementation of change.
For Main7, “benchmarking is the art of finding out, in a perfectly legal and aboveboard way, how others do
something better than you do - so that you can imitate - and improve upon - their techniques".
Camp8 quoting Kearns says that “benchmarking is the continuous process of measuring products,
services and practices against the toughest competitors or those companies recognised as industry
leaders.” In other words, benchmarking is the process of identifying the best practices and approaches by
comparing performance in specific areas with the performance of other organisations9. However, “the aim
should not be to bring back targets from benchmarking programmes, but to integrate ideas for
improvement.10”
The following definition of benchmarking is suggested in EUROACCESS (2008) to be adopted in the
scope of measuring accessibility: “Benchmarking is a practical tool for improving accessibility
performance by learning from best practices and understanding the processes by which they are
achieved.”
5.2.2 Identification and description of accessibility features
Whatever the scale or complexity of accessibility schemes in place, the criteria for the assessment of its
success/effectiveness is the difference that it makes in terms of the daily life of a disabled person. The
challenge remains therefore in creating a link between top level indicators at city level and low level
indicators measuring such effectiveness.
7 How to steal the best ideas around. J. Main. Fortune, 126, (8), p.p. 102-106. 1992 8 Benchmarking: the search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance. R. C. Camp. Milwaukee, WI:ASQC Quality Press. 1989. 9 Dare to Compare for Better Productivity. Jonathan D. Weatherly. HR Magazine. pp.42-46. 9/1992. 10 Case Study: Benchmarking linked with corporate strategy at Xerox, L. Moseley, FM Focus Vol 2/4, Eclipse Group, London, Nov 1998
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
124 of 126
It should be considered that there are some basic principles to follow when assessing the performance
and impact of global accessibility indicators in a given mobility context, specially when it is planned the
introduction of a differential scenario, i.e. when we plan to change things by improving a given set of
indicators, for instance by changing from a situation of having 50% fleet with low floor buses to a situation
of 100% compliance with the Bus Directive.
The key question is: “what can actually be achieved in terms of global effect on accessibility?”
The combination of indicators as a part of a holistic perspective of accessibility should reflect the
differential global improvement by comparing two situations:
Without the initiative (“baseline” or “do-nothing” scenario)
With the initiative (ex-ante and ex-post evaluation)
The ex-ante evaluation usually compares the existing, well known, situation before the initiative is
launched, with the situation that is expected once the initiative has been fully implemented. It is fairer to
use as a benchmark for comparison the situation that would prevail after some years if the initiative was
not taken and not the existing situation before the initiative is launched, which justifies the existence of a
well prepared “do-nothing” scenario
The ex-post evaluation compares the situation observed after the implementation of the initiative is
achieved, with what would have been the case if the initiative would not have been launched. Again, it
would be also unfair to compare it with the situation observed before the implementation was launched as
a benchmark, requiring also the development of a baseline scenario in order to produce a better
benchmark for ex-post evaluation.
The above applies to all kind of evaluations on accessibility initiatives, be it a measure or a package of
measures, regardless if it is adopted at a micro or city/region wide level. The main difference is in the
approach to their measurement:
At the (micro) level of a particular accessibility measure, situations before and after
implementation can be properly measured, and the comparison is meaningful. Only the question
of the extrapolation of the situation “before” for more adequate benchmarking has to be solved.
At the (macro) level of an up-scaled measure for the whole transport network (e.g. integrated
ticketing, all machines designed for special users, integrated information systems, all buses are
low floor, etc), the difficulties arise if we require individual assessments. Indeed the impact
resulting from the combined effect of measures may end up encapsulating the individual
evaluation. Although this is not necessarily a problem, once we understand what the packaging
needs are, it still leaves decision makers and planners with a question of prioritisation of
interventions when subject to tight budgets.
Such modelling exercises can become complex, however the resource to IT simulation tools such as
interactive decision tables and agent based modelling software contribute to turn them simpler. Those
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
125 of 126
tools also enable to evaluate and conclude about the behaviour of specific user groups upon simulated
interventions in the transport system, telling us something in terms of the actual impact on accessibility.
A major challenge for the creation of a common framework to describe accessibility based on indicators
pass through the adoption of such tools.
5.2.3 Defining Performance Indicators Judging accessibility without resorting to a commonly accepted framework raises a number of questions.
Likewise benchmarking processes, the development of a set of Performance Indicators (PI) for evaluating
accessibility would be a major step towards achieving some degree of common understanding. Such PI
should take into consideration not only accessibility as often considered (e.g. physical accessibility
indicators) but also the usability that is actually delivered by the system and experienced by users. The
establishment of performance indicators that measure what is critical to accessibility is a challenge that
should consider multiple dimensions, as we have seen in the review above.
Of course, different stakeholders in different countries also see things in different ways, even when
measuring similar realities. There might be a question of definitions and categories, which can become a
barrier to accessibility benchmarking. It is therefore recommended to start by defining PI that have
already proved to be valuable to assess accessibility.
Some benefits can be achieved right away even with incomplete comparable data. However, it may take
years to achieve a fully satisfactory level of comparability in the way PI are measured- For this reason; PI
must be developed with involvement and buy-in from key stakeholders, namely operators and
infrastructure managers.
Finally, the development of a performance monitoring and benchmarking system for accessibility is
facilitated by the adoption of information systems, aspects that Mediate should consider in its
development.
5.2.4 Inputs for next stages of Mediate As acknowledge in the beginning of this report, this task aimed at providing a contribution for the
development of WP2 (identify and select a set of common indicators in order to measure accessibility in
public urban transport in Europe) as well as for WP4 (self assessment), in particular through the review of
previous initiatives.
More than specific indicators (which are the subject of other tasks within this WP), it is important to
emphasise the methodological inputs that derive from the review. This a preliminary approach to the
definition of indicators, as a contribution to devise a comprehensive and coherent approach to
accessibility assessment is here included.
MEDIATE-Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe
126 of 126
A key recommendation to be taken into account is the need to be aware that data is not always available
and therefore interMediate approaches must be considered. This means to design assessment tools
taking into account an ideal approach (where all data is available), interMediate approaches (some data
is available, other can be estimated) and approaches to be used when there is no data or the existing one
is very poor (in that case qualitative approach is better). For each of these situations, then the metric to
be adopted should be defined.
From the review it is advised that indicators could be organised along major areas of analysis towards
comprehensive accessibility measurement, in particular:
Planning Infrastructure Operation Context / System Interfacing