The views of persons with disabilities on future mobility

Abstract

The TRIPS project would like to present a summary of its mobility survey findings regarding the views of persons with disabilities on future mobility. The full report of the survey and an overview white paper that we draw from can be found on the TRIPS deliverables webpage. Our work motto is that “You only need empathy in design if you have excluded the people you claim to have empathy for.” (Liz Jackson, Founder of The Disabled List), and hence we involved persons with disability in developing the design suggestions and policy recommendations presented herein along with their mobility needs and challenges and initial attitudes towards future mobility solutions. The survey was accessible online from November 2020 to February 2021. The survey was addressed to persons with different disabilities or people answering on behalf of persons with disabilities. Our survey represents the views of 553 persons with disabilities living in 21 European countries. Our sample was relatively gender-balanced, with 45.8% women. The data shows a balanced spread across the age groups with a mean age of 46.4 years. There is a pro-technology bias as participants require access to and comfort in using the Web. We report on their views on the following nine emerging mobility related systems. People (44%) reported that an accessible journey planner would motivate travel and make journeys more independent, faster, easier, nicer, and safer. In contrast, bike sharing (17%), e-scooters (22%), and motorbike taxis (22%) scored low on all these customer satisfaction dimensions and were the least favoured by all users. On the other hand, cable cars ( 37%), cycle lanes (36%) micro-transit (32%), robotaxis (32%), and ride pooling (27%) hold a promise, but their design needs to be rethought to ensure they accessible. Preferences differed depending on the type of disability depending on their needs. For example, participants with physical impairments had a higher-than-average preference for an accessible journey planner (53%). On the other hand, visually impaired participants were not particularly interested in an accessible journey planner (38%) or cycle lanes (25%). Participants with hearing impairments were not particularly interested in an accessible journey planner (31%) and would use all other solutions at par with other groups. Interestingly, two-wheeled solutions were also least favoured. Those with mental health issues favoured less all other categories, except cycle lanes (45%). Participants and or the carers of persons with intellectual disabilities favoured cable cars (47%), but shy away from solutions such as cycle lanes (18%), micro-transit ( 16%) and ride pooling (14%). Women are more reserved about cycle lanes, e-scooters, ride pooling. cable cars and micro-transit. They are also less open to motorbikes and robotaxis. Interestingly, women’s views are more polarised as to whether they would or wouldn’t use an accessible journey planner. More research is required to understand their reasons behind these findings. When designing future transport systems, attention should be paid to the following complaints presented here in order of priority based on how frequently they were mentioned: 1. Getting on and off the means of transport 2. Reaching the transport mode 3. Using station facilities 4. Travel delays 5. Comfort on board 6. Limited access to information 7. Autonomy 8. Social barriers 9. Accessing help 10. Friendliness of the surrounding environment 11. Getting users oriented To solve the door-to-door accessibility issues, we suggest a systemic approach that requires greater collaboration across urban planning, transport planning, social services, and education systems. In particular, policy-making should: Enable persons with disabilities to own smart technologies and smart assistive technologies to enable them to interact with smart mobility systems; Raise the digital competence and confidence in the use of smart technologies of persons with disabilities; Ensure greater collaboration between urban with transport planning to design accessible routes to modes of transport. Prioritize the accessibility of all vehicles in 'green' fleets to minimize time delays due to inability to board or overcrowding. Invest in the accessibility of cities and transport infrastructure. Invest in public campaigns to improve social attitudes and transport etiquette towards citizens with all types of disabilities and access needs. Make mandatory the participation of disability/accessibility experts in standards developments for vehicles, mobility systems, and transport services. Update and upgrade the laws and policies on EU transport accessibility and passenger rights and their enforcement across member states. Invest in a European Accessible Design Centre of excellence that can provide relevant expertise to European companies