Twardzik Erica, Schrack Jennifer A, Pollack Porter Keshia M, Coleman Taylor, Washington Kathryn, Swenor Bonnielin K
medRxiv. 2023 Mar 10:2023.03.07.23286932. doi: 10.1101/2023.03.07.23286932.
Although federal laws require equal access to public transportation for people with disabilities, access barriers persist. Lack of sharing accessibility information on public transportation websites restricts people with disabilities from making transportation plans and effectively using public transportation systems. This project aims to document information provided about public transportation systems accessibility and share this information using an open data platform.
We reviewed the top twenty-six public transportation systems in the United States based on federal funding in fiscal year 2020. Information about accessibility was abstracted from the webpages of each public transportation system by two independent reviewers from February-March 2022. Informed by universal design principles, public transportation systems were scored across six dimensions: facility accessibility (0-22 points), vehicle accessibility (0-11 points), inclusive policies (0-12 points), rider accommodations (0-9 points), paratransit services (0-6 points), and website accessibility (0-2 points). Total scores were calculated as the sum of each dimension and ranged from 0-62 points. Data and findings were publicly disseminated (https://disabilityhealth.jhu.edu/tract-dashboard/).
The average overall accessibility information score was 31.9 (SD=6.2) out of 62 possible points. Mean scores were 8.4 (SD=2.9) for facility accessibility, 4.5 (SD=2.1) for vehicle accessibility, 7.8 (SD=1.6) for inclusive policies, 4.9 (SD=1.6) for rider accommodations, 4.5 (SD=2.0) for paratransit services, and 1.8 (SD=0.4) for website accessibility. Eleven public transportation systems (42%) received the maximum score for paratransit services and 20 (77%) received the maximum score for website accessibility. No public transportation system received the maximum score for any of the other dimensions.
Using a novel scoring system, we found significant variation in the accessibility information presented on public transportation system websites. Websites are a primary mode where users obtain objective information about public transportation systems and are therefore important platforms for communication. Absence of accessibility information creates barriers for the disability community and restricts equal access to public transportation.
尽管联邦法律要求为残疾人提供平等的公共交通服务，但交通障碍依然存在。公共交通网站缺乏共享无障碍信息，这限制了残疾人制定交通计划并有效使用公共交通系统。本项目旨在记录有关公共交通系统无障碍性的信息，并通过开放数据平台共享这些信息。
我们根据2020财年的联邦资金，对美国排名前26的公共交通系统进行了审查。2022年2月至3月，两名独立评审员从每个公共交通系统的网页中提取了有关无障碍性的信息。根据通用设计原则，公共交通系统在六个维度上进行评分：设施无障碍性（0 - 22分）、车辆无障碍性（0 - 11分）、包容性政策（0 - 12分）、乘客便利设施（0 - 9分）、辅助公交服务（0 - 6分）和网站无障碍性（0 - 2分）。总分数为各维度分数之和，范围为0 - 62分。数据和研究结果已公开发布（https://disabilityhealth.jhu.edu/tract - dashboard/）。
在满分62分中，无障碍信息的平均总分为31.9分（标准差 = 6.2）。设施无障碍性的平均得分为8.4分（标准差 = 2.9），车辆无障碍性为4.5分（标准差 = 2.1），包容性政策为7.8分（标准差 = 1.6），乘客便利设施为4.9分（标准差 = 1.6），辅助公交服务为4.5分（标准差 = 2.0），网站无障碍性为1.8分（标准差 = 0.4）。11个公共交通系统（42%）在辅助公交服务方面获得了最高分，20个（77%）在网站无障碍性方面获得了最高分。没有公共交通系统在其他任何维度上获得最高分。
通过一种新颖的评分系统，我们发现公共交通系统网站上呈现的无障碍信息存在显著差异。网站是用户获取公共交通系统客观信息的主要方式，因此是重要的沟通平台。无障碍信息的缺失给残疾人群体造成了障碍，并限制了对公共交通的平等使用。
