Twardzik Erica, Schrack Jennifer A, Pollack Porter Keshia M, Coleman Taylor, Washington Kathryn, Swenor Bonnielin K
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Center on Aging and Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Transp Health. 2024 Jan;34. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2023.101742. Epub 2023 Dec 12.
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 each public transportation system website 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 (0-62 points). Data and findings were publicly disseminated (https://disabilityhealth.jhu.edu/transitdashboard/).
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，但交通障碍仍然存在。公共交通网站上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，并使用开放数据平台共享这些信息。
我们根据2020财年的联邦资金审查了美国排名前26的公共交通系统。2022年2月至3月，两名独立评审员从每个公共交通系统网站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）、辅助客运服务（0 - 6分）和网站无障碍性（0 - 2分）。总分数为各维度分数之和（0 - 62分）。数据和研究结果已公开发布（https://disabilityhealth.jhu.edu/transitdashboard/）。
在可能的62分中，无障碍信息的平均总得分是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），辅助客运服务为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%）在辅助客运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，因此是重要的交流平台。缺乏无障碍信息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。
