mediate – methodology for describing the accessibility of ... · public transport and on...

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




Executive Board 2009-09-25



Approval By Approval date



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


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


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


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.


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


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


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:


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.


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”.


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)


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.


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


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


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.


17 of 126


18 of 126


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.



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)


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.)


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.


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).


(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).


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


25 of 126

Accessibility level

Measures Equipment

2 Partly accessible


- 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


- 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


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


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.


(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.


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

http://www.aunt-sue.info/WP%20Reports%20and%20summary%20docs/Final%20Web%20Versions/PDF%20Versions/Accessibility%20Planning%20and%20the%20Need%20for%20Benchmarking.pdf




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


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.


(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

http://www.aunt-sue.info/publications.html


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


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:


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


(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


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


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.


36 of 126


(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)


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


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


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


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


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


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.


(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


40 of 126


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.



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.


41 of 126


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.


beyond the scope already mentioned above as required by Mediate.


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


(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


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?


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.


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.


(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


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.


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.


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.


Accessibility as required by Mediate


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.


(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


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.



(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

http://hermes.civil.auth.gr/telscan/D5_2.pdf


50 of 126


(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.


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.


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


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)


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


illuminated entrance area, reflective floor end-edges, easily to entrance the vehicle without aid, easy identification for blind people


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)



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


easily to entrance the vehicle without aid, illuminated entrance area, reflective floor end-edges, easy identification for blind people


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


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.


(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


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




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.


(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)


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.


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


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.


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


A3.5 Improve Information about pathway directions between car-parking places and the Terminal


A3.6 Reduce shuttle waiting time (average) between car-parking places and the Terminal(better timetables, increase number of shuttles, etc)


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


59 of 126


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)


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


A5.5 Improve information about pathway directions between bicycle-parking places and the Terminal


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)


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


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


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)





C.2.2 C.2.2 Improve guidance facilities (voice messages+braile+tactile stripes onthe floor+induction loops)





C.2.3 C.2.3 Improve dedicated parking places ∆ Transfer Time = PD * APWS * ∆ PEG ∆ Access/Egress Time = APD * APWS * ∆ APEG




63 of 126


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





C.2.5 C.2.5 Improved special services (special skilled supporting staff+supply of wheel chairs+help phones)





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)



C.3.2 C.3.2 Improve standard design (e.g standard design of colours, fonts, size and pictograms)





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


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


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


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)


(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.


(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

http://linkforum.eu/index.phtml?ID1=985


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.


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





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.


(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


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.

http://www.aeneas-project.eu/


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.


(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.


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.


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


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.





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.


73 of 126



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


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.


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


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.


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’.


77 of 126


(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


78 of 126





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.


(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


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.


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.


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 .


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.


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.


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.


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.



(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.


(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:


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.


87 of 126






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.


(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".


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





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


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.


(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?


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

http://www.citizensnetwork.org/uk/common_indicators.asp


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.


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


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


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.

http://www.citizensnetwork.org/uk/download/Indicator_Handbook_EN.zip


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.


(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.


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


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


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


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.


(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


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


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





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.).


(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.


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.

http://www.handicare.se/


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.


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.


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


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


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)


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:


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


Are there low floor buses and trams? Yes / no

Locomotion barriers – requiring assistance:

Do buses and trams have ramps or lifts? Yes / no


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.


111 of 126


(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


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).


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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



118 of 126

5.1.5 Mobility performance assessment

Table 11 - Projects Focused on Mobility Performance Assessment


25. Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative ☺ ☺ 26. CoMET/NOVA ☺ 27. International Railway Benchmarking (BOB) 28. Nordic Initiatives on Accessibility ☺ ☺ 29. Scandinavian BEST


5.1.6 Quality issues in mobility

Table 12 - Projects Focused On Quality Issues in Mobility


30. QUATTRO ☺

31. EBSF – European Bus System of the Future ☺ 32. EQUIP - Extending the quality of public transport


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.



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.).


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


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


122 of 126


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


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


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


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.


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

mediate – methodology for describing the accessibility of ... · public transport and on...

Documents