4.7 Article

Improving the accessibility of urban transportation networks for people with disabilities

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.005

关键词

Accessibility; Inclusive transport; Multimodal transport

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/I018433/1]
  2. European Commission
  3. SAPERE (Self-Aware Pervasive Service Ecosystems) Project (EU FP7-FET) [256874]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

What is the most effective way to enhance the accessibility of our oldest and largest public transportation systems for people with reduced mobility? The intersection of limits to government support with the growing mobility needs of the elderly and of people with disabilities calls for the development of tools that enable us to better prioritise investment in those areas that would deliver the greatest benefits to travellers. In principle and, to a lesser extent, in practice, many trains and buses are already accessible to nearly all users, leaving the stations and interchanges as the single largest and most expensive challenge facing operators trying to improve overall access to the network. Focussing on travel time and interchange differences, we present a method that uses network science and spatio-temporal analysis to rank stations in a way that minimises the divergence between accessible and non-accessible routes. Taking London as case study, we show that 50% of the most frequently followed journeys become 50% longer when wheelchair accessibility becomes a constraint. Prioritising accessibility upgrades using our network approach yields a total travel time that is more than 8 times better than a solution based on random choice, and 30% more effective than a solution that seeks solely to minimise the number of interchanges facing those with mobility constraints. These results highlight the potential for the analysis of 'smart card' data to enable network operators to obtain maximum value from their infrastructure investments in support of expanded access to all users. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据