Measuring Accessible Journeys - ccsdisabilityaction · questions. The interview data exemplified the complexity of disability and transport choices. There was no obvious correlation,

Measuring Accessible Journeys

Pilot Project Summary Report

TDG Ref: measuring accessible journeys.docx

July 2013

Measuring Accessible Journeys Final Report (2).docx

Measuring Accessible Journeys

Pilot Project Summary Report

Quality Assurance Statement

Prepared by:

Bridget Burdett

Senior Transportation Researcher

Reviewed by:

Anna Wilkins

Associate/Hamilton Branch Manager

Approved for Issue by:

Anna Wilkins

Associate/Hamilton Branch Manager

Status: Final report

Date: 9 July 2013

PO Box 1261, Hamilton 3240 New Zealand P: +64 7 839 5500

www.tdg.co.nz

Measuring Accessible Journeys, Transportation Assessment Report

9 July 2013 Measuring Accessible Journeys Final Report (2).docx

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Project Aim and Background .............................................................................................. 3

3. Study Methods .............................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Project Process ................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 National Forum ................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Expected Numbers .............................................................................................................. 6

3.4 Counting Sites ..................................................................................................................... 8

4. Count Methods ........................................................................................................................... 10

5. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Count Data ........................................................................................................................ 11

5.2 Interview Data .................................................................................................................. 13

6. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 15

6.1 Suitability of Tool .............................................................................................................. 15

6.2 Tool Usability .................................................................................................................... 15

6.3 Survey Bias and Data Limitations ..................................................................................... 15

6.4 Site Selection and Time of Day Differences ...................................................................... 15

7. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 17

7.1 Development of Method: Counting ................................................................................. 17

7.2 Data storage...................................................................................................................... 17

7.3 Development of Method: Expected Proportions ............................................................. 17

7.4 Informing Asset Management .......................................................................................... 18

7.5 Informing Transport Policy and Planning ......................................................................... 18

7.6 Informing Social and Health Policy and Planning ............................................................. 18

7.7 Informing Commercial and Retail Policy and Planning ..................................................... 19

8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix A 1 Project Timeline 1 Appendix B 1 Count Sheets 1 Appendix C 1 Sample Interview Sheet 1 Appendix D 1 Full Count Data 1 Appendix E 1 Summary of Interview Data 1 Appendix F 1 Count Tool Pack 1

Measuring Accessible Journeys, Transportation Assessment Report Page 1


1. Executive Summary

This project is a pilot study measuring accessibility of journeys in Hamilton, New Zealand. It was undertaken by TDG on behalf of CCS Disability Action. Its method is to count pedestrians with mobility aids, and to compare these numbers with the proportion of mobility aids in the population. The project is funded by the Ministry of Social Development’s ‘Making a Difference’ fund. The Making a Difference fund supports projects that align with the Ministry’s wider Think Differently campaign objectives, which are:

to increase knowledge and understanding of disability;

to increase the personal relevance of disability for all New Zealanders;

to mobilise personal and community action for positive change; and

to address the social environment that tolerates or accepts exclusion of disabled people.

The project process included consultation with local, regional and national stakeholders through a series of interactive workshops. These workshops helped to inform the count process itself, including the nature of count worksheets, interview questions, and recommendations about best use of the resulting data to influence decision making in transport.

A manual count worksheet was developed, and trialled at a series of six public places around Hamilton. The worksheet included a map, and cordon to identify pedestrians to be counted. In addition, pedestrians using visible mobility aids were tallied in a table within the worksheet, according to their aid type. Pedestrians with mobility aids were approached and asked a series of questions about their travel choices.

Pedestrians were counted for a four hour period on a weekday at each of the six count sites. A total of 9,525 pedestrians were counted across all sites, of whom 97 used a visible mobility aid. The proportion of mobility aid use by site varied from 0.1%, to 5.6% of all pedestrians.

It is estimated from Statistics New Zealand data that approximately 3% of New Zealand’s population uses a mobility aid for travel at any particular time. This figure includes those identifying as having permanent disability (NZ Household Disability Survey data) as well as an estimate to account for those not included in this figure, namely children; people who do not identify as having a disability but nonetheless use a mobility aid; and those with temporary disability requiring use of a mobility aid.

Of the 97 people counted with a visible mobility aid, 36 (37%) agreed to answer survey questions. The interview data exemplified the complexity of disability and transport choices. There was no obvious correlation, for example, between mobility aid type, and propensity to travel with or without a companion, or to use a particular mode.

Overall, it was found that the tool was straightforward in its design, and useful in its outputs. Volunteer surveyors found the tool easy to use and results were reliable across different surveyors and methods transferable across different locations.

A series of recommendations were made about the use of and promotion of the count tool. It is recommended that:



the count process be extended to more sites and across more varied times of the week and year, and that investigations into automation of the count process continue;

a web-based data storage capacity be developed, to capture increasing volume of count data over time;

research be undertaken into the nature and prevalence of mobility aid use, to inform more precise and location-specific estimates for local decision making;

measurement of accessible journeys informs prioritisation of infrastructure maintenance and capital works expenditure, through incorporating counting of pedestrians with mobility aids into regular pedestrian count programs, or initiation of a comprehensive series of counts;

more count sites be included to inform guidance and practice around provision of accessible transportation;

the tool be used to inform social and health policy and planning, and better integration of their objectives in the transportation industry; and that

the tool be promoted for use by commercial and retail developers to inform policy, planning and design.

The study has identified key opportunities to use the tool to remove gaps in the delivery of accessible transportation, across all parts of its system from policy and planning, through design, construction and monitoring. In conjunction with further development and refinement of the tool, its widespread promotion will support more objective measurement of inclusion, and in terms of informing best-practice decision making and investment for all.



2. Introduction

2.1 Project Aim and Background

This project is a pilot study measuring accessibility of journeys in Hamilton, New Zealand. It was undertaken by TDG on behalf of CCS Disability Action. Its method is to count pedestrians with mobility aids, and to compare these numbers with the proportion of mobility aids in the population.

The accessible journey is a term used to describe all components required for a person to make a journey from their home to a desired destination, in order to participate in some activity. If any of the required links in that journey are broken or absent, the journey as a whole may never eventuate.

The project has three primary aims:

Counting people: To count the number of people (pedestrians) at six locations around Hamilton, including the subset of that number who use visible mobility aids;

Expected numbers: To estimate the proportion of mobility aid users in the population, and thereby identify relative accessibility of counted sites (and of the journeys made to reach those sites) by the difference between the proportion of people with mobility aids, and the proportion observed at each site;

A transferable method: To develop the project methods for use by local and national road controlling authorities and other organisations as a pedestrian network planning tool.

The project does not aim to count all people with disability, or with mobility impairment. It is intended as a step towards measurement of accessible journeys, by counting what is objectively countable. Through simplification of the definition of disability and the proxy of a visible mobility aid, it is intended that the methods used will be readily adoptable by road controlling authorities and other interested organisations, in providing an evidence base to support improvements in provision of accessible transportation systems.

The project is funded by the Ministry of Social Development’s ‘Making a Difference’ fund. The Making a Difference fund supports projects that align with the Ministry’s wider Think Differently campaign objectives, which are:

to increase knowledge and understanding of disability;

to increase the personal relevance of disability for all New Zealanders;

to mobilise personal and community action for positive change; and

to address the social environment that tolerates or accepts exclusion of disabled people.

The project brings transportation planning and engineering together with social and community objectives. Pedestrian counting is by no means new. It is an established part of transportation network planning and is also used in many other fields including the commercial property and retail sector as an indicator of the use or attractiveness of areas and facilities.



What this study aims to do is equip those undertaking pedestrian counts for whatever reason with tools that enable them to dig deeper; to reveal more about the travel patterns of the entire community and some of the most vulnerable users of the transport system.

The study promotes the philosophy that there is no reason why inclusion of disabled people should not be part of mainstream transportation planning and seeks to develop methods that allow it to be measured in line with measurement of other performance characteristics of the transport system.



3. Study Methods

The study methods are described for each of the project’s three primary aims. The overall project process is also described here as a record of how the project progressed.

3.1 Project Process

Involvement of key stakeholders was central to the project process. The methods used and the way in which information was shared was informed through continuous and thorough consultation with representatives of both the disability and transport sectors, as well as other interested parties. The project timeline is included in Appendix A.

3.1.1 ‘Access for All’ Group

The local ‘Access for All’ group meets regularly at the offices of CCS Disability Action. Various representatives of the disability sector meet to discuss issues around access. The principles of the Measuring Accessible Journeys project were presented to this group on 18th February 2013, and interested members were invited to the local stakeholder forum.

3.1.2 Local Stakeholder Forum

A local stakeholder forum was held at the Hamilton offices of CCS Disability Action on 5th March 2013. The aims of this forum were to:

share project objectives and process with stakeholders;

begin to recruit volunteers to help with pedestrian counting; and

to invite stakeholder input into site selection and planning for the pilot counts.

As well as representatives from TDG and CCS Disability Action, three stakeholders attended the forum, representing Hamilton City Council Community Development, and Hamilton’s ‘Access for All’ working group.

At this forum, the six pilot count sites, dates and times were confirmed. Questions for an in-person survey of mobility aid users were also selected.

There was considerable discussion at the local stakeholder forum about the broad range of issues affecting peoples’ ability to travel independently, and the effects of limitations on their lives. Examples of factors discussed but outside of the immediate scope of this project included:

the influence of temporary traffic management (road works);

the general suitability of signage and information;

a wide range of issues around the economic impact of exclusion;

social impacts of non-independent travel; and

the effects on carers and helpers whose contribution to society is limited by their role helping another person.



3.2 National Forum

A national forum was held at the head offices of CCS Disability Action in Wellington, on 12th June 2013. The following organisations were represented:

CCS Disability Action (Hamilton and National offices);

TDG (Hamilton and Wellington offices);

Ministry for Social Development;

New Zealand Transport Agency;

Ministry of Transport;

Office for Disability Issues;

Statistics New Zealand.

The national forum included a presentation providing information about the project origins, background of the project team, and a summary of the pilot count process and results. Discussion ensued around the issues and opportunities highlighted by the project. All present then agreed in principle to stay informed and involved as the next steps for the project become clear.

3.3 Expected Numbers

People using visible mobility aids

It was estimated in New Zealand’s Household Disability Survey that 78,000 adults and 9,500 children had a mobility disability in 2006, and used some form of mobility equipment in relation to permanent disability. This represents approximately 2% of the total resident population. As this data excludes those who do not self-identify as having a disability, or those with temporary disability, it is estimated for the purposes of this report that approximately 3% of New Zealand’s population use a visible mobility aid.

The following data (NZ Household Disability Survey: Disability and Formal Supports in New Zealand 2006) summarises types of mobility aids used by adult New Zealanders with permanent disability. ‘Permanent disability’ is defined by a person living with the impairment for at least six months. The mobility equipment highlighted in bold in Table 1 represents visible mobility aids selected for inclusion on the count sheets for this study.

Data for children is not provided to the extent shown in Table 1. There is no known data about the use of mobility aids for people with temporary disability, or for people who live in residential care facilities.

In sum, it is estimated from Table 1, and by the data not included in this table that approximately 3% of New Zealand’s population use a visible mobility aid. The following people are excluded from the data in Table 1 but will nonetheless be represented in any count statistics:

people with temporary disability, due primarily to injury or illness;

people who use a mobility aid but do not identify as having a disability;

children aged under 15; and



people with visible aids not represented in Table 1, specifically, guide dog or walking cane.

The data in Table 1 therefore underestimates the proportion of people in the population who use a mobility aid, which is why a figure of 3% was adopted as an estimate of ‘expected’ proportion of visible mobility aid use, generally.

People with mobility impairment who do not use visible mobility aids

There are of course a number of people with mobility impairments who do not use visible mobility aids, who are therefore excluded by the estimate. As stated in the introduction, this project is intended as a step towards measurement of accessible journeys, by counting what is objectively countable. Types of mobility and other impairments affecting peoples’ ability to travel independently include (but are not limited to), for example:

non-visible mobility impairments, for example artificial limbs, pain affecting mobility, visual impairment;

Intellectual impairment including mental illness; and

hearing and other non-visible sensory impairment.

The nature of a wide range of impairment and its effect on peoples’ use of the transportation system was explored by survey methods as part of this study.

TYPE OF MOBILITY EQUIPMENT

AGE GROUP (years) TOTAL

15–64 65+

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Back or leg brace, splint, or support

4,300 0 2,100 0 6,400 0

Orthopaedic footwear 2,500 0 2,200 0 4,700 0

Artificial foot or leg -- -- -- -- -- --

Walking frame 1,900 0 15,900 3 17,800 1

Walking stick 13,400 1 45,000 10 58,400 2

Crutches 6,200 0 6,200 1 12,400 0

Mobility scooter -- -- 7,000 2 8,800 0

Manual wheelchair 3,600 0 4,100 3 7,700 0

Motorised wheelchair -- -- -- -- 2,900 0

Other equipment for moving about -- -- 2,600 1 3,900 0

No equipment 127,900 5 78,800 17 206,700 7

Any equipment 24,000 1 54,200 12 78,300 3

Total mobility-disabled adults 152,000 6 133,100 29 285,000 9

Table 1 Estimated proportion of adults using mobility equipment

Source: Table 5.22, NZ Household Disability Survey: Disability and Formal Supports in New Zealand 2006

With limited data around prevalence of disability in the population generally, and at particular locations, counting people with mobility aids will be a relative, and not absolute, measure of access. Its usefulness in the absence of more comprehensive, location-specific demographic data is to inform public and private stakeholders about which places are observed to be more accessible than others. More comprehensive statistics would improve



the tool such that the gap between what is observed, and what is reasonably expected, can be more reliably ascertained.

3.4 Counting Sites

Six sites were selected in consultation with the stakeholders. The sites were chosen to represent a range of activities, facilities and areas that are key destinations, links or connections for the Hamilton and Waikato community (mobility impaired or not).

Westfield Chartwell – a major suburban shopping centre with adjacent local public transport interchange on Lyndon Court;

Hamilton Transport Centre – the central public transport interchange in Hamilton;

Anglesea Street/Bryce Street intersection – a busy intersection in the Hamilton CBD adjacent to the Transport Centre;

Waikato Hospital – the main provider of health care services to the city and region;

Hamilton Lake – a recreational destination in central Hamilton;

Waikato University – a main provider of tertiary education in the city and region.

The sites and their cordons are shown on Figure 1 below.



Westfield Chartwell, Lyndon Court Hamilton Transport Centre, Bryce Street

Intersection of Anglesea and Bryce Streets Waikato Hospital, Pembroke Street

Hamilton Lake, Rotoroa Drive University of Waikato, Knighton Road

Figure 1 Count Site Locations and Cordons



4. Count Methods

The method developed to count pedestrians involves establishing a cordon, and manually counting every pedestrian who crosses that cordon in a predefined time period. For this pilot study, six sites were selected. At each site, a cordon was defined and pedestrians were counted for a four hour period, between 11:30am and 3:30pm on a weekday. The cordons for each site were shown on Figure 1 above.

At the top of each count sheet, the date and time were noted, as well as the surveyor name, site name, weather and wind conditions. A site map was included so that the precise location of the count could be marked. This helped counters to focus on the particular people to be counted. It also provided reference for any counts or monitoring that may happen in future, at the same location. Pedestrians were tallied with clicker counters, and the total number of pedestrians crossing the marked cordon for each hour was noted on a worksheet. As each count covered a four hour period, there were four worksheets completed per count site. In addition, all pedestrians with visible mobility aids were tallied on a table on the same worksheet, according to their mobility aid. Sample worksheets from each count site are included in Appendix B

Each pedestrian observed with a visible mobility aid was approached and asked whether they would be willing to answer some questions about their travel choices. An example interview sheet used is included in Appendix C. At the top of each count sheet, the date and time were noted, as well as the surveyor name, site name, weather and wind conditions. Interview questions were:

How did you get here today?

Why did you choose that method and route?

Do you have any other mobility aids?

Do you sometimes travel with a companion for mobility reasons?

A pack including background to the count process, instructions for planning and carrying out a count, and worksheets is included in Appendix F.



5. Results

5.1 Count Data

Each of the six count sites provided four hours of continuous data. A total of 9,525 pedestrians were counted, of whom 97 used a visible mobility aid. The proportions of different mobility aids use is shown in Figure 2. The range of visible mobility aid use across all sites is shown in Figure 3. Full data from each count site is included in Appendix D.

Figure 2 Proportions of mobility aid use by site

The data on Figure 2 show that there was meaningful variation in both absolute numbers of pedestrians observed, and in the proportion of those pedestrians using mobility aids. The site with lowest proportion of people with mobility aids was the University of Waikato and the highest proportion was observed at Westfield Chartwell.

The results lead naturally to questions about what proportion of pedestrians with mobility aids might realistically be expected across a range of sites such as those surveyed. As it is known that older people are more likely to have a disability requiring use of a mobility aid, it is reasonable that places and times attracting a higher proportion of older people (for example, a suburban shopping mall in the middle of a weekday) might show high numbers of mobility aid users than a university, which attracts a much higher proportion of younger people.

Further analysis of statistics related to characteristics of trip generation and people living within the catchment of a particular facility would provide more insight as to the expected proportions of people with mobility aids that might be indicative of relative accessibility.



The data in Figure 3 show that a wide variety of mobility aids were counted across all six pilot sites. Of the twelve categories included on the count worksheet, two were not used (“Back or leg brace, splint or visible support” and “Visible artificial limb”).

Figure 3 Overall proportions of mobility aids counted

Generally, the proportions of mobility aids seen are in line with expected proportions based on data from Statistics New Zealand about mobility aid use by people with disabilities. A comparison of the pilot data with national statistics is shown in the table below.

Proportion Based on

National Statistics

Proportion Counted in

Pilot Project

Back or leg brace, splint, or support 5.2% 0%

Orthopaedic footwear 3.8% 0%

Artificial foot or leg 0.0% 0%

Walking frame 14.5% 8%

Walking stick 47.5% 39%

Crutches 10.1% 5%

Mobility scooter 7.2% 4%

Manual wheelchair 6.3% 27%

Motorised wheelchair 2.4% 8%

Other equipment for moving about 3.2% 8%

Sum 100% 100%

Table 2 Mobility aid types: National data and Count data

As noted earlier, people counted may not self-identify as having a disability (and indeed, several people questioned for the interview data explicitly claimed not to be ‘disabled’). Therefore the count data will always be drawn from a larger sample than that used to determine national statistics, which are based on a survey of adults who self-identify as having a permanent disability lasting six months or more.



Table 2 shows that the most prevalent mobility aid for the pilot counts as well as nationally is a walking stick or crutch. People using a single walking stick or crutch may be more likely to be temporarily disabled, or to use such a device for comfort or security, as much as to aid mobility.

5.2 Interview Data

Of the 97 people counted with a visible mobility aid, 36 (37%) agreed to answer survey questions. A summary of all interview data is included in Appendix E. Answers are summarised as follows:

Type of mobility aid:

15 Walking stick or crutch (single);

5 Wheelchair (assisted);

4 Wheelchair (manual);

2 Wheelchair (powered);

3 Walking frame;

3 Mobility scooter;

1 walking sticks or crutches (2);

1 guide dog;

1 cane;

1 other (moon boot).


14 private car (driver or passenger);

8 bus;

5 Walked, with powered mobility aid (power chair or mobility scooter);

6 Walked, with manual mobility aid (wheelchair, walking stick, frame or guide dog);

2 Taxi;

1 other (ambulance).


All responses were a mixture of ‘easy/convenient’. Some mentioned lack of choice (“I haven’t got a car/can’t drive/no alternatives”). Some mentioned cost as a reason for using or not using a particular mode (ie walking instead of using the bus, or using the bus instead of a taxi).


No: 24;

Yes: 12.




No: 21;

Yes: 15.

The interview data exemplified the complexity of disability and transport choices. There was no obvious correlation, for example, between mobility aid type, and propensity to travel with or without a companion, or to use a particular mode. The type of mobility aid used was not predictive of peoples’ likelihood to travel with a companion.

While the qualitative data is useful to provide context around peoples’ travel choices, its complexity makes its application complex in terms of informing change. The more qualitative data such as this is collected, the more likely it is that correlations can be explored, to better inform transport decision making.



6. Discussion

6.1 Suitability of Tool

Overall, the pilot study was successful in demonstrating a robust means for counting pedestrians, including a subset using identifiable mobility aids. The cordon method to define which count location worked to clarify those pedestrians who were and who were not to be counted. While the particular numbers and proportions found in this pilot study are not assumed to be indicative of relative access in isolation, the method itself was found to be readily usable, reliable and repeatable.

As a method to collect qualitative data, the interview was relatively straightforward. Approximately 37% of pedestrians approached were willing to be interviewed. The questions used on the survey were useful and straightforward. The questionnaire worksheet format allowed for entry of more detail where this was offered. Several people, for example, appeared willing to elaborate on challenges they face in moving around their communities, more generally than the specific trip that the survey happened to intercept.

6.2 Tool Usability

Approximately twelve different people were trained on-site in the use of the worksheets for recording count data and interview responses. All surveyors reported that the worksheets were easy to use and that the process was straightforward. Analysis of approaches and results indicated that the methods were robust, in that every surveyor followed procedures in the same way. Results were not dependent on interpretation of the methods, which indicates that the method itself is robust.

6.3 Survey Bias and Data Limitations

By counting and interviewing pedestrians present at a particular place, the interview data in particular is biased towards those people who are motivated and able to travel. Disability is complex, and there is a wide range of factors influencing peoples’ propensity to travel, many of which are outside of the realm of transportation provision itself. The provision of quantitative data provides a picture of relative accessibility. The higher the proportion of pedestrians with mobility aids observed at a particular point, the higher the relative access of that place is, at least during the timeframe covered by the survey.

While data from interviews provides insight into why people do choose to travel, it is not as useful in determining why people do not travel to a particular place. The absence of mobility aid users, or comparisons between similar facilities or the same facility over time is perhaps more useful to begin to address issues of inaccessibility.

6.4 Site Selection and Time of Day Differences

For this pilot study, pedestrians were counted between 11:30am and 3:30pm on weekdays during school terms. Thus only a limited type of pedestrians could be observed. In terms of developing a counting methodology, this was not problematic for the pilot study. However, in order for results to be used to prioritise pedestrian network planning and investment



decisions, a wider spectrum of timeframes and sites would provide more comprehensive data.



7. Recommendations

7.1 Development of Method: Counting

Given that the counting tool has been demonstrated to be robust and usable, it is recommended that the counting programme be extended to more sites, and a more comprehensive range of times and days. Use of the data would then be recommended to inform pedestrian and public transport planning and investment decisions.

The delivery of accessible and inclusive transportation systems does not rest solely with the road controlling authorities and the public sector. The tools could also be provided directly to organisations that have an interest in ensuring that their own facility is accessible. There is a connection between accessibility and commercial or organisational success. A university with an accessible campus attracts more students. A shopping mall that is easy to get to and move around attracts more customers.

The count method itself would benefit from investigations into automation of the process. An example of this would be video analysis, which would not require manual counting. Video would enable continuous recording at a count cordon, that could be either manually processed later, or portions of the processing could also be automatized. Video cameras could be located above a count cordon for ease of analysis.

It is therefore recommended that the count process be extended to more sites and across more varied times of the week and year, and that investigations into automation of the count process continue.

7.2 Data storage

It is recommended that a web-based data storage capacity be developed, to capture increasing volume of count data over time. If such a tool were developed to automate production of reports, its use would be incentivised and it would be therefore more likely that those using the tool provided their data to the wider pool.

7.3 Development of Method: Expected Proportions

There is currently only very limited data available about the presence and nature of disability in New Zealand. Census data is published based on national statistics, but this is not broken down demographically or geographically. In order to estimate likely expected proportions of people with mobility aids at different count sites, methods must be developed to estimate these numbers.

Further research is recommended into the prevalence of mobility aid use, and its correlation with other factors (such as age, socio-economic deprivation, and employment status) such that more meaningful expected proportions can be determined to support planning based on the count data that this tool provides.



7.4 Informing Asset Management

As the database of pedestrian numbers and mobility aid proportions grows, it is recommended that it is used to inform asset management decisions. Examples of such use include prioritising of maintenance and capital works for new footpaths and road crossings, and prioritising infrastructure improvements for bus stops and interchanges. The tool could also be used to monitor effectiveness of transportation infrastructure investment by a before/after analysis of the proportion of pedestrians with mobility aids using a particular route, or accessing a particular destination.

It is recommended that measurement of accessible journeys informs prioritisation of infrastructure maintenance and capital works expenditure, through incorporating counting of pedestrians with mobility aids into regular pedestrian count programs, or initiation of a comprehensive series of counts.

7.5 Informing Transport Policy and Planning

Data about how pedestrians travel, and in particular, relative proportions of mobility aid use can help to inform the transportation industry at policy level. It is recommended that more sites are counted so that data can inform the following processes:

Total Mobility policy and prioritising areas of greatest need;

Public transport (bus and train) analysis, including strategic reviews of networks and planning for accessible design of vehicles and bus stops / train stations / interchanges;

Network modelling and planning for future growth within existing areas and for future development, informed by count data in conjunction with demographic projections around age and disability in particular; and

Guidance documents around provision of pedestrian infrastructure such as footpaths and road crossings, as well as tactile pavement indicators and other information systems.

7.6 Informing Social and Health Policy and Planning

At a higher level, the absence of accessible journeys affects peoples’ ability to participate in recreation, in employment, and in life, generally. It is recommended that the tool be further developed to analyse peoples’ access to transport, and the implications that this has on their lives. Specific areas for further research in terms of health and social policy include:

The journey to work and how people with temporary or permanent disability use the transport system;

The nature of inclusion: how education, recreation and public facilities welcome people with disabilities through transport provision, and in a wider sense; and

Lessons learned: Analysis of sites with high mobility aid proportion, to analyse the features of those places that attract more people with mobility challenges.



7.7 Informing Commercial and Retail Policy and Planning

The tool has potential for public/private facilities to track their performance over time, and to measure their accessibility relative to other facilities in their market. The tool could be used to assess ease of access at different entries to a shopping mall, for example, or to different branches of a facility such as a public library or medical centre. The tool could also be used to monitor relative access at facilities in different towns and cities, around a country, or to compare relative access internationally.

Audits across a range of facilities (for example, branch libraries) could help to prioritise whether infrastructure is targeted towards a range of improvements to a single facility, or a series of changes across all facilities. Before and after counts of pedestrians using the facilities, combined with more qualitative interview data, could help to identify the nature of design that best supports universal access.

It is recommended that the tool be promoted for use by commercial and retail developers to inform policy, planning and design.



8. Conclusions

The Measuring Accessible Journeys counting tool has potential to influence transport policy and investment in a wide range of areas. Transport is a key connector for all people to participate fully in society. By starting to measure participation through use of this tool, people with disabilities are starting to be counted, and can therefore start to be valued.

The study has identified key opportunities to use the tool to remove gaps in the delivery of accessible transportation, across all parts of its system from policy and planning, through design, construction and monitoring. In conjunction with further development and refinement of the tool, its widespread promotion will support more objective measurement of inclusion, and in terms of informing best-practice decision making and investment for all.

Traffic Design Group Ltd



Appendix A

Project Timeline

Responsibility:

Bridget Burdett (BB)

Gerri Pomeroy and Roger Loveless (GP/RL)

All

Week beginning

February March April May June July

Tasks Date Responsibility 11-Feb 25-Feb 11-Mar 25-Mar 8-Apr 22-Apr 6-May 20-May 3-Jun 17-Jun 1-Jul 15-Jul

Project team kickoff meeting 14-Feb All

Invite attendees, schedule

workshop 18-Feb to 28-Feb All

Project team monthly meeting 5-Mar All

Hold workshop/forum 5-Mar All

Select count sites 5-Mar All

Prepare count sheets 5-Mar to 15-Mar BB

Recruit volunteers 18-Feb to 15-Mar GP/RL

Conduct pilot counts 15-Mar to 30 Apr All

Analyse count data and

summarise methods 8-Apr-24-May BB

Analyse catchment data and

review literature 25-Feb to 24-May BB

Summarise analysis method for

reporting 30-Apr-24-May BB

Arrange date and venue, invite

attendees, schedule forum 25-Feb to 31-May GP/RL

Attend Wellington forum June All

July BB



Appendix B

Count Sheets

Count Sheet Name: Start time: 11:30

Date: Wednesday 3rd April Finish time: 12:30

Site: Westfield Chartwell Weather:

Wind:

Total pedestrians (tally or copy from clicker counter):

Pedestrians with visible mobility aids:

Walking stick or crutch (single)

Walking sticks or crutches (two)

Cane

Guide dog

Wheelchair: manual

Wheelchair: powered

Mobility scooter

Wheelchair: assisted

Walking frame

Back or leg brace, splint or visible support

Visible artificial limb

Other (specify)

Comments:


Date: Thursday 4th April Finish time: 12:30

Site: Intersection of Anglesea and Bryce Streets Weather:

Wind:


Across Anglesea (north): Across Bryce (west):

Anglesea: Bryce:




Cane

Guide dog

Wheelchair: manual

Wheelchair: powered

Mobility scooter


Walking frame



Other (specify)

Comments:



Site: Hamilton Transport Centre Weather:

Wind:


Across Anglesea (north): Across Bryce (west):

Anglesea: Bryce:




Cane

Guide dog

Wheelchair: manual

Wheelchair: powered

Mobility scooter


Walking frame



Other (specify)

Comments:


Date: Tuesday 9th April Finish time: 12:30

Site: Waikato Hospital Link Building Weather:

Wind:

Ground floor inside building next to multi-storey car park building, Hague Road





Cane

Guide dog

Wheelchair: manual

Wheelchair: powered

Mobility scooter


Walking frame



Other (specify)

Comments:


Date: Wednesday 10th April Finish time: 12:30

Site: Hamilton Lake Weather:

Wind:





Cane

Guide dog

Wheelchair: manual

Wheelchair: powered

Mobility scooter


Walking frame



Other (specify)

Comments:



Site: University of Waikato Weather:

Wind:





Cane

Guide dog

Wheelchair: manual

Wheelchair: powered

Mobility scooter


Walking frame



Other (specify)

Comments:



Appendix C

Sample Interview Sheet

Interview Sheet Name: Interview time:

Date:

Site: Weather:

Wind:





Mobility aid seen:



Cane

Guide dog

Wheelchair: manual

Wheelchair: powered

Mobility scooter


Walking frame



Other (specify)

Comments:



Appendix D

Full Count Data

Overall

Number of pedestrians

Number with visible mobility aid

Proportion with visible mobility aid

Numbers Chartwell Anglesea Bryce Transport Centre Hospital Lake University

hour beginning 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30

Total 161 106 97 152 333 389 337 375 300 289 258 503 227 282 176 178 222 231 267 150 927 798 1533 1234

Walking stick or crutch (single) 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 4 3 2 3 1 1 2 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0

Walking sticks or crutches (two) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Cane 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Guide dog 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wheelchair: manual 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wheelchair: powered 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mobility scooter 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wheelchair: assisted 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

Walking frame 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Back or leg brace, splint or visible support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Visible artificial limb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other (specify) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total number with mobility aids 14 3 4 8 3 6 1 1 3 6 5 3 9 5 6 4 1 5 5 2 2 0 1 0

Proportions Chartwell Anglesea Bryce Transport Centre Hospital Lake University

hour beginning 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30

Total 161 106 97 152 333 389 337 375 300 289 258 503 227 282 176 178 222 231 267 150 927 798 1533 1234

Walking stick or crutch (single) 0.6% 1.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.4% 1.2% 0.4% 1.3% 0.4% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Walking sticks or crutches (two) 1.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Cane 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Guide dog 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wheelchair: manual 1.2% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wheelchair: powered 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mobility scooter 0.6% 0.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Wheelchair: assisted 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.8% 0.4% 2.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Walking frame 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Back or leg brace, splint or visible support 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Visible artificial limb 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other (specify) 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total proportion with mobility aids 8.7% 2.8% 4.1% 5.3% 0.9% 1.5% 0.3% 0.3% 1.0% 2.1% 1.9% 0.6% 4.0% 1.8% 3.4% 2.2% 0.5% 2.2% 1.9% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Mobility aid summary Total observedAid% Total %

Walking stick or crutch (single) 38 39% 0.40%

Wheelchair: assisted 16 16% 0.17%

Wheelchair: manual 10 10% 0.10%

Walking frame 8 8% 0.08%

Wheelchair: powered 8 8% 0.08%

Walking sticks or crutches (two) 5 5% 0.05%

Cane 5 5% 0.05%

Mobility scooter 4 4% 0.04%

Personal assistant 2 2% 0.02%

Guide dog 1 1% 0.01%

Back or leg brace, splint or visible support 0 0% 0.00%

Visible artificial limb 0 0% 0.00%

Total 97 1.02%

Total number of pedestrians 9525

870 4492

13 3

1.5% 0.1%

1350 863

17 24

1.3% 2.8%

516

29

5.6%

1434

11

0.8%

Chartwell Anglesea Bryce Transport Centre Hospital Lake University



Appendix E

Summary of Interview Data

How did you get here today? Why did you choose that method and route? Do you have any other mobility aids? Do you sometimes travel with a companion for mobility reasons? Mobility aid seen:

1 Friend's car Quicker to drive. Debbie had a moon boot. No No, this is temporary due to moon boot Moon boot

2 Car, mobility parking card, mobility space Car always supported Walker, cane/stick Yes, driver Wheelchair: assisted

3 Car Been at hospital, looking for lunch No No Walking stick or crutch (single)

4 Car More convenient Mobility scooter Always Wheelchair: assisted

5 Car, mobility park Easier No Yes always Walking stick or crutch (single)

6 Walked from Cascades Ease and not far No Independent Walking stick or crutch (single)

7 Ambulance a couple of days ago Had to No No Wheelchair: manual

8 Car, parking building Mobility space - easy No Yes, no problems Wheelchair: assisted

9 Own ar - drove from Te Awamutu Easier by car and faster No Yes, easier Walking stick or crutch (single)

10 Car, car park Convenient; not many alternatives Yes. Walking stick Usually Walking frame

11 Car caregiver brought her No Yes Wheelchair: assisted

12 Car Daughter was prepared to drive No Yes Walking stick or crutch (single)

13 Car Can't walk from Tirau No No Walking stick or crutch (single)

14 Bus, sometimes car with driver No trouble Walking stick, frame longer trips No - no problem getting around. If I have a problem I don't go. Walking stick or crutch (single)

15 taxi and walking Ease No No, independent Wheelchair: manual

16 Bus Because he has a Gold Card No No Walking sticks or crutches (2)

17 Bus Don't have a car No No, independent Walking stick or crutch (single)

18 Bus Easy, drivers very helpful No Yes, not totally independent (had a stroke at 34) Walking stick or crutch (single)

19 Bus Convenience, road from Auckland too busy No No, independent Walking stick or crutch (single)

20 Bus Cost effective way, every day travel on the bus No No Walking stick or crutch (single)

21 Power chair I am close to uni 2 walking sticks Depends if I'm injured Mobility scooter

22 Drove

Living in area with lack of transport/buses

(Morrinsville) No No; independent temporary disability Walking stick or crutch (single)

23 Car Easy - on holiday from West Coast No Yes Wheelchair: manual

24 Scooter Only form of transport used Powerchair at home only No Mobility scooter

25 walked - live locally Live locally and use frame. Stick occasionally No Walking frame

26 Walked Live nearby Cane No Guide dog

27 In a taxi (taxi voucher)

Bus time is too erratic (Orbiter) and not reliable

enough. Do use the bus generally because its cheaper No No, independent Walking frame

28 Drove private vehicle

Ease. Use buses occasionally, has used them once but

started vomiting because rear facing Yes, walking frame No Wheelchair: manual

29

Bus, Orbiter. Only use the Orbiter as the

wheelchai parking space in the other buses is

too small Haven't got a car. Walker Always, companion/husband has a visual and speech impairment Wheelchair: assisted

30 Wheelchair, 5km Easy

Walker inside. Manual wheelchair for in the

car. No Wheelchair: powered

31 Walked 300m (was driven 2km)

Was driven to have a haircut and then walked to

Chartwell to meet daughter for a ride home No Yes (can no longer drive as lost peripheral vision as a result of stroke) Walking stick or crutch (single)

32 Bus Can't drive, visual impairment No Yes, someone takes her to the supermarket once a week, otherwise bus always Cane

33 Walked 1km Because it's not far enough to take the car No No, independent Walking stick or crutch (single)

34 Powerchair from home, 15 minutes

Independence - one way has good footpaths.

Sometimes safer on the roads. No Try to travel independently, usually, unless a big shop Wheelchair: powered

35 Walked 200 yards Direct No No Walking stick or crutch (single)

36 7 minutes, mobility scooter and trailer Just around the corner - chose the location for access

Just scooter out and about, not completely

incapacitated Independent; travel to the Base on Wairere Drive, 5km takes about 20 minutes. Mobility scooter



Appendix F

Count Tool Pack

Measuring Accessible Journeys: Count Tool

Background

This tool has been developed as a way to count pedestrians with identifiable mobility aids. The tool

is part of a process to compare these numbers with the proportion of mobility aids in the

population. The wider project has three primary aims:

� Counting people: To count the number of people (pedestrians and public transport users)

including the subset of that number who use visible mobility aids

� Expected numbers: To estimate the proportion of mobility aid users in the population, and

thereby identify relative accessibility of counted sites by the difference between the

proportion of people with mobility aids, and the proportion observed at each site

� A transferable method: To develop the project methods for use by local and national road

controlling authorities as a pedestrian network planning tool.

The project does not aim to capture through use of this counting tool, all people with disability, or

with mobility impairment. It is intended as a step towards measurement of accessible journeys, by

counting what is objectively countable. Through simplification of the definition of disability (and the

proxy of visible mobility aid) it is intended that the methods used will be readily adoptable by road

controlling authorities and other interested organisations, in providing data to support

improvements in provision of accessible transportation systems.

The Measuring Accessible Journeys project is funded by the Ministry of Social Development’s

‘Making a difference’ fund. The Making a Difference Fund supports project that align to the

Ministry’s wider Think Differently campaign objectives which are:

� to increase knowledge and understanding of disability

� to increase the personal relevance of disability for all New Zealanders

� to mobilise personal and community action for positive change

� to address the social environment that tolerates or accepts exclusion of disabled people.

While the tool can be used at any place where people are observable, to date it has been used at the

following general locations:

� suburban shopping mall

� recreation park

� hospital

� tertiary education facility

� signalised crossing of an intersection

� transport interchange

Instructions

Preparation

1. Identify a cordon where you would like to count pedestrians. The cordon should be small

enough that it is visible in its entirety from a single observation point. It is beneficial (though

not essential) if the observation point has shelter from wind and rain.

2. Produce a map of the count location, and precise identification of the count cordon.

3. Select a date and timeframe for the count. Use one worksheet per hour of counting.

4. Recruit at least two people per count session, such that one person can count pedestrians,

and one can interview those using mobility aids.

5. Print one count worksheet and twelve interview worksheets per hour of counting.

6. Contact the site owner, or local authority if the site is in a public place, to inform them of

your intentions to count pedestrians.

Count procedure

1. Select a position from which to count pedestrians five to ten minutes before the start of the

count session.

2. Count all pedestrians who cross the defined cordon, within the defined count period.

3. If the same person crosses the cordon more than once, count them each time they cross the

cordon.

4. If a person using a visibly identifiable mobility aid crosses the cordon, count them once in

the regular pedestrian tally. Make an additional tally mark in the relevant category of

mobility aid on the count worksheet.

5. Approach the person using a mobility aid. Tell them that you are doing a pedestrian survey,

and ask whether they would mind answering some questions about their travel. If so,

complete the interview questionnaire.

6. Cease counting at the end of the designated count period.

Analysis

1. Forward scanned copies of your worksheets to [email protected] for

analysis.

Sample worksheets and blank templates are included for your information and use.

Over time, data gathered through use of this tool will combine to provide a wider picture of access

differences across a range of facilities throughout New Zealand communities. We welcome your

feedback on this process. If you have any questions please feel free to contact any of the following:

Bridget Burdett [email protected] 027 5493219

Gerri Pomeroy [email protected] 027 4963353

Roger Loveless [email protected] 021 823120

Measuring Accessible Journeys: Interview Template

Measuring Accessible Journeys: Count worksheet template

Measuring Accessible Journeys: Count worksheet example

Documents

Measuring Accessible Journeys - ccsdisabilityaction · questions. The interview data exemplified the complexity of disability and transport choices. There was no obvious correlation,