ISSN 1055- 1425
May 2010
This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the
University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, and the
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Final Report for Task Order 6102
CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Removing Barriers for Seniors at
Transit Stops and Stations and the
Potential for Transit Ridership Growth
UCB- ITS- PRR- 2010- 31
California PATH Research Report
Rhianna Babka, Jill F. Cooper, David R. Ragland
CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS
Removing Barriers for Seniors at Transit Stops and Stations and the Potential for
Transit Ridership Growth
Final report for Task Order 6102.
December 2008
Prepared for:
California Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Rhianna Babka, Jill F. Cooper, David R. Ragland, University of California Berkeley
Traffic Safety Center ( TSC)
This work was performed as part of the Traffic Safety Center and California PATH
Program of the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation.
We acknowledge the partnership of Susan A. Shaheen, Denise Allen, Judy Liu,
University of California Berkeley Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways ( PATH)
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 3
I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 6
II. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 8
III. COMPONENTS OF THE FINAL REPORT ........................................................ 9
1. Literature Review and matrix .............................................................................................. 9
2. Stakeholders Advisory Group ............................................................................................ 25
3. Survey ( English, Spanish and Chinese) of Older Adults’ Perspectives of Barriers to
Transit ............................................................................................................................... 25
4. 2008 TRB Paper and Poster of Survey of Older Adults’
Perspectives of Barriers to Transit ..................................................................................... 27
5. Rossmoor Transit Travel Training Evaluation .................................................................. 29
6. Urban East Bay Travel Training Evaluation ...................................................................... 31
7. 2009 TRB Paper on Urban East Bay Travel Training Evaluation ..................................... 33
8. Handbook for Transit Agencies and Senior Services Agencies ........................................ 33
IV. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 35
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... 38
VI. APPENDICES......................................................................................................... 46
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The research described in this report seeks to identify barriers that may interfere with the
use of public transportation by older adults, and to determine viable means for addressing
these barriers. The research is timely and critical for two primary reasons. First, the
population of older adults is growing dramatically and any decline in or cessation of
driving does not translate into a reduced need for transportation and mobility. Older
adults will continue to have mobility and transportation needs long after their ability to
drive, and public transit provides one option. Second, addressing barriers older adults
identify regarding public transit through social marketing has the potential to boost
ridership.
While public transportation could fill a transportation gap for older drivers, there are
many challenges and barriers to its use by older adults:
• lack of information about schedules and routes, perception of inconvenience;
unreliable service 1
• waiting outdoors in uncomfortable station areas 2
• lack of security and actual and/ or perceived crime3
• inconvenient pedestrian access to stops 4
• lack of training for bus drivers to better understand and meet the needs of senior
riders 5
The focus of this study was on the identification of barriers to transit use and on testing
improvements and interventions that hold promise for increasing ridership. Baseline
measurements of ridership and perceptions of transit use were gathered at two study sites
-- Rossmoor, a planned suburban community of older adults; and in Alameda County, an
urban area with fixed route transit. The study was designed to ( 1) determine seniors'
perspectives of, and behavior regarding transit use in two locations ( urban and suburban)
in California; ( 2) summarize previous work; and ( 3) develop and test the impact of
interventions to increase transit ridership among seniors.
This final report consists of a literature review, a matrix of the types of barriers seniors
face at transit stops, a summary of surveys that assessed seniors’ perspectives of, and
behavior around, transit use in two locations ( urban and suburban) in California, and
results of two travel training interventions at the two project sites. A second product of
the research is a handbook for transit and senior services agencies to use in planning
travel training programs for seniors in order to increase transit ridership.
3
KEY FINDINGS
The urban component of the research surveyed 259 senior citizens in the East Bay
regarding travel habits and use of public transportation. The survey results revealed that:
• Of the urban seniors who travel, 79 percent leave their house to go somewhere 5
days or more per week.
• Among the total group of seniors, 58.4 percent reported driving to destinations on
their own.
• Most mobile seniors use the private automobile for their travel, even for short
distances.
• In the Bay Area, 78.7 percent of seniors believe that they have “ convenient access
to buses near [ their] homes.”
• Information about buses remains a major barrier. When asked if they knew about
bus routes in their area, 69.2 percent of seniors replied that they knew “ little” or
“ nothing.” In fact, when asked about the bus fares and schedules, more than 60
percent of participants stated that they knew “ nothing” or “ a little.” This may
indicate a low level of knowledge with the basic information necessary for
successful public transit use.
• Qualitative responses suggested that mobile seniors will use public transportation
if basic conditions are met, and that transit must be convenient.
• Chief among the public transportation complaints are convenience and safety. A
majority of respondents ( 53.6 percent) feel it is “ never” or only “ sometimes” safe
while onboard, and 53.2 percent feel it is “ never” or only “ sometimes” safe while
waiting at stops.
As an additional component of the research, travel training was conducted for older
adults at Rossmoor, a planned retirement community in Contra Costa County. Travel
training provides information on how to use public transit in a particular area ( routes,
fares, e. g.) in order to help overcome barriers related to a lack of information, which is
common among older adults. Participants completed a pre- and post- training survey to
evaluate the trainings at each site. According to the surveys:
• Almost 86 percent stated that they planned to take public transit more frequently
in the future.
• There was a positive shift in participant comfort levels with taking the Rossmoor
and County Connection buses to key destinations within the community ( all p-values
< 0.004).
• Participant confidence levels with finding transit information ( e. g., schedules,
routes) increased after training ( p= 0.001).
A separate, four- day travel training for older adults in Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville
also utilized a pre- and post- training survey of 53 participants and found that:
• Participants varied in age and race, but 74 percent were female and 51 percent had
at least a bachelor’s degree.
4
• Among participants, 56 percent reported that they were taking the course as a step
in planning for their future.
• While 67 percent of the participants used the private auto as their primary mode
of transportation, 84 percent stated that they do use public transit on occasion if
not regularly.
• Primary transit users tended to be older and live alone more frequently than
primary automobile users.
• The training produced a significant increase in knowledge in every assessed area
including factors such as how to read the schedules, fares, and the best seats for
older adults.
• In addition to increased knowledge, participants reported that they planned to
increase their use of all independent modes of accessing transit information,
including paper schedules, the internet, brochures and local 511 services available
both by telephone and internet.
• In an effort to understand why older adults enrolled in the travel training program,
a regression analysis was run to identify factors associated with reason for
enrollment. This analysis revealed a significant association between currently
driving and planning for the future.
The study concludes that transit travel training is an extremely effective way to
increase education levels and familiarity regarding access to public transit. After
participation in the training, older adults possess the knowledge that they need as well
as confidence in finding transit information on their own through a variety of sources.
Future travel training courses could benefit from this analysis and target current
drivers who may have an awareness that they will not always be able to or want to
drive. Travel training programs should also explore ways of outreaching to older
adult populations that are not already accessing social and recreational services;
isolated and transportation- dependent older adults may be the audience who could
most benefit from this type of program.
Recommendations from the evidence presented in this research include:
• Continue to research education- based travel training programs.
• Conduct research and intervention strategies to address the concern of crime
and safety while on transit.
• Evaluate usefulness of information technology tools for older adults.
• Partner with local transit agencies to market to the older adult population.
• Implement educational- based travel training programs.
• Distribute the travel training handbook to local level transit agencies, older
adult organizations, and other stakeholders.
5
I. BACKGROUND
Much attention is paid to the fact that the population of older adults in California is
growing dramatically. 6 Transportation is emerging as a priority issue for this group of
people who may not be able to, or who choose not to, drive. Currently, seniors make
only about 3 percent of their trips by public transit; 12 percent of older adults have used
transit in the past year. 7 Although there are no statewide statistics about transit ridership
by older people, San Francisco Bay Area transit operators estimate that 4- 12 percent of
their patronage consists of riders over 65 years of age. 8 9
With increases in age, the percent of the driving population declines dramatically. While
some older adults may be able to continue drive safely, many others will reach a point
when driving is no longer a safe option. Hence, there is a large portion of the older adult
population that has mobility needs that cannot be met by driving.
Although many seniors will continue to drive and depend on private automobiles,
eventual declining health and weakened driving skills will require greater reliance on
other mobility options, such as reliance on friends and family, volunteer networks, taxis,
walking and biking, Paratransit and public transit. However, there are limitations to many
of these options.
Barriers to transit use for the older adult population persist
Given the role and transit infrastructure at this time there are many reasons why transit is
not an attractive or feasible option for older adults. Older adults, used to private
automobile travel, will expect high quality, accessible and convenient public
transportation to make the transition from cars easier. Older people will likely be
healthier and more educated and active in the future, and are likely to travel frequently to
a wider range of destinations than they do today. Additionally, older adults’ mobility
needs will continue to grow, as trip rates and distances have increased significantly. They
will be more likely to pursue a range of activities requiring transportation that meets a
more active lifestyle. 10
Public transportation can be difficult for older adults, especially those with disabilities, to
use, and physical or psychological barriers may predispose seniors against public
transportation. 11 Although exacerbated by physical disability, similar concerns were
found among the non- elderly, suggesting that removing physical barriers to access may
benefit more than just the elderly. While these barriers affect other groups, their impacts
tend to be felt most strongly by seniors. Some of the most common barriers are listed
below:
• lack of information about schedules and routes, perception of inconvenience;
unreliable service 12
• waiting outdoors in uncomfortable station areas 13
• lack of security and actual and/ or perceived crime14
• inconvenient pedestrian access to stops 15
6
• lack of training for bus drivers to better understand and meet the needs of senior
riders 16
Consequences of Failing to Address this Problem/ Opportunity
Failure to address these issues would have important consequences for an auto- dependent
elderly population. Although many seniors rely on private cars, their declining functional
ability may result in the need to limit or cease driving. 17 For many seniors, this results in
a decline in mobility, which has profound physical and psychological implications. In
fact, a direct cause of deterioration in the elderly is declining mobility. Studies of driving
cessation have found that decreased mobility produces a number of health and mental
health problems, 18 19 including reduced out- of- home activities, and an increase in
depression and social isolation. 20 There is also a large, underserved population among the
frail and very old elderly population who are unable to drive themselves. As the senior
population grows, there will be a greater percentage of frail and poor older adults living
alone with little independent mobility. 21 Disability, combined with barriers at bus stops
and stations, can prevent their use of transit. If there are not appropriate or accessible
transit options for seniors, many will continue to drive beyond capacity, resulting in
fatality rates that could approach the number of drivers killed throughout the U. S. in 1995
due to alcohol. 22
Because of the enormous social consequences for a growing segment of the population,
and because of the potential for transit operators to benefit from increased ridership,
removing barriers to physical access is a crucial component of a smart transportation
strategy. This project provides information on the effectiveness of marketing to older
adults. Transit agencies in their marketing strategies will likely have a variety of
strategies aimed at a variety of populations. Identifying local barriers in a community and
targeting a social marketing intervention ( in our case a travel training program) in
response to a specific community need can be very effective. This report provides
evidence- based information to agencies interested in implementing improvements and
interventions in other locations.
Ways in which this Project Addresses the Problem/ Opportunity
Identifying and implementing strategies to remove barriers for seniors accessing public
transit increases both the ability to use public transit and the quality and/ or level of
service offered to senior citizens. While it is recognized that not all older adults will
want to or be able to take transit, it is likely that there will be an increased number of
older adults utilizing public transit due to the general aging of the population. Specifically
marketing to older adults is and will be very important over the next 40 years as the
population is growing and, as identified by the California Department of Aging, will soon
compromise over 30 percent ( and 25 percent by 2010) of the total population in
California. 23 This is a huge constituency base that public transit has the opportunity to tap
into. True, that public transit fares for older adults are often subsidized, but even a
subsidized fare is likely to be beneficial to transit revenue. This is especially true since
7
many older adults ride transit during off peek hours where there is excess capacity
available on the transit vehicles.
Project results indicate the benefit of specific interventions, such as travel training, to
removing barriers for older adults in urban and suburban areas, when accessing public
transit. Marketing strategies such as travel training can also be targeted to younger adults
( of both the baby boomer and subsequent generations) to increase familiarity and
knowledge of public transit before they reach older age. This opportunity may contribute
future older adults’ perception of transit use and its feasibility. These interventions can
be replicated in other locations in order to increase the alternatives for seniors outside the
specific study sites. The research findings are useful to ( i) transit agencies throughout
California and the country, ( ii) municipalities with jurisdiction for the area in which bus
stops are located, and ( iii) transit customers, primarily seniors, whether able- bodied or
disabled. Caltrans and the Federal Transit Administration should also find these products
useful because they can provide additional tools in the transit industry’s repertoire of
methods and ways to improve the quality of service for public transportation customers.
II. INTRODUCTION
The senior population in California is growing dramatically. Public transportation
presents an important option for older adults who cannot, or choose not to, drive. A
recurrent theme among older adults is that barriers exist when accessing public transit.
Many of these barriers are felt by a variety of populations, but can be exacerbated by old
age, habits, and familiarity in the older adult population. Common barriers that are
specifically challenging to older adults include: waiting outdoors in uncomfortable station
areas; lack of information about schedules and routes; the perception of inconvenience;
unreliable service; lack of security and actual and/ or perceived crime; inconvenient
pedestrian access to stops; and lack of training for bus drivers to better understand and
meet the needs of senior riders.
This research was designed to ( 1) determine seniors' perspectives of, and behavior
around, bus stops and transit stations in two locations ( urban and suburban) in California;
( 2) summarize previous work; and ( 3) develop and test the impact of various design
improvements and interventions to increase transit ridership among seniors. The focus
was on the identification of barriers to transit use and on testing improvements and
interventions that hold promise for increasing ridership. Baseline measurements of
ridership and perceptions of bus stops and transit stations were gathered at two study sites
-- Rossmoor, a planned suburban community of older adults, and in Alameda County, an
urban area with fixed route transit.
There are two primary products of the research: a final report to Caltrans and a handbook
for transit and senior services agencies to use in planning travel training programs for
seniors in order to increase transit ridership. This final report consists of a literature
review, a matrix of the types of barriers seniors face at transit stops, a summary of
surveys that assessed seniors’ perspectives of, and behavior around, transit use in two
8
locations ( urban and suburban) in California, and results of two travel training
interventions at the two project sites.
The two study sites for this research were ( i) Rossmoor, a planned suburban community
of older adults with access to a residential shuttle and fixed route transit and ( ii) senior
activity centers in urban Alameda County, an urban area with fixed route transit. At
Rossmoor, the impact of an on- site travel training program was evaluated. In urban
Alameda County, researchers surveyed active older adults at senior activity centers on
their transit habits and attitudes, and evaluated a travel training program conducted by a
local non- profit. Although these two interventions were different in form and process,
they had the same goal of increasing transit knowledge, confidence, and familiarity for
older adults wanting to use transit.
III. COMPONENTS OF THE FINAL REPORT
This report summarizes the work conducted under this Task Order:
1. Literature review and matrix of barriers to transit
2. Stakeholders Advisory Group
3. Survey ( English, Chinese, and Spanish) of older adults’ perspectives of barriers to
transit
4. 2008 TRB paper and poster of survey of older adults’ perspectives of barriers to
transit
5. Rossmoor transit travel training evaluation
6. Urban East Bay travel training evaluation
7. 2008 TRB paper on urban East Bay travel training evaluation
8. Handbook for transit agencies and senior services agencies
Each section is summarized below; the full report is found in the appendix.
1. Literature Review
The literature review describes the importance of older adult transportation and the
barriers older adults face when accessing public transit. The most recent research builds
on the physical barriers concept and begins to assemble not only a list of barriers to
senior use of public transit but also to provide direct recommendations for addressing
barriers and increasing ridership among older adults. ( See Appendix 1)
Looking exclusively at the barriers to public transportation at bus stops and stations
represents an important, but limited, dimension of older adults’ transportation needs. To
obtain a more complete picture of their mobility needs, habits, and attitudes, future
research can include:
9
• strategies and interventions to address real or perceived issues of crime on public
transit;
• effective educational interventions and outreach to encourage public transit
ridership;
• information on cultural attachments to a car- dependent lifestyle, and how these
are changing with a new cohort of older adults;
• a focus on changing the current transportation policy orientation to align with
sustainable environmental principles and individual transit needs;
• the creation of increasingly “ flexible” transit options;
• an increased knowledge of transit needs for varied mobility levels; and
• an analysis of how older adults use various types of transportation to meet their
mobility needs.
The older adult population is growing, and as this cohort ages it is likely to be healthier,
more educated and active, and to travel frequently to a wider range of destinations than
its current counterpart. It is also likely to be more car dependent 24,25, since the primary
mode of transportation for older adults is driving a private vehicle, followed by
ridesharing.
Public transportation is the least used form of travel 26 despite being a necessary option
for older adults who cannot or choose not to drive. For the 5% of older adults who do use
public transit, this is their primary mode of transportation, and it is reasonable to assume
that people choose the best available option for them, making transit a necessary option.
27 This utilization rate is likely to increase as the older adult population grows, and the
more public transportation can be made appealing to this population, who put more
emphasis on service attributes, such as driver friendliness, than non- seniors 28, the more
ridership will increase. 29 If public transit is made more appealing for older adults it will
be responding to the population demographic. If transit is not older- adult friendly, there is
a huge lost market for transit agencies.
Given the current underutilization of public transportation, and the increasing older adult
population it is necessary to understand the habits and barriers that older adults face while
accessing public transit. Older adults who currently ride public transportation tend to be
low- income, minorities, and women. These populations may have specific transit needs
and/ or concerns such as financial, language, widowhood and outliving many of their male
counterparts. 30,31 As the older adult population with potential need for public transit
becomes more diverse and mobile, they will be more likely to pursue a range of activities
requiring transportation to support their more active lifestyles. 32 Trip rates and distances
have already increased significantly for all groups of older adults. Transportation research
and planning efforts must consider the characteristics of this diverse population in order
to effectively meet their needs.
Poister ( 1982) examined the issue of accessibility and inclusion, concluding that the lack
of transportation hindered older adults’ desire for “ mainstreaming” and that
transportation planning and policies must account for the stated needs and desires of this
population in order to truly have effective and accessible transportation. 33 Later findings
10
by both the AARP 34 and the US GAO 35 strengthened this argument. Furthermore,
Alsnih and Hensher ( 2003) 36 found that there was a difference in the transportation
needs and mobility between the “ young” elderly ( ages 65- 75) and “ old” elderly ( over age
75), while Cvitkovich and Wister ( 2001)
een
l
r
or, in
e case of public transit, poor and inadequate routes, schedules, and signage. 52
37 emphasized the difference in needs betw
transportation- dependent and transportation- independent seniors. When developing
transportation plans, authorities must take special care to address the characteristics of
this population such as physical limitations, gender, race, and economic status. 38
Transportation resources must be developed and allocated to consider the environmental
and physical factors that are specific to the well- being of this population. 39
One complex issue that has emerged in the last sixty years is increasing suburbanization
and a trend toward aging at home. The desire to age at home, also known as aging- in-place,
exacerbates the difficulties in providing effective public transportation, 40and leads
to increased dependence on cars. This dependence has associated risks documented in
numerous studies that confirm a correlation between old age and the increased danger of
motor vehicle crashes.
Non- drivers, however, face risks as well if they are not able to access or use public
transportation. Bailey ( 2004) identified that older adult non- drivers make 15% fewer trips
to the doctor and 65% fewer social trips than older adult drivers. 41 Strategies and
interventions must be specifically developed to meet the current and anticipated
transportation medical and social needs of this population are beneficial to reducing the
risk of health consequences ( such as lack of preventative care and depression) from fewer
medical and social trips. Transportation promotes quality of life and increases life
satisfaction by providing access to social and other activities. 42 It has been shown that
older persons who are primarily dependent on public transportation ( versus private
vehicle use) do not receive the same amount of medical and health care and have high
rates of social isolation. 43,44 Harrison and Ragland ( 2003) made a comprehensive study
of the impact of driving cessation on the lives of older adults. 45 They found that, overall,
older adults who stopped driving had reduced rates of social interaction and decreased
satisfaction in their life activities. These findings support the body of research on
limitations on the daily activities of older adults due to inadequate transportation.
46,47,48,49
Recent studies have begun to address the issue of “ barriers” to transit use. Among the
first studies to analyze barriers to seniors’ use of public transit was Patterson’s ( 1985),
which concluded that “ barriers” were both psychological ( e. g. fear of crime) and physica
ones ( e. g., problems with accessing bus schedules and bus stops). 50 Later, Rosenbloom
( 1988) concluded that physical and environmental barriers such as poor route planning o
inconvenient bus stops played a larger role in limiting senior transit use than biological
barriers such as old age or illness. 51 Lavery ( 1996) proposed the “ travel chain” idea, in
which personal barriers ( e. g. old age, illness) and vehicular barriers are exacerbated by
“ built environment barriers” such as poor street paving, confusing block patterns
th
11
Using public transportation can be difficult for older adults, and particularly those with
disabilities. Physical or psychological factors may predispose seniors against us
transportation.
ing public
seki
Specifically
garding older adults, the AARP ( 2002) reports inadequate routes, fear of victimization
he following physical barriers to the use of public transportation by older adults have
ation areas for long
nd
ining
ical limitations to accessing public transportation;
g
ices; cost of
ansportation services; and partnerships with local agencies and organizations)
home geographical region, and other
portant factors. Koffman ( 2004) discusses the legislative actions groups can take to
transportation use,
nd further research needs to be done on the specific transportation needs of older adults
wide
dge will better prepare people
53 High on the list of seniors’ concerns are accessibility and crime. I
Liggett, Loukaitou- Sideris, and Iseki ( 2001) discuss how elements of the built
environment at bus stops can either encourage or discourage crime. 54
re
during trips and difficulty boarding among seniors’ top concerns. 55
T been identified in the literature:
• Environmental barriers ( waiting outdoors in uncomfortable st
periods; lack of security and actual crime; inconvenient, unsafe pedestrian
approach to stops; and vehicle accessibility and limitations)
• Information and education barriers ( lack of information about schedules a
routes, perception of inconvenience, and unreliable service; and lack of tra
for bus drivers to better understand and meet the needs of senior riders)
• Personal barriers ( phys
perceived crime and lack of security; and psychological barriers to accessin
public transportation)
• Policy and planning barriers ( flexibility of transportation serv
tr
• Technological barriers ( utilization of advanced technology)
There is a growing body of research that suggests that government interventions can
strategically structure public transit and other services to reduce car use among older
adults. Bailey ( 2006), for example, summarizes the statistics on aging trends and older
adult mobility habits and details the impact that the lack of adequate public transportation
had on various older adult age groups by ethnicity,
im 56
enhance the use of various public transit modes. 57
No policy on improving older adult public transit can succeed without taking older adult
concerns into consideration. 58,59,60,61,62,63 This includes finding the balance between
public transportation being both affordable and cost- effective, and addressing concerns of
crime and safety. 64,65 Research has begun on older adult mobility and
a
and what works best for this population and subsequent generations.
Some older adults may have a difficult time adjusting to new transit habits and learning
new skills and systems based on life- long transit habits. Public transit systems must
therefore be sensitive to older adults and their changing transit needs. In addition, a
array of transit options benefits everyone. People of all ages should have access to, be
skilled at using and be able to actively utilize forms of transit other than the private
automobile. Greater transit flexibility and increased knowle
12
of all ages to use their transit systems. These changes will also contribute to building
ansit systems for the future.
d
dressed along
ith design and social marketing solutions. Implementation strategies are identified
to complete them:
ort term, medium term, and long term. ( See Table 1 and Appendix 2)
rriers:
eas for long periods of time
e pedestrian approach to stops and stations
out schedules and routes, perception of inconvenience;
vers to better understand and meet the
)
me and lack of security
/ cognitive disorder, attachment to car,
dence, fear, concern with getting lost/ going the
• Cost of transportation services
l agencies and organizations
•
Levels
ix
may
ary for individual agencies and transit authorities. The three identified levels are
e a comprehensive implementation strategy, but rather, a rough
guessti
Short- t
lementations include interventions such as: building
partnerships with other organizations, provide rider assistance services,
environmentally- sustainable tr
Matrix of Barriers to Transit:
The matrix of barriers to transit is designed to be a tool for transportation agencies an
planning professionals in their work to increase public transportation ridership for older
adults. Barriers older adults encounter when utilizing public transit are ad
w
according to an estimate of the level of time and investment needed
sh
The matrix describes potential solutions for the following ba
• Waiting outdoors in uncomfortable ar
• Lack of security, and actual and/ or perceived crime
• Inconvenient/ unsaf
• Vehicle accessibility and limitations
• Lack of information ab
unreliable service
• Lack of training for transit and bus dri
needs of senior riders
• Physical limitations ( physical disability, hearing impairment, vision impairments
• Perceived cri
• Psychological barriers ( psychological
attachment to perceived indepen
wrong way)
• Flexibility of transportation services
• Partnerships with loca
Utilization of advanced technology
of implementation:
Three levels of implementation have been identified: Short- term, Medium- term,
and Long- term. These levels have been developed to provide users of this matr
with an idea of the degree of implementation difficulty. These three levels
v
not meant to b
mate of short- term, medium- term, and long- term improvements.
erm:
The short- term implementation refers to interventions that can be
accomplished in a very little amount of time and cost little to no money.
Short- term imp
13
14
ating for older adults while on the bus, and service reliability ( on-
Medium
ions include interventions such as: providing benches at bus
or older adults to rest while they wait, re- locating bus stops to more
Long- t
ire long-be
. Long- term
implementations include interventions such as: improving pedestrian
paths- to- transit, purchasing and providing low- floor busses, flexible
service, and reducing cost/ fares for older adults.
ensure se
time service).
- term:
The medium- term implementation refers to interventions that may require
some strategic planning as well as being slightly costly. Medium- term
implementat
stops f
visible locations, and improve maps and schedules for increased
readability.
erm:
The long- term implementation refers to interventions that requ
term strategic planning, possibly in coordination with multiple other
agencies and professionals. Long- term interventions also are likely to
very costly, and consist of infrastructural changes
TABLE 1
BARRIERS POTENTIAL DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS AND SOCIAL
MARKETING INTERVENTIONS
DEGREE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
( short / long term
interventions)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Waiting outdoors in
uncomfortable areas for long
periods of time
Design improvements:
• improve bus stops or stations by providing accessible amenities such
as bus shelters, improved lighting, and benches for resting66,67,68
increasing natural surveillance by ( re) locating bus stops so that they
are visible from surrounding establishments69,70
• provide Advanced Vehicle Locators ( AVL) and Displays allowing
consumers to look up exact time of arrival on the internet, as well as
arrival time displays at the bus stops to consumers know how long
the wait will be and potentially decrease wait times 71,72,73,74
• increase service frequency to reduce wait times, as well as
improving transfer services to create shorter waiting time for
transfers75
Social Marketing: 76
• advertise improvements made at bus stops and stations
• advertise new bus locations in accessible areas
• advertise AVL systems
Short, Medium, and Long-term
Lack of security, and actual and/ or
perceived crime
Design improvements:
• increasing natural surveillance by ( re) locating bus stops so that they
are visible from surrounding establishments ( to be performed in
partnership by transit agencies and municipalities) 77,78
• improved lighting for increased visibility around bus stations and
stops to deter crime 79
• provide call boxes 80
• installation of emergency alarms at bus stops so consumers can
activate the alarm in the event of danger 81
Social Marketing:
Medium and Long- term
16
• establish a buddy- system for riding the bus for both initial training
and acclimation to public transit, as well as permanent services for
those who prefer to ride with a “ buddy” 82
• increase police protection and surveillance 83
Inconvenient/ unsafe pedestrian
approach to stops and stations
Design improvements:
• improve pedestrians routes to ensure safe access to bus stops and
stations 84,85,86,87,88,89,90
• install and maintain benches along the pedestrian routes for resting
while approaching stops ( especially for longer routes where older
adults frequent) 91,92,93
• increase visibility of crosswalks and improve crosswalk lighting to
ensure that older adult pedestrians are visible to oncoming traffic
94,95,96,97
• provide longer walk phases and countdown signals for pedestrians to
allow sufficient time for older adults to cross the street 98,99,100,101
• provide pedestrian refuge islands on wide/ busy streets, so older
adults can rest if needed 102,103
• move bus stops that are near vacant lots to more populated areas to
increase visibility and will also provide naturally occurring
surveillance 104,105
• increase, improve, and maintain sidewalk availability, sidewalk
texture, width and curb ramps for accessible and safe pedestrian
utilization 106,107,108,109,110,111
Social Marketing:
• develop transit path maps for riders with an emphasis on ADA
accessible areas, streets, intersections and bus stops/ stations
• advertise improvements 112
Medium and Long- term
Vehicle accessibility and
limitations
Design improvements:
• provide low floor or lift equipped buses to enable easier access while
getting on/ off busses 113,114,115,116,117,118
• systemized audio and visual announcements of vehicle stops to
Short, Medium, and Long- term
17
assist passengers whom are hard of sight or hearing with their
current location and approaching vehicle stops 119,120,121
• ensured seating available for older adults and transit operator
enforcement of designated seating 122,123,124
• provide ramps for boarding or raised platforms at bus stops for
easier access to getting on/ off the bus 125,126,127
• provide passenger assistance from transit operator to older adult
while getting on/ off the vehicle, as well as assistance with packages
or luggage that they may be carrying 128,129
• provide handrails for easier access to getting on/ off the bus 130,131
provide adequate leg room for passengers for comfort and allow for
adequate space during crowded buses 132
• provide easily accessible stop request systems such as bell pushes in
various locations throughout the bus 133
• improve maps and schedules for easy readability with large print and
color coding to simplify information 134,135,136
• limit crowding on the bus around older adults by providing adequate
space and seating 137
Social Marketing:
• advertise improvements 138
• rider testimonials on promotional materials
INFORMATION and EDUCATION
Lack of information about
schedules and routes, perception
of inconvenience; unreliable
service
Design improvements:
• provide Automatic Vehicle Locator ( AVL) information systems for
on- line access to real- time arrival times and bus stop displays of
next vehicle arrival time 139,140
• improve maps and schedules for easy older adult readability with
large print and color coding to simplify information 141,142,143,144
• conduct social marketing to advertise improvements made and
available transit services 145
• ensure proper placement and availability of stations for easy older
Short, Medium, and Long- term
18
adult access 146,147
• provide a telephone information line for information regarding
scheduling, timetables, transfers, and trip planning assistance 148,149
Social Marketing:
• informational education on availability, options, and where to get
more information 150,151,152
• travel training 153,154,155
• transit training before the onset of driving cessation, so older adults
are more familiar at the time of driving cessation 156,157,158
• peer- based education ( buddy system, mentors, site leaders, and
educators) 159,160,161
• PSA on older adult radio stations, transit newsletter availability 162
• advertisements in local senior circulars 163
• ensure proper signage and readability of signs ( i. e.: bus routes and
timetables at bus stop locations and on the bus) 164
• outreach 165,166
• multi- lingual outreach efforts 167
• partnership with local AARP, DMV and physicians for education
and outreach 168,169
• partner with social service organizations 170
Lack of training for transit and bus
drivers to better understand and
meet the needs of senior riders
Design improvements:
• integrate training for transit employees into routine employee
training on the specific needs of older adults on public transportation
171,172,173,174
• ensure consumer assistance by providing helpful drivers/ driver
assistance with location information, stop identification and
requests, transfer information, getting on/ off the bus, lifting carts,
bags, and packages 175,176,177,178,179
Social Marketing:
Customer Services training of transit and bus drivers 180,181,182
• how to interact with older adults in a manner that meets the needs of
Short- term
19
the older adult consumer
• announce upcoming stops for older adults who are not familiar with
public transportation, the location, or are not otherwise able to
independently identify upcoming stops
• ensure older adults are seated before departure so as to reduce
probability of injury from movement of bus
• request seating be made available for older adults
• ensure older adult assistance ( from stop/ location information to
getting on/ off the bus) from driver when needed
• assistance with fares, seating and boarding/ dismounting
PERSONAL
Physical limitations
• physical disability
• hearing impairment
• vision impairments
Design improvements:
• provide low floor or lift equipped buses to enable easier access while
getting on/ off busses 183,184,185,186,187,188
• systemized audio and visual announcements of vehicle stops to
assist passengers whom are hard of sight or hearing with their
current location and approaching vehicle stops 189,190,191
• ensured seating available for older adults and transit operator
enforcement of designated seating 192,193,194
• provide ramps for boarding or raised platforms at bus stops for
easier access to getting on/ off the bus 195,196,197
• provide passenger assistance from transit operator to older adult
while getting on/ off the vehicle, as well as assistance with packages
or luggage that they may be carrying 198,199
• provide handrails for easier access to getting on/ off the bus 200,201
• provide adequate leg room for passengers for comfort and allow for
adequate space during crowded buses 202
• provide easily accessible stop request systems such as bell pushes in
various locations throughout the bus 203
• improve maps and schedules for easy readability with large print and
color coding to simplify information 204,205,206
• limit crowding on the bus around older adults by providing adequate
Short, Medium, and Long-term
20
space and seating 207
• accessible busses and stops to accommodate physical needs 208,209
• routinely clean windows for passenger visibility and to identify the
current location of the vehicle 210,211
Social Marketing:
• advertise improvements 212
• include rider testimonials on promotional materials to garner peer
support and trust within the older adult community
Perceived crime and lack of
security ( similar as under
environmental)
Design improvements:
• increasing natural surveillance by ( re) locating bus stops so that they
are visible from surrounding establishments ( to be performed in
partnership by transit agencies and municipalities) 213,214
• improved lighting for increased visibility around bus stations and
stops to deter crime 215
• installation of emergency alarms at bus stops so consumers can
activate the alarm in the event of danger 216
Social Marketing:
• establish a buddy- system for riding the bus 217
• police protection and surveillance 218
Medium and Long- term
Psychological barriers
• psychological/ cognitive
disorder
• attachment to car
• attachment to perceived
independence
• fear
• concern with getting
lost/ going the wrong way
Design improvements:
• services can include “ guaranteed ride home” program, which allows
consumers to obtain a free- of- charge voucher for a taxi or rental car
in case of emergency or being stranded without your anticipated ride
home, this may alleviate some anxiety about being stranded without
being able to get home 219,220
• provide flexible service beyond “ fixed- routes” in order to pick
seniors up where they are and drop them off where they need to go,
and reduce walk and wait times while simultaneously alleviating
concerns the consumer may have about not getting where they need
to go 221
Short, Medium, and Long- term
21
• overall cleanliness of the vehicle for consumer satisfaction 222
Social Marketing:
• advanced trip planning assistance ( via telephone, internet, in- person,
training, etc.) 223
• provide or promote a bus- buddy system 224
• promote individual experimentation with transportation alternatives
225
• promote a sense of control for the rider 226
• promote safety of transit service 227
• personal assistance with the transition from car to public
transportation 228,229
• welcome new public transportation users 230
• partner with social services organizations 231
POLICY and PLANNING
Flexibility of transportation
services
Design improvements:
• increased frequency of bus vehicles to reduce wait times and
increase availability 232,233
• longer service hours to accommodate the needs of older adults and
their preferred travel times 234,235
• increased number of routes routed specifically where other routes do
not go, and locations which are frequented by older adults 236,237
• increased stops to reduce walking for older adults and strategic
placement of bus stops near facilities and locals that older adults
frequent 238,239
• provide sufficient amounts of Paratransit for older adults who utilize
this services and promote the services for those who do not already
utilize it 240,241
• provide additional ( to Paratransit) door- to- door services for easy
accessibility and travel for older adults 242,243
• provide Taxi services for older adults 244,245,246
• provide on call/ same day scheduling of transportation for the
Short and Medium- term
22
spontaneous needs of older adults 247,248
Social Marketing:
• advertise improvements 249
Cost of transportation services
Design improvements:
• reduced rates for older adults to accommodate for lower or fixed
income individuals 250
• outside agencies ( local organizations and non- profits) can provide
transportation financial support by purchasing tickets or voucher for
older adult riders 251
• subsidies or co- payments from governments, businesses and
individuals to provide lower- cost public transit for older adults 252
• secure funds ( public and private) for financially stable public transit
through policy and outreach to funding sources such as foundations
253
Social Marketing:
• advertise improvements 254
Medium and Long- term
Partnerships with local agencies
and organizations
Design improvements:
• conduct social marketing of services to conduct outreach and
increase ridership 255
• provide customer travel training to familiarize customers with transit
services 256,257,258
• provide training for transit drivers to ensure the needs of older adults
are being met while riding public transit 259,260,261
• provide travel assistance by transit operators for older adults who
request such service 262,263
• availability of information and referrals must be accessible for older
adults ( such as partnerships with local organizations that currently
serve older adults) 264,265
• travel ambassadors and mentors to acclimate older adults to riding
public transportation, as well as provide them with the necessary
Short- term
23
information and confidence needed to ride transit 266,267
• provide mobility management services to assist older adults in their
planning for their transportation needs as well as provide referrals to
other transit agencies and agencies whom can assist with
transportation needs of the individual 268,269
• incorporate consumer feedback, because it is critical to service to
understand the needs and requirements the older adult population
poses to transit agencies 270
• coordination of services with other transit agencies is critical to
ensure that there are minimal gaps in transit for older adults to
reduce wait- times, trip time, and overall inconvenience of public
transit 271,272
• integrate volunteer networks and services into the coordination of
services, volunteer services are likely to provide door- to- door transit
for older adults in volunteer private automobiles 273,274,275,276,277
Social Marketing:
• advertise improvements 278
TECHNOLOGY
Utilization of advanced
technology
Design improvements:
• provide low floor or lift equipped buses to enable easier access while
getting on/ off busses 279,280,281
• systemized audio and visual announcements of vehicle stops to
assist passengers whom are hard of sight or hearing with their
current location and approaching vehicle stops 282,283,284,285
• AVL technology 286,287,288,289
• longer walk phases for pedestrians to ensure that older adults have
sufficient time to cross the street ( especially on wide and busy
streets) 290,291
• implement traffic- calming measures to reduce speed of cars to make
it safer for older adults to walk about and cross the street 292
• improve intersections for multi- use transportation modes primarily
Medium and Long- term
24
walking for older adult pedestrians, pedestrian/ car visibility, and
sufficient walk phase timing for older adults mobility needs 293
Social Marketing:
• advertise improvements 294
2. Stakeholders Advisory Group
In order to ensure that the research and final project reflected statewide stakeholder
interest, an Advisory Committee was formed to provide guidance throughout the study.
The stakeholders included:
• Peter Steinert, Judith McBrine, Jila Priebe & Brad Mizuno, Caltrans
• Nathan Landau, Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District
• Sandra Fitzpatrick & Carol Sewell, California Commission on Aging
• Patti Yanochko, Center for Injury Prevention Policy and Practice
• Charles Rivasplata, City & County of San Francisco Planning Department
• Celinda Dahlgren, Contra Costa County Connection
• Gretchen Hansen, Rossmoor Retirement Center
• David Wilder, Senior Affairs Commission San Bernardino County
• Margaret Heath, South Coast Area Transit
• Kimberly B. Martinson, Transportation Management Association of San
Francisco
The Advisory Committee met at critical development stages throughout the study for a
total of six meetings. These meetings assured that stakeholders and Caltrans had the
opportunity to provide feedback and input to ensure that the results and project scope
were optimal for older Californians. Specific examples of valuable feedback included
guidance on the literature review, the formation and development of survey questions,
data analysis, and the final handbook.
3. Survey ( English, Spanish and Chinese) of Older Adults’ Perspectives of
Barriers to Transit
In order to gain a better sense of senior citizens’ daily transit habits and their attitudes
about public transportation, researchers at the UC Traffic Safety Center conducted a
survey of seniors in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area ( i. e. East Bay). The East Bay
provided an ideal sample population pool of urban seniors living in a densely populated,
urban California environment with relatively efficient public transportation. ( See
Appendix 3- 5 for copies of the surveys)
Researchers designed a paper- based qualitative and quantitative survey that relied on
multiple- choice and fill- in- the- blank responses. It was distributed at ten senior citizen
activity centers in the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville over a seven- month
period between September 2006 and March 2007. The 10 centers that agreed to the
surveys were chosen from 16 identified as potential survey sites. The researcher and
senior center manager then mutually agreed upon an appropriate day and time that
corresponded to high- volume times when the most number of seniors visited each center.
On the day of the survey, a small table was set up in the activity center and researchers
approached all passing individuals who physically appeared to be 55 and over to
25
determine if the individual would voluntarily participate in the survey. As an
encouragement, the researcher informed individuals that participants who completed a
survey would be enrolled in a raffle for a gift certificate. Seniors were not obligated to
take the survey and were in no way pressured into doing so. If an individual agreed to
participate, he or she was provided the necessary materials: a paper survey and pencil.
Seniors completed the surveys on their own accord with no time restrictions. If a senior
required assistance due to language, vision, or physical difficulties, the researcher present
assisted by reading the questions and completing the appropriate answer choice based on
the respondent’s response.
A total of 259 surveys were collected and analyzed. Only affirmative, legible responses
were accepted and coded. Nominal and ordinal responses were assigned a number and
coded accordingly. Ratio responses were coded along value of response. Non- responses
to any particular question were coded a “ non- response” (“- 99” suffix) and excluded from
this analysis. Statistical work was done using MS Excel.
The respondents’ demographics and responses revealed no statistically significant
relationship between income and car use. Both lower and higher income individuals use
the private automobile as their primary mode of transportation. The same was true when
analyzing gender and car use; both men and women are inclined to drive to get to their
destination.
Based on the survey results and analysis, several key findings emerged:
• Of the urban seniors who travel, 79 percent leave their house to go somewhere 5
days or more per week.
• Among the total number of seniors, 58.4 percent replied that they drive to
destinations on their own.
• Most mobile seniors use the private automobile for their travel, even for short
distances.
• In the Bay Area, 78.7 percent of seniors believe that they have “ convenient access
to buses near [ their] homes.”
• Information about buses remains a major barrier. When asked if they knew about
bus routes in their area, 69.2 percent of seniors replied that they knew “ little” or
“ nothing.” In fact, when asked about the bus fares and schedules, more than 60
percent of participants stated that they knew “ nothing” or “ a little.” This may
indicate a low level of knowledge with the basic information necessary for
successful public transit use.
• Qualitative responses suggested that mobile seniors will use public transportation
if basic conditions are met, and that transit must be convenient.
• Chief among the public transportation complaints are a lack of convenience and
safety. A majority of respondents ( 53.6 percent) feel it is “ never” or only
“ sometimes” safe while onboard, and 53.2 percent feel it is “ never” or only
“ sometimes” safe while waiting at stops.
26
Survey results suggest that personal fears and lack of information pose a significant
barrier for older adults when accessing public transportation. We do not assume that the
information available is bad for older adults. However, not all older adults have easy
access to transit information. Many of the participants in the travel training programs
benefited from obtaining maps and schedules, learning how to read the maps and
schedules, as well as learning how to independently access additional transit information.
These findings are consistent with the literature review conducted for this project.
Barriers – environmental and personal – continue to exist for seniors. However, such
barriers can be addressed through a variety of actions including education, policy, and
design.
4. 2008 TRB Paper and Poster of Survey of Older Adults’ Perspectives of
Barriers to Transit
After completing the first phase of the urban study site, the TSC submitted a paper to the
2008 Transportation Research Board ( TRB). ( See Appendix 6) The research was
accepted for a poster presentation in the Transit Quality of Service Measurement section,
and researchers were able to share the above findings at a national level. ( See Appendix
7) During the poster presentation there was significant interest expressed in this work, as
transportation professionals sought out new and innovative ways to address this
population’s transit needs and potential ridership.
The TRB paper addresses ( i) barriers for older adults at transit stops and stations, and ( ii)
older adult public transit habits and attitudes. This discussion presents the initial findings
of a survey on urban older adults’ transit habits and attitudes. The preliminary findings
suggest that older adults do not have the information they require in order to access
public transit, are primarily concerned with real or perceived crime while utilizing public
transit, and would be likely to ride public transit if the right conditions were met. Further
research and actions are suggested to complete the understanding of older adult transit
habits and needs.
The study was designed to determine seniors’ perspectives of, and behavior around, bus
stops and transit stations in two locations ( urban and suburban) and to test the impact of
various interventions to increase transit ridership among seniors. It was sponsored by the
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) and was conducted by U. C.
Berkeley’s California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways ( California PATH)
and Traffic Safety Center. The study gathered baseline measurements of ridership habits
and perception of public transit at two study sites – ( i) Rossmoor, a planned suburban
community of older adults, and ( ii) senior centers in Alameda County, an urban area
serviced with fixed route transit. At Rossmoor, we evaluated the impact of transit training
for residents of the community. At the senior centers we surveyed older adults on their
transit habits and attitudes, and we are presently in the process of developing an
evaluation measure on the impact of a social marketing/ outreach campaign. Any changes
in ridership and perception will be measured through post- intervention observations,
focus groups and surveys. Findings from an analysis of data from 259 completed survey
27
questionnaires are presented in the TRB paper.
Among the findings from the survey:
• Most Bay Area urban seniors travel frequently and rely heavily on their own
private automobiles. Close to 79% of those surveyed leave their house to go
somewhere 5 days or more per week. The survey asked about daily events such as
grocery shopping, going to restaurants, and visiting family. For each mentioned
activity over 50% of seniors responded that their primary mode of transportation
was the private automobile. In addition, a majority of seniors ( 58.4%) replied that
they drive themselves to places.
• A vast majority ( 79%) of seniors in the Bay Area believe that they have
“ convenient access to buses near [ their] homes.” Yet it appears that information
about buses remains a major barrier. When asked if they knew about bus routes in
their area, most seniors ( 69%) replied that they knew “ little” or “ nothing”.
• Bus reliability and operations received high positive feedback. Bus reliability
perception remains high ( 67.4% of seniors believe buses are “ usually” or
“ always” reliable) as well as bus frequency ( 58.6% believe “ usually” or “ always”
frequent) and bus rapidity ( 54.2% believe “ usually” or “ always” rapid). Yet issues
of safety, peer acceptance, and information remain low. Seniors’ perception of
safety remains low, no matter on the bus ( 53.6% feel it is “ never” or only
“ sometimes” safe onboard) or waiting at stops ( 53.2% feel it is “ never” or only
“ sometimes” safe at stops).
• When asked about how considerate buses are of “ senior citizen” concerns, 54.2%
feel it is minimal. Information poses a similar barrier. Seniors find that schedules
and route maps to be harder to understand than they would like ( 54.8% find maps
and schedules “ never” or only “ sometimes” easy).
• A surprising finding is the perception of transit fare costs by senior citizens. The
percentage of respondents who feel fares are “ never” inexpensive ( 22.3%)
received the highest negative perception for questions related to their perception
of public transit.
• Open- ended responses by seniors speak to the prevalence of the dependence on
private automobile that may be the result of already irrational biases against
public transportation. The results indicate the need to actively clear up any
misconceptions or provide new information about the convenience of public
transit.
• Survey responses found no statistically significant difference between income and
car use. Both lower and higher income individuals use the private automobile as
their primary mode of transportation. Again, the results are not surprising when
analyzing gender and car use. Similar proportions of men and women used public
transit.
Results from this survey on urban older adults reveal similar patterns to past studies.
First, barriers – environmental, educational, personal, planning and policy, and
technological – continue to exist for seniors. Second, such barriers need to be identified,
28
addressed, and dismantled in order to increase the number of seniors who use public
transit. All barrier categories need to be addressed.
Travel Training
Transit travel training is a mechanism for teaching people how to use public transit. The
research presented here focuses on travel training programs specifically geared towards
older adults who do not have the necessary familiarity or knowledge to successfully
access public transit.
There are a variety of ways to organize a travel training program. Programs can be
designed as an individual or group training. They can be administered by any number of
organizations and agencies such as transit agencies, residential facilities, and older adult
advocacy organizations. The style and administering of the program will vary depending
on the target population and resources available.
Both trainings presented in this report used the group model for travel training. Training
at the Rossmoor site was administered by Rossmoor staff, and at the urban site training
was administered by a local non- profit organization working to keep older adults healthy
and mobile. Both sites conducted a pre- and post- training survey on transit habits and
knowledge to evaluate the impact of the travel training programs. The research presented
in this report reflects the findings from these travel training evaluations.
5. Rossmoor Transit Travel Training Evaluation
A transit travel training evaluation assessed the effectiveness of an in- person, transit
training program offered at a planned retirement community, the Rossmoor Senior Adult
Community in Walnut Creek, California. The ongoing transit training classes teach
residents about local transit options and information resources, and how to plan future
trips. They also include a bus tour of two major bus routes available to the community.
The classes draw upon social cognitive theory and its emphasis on self- efficacy to
encourage older travelers to learn about public transit use and to promote desired
behaviors in seniors. ( See Appendix 8)
A primary motivation of this study was to examine stated and actual behavioral changes
following the Rossmoor transit training. The before- and- after and longitudinal surveys
provided researchers with two methods for examining training impacts: immediate
( intended response) and longitudinal ( change over time).
The before- and- after survey was conducted in conjunction with six training sessions, held
June through August 2007. Two sessions were conducted on a single training day of each
month. Each questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Forty- two
residents participated in this study. Prior to the training, respondents completed a
“ before” questionnaire to assess their: 1) experience with different transportation modes,
2) current travel behavior, 3) public transit attitudes, 4) barriers to transit use, and 5)
training program expectations. Next, they participated in the two- hour training, led by the
29
transportation coordinator at Rossmoor. Immediately following the session, researchers
administered the “ after” questionnaire, which focused on potential changes in transit
attitudes, knowledge gained through the training, and intended changes in travel
behavior. The “ after” survey also provided participants with the opportunity to evaluate
the training program and to suggest improvements.
Key findings from both study components address: 1) intended and actual travel
behavioral changes, 2) public transit barriers, 3) transit information resources, and 4)
transit training feedback. Findings from the before- and after- surveys:
• Immediately following the training, 85.7 percent of participants stated that they
intended to take transit more frequently in the future.
• There was a significant positive shift in participant comfort levels for the
Rossmoor and County Connection buses.
• Participant confidence levels with finding transit information ( e. g., schedules,
routes) increased after training.
Key findings from the longitudinal survey include:
• Although the private auto remained the primary mode for 67.2 percent of
respondents after the training, there was a significant decrease of 19.7 percent in
private auto use.
• There was a significant increase of 14.8 percent in public transit use after training.
• Use of transit information resources increased significantly after training.
The Rossmoor transit travel training program resulted in an increase not only in expected
use of transit, but in actual use as well. Researchers have identified several ways in which
to expand this successful program and further enhance access to transit services, such as:
• developing a follow- up class one month after the initial training, as older adults
may need repeated sessions to strengthen their memories and understanding;
• adding training on evening routes and other public transit options ( i. e., BART and
Muni); and
• providing uniformity across all sessions to ensure participants are provided with
the same information and handouts.
Other suggested improvements include:
• media campaigns encouraging seniors to plan ahead;
• area- or provider- specific websites that supply riders with reliable, up- to- date
information about available transportation options; and
• streamlining connectivity between transit providers to improve transfers and
accessibility for older adults; and
• offering more direct and evening routes.
30
Opportunities for further research include re- surveying the before- and- after participants
to assess behavioral change and modal shifts over time. Additional research could include
post- training focus groups where class feedback, travel behaviors, mode choice, and
public transit barriers are probed in greater detail. In addition, researchers could conduct
similar studies in both urban and rural areas, which may offer greater understanding into
the transportation needs of older adults. Finally, research could be expanded to examine
more diverse populations ( e. g., different ethnic groups and income levels).
6. Urban East Bay Travel Training Evaluation
Based on findings from the initial survey in the East Bay Area, researchers partnered with
a local nonprofit organization, United Seniors of Oakland and Alameda County
( USOAC), to conduct a transit travel training. This program addressed educational
barriers to accessing public transit that were present for older adults. ( See Appendix 9
and 10 for pre and post evaluation questionnaires)
The workshop- based training was held over three days. The first workshop introduced the
types of local public transit available in the area and assessed the groups’ understanding
of public transit. The second workshop introduced curriculum training materials,
including the fares, schedules, tickets, route information, etc. on the two primary public
transit systems in Alameda County: Alameda and Contra Costa County Transit ( AC
Transit) bus system and the Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) subway system. The third
workshop reviewed the materials with participants, answered participants’ specific
questions, and concluded the workshop- based training. For the field- based training
component, participants and training instructors practiced riding both AC Transit and
BART.
The following are characteristics of travel training participants:
• The majority ( 74 percent) of participants in the travel training program were
women. Seventy- eight percent were 65- 84 years of age. Fifty- one percent of the
participants were educated with at least a Bachelor’s Degree. The three prominent
ethnic/ racial categories were White/ Caucasian ( 41 percent), Black/ African
American ( 31 percent), and Asian ( 14 percent). Eighty- six percent of the
participants stated that their income was lower than $ 30,000. Sixty- eight percent
stated that they lived alone. Seventy- six percent of participants stated that their
self- reported health status was good, or very good, and 44 percent reported that
they had health concerns or anxieties that affected their decision and/ or ability to
ride public transit.
• The most frequently stated reason for participation was planning for the future ( 56
percent). Other reasons included: feeling that they had no choice ( 42 percent),
could not afford a car ( 28 percent), environmental concerns ( 26 percent), a
medical condition that impacted the ability to drive ( 20 percent), or being
encouraged to attend by a family member or friend ( 14 percent). When asked
about how they learned of the travel training program, 84 percent of participants
said they had heard about the travel training program through the senior activity
31
centers.
• While over half ( 58 percent) of the participants were current drivers, only 37
percent used a personal automobile as their primary mode of transportation.
Forty- five percent used public transportation as their primary mode of
transportation, and 42 percent used transit one or more times a week. Eighty- four
percent stated that they did use public transit ( although, not as their primary mode
and it should be noted that the East Bay Area has a variety of transit options, and
many people use the Bay Area Rapid Transit to go to San Francisco on occasion).
• The majority of the participants who used a personal automobile as their primary
mode of transportation were female ( 67 percent). Thirty- three percent of all
drivers were aged 55- 64 and 50 percent were aged 65- 74. Almost half ( 46
percent) of drivers lived alone.
• Planning for the future was the most common reason for enrollment in the travel
training program ( 56 percent). Participants citing this as the reason for enrollment
were more likely to be current drivers than to use public transit as their primary
mode of transportation. Regression analysis revealed a significant association
between currently driving and planning for the future.
Evaluation of survey results revealed a significant increase in participant knowledge after
completion of the travel training course. In addition to increased knowledge, participants
reported that they planned to increase use of all independent modes of accessing transit
information, including paper schedules, the internet, brochures and local 511 services
available both by telephone and internet.
Participants were also asked if they had any concerns regarding accessing or using public
transit. The five most common concerns included: not having enough information
regarding public transit routes ( 61 percent), lack of information regarding schedules ( 51
percent), concerns with public transit taking too long ( 45 percent), a fear of falling on the
bus ( 40 percent), and concerns with crime at the bus or transit stop ( 39 percent).
Contrary to the literature, this study found that many of the older adults in the East Bay
area use public transit as their primary mode of transportation, and almost all of the
participants use public transit sometimes. Despite having prior experience with public
transit, participants enrolled in the course, suggesting that older adults want additional
experience with transit. While many participants came with preexisting knowledge and
familiarity, it should not be assumed that the general population of older adults has prior
knowledge and experience with transit. Individual travel training programs must assess
the transit knowledge of their participants prior to the training, as well as be prepared to
instruct individuals with varying levels of transit familiarity.
The study concludes that transit travel training is an extremely effective way to increase
education levels and familiarity regarding accessing public transit. After participation in
the training, older adults possess the knowledge that they need as well as confidence in
finding transit information on their own through a variety of sources. Future travel
training courses can benefit from this analysis and target current drivers who may have an
awareness that they will not always be able to or want to drive. Travel training programs
32
should also explore ways of recruiting older adult populations that are not already
accessing social and recreational services; isolated and transportation- dependent older
adults may be the audience who could most benefit from this type of program.
7. 2009 TRB Paper on Urban East Bay Travel Training Evaluation
After the 2008 poster presentation at TRB, researchers submitted and were accepted for
an oral presentation of the travel training evaluation ( described above). This presentation
was given during the Public Transportation Marketing and Customer Amenities session,
sponsored by the Public Transportation Marketing and Fare Policy Committee. The
presentation was received well, and thoughtful questions were asked regarding additional
barriers older adults may have when using public transit, as well as how to reach older
adults who have fewer social networks and may be in the most need of transit knowledge.
( See Appendix 11 and 12 for paper and presentation)
The presentation covered the background and purpose of the research, an overview of the
study, a summary of the travel training surveys, results from the surveys, lessons learned,
and conclusions based on the research.
The set of slides used to create the power point presentation allows for the further
dissemination of the research findings, and a useful means for distilling the information
to a broad audience.
8. Handbook for Transit Agencies and Senior Services Agencies
The intent of this handbook is to provide both transit agencies and older adult
professionals’ guidance and encouragement on how to begin offering a travel training
program in a community. ( See Appendix 13)
Travel training offers an introduction and orientation to fixed route public transportation,
including how to read schedules and pay fares, in addition to hands- on orientation. The
social context of travel training provides a peer learning environment that reinforces
training objectives. The goals of travel training are to:
• Increase participant knowledge of fixed- route public transit systems
• Provide experiential learning that familiarizes participants with riding transit
• Increase confidence in riding public transit alone or with others
• Increase independent mobility so that participants can maintain full, active, and
satisfying lives
Without a formal introduction to public transit, some may find it intimidating. Learning
how to ride public transit through a travel training program can be a safe and effective
way for people to become familiar with their local transit systems. The handbook
provides a case study of the training that was conducted in Alameda County ( described in
detail above), and offers a number of suggestions for agencies and professionals to
consider when designing a travel training, including:
33
• The use of resources that have already been developed ( a list of such resources is
contained in the handbook), while customizing them to meet regional needs.
• Adapt existing training curricula to meet the specific needs of a region.
• Assess the availability of public transportation in the region to help guide
curriculum development. When assessing local public transportation consider the
following:
o Is public transit widely used in your region?
o What are the major public transit agencies in your community?
o Does public transit have a wide catchment area in your community?
o What are the various types of public transit available in your community?
o What is the history of public transit in your region?
o Are there seasonal/ weather challenges that affect public transit use?
• Determine the needs of the older adult population in the community by
conducting a small survey of older adults, and assessing the level of knowledge
and any fears or apprehensions this population may have about riding public
transportation.
• Select a training model based on the need of the older adults in the community.
There are three popular models of travel training: one- on- one, peer- to- peer and
group training.
The handbook provides a description of the other elements necessary to a successful
travel training program:
• Choosing the optimal style for disseminating information ( activity- based, lecture-based,
a combination of activity and lecture- based methods, and printed take-away
materials).
• Basic elements to include in the travel training.
• Addressing safety issues ( physical issues and issues of crime).
• Finding stakeholders and creating partnerships.
• Ways to approach potential stakeholders.
• Finding funding on the local, state and national level.
• Getting everything in place to implement the curriculum.
The handbook will be disseminated to transit agencies and older adult organizations and
it is our hope that it will be a useful tool in the development of future travel training
programs throughout California.
34
IV. DISCUSSION
This research has provided an opportunity to further understand the travel habits, needs,
and concerns of older adults, and to view two parallel transit training evaluations. These
two travel trainings were similar in their end goal – to increase older adult’s knowledge
and familiarity with using transit to increase their transportation options. However, the
location, demographics and structure of the trainings were quite different.
The Rossmoor community site is located in a fairly wealthy suburban area of Contra
Costa County and caters to residents living in this community. Participants in this
community were predominantly Caucasian and female, with a wide range in annual
income. The urban Alameda County sites, on the other hand, were located throughout
Alameda County in a range of locations with a variety of socio- demographic
characteristics. Again, the population was largely female and fairly well educated, but
there was also a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds and a greater representation of
low- to moderate- income levels. The Rossmoor site was a one- day training including
classroom and experiential training, in contrast to the Urban Alameda County training,
which included four days of classroom- based training plus field training.
While the trainings were different in participant demographics and location, they shared
the same beginning goal ( to increase transportation options for older adults), and the end
result ( to educate and increase confidence in riding transit) was successfully met for both.
Both sites had positive results, showing that transit travel training for older adults can in
fact increase transit knowledge and confidence. Both of the research sites, taken on their
own and in combination with one another, add valuable research to the field of older
adult mobility – adding more to the knowledge base than the sum of the study’s parts.
This research has shown that transit travel training programs are an effective strategy in
improving mobility options for older adults.
The importance of older adult transportation options is great, and it is beneficial to both
the older adult population and the entire population to research strategies that ensure that
the concerns of this vulnerable population are being addressed. This work cannot be done
without the voice and participation of older adults themselves; both sites have been
fortunate to have hands- on experience working with this population. This research
confirms the significance of one important piece of the effort to improve mobility for all
older adults.
Opportunities for Further Research
Travel training has been explored in this study and found to be an effective and
immediate way to increase participant knowledge, confidence and ultimately, the use of
public transit. However, the communities studied here can be categorized as urban and
suburban areas with relatively good access to public transportation, both local and
regional. Communities that have sparse to no transit systems pose a very different reality
for older adults who are no longer driving. Rural communities pose a particular challenge
35
to public transportation for older adults. Travel training programs in these communities
would be structured and organized with the specific needs of the rural community and
would likely be very different than the trainings presented in this research. Research to
implement and evaluate a rural- transit travel training would provide insight into the
feasibility of this type of program for rural older adults who are at increased risk from
isolation due to lack of transportation.
Recommendations
Research recommendations:
• Continue to conduct research on education- based travel training programs.
o Specifically conduct a longitudinal cohort study to track older adults’
transportation habits after participation in a travel training course.
• Conduct research and intervention strategies to address the concern of crime
and safety while on transit. Alameda County is an urban area, where many of
the older adult participants expressed concern with crime and safety while on
transit. Strategies that both mitigate real and perceived crime may have a positive
impact in older adults’ use of public transit.
• Evaluate usefulness of information technology tools for older adults.
Examples of transit information technology include real time transit location
technology, Internet- based transit information, and phone system transit
information. While use of technology might be a barrier itself, there may be ways
in which information technology can be more “ user friendly;” e. g., by installing
real time bus location information signs in senior centers.
• Research development of transit in rural areas: Travel training requires
availability of transit services in a region. Over 80% of California’s landmass is
considered rural295, and transit can fill mobility needs in rural areas where people
need to travel distance to health, social and recreational activities.
Marketing recommendations:
• Implement travel training programs: This report has illustrated that travel
training is an effective way for older adults to gain knowledge of and familiarity
with using transit. Travel trainings can be implemented by or take place at places
such as:
o Senior Activity Centers,
o Senior residential homes,
o Older adult organizations,
o California Department of Motor Vehicles,
o and local and regional transportation agencies.
• Partner with local transit agencies to market to the older adult population:
Cooperative projects can include:
o identifying areas where older adults currently reside and frequent,
o identifying existing routes and transit lines that are accessible from the
existing older adult population,
o coordinating connectivity between transit providers to improve transfers
and accessibility for older adults along these routes,
36
• Distribute the travel training handbook to local level transit agencies, older
adult organizations, and other stakeholders. As part of the final project for this
report, a travel training handbook was designed with the intention that it can be
used as a tool to begin implementing more travel training type programs in
California.
37
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Traffic Safety Center would like to thank the California Department of
Transportation ( Caltrans), especially Brad Mizuno, Peter Steinert, Judith McBrine, Dan
McKell, and Jila Priebe for their interest in older adult mobility and for funding this
research project. We would also like to thank our partners Susan Shaheen and Denise
Allen at UC Berkeley. Rebecca May provided final editing for the report.
We would like to thank participating senior centers: Fruitvale Senior Center ( Oakland),
Downtown Oakland Multipurpose Senior Center, East Oakland Multipurpose Senior
Center, North Oakland Multipurpose Senior Center, West Oakland Multipurpose Senior
Center, Hong Lok Senior Center ( Oakland), North Berkeley Senior Center, Emeryville
Senior Center, West Berkeley Senior Center, and Ascension Senior Center ( Oakland), the
office of United Seniors of Oakland and Alameda County, and Rossmoor Retirement
Communtiy. Additional thanks to Alameda County Transit Improvement Authority, AC
Transit, and the California Commission on Aging. We would especially like to express
our appreciation to all of the older adults who willingly participated in our research.
38
39
References
1 Sen. L., & Suen, S. ( 2004) Mobility Options for Seniors. Transportation Research Board.
http:// onlinepubs. trb. org/ onlinepubs/ conf/ reports/ cp_ 27. pdf ( accessed June 12, 2007).
2 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002). Report 82, Improving Public Transit Options for Older
Persons. http:// gulliver. trb. org/ publications/ tcrp/ tcrp_ 82exesum. pdf.
3 Liggett, R., Loukaitou- Sideris, A.,& Iseki, H. ( 2001). Bus Stop- Environmental Connection: Do
Characteristics of the Built Environment Correlate with Bus Stop Crime? Transportation Research Record
1760, Paper No 01- 0441, pp 20- 27.
4 UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center, ( 2005). Preliminary Report, Pedestrian and Bike Safety along a
SMART Corridor.
5 Koffman, D., Salstrom, R. ( 2001). Report 01- 04: How Best to Serve Seniors on Existing Transit Services.
Mineta Transportation Institute ( MTI), San Jose State University, San Jose, C. A.
6 California Health and Human Services Agency. California’s Strategic Plan for an Aging Population:
Getting California Ready for the Baby Boomers, October 2003.
7 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
8 2001 National Household Travel Survey, tabulation from data available at
http:// nhts. ornl. gov/ 2001/ index. shtml.
9 CA Commission on Aging. Planning for an Aging CA Invitational Forum, April 1- 2, 2003.
10 Ibid.
11 Suen, S., and L. Sen. ( 2004).
12 Ibid.
13 Transit Cooperative Research Program Report ( 2002).
14 Liggett, R., Loukaitou- Sideris, A.,& Iseki, H. ( 2001).
15 UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center, ( 2005).
16 Koffman, D., Salstrom, R. ( 2001).
17 Bailey, Linda. ( 2004). Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options. Surface Transportation Policy
Project. Washington, D. C.
18 Ragland, et al. ( 2004). Reasons given by older people for limitation or avoidance of driving.
Gerontologist, 44( 2): 237- 44.
19 Rosenbloom, S. Mobility of the Elderly: Good News and Bad News, www. trb. org.
20 Ragland, et al. ( 2005). Driving cessation and increased depressive symptoms. Consequences of Driving
Cessation. ournals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 60: 399- 403.
21 TCRP Report 82, ( 2002).
22 Burkhardt, J. E., A. M. Berger, M. Creedon, and A. T. McGavock. ( 1998). Mobility and Independence:
Changes and Challenges for Older Drivers. Ecosmetrics, Inc., Bethesda, MD.
23 California Department of Aging. Available at: http:// www. aging. ca. gov/ stats/ progression_ aging. asp.
24 Cobb, Roger W. & Coughlin, Joseph F. ( 2000). “ How Will We Get There From Here? Placing
Transportation on the Aging Policy Agenda,” Journal of Aging & Social Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2- 3, pp. 201
210.
25 Rosenbloom, Sandra. ( 2003). The Mobility Needs of Older Americans. Implications for Transportation
Reauthorization. The Brookings Institution on Transportation Reform. Washington, D. C.
26 Ritter, Anita Stowell., Evans. E., & Straight, A. ( 2002). Understanding Senior Transportation: Report
and Analysis of a Survey of Consumers Age 50+. AARP Public Policy Institute. Washington D. C.
27 Ibid.
28 Koffman, D., Salstrom, R. ( 2001).
29 Rosenbloom, Sandra. ( 2003).
30 Rittner, Barbara, & Kirk, Alan B. ( 1995). “ Health Care and Public Transportation Use by Poor and Frail
Elderly People,” Social Work, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 365- 373.
31 Rosenbloom, Sandra. ( 2003).
32 Ibid.
33 Poister, Theodore H. ( 1982). “ Federal Transportation Policy for the Elderly and the Handicapped:
Responsive to Real Needs?,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 6- 14.
40
34 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005). Community Mobility Options: the Older Person’s Interest. AARP Public Policy
Institute. Washington, D. C.
35 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004). Transportation- Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts
to Enhance Senior Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and Information. Report to the
Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U. S. Senate. U. S. Government Accountability Office.
Washington, D. C.
36 Alsnih, Rahaf & Hensher, David A. ( 2003). “ The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in an
aging population,” Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 37. pp. 903- 916.
37 Cvitkovich, Yuri & Wister, Andrew. ( 2001). “ The Importance of Transportation and Prioritization of
Environmental Needs to Sustain Well- being Among Older Adults,” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33,
No. 6, pp. 809- 829.
38 Alsnih, Rahaf & Hensher, David A. ( 2003).
39 Cvitkovich, Yuri & Wister, Andrew. ( 2001).
40 McNulty, Robert ( 2005). “ Livable Communities and Aging in Place: Developing an elder- friendly
community”. In Transportation Options for a Maturing Population: Strategies and Tools for Communities
and Decision Makers. National Cooperative Highway Research Board, Project No. 20- 24( 24) B( 01).
41 Bailey, Linda. ( 2004).
42 Cutler, Stephen J. ( 1975). “ Transportation and Changes in Life Satisfaction,” The Gerontologist, Vol. 15,
No. 2, pp. 155- 159.
43 Rittner, Barbara, & Kirk, Alan B.. ( 1995). “ Health Care and Public Transportation Use by Poor and Frail
Elderly People,” Social Work, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 365- 373.
44 Harrison, A. and D. Ragland. ( 2003). Consequences of Driving Reduction or Cessation for Older Adults.
In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1843, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D. C., pp. 96- 104.
45 Ibid.
46 Cutler, Stephen J. ( 1975).
47 Yassuda, M. S., Wilson, J. J., and Mering, O. von. ( 1997). “ Driving Cessation: The Perspective of Senior
Drivers,” Educational Gerontology, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 525- 538.
48 Rogers, Wendy A., Fisk, Arthur D., Meyer, B., & Walker, N. ( 1998). “ Functional Limitations to Daily
Tasks in the Aged: A Focus Group Analysis,” Human Factors, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 111- 126.
49 Taylor, Brian D., & Tripodes, Sophia. ( 2001). “ The effects of driving cessation on the elderly with
dementia and their caregivers,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 33, pp. 519- 528.
50 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985). “ Fear of Crime and Other Barriers to Use of Public Transportation by the
Elderly,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 277- 288.
51 Rosenbloom, Sandra ( 1988). “ The Mobility Needs of the Elderly”. In Transportation in an Aging
Society: Improving Mobility and Safety for Older Persons, Volume 2 ( Special Report 218). Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D. C., pp. 21- 71.
52 Lavery, I., Davey, S., Ewart, K., & Woodside, A. ( 1996). “ The Vital Roll of Street Design and
Management in Reducing Barriers to Older Peoples’ Mobility,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol 35,
pp. 181- 192.
53 Sen. L., & Suen, S. ( 2004).
54 Liggett, R., Loukaitou- Sideris, A., & Iseki, H. ( 2001). Bus Stop- Environmental Connection: Do
Characteristics of the Built Environment Correlate with Bus Stop Crime? Transportation Research Record
1760, Paper No 01- 0441, pp. 20- 27.
55 Ritter, Anita Stowell., Evans. E., & Straight, A. ( 2002).
56 Bailey, Linda. ( 2004).
57 Koffman, D., Salstrom, R. ( 2001).
58 Rittner, Barbara, & Kirk, Alan B. ( 1995).
59 Stunkel, Edith ( 1997). “ Rural public transportation and the mobility of older persons: paradigms for
policy,” Journal of Aging & Social Policy, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 67- 86.
60 Ritter, Anita Stowell., Evans. E., & Straight, A. ( 2002).
61 Freund, K. ( 2004) Surviving Without Driving Policy Options for Safe and Sustainable Senior Mobility.
Conference Proceedings 27, Transportation in an Aging Society: A Decade of Experience, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D. C., pp. 114- 121.
62 Sen. L., & Suen, S. ( 2004).
41
63 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
64 Poister, Theodore H. ( 1982).
65 Ritter, Anita Stowell., Evans. E., & Straight, A. ( 2002).
66 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006). Toolkit For the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety.
Prepared by Nelson/ Nygaard Consulting Associates. San Francisco, Ca.
http:// projectaction. easterseals. com. Accessed August 9th, 2007.
67 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
68 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
69 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
70 Liggett, R., Loukaitou- Sideris, A., & Iseki, H. ( 2001).
71 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004). Better Public Transportation Services for Seniors. Prepared for the
Symposium on Transportation Mobility for the Elderly, Washington D. C.
72 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
73 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
74 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
75 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
76 Ibid.
77 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
78 Liggett, R., Loukaitou- Sideris, A.,& Iseki, H. ( 2001).
79 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
80 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
81 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
82 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
83 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
84 Bailey, Linda. ( 2004).
85 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004). Safety of Older Pedestrians.
http:// onlinepubs. trb. org/ onlinepubs/ conf/ reports/ cp_ 27. pdf ( accessed June 12, 2007).
86 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
87 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
88 National Association of Area Agencies on Aging ( NAAAA). ( 2007). A Blueprint for Action: Developing
a Livable Community for all Ages. http:// www. n4a. org/ pdf/ 07- 116- n4a- blueprint4actionwcovers. pdf
( accessed June 19, 2007)
89 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
90 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
91 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
92 National Association of Area Agencies on Aging ( NAAAA). ( 2007).
93 Ritter, Anita Stowell., Evans. E., & Straight, A. ( 2002).
94 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
95 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
96 McNulty, Robert ( 2005).
97 National Association of Area Agencies on Aging ( NAAAA). ( 2007).
98 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004).
99 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
100 McNulty, Robert ( 2005).
101 National Association of Area Agencies on Aging ( NAAAA). ( 2007).
102 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004).
103 McNulty, Robert ( 2005).
104 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
105 Liggett, R., Loukaitou- Sideris, A.,& Iseki, H. ( 2001).
106 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004).
107 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.) Getting There: Bridging the Transportation Gap for Older
Adults. American Public Transportation Association.
http:// www. apta. com/ research/ info/ briefings/ documents/ smith_ drost. pdf ( accessed June 21, 2007).
108 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
109 Lavery, I., Davey, S., Ewart, K., & Woodside, A. ( 1996).
42
110 National Association of Area Agencies on Aging ( NAAAA). ( 2007).
111 Ritter, Anita Stowell., Evans. E., & Straight, A. ( 2002).
112 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
113 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
114 Mitchell, C. B. G., & Stait, E. F.. ( 1991). “ Modifications of a Bus to Demonstrate Design Features to
Assist Elderly and Ambulant Disabled Passengers,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled People. Gordon and Breach , pp. 800- 807.
115 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
116 Rosenbloom, Sandra ( 2003).
117 Stare, Sven. ( 1991). “ A Bus System With Elevated Bus Stops,” Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled People. Gordon and Breach , pp. 711- 720.
118 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
119 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
120 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
121 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
122 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
123 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
124 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
125 Stare, Sven. ( 1991).
126 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
127 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
128 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
129 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
130 Mitchell, C. B. G., & Stait, E. F. ( 1991).
131 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
132 Mitchell, C. B. G., & Stait, E. F. ( 1991).
133 Ibid.
134 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004).
135 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
136 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
137 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
138 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
139 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
140 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
141 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004).
142 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
143 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
144 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
145 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
146 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
147 Rogers, Wendy A., Fisk, Arthur D., Meyer, B., & Walker, N. ( 1998).
148 Ibid.
149 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
150 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
151 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
152 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
153 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
154 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
155 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
156 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. ( 2002). San Francisco Bay Area Older Adults Transportation
Study. Prepared by Nelson/ Nygaard Consulting Associates. San Francisco, Ca.
http:// www. mtc. ca. gov/ library/ oats/ OATS_ Appendices. pdf ( accessed June 25, 2007).
157 Sen. L., & Suen, S. ( 2004).
158 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
159 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
43
160 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. ( 2002).
161 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
162 Ibid.
163 Ibid.
164 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004).
165 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. ( 2002).
166 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
167 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
168 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
169 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
170 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
171 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
172 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. ( 2002).
173 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
174 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
175 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
176 Freund, K. ( 2004).
177 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
178 Rosenbloom, Sandra ( 2003).
179 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
180 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
181 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
182 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
183 Lavery, I., Davey, S., Ewart, K., & Woodside, A. ( 1996).
184 Mitchell, C. B. G., & Stait, E. F.. ( 1991).
185 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
186 Rosenbloom, Sandra ( 2003).
187 Stare, Sven. ( 1991).
188 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
189 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
190 Lavery, I., Davey, S., Ewart, K., & Woodside, A. ( 1996).
191 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
192 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
193 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
194 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
195 Stare, Sven. ( 1991).
196 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
197 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
198 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
199 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
200 Mitchell, C. B. G., & Stait, E. F. ( 1991).
201 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
202 Mitchell, C. B. G., & Stait, E. F. ( 1991).
203 Ibid.
204 Dewar, Robert E., Fildes, Brian N. & Oxley, Jennifer. ( 2004).
205 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
206 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
207 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
208 Lavery, I., Davey, S., Ewart, K., & Woodside, A. ( 1996).
209 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
210 Ibid.
211 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
212 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
213 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
214 Liggett, R., Loukaitou- Sideris, A., & Iseki, H. ( 2001).
44
215 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
216 Ibid.
217 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
218 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
219 Marottoli, Richard A. ( 2005). “ Mobility, Mobility Decline, and Available Interventions: The Good, the
Bad and the Ugly,” In Transportation Options for a Maturing Population: Strategies and Tools for
Communities and Decision Makers. National Cooperative Highway Research Board, Project No. 20-
24( 24) B( 01).
220 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
221 Ibid.
222 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
223 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
224 Ibid.
225 Ibid.
226 Patterson, Arthur H. ( 1985).
227 Ibid.
228 Marottoli, Richard A. ( 2005).
229 Sen. L., & Suen, S. ( 2004).
230 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
231 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
232 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004) Supplemental Transportation Programs for Seniors: A Report on STPS in America.
Pasadena, CA and Washington D. C. http:// www. aaafoundation. org/ pdf/ STP2. pdf ( accessed June 27, 2007).
233 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
234 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
235 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
236 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004)
237 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
238 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
239 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
240 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004)
241 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
242 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
243 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
244 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
245 Rosenbloom, Sandra ( 2003).
246 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
247 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
248 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
249 Ibid.
250 Ibid.
251 Ibid.
252 Ibid.
253 Cvitkovich, Yuri & Wister, Andrew. ( 2001).
254 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
255 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
256 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
45
257 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
258 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
259 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
260 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
261 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
262 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
263 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
264 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
265 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
266 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
267 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
268 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
269 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
270 Drost, Marjean., & Smith, Nancy J. ( n. d.).
271 Ibid.
272 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
273 Beverly Foundation in partnership with the American Automobile Association ( AAA) Foundation for
Traffic Safety. ( 2004).
274 Freund, K. ( 2004).
275 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
276 Rosenbloom, Sandra ( 2003).
277 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
278 Ibid.
279 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
280 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
281 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
282 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
283 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
284 Lavery, I., Davey, S., Ewart, K., & Woodside, A. ( 1996).
285 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
286 Burkhardt, Jon E. ( 2004).
287 Easter Seals Project ACTION. ( 2006).
288 McNulty, Robert ( 2005).
289 U. S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO). ( 2004).
290 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
291 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
292 Houser, Ari N. ( 2005).
293 Ibid.
294 Transit Cooperative Research Program. ( 2002).
295 California Rural Health Update. Department of Health Care Services, Primary Rural Health Division
State Office of Rural Health. December 2008. Available at:
http:// www. dhcs. ca. gov/ services/ rural/ Documents/ 2008% 20California% 20Rural% 20Health% 20Update% 2
012_ 3_ 08. pdf.
VI. APPENDICES
TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Literature Review
APPENDIX 2 Matrix Deliverable
APPENDIX 3 Comprehensive Survey – English
APPENDIX 4 Comprehensive Survey – Spanish
APPENDIX 5 Comprehensive Survey – Chinese
APPENDIX 6 TRB 2008 Barriers Final Report - Urban
APPENDIX 7 TRB Removing Barriers Poster Final - Urban
APPENDIX 8 Rossmoor Transit Barriers Final Report
APPENDIX 9 Travel Training Pre- Questionnaire - Urban
APPENDIX 10 Travel Training Post- Questionnaire- Urban
APPENDIX 11 TRB 2009 Barriers Final Report - Urban
APPENDIX 12 TRB 2009 Barriers Presentation - Urban
APPENDIX 13 Travel Training Handbook
46
Removing Barriers for Seniors at Transit Stops and Stations and
the Potential for Transit Ridership Growth
Literature Review
Prepared by:
Rhianna Babka
Joseph Zheng
Jill F. Cooper
David R. Ragland
Introduction:
As the baby boomer generation ages, the population of seniors in California is growing rapidly
( California Health and Human Services Agency, 2003). Among the many needs of this aging
population is the need for older adult sensitive and effective transportation. Transportation
planners and policymakers will likely be facing issues regarding older adults mobility as the
population ages whether they plan for it or not. However, transportation agencies and older
adults alike can benefit from pre- planning that addresses foreseen needs of the older population.
If we wait to react to the needs of the older adult population, it will likely be too late for many
older adults to have sufficient and appropriate transportation. For example, many auto companies
are planning for the aging of the population by designing automobiles that are increasingly older-adult
friendly. Public transit also stands to benefit from this preventative approach, because
while not all older adults will take public transit, many will, including middle- aged transit riders
of today will soon be older adults.
This research addresses one specific issues and a subsequent marketing strategic that can
be tailored to be specific to the older adult population and their transportation needs. Specifically
marketing to older adults is and will be very important over the next 40 years as the population is
growing and, as identified by the California Department of Aging, will soon compromise over 30
percent ( and 25 percent by 2010) of the total population in California. This is a huge
constituency base that public transit has the opportunity to tap into. While older adults transit
riders may not be as lucrative one older adult at a time through their often subsidized fares, given
the assumption that because there will be more older adults, hence more older adults doing every
thing including riding transit, transit agencies will likely see an increase in revenue ( however
slight). This is especially true since many older adults ride transit during off peek hours where
there is excess capacity available on the transit vehicles.
The purpose of the current research proposed by the California Department of
Transportation ( Caltrans) and conducted by UC Berkeley’s California Partners for Advanced
Transit and Highways ( California PATH) and Traffic Safety Center is to investigate older adults’
transportation habits and the barriers they experience in using public transportation, primarily at
bus stops and transit stations. This information will enable transportation planners and
policymakers to better serve the older population. Many sectors of our society are aware that
older adults will soon be over 30 percent of the population; hence there will be more adults
engaging in society in many ways. Public transit is not immune to this and this research assumes
that the increase in older adult numbers will likely lead to a parallel increase in public
transportation use. It is vital that transportation services be better targeted to meet the needs of
this population.
The primary mode of transportation for older adults is driving a private vehicle.
Ridesharing is second while public transportation is last ( Ritter, 2002). Public transportation is a
necessary option for older adults who cannot drive, or choose not to. Where transit is available,
and not driving is not an option, older adults can be dependent on public transit. For the 5% of
older adults who do use public transit, this is their primary mode of transportation, and it is
reasonable to assume that people choose the best available option for them, making transit a
necessary option ( Ritter, 2002). This utilization rate is likely to increase as the older adult
population increases, and it would be advantageous to make public transportation more inviting
to older adults and also boost ridership ( Rosenbloom, 2003). If public transit is made more
appealing for older adults it will be responding to the population demographic. If transit is not
older- adult friendly, there is a huge lost market for transit agencies. Given the general
1
underutilization of public transit, and the increasing older adult population it is necessary to
understand the transit habits and barriers that older adults face while accessing public transit.
Older adults are a very diverse population and have a range of transportation needs. Older
people in the future will most likely be more healthy, educated, and active than their present
counterparts; they are likely to travel frequently to a wide range of destinations and be more car
dependent ( Cobb and Coughlin, 2000; Rosenbloom, 2003). Older adults accustomed to private
automobile travel will demand high quality public transportation. Satisfaction in transit options
has been shown to be a significant factor in utilization rates of transit for seniors. Additionally,
seniors put more emphasis on service attributes, such as driver friendliness, than non- seniors
( Koffman and Salstrom, 2001). The more flexible and service oriented the public transportation
is, the more likely people are to use it. Older adults as a group are increasingly healthier and
more mobile but they still face physical limitations. For example, in the event of a pedestrian- to-car
crash, frail older adult pedestrians ( 65 years of age and older) are more prone to injury
compared to their younger counterparts. Older adults are often vision or hearing impaired, and
may have diseases such as arthritis which make it more difficult to move freely ( Dewar et al.,
2004). Whether they drive or take public transit, it is critical to understand the demographics of
this population as well as their physical needs.
Older adults who ride public transportation tend to be low- income, minorities, and
women. These populations may have specific transit needs and/ or concerns such as financial,
language, widowhood and outliving many of their male counterparts ( Rittner and Kirk, 1995;
Rosenbloom, 2003). Spain ( 1997) and Rosenbloom ( 2002) articulate that women comprise the
majority of the older adult population and are less likely in the coming generations to have others
to care for them or the resources to fulfill their transportation needs. They also point out that
older adult minorities report having more mobility limitations and tend to take fewer trips than
their white counterparts ( Spain, 1997; Rosenbloom, 1999). As the older adult demographics
continue to diversify with regard to race, class, and gender, older adults’ mobility needs will also
continue to grow. Trip rates and distances have increased significantly for all groups of older
adults, and they will be more likely to pursue a range of activities requiring transportation to
support their more active lifestyles ( Rosenbloom, 2003). Transportation research and planning
efforts must consider the characteristics of this diverse population in order to effectively meet
their needs.
Transportation Needs for Older Adults:
Studies from the past thirty years have begun to address public transit concerns of older adults. A
Congressional report from the U. S. Comptroller General ( Mass Transit for Elderly, 1977) was
one of the first studies to address the deficiencies in transit services to seniors and propose
recommendations. The recommendations prioritized organizational changes and only briefly
mentioned physical barriers. Almost all studies or surveys find that the need for transportation is
a high priority for older adults. Poister ( 1982) examined the issue of accessibility and inclusion,
concluding that the lack of transportation hindered older adults’ desire for “ mainstreaming” and
that transportation planning and policies must account for the stated needs and desires of this
population in order to truly have effective and accessible transportation. Later findings by both
the AARP ( Houser, 2005) and the US GAO ( 2004) strengthened this argument. Furthermore,
Alsnih and Hensher ( 2003) found that there was a difference in the transportation needs and
mobility between the “ young” elderly ( ages 65- 75) and “ old” elderly ( over age 75), while
Cvitkovich and Wister ( 2001) emphasized the difference in needs between transportation-
2
dependent and transportation- independent seniors. Current studies suggest that additional
research must occur in order to fully understand the diversity of that older adults, to meet the
specific needs of this population and to provide older adult- friendly transportation options
( Cvitkovich and Wister, 2001; Alsnih and Hensher, 2003). These studies and findings illustrate
the complexity the issues surrounding older adult transportation.
One complex issue that has emerged in the last sixty years is increasing suburbanization
and a trend toward aging at home. The desire to age at home, also known as aging- in- place,
exacerbates the difficulties in providing effective public transportation ( McNulty, 2005). Due to
the increase in suburbanization, people are increasingly dependent on their cars. Car dependent
suburban and rural areas are largely populated by the aging baby boomer generation ( Bailey,
2004). Aging- in- place in widespread communities requires either the use of a car or very
effective public transportation. Car dependence for older adults is not always realistic because
not all older adults are able to or want to drive. Many older adults have grown accustomed to
driving a private vehicle, raising the issue of learned behavior as a barrier to transit use.
Currently there is little research on learned behavior among older adults in regard to
transportation. Understanding trends among those who have and have not taken transit when
younger, and comparing this information to the current transit habits of older adults would
inform research and assist agencies in planning age groups to target for public transit education.
In regard to older drivers, numerous studies have documented the correlation between old
age and the increased danger of motor vehicle crashes. Cerrelli’s ( 1998) analysis of the 1996
National Personal Transportation Study data showed the highest crash rates to be among teens
and older adults. Similarly, Khattak et al. ( 2002) revealed that factors contributing to collisions
among older adults include driver attributes ( e. g. age, health, and behavior), policies ( e. g. speed
limit and enforcement), vehicle and road characteristics, as well as environmental and temporal
factors. Lotfipour, Conley, & Vaca ( 2006) take the additional step of emphasizing the higher risk
of medical complications due to increased physical fragility among older adults who are
involved in driving accidents. In addition, older adult drivers may be constrained by a numerous
impairments, from poor eyesight ( Ragland et al. 2004) and delayed reflexes due to the onset of
dementia ( which either decreases their likelihood of driving or increases their likelihood of being
involved in accidents) ( e. g. Fitten et al. 1995; Lundberg et al. 2003; Richardson & Marottoli
2003).
Although many older adults continue to use private cars as the predominant mode of
transportation, many also rely on public or alternative modes of transportation. Public
transportation is a vital source of mobility for older adults who do not drive ( Rosenbloom, 2003;
Houser, 2005), ensuring access to medical/ health and social needs ( Cvitkovich and Wister,
2001). Waller ( 1998) states that transportation is an essential component of how we live and
what we do with our lives. In her discussion, transportation is more than a commodity; it is a
social right which society has a duty to provide to ensure access goods and services for
productive living. There is a growing need for improvements in public transportation systems to
meet the needs of the aging urban, suburban, and rural populations.
The US GAO ( 2004) has identified two types of transportation: that which is necessary
for medical and health needs and that which is life- enhancing, for social and recreational
activities. Bailey ( 2004) identified that older adult non- drivers make 15% fewer trips to the
doctor and 65% fewer social trips than older adult drivers. Strategies and interventions must be
specifically developed to meet the current and anticipated transportation medical and social
needs of this population are beneficial to reducing the risk of health consequences ( such as lack
3
of preventative care and depression) from fewer medical and social trips. Transportation
promotes quality of life and increases life satisfaction by providing access to social and other
activities ( Cutler, 1975). It has been shown that older persons who are primarily dependent on
public transportation ( versus private vehicle use) do n