Barriers to Using
Fixed- Route Public Transit for Older Adults
MTI Report 09- 16
MTI
The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies ( MTI) was established by Congress as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Reauthorized in 1998, MTI was selected by the U. S. Department of Transportation through a competitive process in 2002 as a national “ Center of Excellence.” The Institute is funded by Con­gress
through the United States Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the Califor­nia
Legislature through the Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), and by private grants and donations.
The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from a Board assessment of the industry’s unmet needs and led directly to the choice of the San José State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. The Board provides policy direction, assists with needs assessment, and connects the Institute and its programs with the international transportation community.
MTI’s transportation policy work is centered on three primary responsibilities:
MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Research
MTI works to provide policy- oriented research for all levels of government and the private sector to foster the development of optimum surface transportation systems. Research areas include: transportation security; planning and policy develop­ment;
interrelationships among transportation, land use, and the environment; transportation finance; and collaborative labor- management relations. Certified Research Associates conduct the research. Certification requires an advanced degree, gener­ally
a Ph. D., a record of academic publications, and professional references. Research projects culminate in a peer- reviewed publication, available both in hardcopy and on TransWeb, the MTI website ( http:// transweb. sjsu. edu).
Education
The educational goal of the Institute is to provide graduate- level education to students seeking a career in the development and operation of surface transportation programs. MTI, through San José State University, offers an AACSB- accredited Master of Sci­ence
in Transportation Management and a graduate Certificate in Transportation Management that serve to prepare the nation’s transportation managers for the 21st century. The master’s de­gree
is the highest conferred by the California State University system. With the active assistance of the California Department of Transportation, MTI delivers its classes over a state- of- the- art videoconference network throughout the state of California and via webcasting beyond, allowing working transportation professionals to pursue an advanced degree regardless of their location. To meet the needs of employ­ers
seeking a diverse workforce, MTI’s education program promotes enrollment to under- represented groups.
Information and Technology Transfer
MTI promotes the availability of completed research to professional organizations and journals and works to integrate the research findings into the graduate education program. In addition to publishing the studies, the Institute also sponsors symposia to disseminate research results to transportation professionals and encourages Research As­sociates
to present their findings at conferences. The World in Motion, MTI’s quarterly newsletter, covers innovation in the Institute’s research and education programs. MTI’s extensive collection of transportation- related publications is integrated into San José State University’s world- class Martin Luther King, Jr. Library.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented here­in.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U. S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program and the California Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. This report does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U. S. government, State of California, or the Mineta Transportation Institute, who assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard specification, design standard, or regulation.
DISCLAIMER
MTI Report 09- 16
Barriers to Using Fixed- Route Public Transit for Older Adults
June 2010
Michael D. Peck, MA, MSW, PhD
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Created by Congress in 1991 T
echnical Report Documentation Page
R
eport No. 1.
CA- MTI- 10- 2402
G
overnment Accession No. 2.
R
ecipients Catalog No. 3.
T
itle and Subtitle4.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of
Carsharing in North America
R
eport Date5.
June 2010
Performing Organization Code6.
A
uthors 7.
Michael D. Peck, MA, MSW, PhD
Performing Organization Report No. 8.
MTI Report 09- 16
Performing Organization Name and Address9.
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San Jose, CA 95192- 0219
Work Unit No. 10.
C
ontract or Grant No. 11.
DTRT 07- G- 0054
S
ponsoring Agency Name and Address
12.
T
ype of Report and Period Covered13.
Final Report
S
ponsoring Agency Code14.
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, CA 94273- 0001
U. S. Department of Transportation
Office of Research— MS42 Research & Special Programs Administration
P. O. Box 942873 400 7th Street, SW
Washington DC 20590- 0001
S
upplementary Notes15.
A
bstract16.
For older adults, unmet transportation needs are linked to reduced well- being ( Cvitkovich and Wister 2001). Current research indicates that, as a society, we are ill- prepared to provide adequate transit for the growing increasing population of older adults ( Millar, 2005). Although public transit is available for many older adults, actual and perceived barriers prohibit its use. Thus, the research presented here examines what do older persons perceive as barriers to using fixed- route public transit?
Four focus groups were conducted with older adults in order to gain insights into what they perceive
as barriers to use of fixed route transit. Findings from these focus groups informed the development of a mail- out survey sent to 1800 older adults— half each in Erie County, New York and the City of San José, California. A total of 775 ( 43.1%) surveys were returned. Despite concerns of response bias, data analyses reveal that older adults perceive fixed- route public transit as a viable option to their preferred mode of transit, the automobile. However, older adults note significant barriers to the use of fixed- route transit. This report summarizes findings and presents a behavior change model that may be used as an intervention and even a guide to market the strengths of fixed- route public transit while encouraging older adults to use transit.
Key Words17.
Aged, Fixed- Route, Public Transit
D
istribution Statement18.
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
S
ecurity Classif. ( of this report) 19.
Unclassified
Security Classifi. ( of 20. this page)
Unclassified
N
o. of 21. Pages
236
Price22.
$ 15.00
Form DOT F 1700.7 ( 8- 72)
C
opyright © 2010
by Mineta Transportation Institute
All rights reserved
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2009943704
To order this publication, please contact the following:
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Tel ( 408) 924- 7560
Fax ( 408) 924- 7565
email: mti@ mti. sjsu. edu
http:// transweb. sjsu. edu A
cknowledgments
This project was a collaborative effort between faculty, staff, and students in the School of Social Work and in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at San José State University led by Dr. Michael Peck and in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University at Buffalo led by Daniel B. Hess. The project received funding from the Mineta Transportation Institute of San José State University. We thank Asha Weinstein for introducing the researchers to each other, and we acknowledge Trixie Johnson, former research director of the Mineta Transportation Institute, for her capable oversight of the project, and Karen Philbrick, current research director. A team of outstanding graduate students at the University at Buffalo and San José State University were involved in the project since the beginning.
The focus groups were planned and conducted by Daniel Hess ( with help from Kelly Dixon) and by Michael Peck ( with help from Swathi Boreda and Monica Rowden). For assistance with arrangements for the focus groups, we thank Peg Brunton and Louise Fronzak at Baptist Manor and Mary Ellen Walsh at the Amherst Senior Center, and we thank the many professionals at the City of San José Office on Aging and the Berryessa and Willow Glen Senior Centers.
Early in the project, Peg Brunton, Judy Casassa, Kelly Dixon, Pat Dwyer, Hal Morse, Pamela Krawczyk, Beverly McLean, James Morrell, Jim Panczykowski, and Mary Ellen Walsh attended a briefing meeting in Buffalo to identify key issues. Pamela Krawczyk, the Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Senior Services, provided support and encouragement throughout the project.
The survey instrument was developed by Daniel Hess and Michael Peck, and Alex Bitterman designed the graphic layout. Judy Casassa provided a mailing list for the survey from the client list of the Erie County Department of Senior Services. The introductory letter was prepared and mailed by staff of the Erie County Department of Senior Services. The survey mailing in Buffalo was prepared and executed by Daniel Hess, Kelly Dixon, and Theresa Olszewski, and survey results were coded by Kelly Dixon, Mark McGovern, and Julie Gotham, with Kelly Dixon providing coordination and oversight. Kathryn Foster and Eleonora Heffner of the Institute for Local Governance and Regional Growth at the University at Buffalo managed funding for the project. Others in Buffalo who provided assistance include Alex Bitterman, Brigitte Robinson, Deborah Waldrop, and Jennifer Wood. In San José, professionals at the Silicon Valley Council on Aging were instrumental in providing a mailing list for the survey. Surveys were then coded and data input by a group of stellar San José State University graduate students; with a special thank you to Monica Rowden and Yanhui Luo for assistance in preparing the full data set for analyses including data cleaning and checks, re- checks, and confirmation of data accuracy.
Assembling the project report was a collaborative effort. Section 1 was written by Daniel Hess and Kelly Dixon, Section 2 was written by Daniel Hess and Mark McGovern, and Section 3 was written by Daniel Hess. Julie Gotham edited and formatted Sections 1, 2, and 3. Other sections were written by Michael Peck. The report was formatted and printed by staff of the Mineta Transportation Institute. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
Most of all, we thank the many older adults in both Buffalo and San José who contributed to the research by volunteering their time as participants in focus groups and by completing a written survey questionnaire. Without their thoughtful comments and opinions about access to public transit, this research would not have been possible.
The Mineta Transportation Institute, the Transportation Sustainability Research Center ( TSRC) at the University of California ( UC), Berkeley, and the Honda Motor Company, through its endowment for new mobility studies at UC Davis, generously funded this research. The authors would like to thank the numerous carsharing programs in North America that have agreed to participate in this survey. Thanks also goes to Caroline Rodier, Adam Cohen, Denise Allen, Melissa Chung, Brenda Dix, Keith Brown, Josh Ma, Jarrett Bato, and Seth Contreras of TSRC and the Innovative Mobility Research group at UC Berkeley for their assistance with the literature review and survey development. The authors would also like to thank Neil Weiss of Arizona State University, as well as Alexander Gershenson and Asim Zia of San José State University. In addition, the authors thank Dave Brook, Clayton Lane ( formerly of PhillyCarShare), and Kevin McLaughlin of AutoShare for their assistance with survey development and report review. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate acceptance by the sponsors.
The authors also thank MTI staff, including Research Director Karen Philbrick, Ph. D., Director of Communications and Special Projects Donna Maurillo, Research Support Manager
Meg Fitts, Student Research Support Assistant Chris O’Dell, Student Publications Assistant Sahil Rahimi, Student Graphic Artists JP Flores and Vince Alindogan, and Student Webmaster Ruchi Arya. Additional editorial and publication support was provided by Editorial Associate Catherine Frazier.
Mineta Transportation Institute
i
T
able of Contents
EXEC
UTIVE SUMMARY 1
A
ccess and Mobility for Older Adults 3
Introduction 3
Demographics of Older Adults 4
Mobility for Older Adults 6
Loss of Mobility 8
The Challenge 9
Research Design 10
Structure of this Report 23
LITERATLITERAT
U
RE
REVIEW 25
Evolution of Public Transit Research 25
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 26
Findings of Previous Research 28
Innovative Approaches in Action 38
Conclusion 40
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY 43
Focus Groups 43
Survey Methodology 50
RES
ULTS LTS 53
Overview of Data 53
Sample Demographics and Univariate Analyses 54
Bivariate Analyses and Trends 75
Multivariate Analyses 92
Summary of Qualitative Findings 93
DISC
USSION 95
About the Data and Analyses 95
The Respondents 96 Mineta Transportation Institute
Table of Contents
ii
Barriers to Use of Fixed- Route Public Transit 97
Automobile is the Preferred Mode for Travel 98
Racial and Ethnic Variability 99
Changing Perceptions and Changing Behaviors: Intervention Approach 99
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 102
Summary and Implications 102
Conclusion 103
App
endix A: Barriers To UsingFixed- Route Transit For Older AdultsFocus Group Interview 105
Amherst Senior Center, Amherst, NY 105
Baptist Manor, Buffalo, NY 113
Berryessa Senior Center, San José, CA 124
Willows Senior Center, San José, CA 153
App
endix B: Detailed Description Of Survey
Methodology y 177
A
PPENDIX C: TRANSPORTATIONORTATIONORTATION RESEARCH SURVEY 181
Introduction and Instructions 181
Thank You postcard 182
Survey 183
App
endix D: Transit Concerns Response Rates 195
App
endix E: Survey Comments 201
RE
FERENCES 225
A
BOUT THE AUTHORS 233 Mineta Transportation Institute
Table of Contents iii
Mineta Transportation Institute
i
LIST
OF FIGURES
1. Projected Population of Older Adults in the United States: 2000 to 2050 5
2. Transportation Mode Choice for Older Adults, 2001 7
3. Study Area Location 11
4. Projected Population of Older Adults in New York State: 1995 to 2025 12
5. Population of City of Buffalo and Erie County, 1810 – 2010 13
6. NFTA Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips: 1985 - 2004 15
7. Age Pyramid by Gender, City of Buffalo and County of Erie 17
8. Projected Population of Older Adults in California State: 1950 to 2040 18
9. Projected Growth in Older Adult Population, Santa Clara County 18
10. VTA Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips: 1985 - 2007 20
11. Santa Clara County, Projected Racial Distribution of Older Adults 21
12. Projected Age Distribution of Older Adults, Santa Clara County 22 Mineta Transportation Institute
List of Figures
ii Mineta Transportation Institute
i
LIST
OF TATABLES
1.1. Ranking of California and New York Among States by Projected Share of
Population of Older Adults: 2000, 2010, and 2030 11
1.2. Socio- demographic Profiles of Older Adults in Study Areas: 2000 16
1.3. Historical Populations and Future Population Projections for City of San José
and Santa Clara County 19
1.4 Overview of Focus Groups 43
1. Sample Demographics for Total Sample and by Research Site 55
2. Functional Ability of Respondents, Total Sample and by Site 57
3. Travel Patterns and Choices, Total Sample and by Site 59
4. Automobile Access, Total Sample and by Site 62
5. Environment- related Barriers to Public Transit, Total Sample and by Site 64
6. Access- related Barriers to Public Transit, Total Sample and by Site 65
7. Ability to Walk to Transit Stop for Total Sample and by Site 66
8. Reliance on Public Transit and Satisfaction with Current Transit, Total Sample
and by Site 67
9. Making it Easier to Utilize Public Transit, Total Sample and by Site 68
10. Positive and NegativePerceptions of Transit for Total Sample and by Site 70
11. Crosstabs of Factors Related to Likelihood of Using Public Transit in the Next
30 Days for Those who Have Used Public Transit in the Past 75
12. Crosstabs of Factors Related to Likelihood of Using Public Transit in the Next
30 Days for Those who Have NOT Used Public Transit in the Past 82
13. Transit Concerns, Response Rates 196 Mineta Transportation Institute
List of Tables
ii Mineta Transportation Institute
1
EXEC
UTIVE SUMMARY
In the United States, many challenges exist about safe and adequate transportation for the increasing population of adults aged 65 years and older. Currently, we are ill- prepared to provide transportation that is adequate for the growing older adult population. For older adults, transportation needs are associated closely with other needs. Lack of access to transportation can prohibit completion of instrumental activities of daily living, including visiting friends and family, grocery shopping, and obtaining and managing medications and healthcare. If transportation is limited, an older adult may have poor quality of life.
Current transportation challenges also are exacerbated because of increased longevity and the increasing older adult population, that is, the “ Graying of America.” Now, in the U. S., there are about 40 million persons 65 years of age and older. By the year 2030, the population of persons 65 years of age and older is expected to reach 72 million. By 2050, older adults will comprise 21 percent of the population, compared to 12 percent of the population in 2000. The most rapid growth will be in the oldest old cohort; the population aged 85 years and older will double to 9.6 million in 2030.
For many aging adults, fixed- route public transit is available; however, private vehicles are used for 90% of all older adult transportation needs. Thus, the research presented here examines what do older persons perceive as barriers to using fixed- route public transit?
To ascertain answers to this question, we use a mixed- methods design to study older adults and their perceptions of fixed- route in Erie County, New York, and the City of San José, California. The first step in the research was to conduct two focus groups in each site and to gather perspectives and viewpoints of older adults about the barriers to using public transit. Each focus group examined issues related ( 1) access to fixed- route public transit, ( 2) physical challenges in reaching stations and stops, ( 3) physical challenges in using vehicles, ( 4) accessing information about the transit system, and ( 5) safety and security.
Utilizing findings from the focus groups and an extensive literature review, a 12- page survey was developed and distributed by mail to 1800 older adults. A total of 775 ( 43.1%) of 1800 surveys were returned. After data input and exclusion of cases, the final sample included 737 cases. In Buffalo, there were 451 ( 61.2%) cases, and in San José there were 286 ( 38.8%) cases for the final analyses.
Results found a significant response bias noted in the assessment of older adults’ perceptions of transit. This response bias highlights the elusive nature of assessing perceptions. Perceptions represent a complex cognitive appraisal process that may or may not lead to behaviors. The primary finding is that older adults prefer to travel by automobile, but perceive fixed- route public transit as a viable option.
Finding that older adults perceive fixed- route public transit as a viable option suggests that older adults with the requisite physical capacity are primed to change transit- behaviors and ride transit. Thus, this leads to a critical question: How do we get older adults to increase their usage of public transit? Mineta Transportation Institute
Executive Summary
2
In this report, there exists an extensive summary of research findings, including descriptive data about the sample, aggregated data about barriers to use and perceptions of transit, and findings about the likelihood of older adults to ride public transit. These findings must be interpreted with caution, due to the bias found in the data. However, the implication is that by reducing perceptions of barriers— whether or not the perception is accurate and the barrier is as severe— may lead to increased ridership of fixed- route public transit by older adults.
After reviewing these findings, a model of behavior change is presented. This model presents one way to think about how to get older adults to increase their usage of public transit. The model presented suggests ways to market the strengths of fixed- route public transit.
Finally, limitations of the research are discussed, including challenges related to response bias. Implications for future research are presented. Mineta Transportation Institute
3
A
ccess and Mobility for Older Adults
I
ntroduction
For decades, United States demographers predicted a population shift as post- World War II baby boomers age, and that this dramatic demographic shift would pose many challenges ( Wachs 1986). This future has arrived.
O
lder Adults and the Need for Adequate Transportation
Planners, policymakers, and caregivers in the U. S. face many challenges as concerns rise about safe and adequate transportation for the increasing population of older adults ( aged 65 years and older). Studies conducted since the mid- 1990s by the Surface Transportation Policy Project ( STPP), the American Association of Retired Persons ( AARP), the American Public Transportation Association ( APTA), and other researchers have arrived at the same conclusion: we are ill- prepared to provide adequate transportation for the rapidly growing number of older adults in the U. S. ( Millar 2005).
The outlook for older adult access and mobility in many urban areas is bleak. In response, researchers have focused attention on policy devoted to access and mobility for older adults ( Burkhart 2002a, Burkhardt 2002b, O’Gara 2002, Rosenbloom 2003, Bailey 2004 and Millar 2005). These studies repeatedly identify transportation as the primary challenge for older adults. Santa Clara County, California— one of the study sites for this project— provides a relevant example. Researchers, scholars, leaders in social service delivery, and older adults themselves, advocate for ( 1) an overall increase in access to public transportation for older adults; and ( 2) an additional increase in assistance as they board transit ( MGT, 2005).
T
ransportation Challenges Facing Older Adults
Transportation needs for older adults are closely associated with other needs. For example, lack of access to transportation can prohibit completion of perfunctory tasks and instrumental activities of daily living ( IADLs). IADLs include activities such as visiting friends and family, grocery shopping, and managing medications. To complete IADLs may require travel, such as to the pharmacy and medical appointments. In this regard, several studies conclude that older adults have poorer quality of life if access to transportation is limited ( Peel, Westmoreland and Steinberg 2002).
Transportation challenges also are exacerbated because of increased longevity. As people live longer, the gap between the age when a person stops driving ( driving expectancy) and life expectancy continues to increase ( Dollemore 2002). This gap is almost twice as long for women ( 6 years) than that for men ( 10 years) ( Dollemore 2002).
Further, the demand for rides by non- driving older adults exceeds the supply of caregivers and family members able and willing to provide such services ( U. S. DOT 1999). Many older adults report feelings of embarrassment, uneasiness, and imposition when asking others for rides ( Ritter, Straight, and Evans 2000). Such feelings imply that ridesharing, Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults
4
as a transportation alternative, may degrade independence and dignity for older adults ( Straight 2003). 1
When family members, friends, and caregivers cannot provide transportation, some older adults rely on paratransit service, also called demand response. Demand response services operate in the manner that follows: ( 1) passengers call a transit operator; ( 2) the operator then dispatches a vehicle to pick up passengers; and ( 3) the vehicle transports passengers to their destinations. Most U. S. demand response services are offered by public transit operators. These operators use non- fixed route buses that are reserved for customers, such as those with certified disabilities, who cannot use traditional fixed- route transit.
The demand for paratransit service increasingly exceeds both the budget and capacity of most transit operators ( Millar 2005). Researchers predict that the gap between the supply and demand of older adult paratransit will continue to widen. In addition, trends in family structure may complicate reliance on adult children for assistance. Compared to previous generations, families tend to have fewer, if any, children. This trend has created smaller nuclear families with fewer adult children to provide for an older parent. Additionally, high divorce rates have led to fragmented families that offer less support ( Wallace and Franc 1997).
Thus, one can reason that if older adults neither drive nor are driven by others, then they use other modes of transportation, in particular riding public transit. However, older adults’ use of these alternative modes has declined ( Wallace and Franc 1997). For example, only 1.6 percent of American older adults use public transit on a daily or almost daily basis ( Burkhardt 2002b). Today, older adults walk, ride public transit, and ride with others less frequently than those of previous generations. Travel behavior studies suggest that they are driving to meet daily mobility needs; private vehicle satisfies 90 percent of all transportation needs for older adults ( NPTS 1995).
D
emographics of Older Adults
Currently, in the U. S., there are about 40 million persons 65 years of age and older ( see Figure 1). By the year 2030, the population of persons 65 years of age and older is expected to reach 72 million. By 2050, older adults will comprise 21 percent of the population, compared to 12 percent of the population in 2000. The most rapid growth will be in the oldest old cohort; the population aged 85 years and older will double to 9.6 million in 2030. Figure 1 shows population projections for older adults in the U. S. ( Wan, Sengupta, Velko & DeBarros, 2005).
In addition to the rapid “ graying of America,” the older adult population is becoming more diverse than ever before. Of the non- white populations, the older adult populations of Latinos ( Hispanics) and Asians are growing most rapidly ( Wan, Sengupta, Velko & DeBarros, 2005). Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 5
Projected Population of Older Adults in the United States: 2000 to 2050 Figure 1
While the older adult population is increasing rapidly, older adults are not uniformly distributed across metropolitan areas. Differences between the older adult populations of “ New Sunbelt” and “ Rustbelt” suburbs have been noted. Suburbs in the Sunbelt tend to be comprised of more youthful, older adults who have either aged in place or settled in the area during their migratory years. These older adults require fewer services than that of those in the Rustbelt. Rustbelt suburbs are largely home to older retirees who moved to the area long ago, or older adults with lower- incomes who have perhaps been “ left behind” in areas of population and economic decline ( Frey 2003).
To characterize the diversity of aging- related needs scholars often divide older populations into distinct cohorts ( Wachs, 1986). These demographic groups of older adults include: ( 1) the “ youngest old” between the ages of 65 an 74 years, ( 2) the “ middle old” between the ages of 75 and 84 years, and ( 3) the “ oldest old” adults age 85 or greater. Important for transportation planning and policy are differences among these groups in income, mobility capacity, trip patterns, and mode preferences ( Burkhardt 2002a).
Women have greater longevity than men, and older women are three times more likely than men to live alone ( Wallace and Franc 1997). This is particularly true among the oldest old, who also may be frail and may survive on limited incomes. Consequently, safe mobility for older women living alone is a major concern for planners ( Burkhardt 2002a).
050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000200020102020203020402050Population ( millions) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Older Adults Share of PopulationAll PersonsOlder Adults ( Age 65+) shareSource: U. S. Census Bureau, 2004, " U. S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin," < http:// www. census. gov/ ipc/ www/ usinterimproj/> Mineta Transportation Institute
6 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
Along with demographic changes, metropolitan patterns of settlement also have shifted. Some suburbs contain an increasing number of older adults and a decreasing number of “ young adults” ( aged 35 years and younger). This is particularly true in older, northern metropolitan regions. For example, Buffalo, New York ranks fifth among U. S. metropolitan areas with suburbs that have the greatest decline in young adults ( Frey 2003). Reductions in the number of young adults result in smaller proportions of working professionals who contribute to a local tax base. A local tax base helps to finance public services and programs utilized by older adults.
In other metropolitan areas, proportions of young adults continue to grow in both cities and suburbs, and planners and public officials continue to have many challenges.. This is particularly true for metropolitan areas such as San José, California, where the suburban population of both young and older adults continue to grow. In addition, San José is composed of an increasing share of ethnic minorities, both young and older. However, the generation gap between young and older ethnic minorities is amongst the highest in the nation ( Frey, 2003). Such generation gaps in suburban areas historically have resulted in age- related conflicts over community resources, such as access to health care, affordable housing, and transportation services. Intergeneration conflicts may increase as generation gaps continue to grow.
While the majority of older adults live in suburban areas, a significant proportion resides in central cities. Racial and ethnic minorities represent a growing portion of older adults who live in the largest cities. For example, many Asian- American older adults live in “ ethnic enclaves” or segregated districts ( Marcuse and van Kenpen 2000), such as Chinatowns or Koreatowns. Older minorities may have difficulty accessing services due to poor transportation options and undeveloped social networks outside the enclave ( Joo and Price 1994). Policymakers and planners must understand how diverse persons perceive travel and access, including culture- specific roles that family members have in regard to mobility assistance for aging parents and relatives ( Rosenbloom 2003).
M
obility for Older Adults
Within the context of urban transportation, “ mobility” is usually defined as the ability to move throughout the transportation system ( Hanson 2004). The ability to drive a vehicle significantly increases mobility. Mobility enhances access to goods, services and activities that heighten the quality of life. Recent travel behavior research indicates that trip rates— the number of times a person engages in activity that requires travel— for older drivers are significantly higher than trip rates for older non- drivers. Further, the median number of trips for older drivers is three times that of older non- drivers ( Straight 1977). More than 50 percent of older non- drivers, 3.6 million Americans, stay home on any given day because, in part, they lack transportation options. Compared to older drivers, older non- drivers make about 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor and 65 percent fewer trips to social and religious activities ( Bailey 2004).
O
lder Adults and Automobile Dependency
The U. S. can expect dramatic increases in the number of older drivers in the coming years; nearly 80 million older drivers are projected for 2050 ( Rosenbloom 2001). This can Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 7
be attributed to the aging of the U. S. population and the fact that the U. S. has the highest rate of licensing in the world ( Rosenbloom and Morris 1998). Transportation researchers must undertake dedicated analyses for older populations, including those that forecast future trip patterns ( Rosenbloom and Morris 1998).
How reliant are older adults on automobile use? Figure 2 demonstrates that automobile trips ( as both driver and passenger) account for approximately 90 percent of all trips made by older adults. By comparison, public transit captures only 1.3 percent of all trips made by older adults. Public transit trips rank lower than walking and biking trips which capture a combined 8.7 percent of the mode share ( Rosenbloom 2003).
T
ransportation Mode Choice for Older Adults, 2001Figure 2
O
lder Adults and Public Transit
Older adults of today demonstrate increased automobile dependency and length of license retention ( Straight 2003). In addition, the changing demographics also indicate an increase in the number of people who will need alternative modes of transportation— including public transit ( Straight 2003). A planning report from Santa Clara County, California lists increased access to public transportation for older adults as a primary concern ( MGT 2005).
Public transit managers need to make significant systemic improvements to increase ridership among older adults. Older adults recognize that in most metropolitan areas travel by transit takes longer than travel by automobile. A trip on public transit is estimated to be more than two times longer in duration than an automobile trip ( Rosenbloom and Morris 1999).
Walk & Bicycle9% Transit1% Auto90% Source: 2001 National Household Transportation Survey, Pucher and Renne ( 2003). Mineta Transportation Institute
8 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
Researchers have found that riding transit— despite longer travel times— may be safer than driving. In a National Health Interview Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics in 1994, 10.7 million older adults made daily or almost daily trips in their automobiles. Of these older adults, a significant number were identified as having activities of daily living ( ADL) limitations ( Burkhardt, 2002b). In a Community Transportation Survey conducted by AARP ( Straight, 1997), one in five older drivers report that they cannot get to a nearby grocery store on a low- speed residential street. This forces them to travel on faster- moving, multi- lane arterial routes. Clearly, older adults may not have many choices in terms of safe and easily navigable transportation routes.
The majority of today’s older adults— both men and women— have been driving for most of their adult lives ( Burkhardt 2002a). Driving may be a life- long habit that is hard to break. For many, taking public transportation has never been a part of their life experience— unlike previous generations that frequented streetcars and buses. Fear of the unknown may prevent older adults from learning the public transportation system late in life ( Burkhardt 2002b). Asking older adults to change fundamental parts of their daily routines— especially their travel habits— may be seen by many as burdensome and unacceptable ( Rosenbloom and Morris 1998).
L
oss of Mobility
Independent older adults who are able to travel on their own can easily maintain their mobility; however, older adults who depend on others for rides experience a significant loss in mobility ( Straight, 1997). Some older adults with mobility limitations may have reduced “ footprints”— or areas surrounding their homes that are easily accessible. Areas of access may be reduced to one square mile surrounding a home ( O’Gara 2002). This is especially true for the increasing number of older adults who live alone and do not have a spouse or other family member to act as a driver. The loss of physical mobility may ultimately have significant psychological consequences and implications for older adults ( Burkhardt, Berger and McGavock 1996).
D
riving Cessation
Research indicates that, despite the risks, a significant number of older adults in the U. S. fail to voluntarily stop driving ( U. S. DOT 1999). As a result, many driving cessation programs are instituted by local health, social service, and motor vehicle departments. For example, programs like the Erie County Driver Family Assistance Help Network in Buffalo work to educate older adults and family members on the challenges of driver safety ( Road Management & Engineering Journal 1997). The majority of these programs report only modest success rates. Experts note gender differences associated with driving cessation. Overall, women tend to self- regulate more than men ( Burkhardt, Berger and McGavock 1996); yet, surprisingly, in a National Household Transportation Survey in 1995, 82 percent of women over age 65 report themselves as active drivers up until age 80 ( Wallace and Franc 1997). A study conducted in Illinois ( Benekohal 1997) reports that many older drivers simply adapt to changes in sensory, cognitive and motor functions.
With regard to discontinuing driving, most health care examiners are reluctant to insist that a patient to stop driving due to a perceived lack of available transportation alternatives for Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 9
older adults ( Volpe 1997). The private automobile remains the preferred travel mode for a majority of older adults; however, many studies report that public transit is a safer mode for them ( Mitchell and Suen 1999).
L
ow Levels of Public Transit Ridership
Older adults tend to look for transportation options that fulfill the “ five A’s” Burkhardt ( 2002a): availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability, and adaptability. If a public transportation system fails to meet one or more of these criteria, older adults are less likely to utilize that system.
Lack of availability is significant. In the U. S., only 45 percent of American households have access to public transportation ( U. S. DOT, 1999). This is a greater challenge for older adults who live in non- metropolitan areas. Half of all U. S. adults do not have the option of using public transportation because service is not available in their area ( Bailey 2004).
Older adults may disregard transit as a viable travel option based on their perceptions of unfavorable service characteristics. The same factors that make driving difficult for many older adults also make transit difficult for them ( Burkhardt 2002a); physical limitations may impair an older adult’s access to and use of public transit. Some older adults may not feel comfortable walking to a bus stop two blocks away because of the strain of walking that distance ( Wallace and Franc 1997). Those older adults who can make the walk report that there is limited off- peak transit service. Low off- peak service levels are particularly challenging because older adults may rely on transit for “ off- peak” events such as visiting friends and family members or attending worship services on the weekend. Additionally, many older adults cannot physically tolerate long waits or travel times.
Transportation researchers conclude that transit agencies can gain ridership by tailoring their service to the needs of older adults. They suggest reduced fare programs, expanded use of low- floor vehicles, and policies that allow drivers to deviate from regular transit routes to collect passengers closer to their homes and deliver passengers closer to their destinations ( Millar 2005).
Based on the options available to them, older adults make rational transportation choices ( Millar 2005). A successful public transportation system should provide control, autonomy, and choice ( Burkhardt 2002a). Transit agencies that have tailored their service to meet the needs of older adults and riders with disabilities have, indeed, seen ridership increases ( Hess et al. 2002, Rosenbloom 1998, Taylor et al. 2002).
T
he Challenge
Some U. S. municipalities have increased access to public transportation for older adults. While these small improvements are encouraging, many large- scale changes are still necessary. Far- reaching improvements to public transit for older adults may need to begin with expanded housing options. Many older adults live in low- density, sprawling areas ( Frey 2003 and Rosenbloom 2003). In recent years, much has been written about the “ aging- in- place” phenomenon; many older adults choose to remain in the suburban homes where they raised their families. They choose not move to other settings that might better Mineta Transportation Institute
10 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
accommodate their transportation needs as their physical abilities change. Approximately 82 percent of older adults who remain in single- family detached homes are ill- served by public transportation ( Volpe Transportation Center 1997).
RESEARCH
DESIGN
O
verview
The demographic realities described in this study suggest that access to public transit is critical to maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of older adults who constitute an increasing share of the total population. Considering all modes of travel, older adults today travel more frequently than that of previous generations ( Hu and Young 1999), and public transit systems should strive to accommodate their travel needs. However, in a survey conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons of 3,000 older adults, the greatest concerns about riding public transit are safety and access ( Straight et al. 2002). In order to make immediate and long- term policy decisions, a more in- depth understanding of older adults’ perceptions of public transit is needed.
Thus, the primary research question for this study is what do older persons perceive as barriers to using fixed- route public transit? The specific aim of this research is to assess older adults’ perceptions of ( 1) safety on public transit; ( 2) safety traveling from home to public transit stops and stations; ( 3) the ease of using public transit facilities and vehicles; ( 4) the ease of traveling from home to public transit stops and stations; and ( 5) the availability and accessibility of public transit information. The study also assesses the factors that inform older adults’ decisions to use public transit.
As a starting point, we hypothesize that personal and demographic characteristics ( for example, economic status, physical characteristics, and cognitive abilities) and public transit service characteristics negatively affect older adults’ perceptions about riding public transit. We also hypothesize that discrepancies between perceived barriers and actual situations negatively affect older adults’ beliefs about their ability to use public transit. In relation to these hypotheses, existing public transit interventions may improve older adults’ perception of public transit, increase transit ridership ( Hess et al. 2002), promote autonomy and independence, and improve older adults’ well- being. Because little is known about what factors inform these older adults’ appraisals of public transit, this research is both innovative and timely.
M
ethodology
This study occurs in two phases; comparable and simultaneous processes are carried out in Buffalo, New York and San José, California. The locations of the study areas are shown in Figure 3. Table 1.1 shows that New York tends to have higher shares of older adults than the national average while California tends to fall below the national average. In 2000, 12.9 percent of New York State residents were age 65 years and older, but the share may grow to 20.1 by 2030. The share of older adults in California may grow from 10.6 percent of the population in 2010 to 17.8 percent of the population in 2030. Long- term projections suggest that the population in California is aging, while the opposite is true in New York. Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 11
S
tudy Area LocationFigure 3
R
anking of California and New York Among States by Projected Share of Table 1 Population of Older Adults: 2000, 2010, and 2030
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005.
The share of older adults is projected to continue to grow in New York State. Figure 4 shows that while the population of New York State is projected to grow 9 percent between 1995 and 2025, the share of older adults may grow by 23 percent.
2000
2010
2030
Share
Rank
Share
Rank
Share
Rank
United States
12.4
-
13.0
-
19.7
-
California
10.6
46
11.5
45
17.8
43
New York
12.9
24
13.6
25
20.1
28 Mineta Transportation Institute
12 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
Projected Population of Older Adults in New York State: 1995 to 2025Figure 4
D
escription of Study Areas
Buffalo and Erie County
The Buffalo region is a natural laboratory for research on the processes and outcomes of population aging, both for communities and individuals. Western New York has a population that is older than the national average. Older adults in this region are economically and socially diverse. The region possesses a varied urban structure meaning that older adults reside in urban, suburban, and rural places. The Buffalo region provides a unique setting for the study of older adults in a four- season climate.
Like many Northeastern and Rustbelt cities, Buffalo has experienced abandonment and economic decline— especially a loss of blue- collar employment— since the 1950s as its manufacturing and industrial base became obsolete. Population declined by 50 percent between 1950 and 2000 and 2000 marked the first time since 1890 that the city’s population fell below 300,000 people. Demographic data reveal that the median annual household income is $ 24,500 and 21 percent of working- age adults are in poverty ( Hess 2005, U. S. Census 2000). Like other Rustbelt cities, Buffalo experiences racial segregation, poverty, low incomes, low automobile ownership, and limited access and mobility for many segments of the population ( Buckham 2004, Hess 2005). In fact, 90 percent of the region’s non- white population lives in the City of Buffalo. 2 Figure 5 shows a period of staggering decline in both the city and county— characterized by outmigration of population and intraregional suburbanization ( Banister and Berechman 2000)— that unarguably dampens housing demand. 3
05101520251995200020052010201520202025Population ( millions) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Older Adults Share of PopulationAll PersonsOlder Adults ( Age 65+) Older adults share of populationSource: New York State Office of Aging. Project 2015 Report. Available at: http:// aging. state. ny. us/ explore/ project2015/ index. htm Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 13
Population of City of Buffalo and Erie County, 1810 – 2010 Figure 5
Source: U. S. Census Bureau
The Buffalo region has also seen sluggish job growth, loss of high- income jobs, population decline, and high outmigration in the important 20- to 34- year old age group ( Fiscal Policy Institute 2003, Pendall 2003). 4 The Buffalo metropolitan area lags behind the U. S. in both earnings and investment ( Pendall and Christopherson 2004). High local and county taxes along with persistent tax increases have hurt the competitiveness of the region in attracting businesses and residents ( Duncombe 2002). As these patterns become entrenched, they may negatively affect property values citywide ( Potepan 1996). These property values are further depressed by expectations of little growth ( Capozza and Helsley 1989). 5
As the largest city in Erie County, Buffalo is a prototypical medium- sized “ ring” city of the Great Lakes region. It is composed of a central core and inner- ring suburbs surrounded by outer- ring suburbs. Population density is high in the central city, yet because of dispersion and declining population, it is not as high as it was in the middle part of the 20th century. Distances between suburbs and the central city are, for the most part, relatively short— the average travel time to work for residents of both the city and suburbs is 21 minutes. The Buffalo area has one of the shortest average commutes among medium- and large- sized metropolitan areas. The commute time is shorter than the nationwide average commute time of 25.5 minutes ( U. S. Bureau of Census 2000). The Buffalo city and suburbs are each well- served by a network of grid and radial streets, highways and expressways, and transit routes ( Ernst 1999).
0300,000600,000900,0001,200,00018101830185018701890191019301950197019902010PopulationErie CountyCity of Buffalo Mineta Transportation Institute
14 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
Since the 1950s, the region’s population has exhibited decline and abandonment in the central cities along with slow growth in surrounding areas ( Goldman 1983, 1990). The population of the City of Buffalo declined 50 percent between 1950 and 2000 while the population of Erie County increased 6 percent during the same 50- year period. The county reached a peak population in 1970 that exceeds today’s population ( U. S. Census Bureau 2000). During the second half of the 20th century, the region’s dwindling population left Buffalo, Niagara Falls and their inner- ring suburbs and sprawled outward to suburban towns such as Clarence, Lancaster, Lockport, Orchard Park, and beyond ( Cervantes 2000).
Presently, similar trends continue as the population in Buffalo fell by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000. At the same time, it increased by three percent in the suburbs. As the Buffalo metropolitan area lost about two percent of its population during the decade, suburban growth comes at the expense of prosperity in the urban core ( U. S. Census Bureau 1990 and 2000). Niagara County mirrors the Erie County patterns of growth and decline. While the population in Niagara Falls fell by ten percent during the last decade, it also increased three percent in the suburbs.
Traditional fixed- route transit service provided by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority ( NFTA) is, for the most part, oriented toward commuting to the city center; low population densities in the suburbs make frequent transit service there impractical. Like many aging places, the Buffalo- Niagara metropolitan area has experienced suburban sprawl and a shift of jobs and residences outside of the central city. Nevertheless, Buffalo and Niagara Falls have large transit- dependent populations needing access to employment that is now more spatially diffused. An increasing number of activities and opportunities ( retail, services, healthcare, and entertainment) are available in suburbs throughout Erie and Niagara counties, although public transit generally under serves these markets.
Despite a presumed high degree of transit dependency— 31 percent of households do not have a vehicle available ( U. S. Census 2000)— ridership on Metro Rail has declined steadily ( Lakamp 1999). Figure 6 shows the annual unlinked trip on bus and light rail between 1985 and 2004; ridership has declined 42 percent in the last twenty years. Demand response transit, in service since 1994 through a dedicated system called Paratransit Access Line, accounted for 0.3 percent of all unlinked trips in 2004.
Pedestrian access around stations is generally enriched with mature street networks and sidewalks, although station amenities— especially retail and commuter services— are lacking ( Hess and Lombardi 2004). MetroRail riders can make direct transfers to bus routes at all eight of the below- ground stations and from the six at- grade stations. From MetroRail stations, riders can transfer to 46 of the system’s 55 bus routes. Free parking is provided at park- and- ride lots for the two stations furthest from the central business district; no other Metro Rail stations possess adjacent parking lots. Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 15
N
FTA Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips: 1985 - 2004Figure 6
Source: National Transit Database ( 2006)
Older Adults in Buffalo and Erie County
Demographic studies of older adult populations in the city of Buffalo and Erie County highlight trends that may be useful to both transportation planners and transit authorities. Table 1.2 provides a “ snapshot” of the older adult population in the Buffalo/ Erie study area. It reveals that older adults comprise less than one quarter of the total populations in both the city of Buffalo and the county of Erie. In recent years, the older adult population of Buffalo city has significantly decreased by almost 20 percent as compared to the rather stagnant county population. The “ young old” adults, age 65- 74, are the largest proportion— slightly over half— of older adults in both Buffalo and the county. The “ old old” and the “ oldest old” combine to form the other half of the older adult population.
Buffalo and Erie County demonstrate similar age and gender distributions. Figure 7 displays gender differences that may be useful in future planning for older adults. The age pyramid shows that females outnumber males after age 60. It further uncovers the imbalance of women to men by a factor of three to one after age 75. The age pyramid also shows that the largest population in both the city of Buffalo and Erie County is the age range of 40 to 44 years old. Transportation planners and transit authorities may want to heed these
05,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,00045,000,0001985198719891991199319951997199920012 03Number of Unlinked Passenger TripsMetro BusMetro Rail Mineta Transportation Institute
16 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
trends in order to effectively plan for these “ market segments”— namely, older women and the next wave of older adults moving up the age pyramid. Researchers may want to focus future studies on access and mobility of these market segments.
Older adult populations in the Buffalo and Erie County region are overwhelmingly white; yet, the city has a significantly higher concentration of blacks/ African Americans as compared to the entire county. The older adult population in city of Buffalo is more than 25 percent black/ African American. Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders comprise a minimal proportion of the older adult population.
An alarming number of older adults in the Buffalo and Erie County region classify themselves as having a disability. For example, almost 50 percent of the older adult population in the city of Buffalo reports a disability. Poverty also strikes many older adults within this study area. It tends to concentrate within the city and lessen on a county- wide level. In fact, the city experiences almost double the percentage— 13 percent— of poverty- stricken older adults as the entire county.
Older adult households comprise approximately one quarter of the total households in the Buffalo and Erie County region. There are significantly more households in the city without vehicles than those in the entire county. Thirty- eight percent of all older adult households in the city of Buffalo have no vehicle while 62 percent have at least one vehicle or more. Conversely, the county has a significantly higher percentage— 79 percent— of households with at least one car.
The previous demographic analysis demonstrates that the older adult populations in the city of Buffalo may be at a disadvantage in terms of access and mobility. As a result, further detailed studies of these particular demographic characteristics in the Buffalo and Erie County area— especially within the city— should be pursued.
Socio- demographic Profiles of Older Adults in Study Areas: 2000Table 2
City of Buffalo
Erie County
City of San Jose
Santa Clara County
Population
292,648
950,265
894,943
1,682,585
Older adults ( age 65+)
39,524
151,712
73,860
160,527
Share of population
13.5 %
15.9 %
8.3%
9.5%
Young old ( 65- 74)
51 %
51 %
57%
54%
Older old ( 75- 84)
37 %
37 %
33%
35%
Oldest old ( 85 and over)
12 %
12 %
10%
11%
With disability
48 %
39 %
42.8
39.3
Below poverty
13 %
7 %
7.4%
6.4%
White
70 %
91 %
63%
72%
Black/ African American
28 %
8 %
2%
1%
Asian/ Pacific Islander
< 1 %
< 1 %
25%
20%
Hispanic/ Latino
2 %
1 %
16%
12%
Source: 1990 and 2000 U. S. Census, Summary Files 1 and 3. Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 17
A
ge Pyramid by Gender, City of Buffalo ( Inside Pyramid) and County of Figure 7 Erie ( Outside Pyramid)
San José
As the 10th largest city in the nation and the third largest city in California, San José is known as the center of high technology— the heart of the “ Silicon Valley.” San José also contains a diverse population and culture, which includes 34.3% of Caucasian, 31.4% of Hispanic, 28.4% of Asian, 2.6% of African American, and 3.3% of other ( City of San José, n. d.). This diversity makes the city a unique place to study older populations.
San José is the largest city in Santa Clara County. The County is the fourth largest in California, following Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange Counties. The County is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, around 50 miles south of San Francisco. It includes 15 cities: Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and San José. Santa Clara County is best known as Silicon Valley. Because of its physical attractiveness, economic and cultural diversity, and the Mediterranean climate, the county is the largest county in the Bay Area with a population nearly 1.7 million ( Santa Clara County, n. d., Aboutus Section). As one of the fastest growing states in the nation during the next 20 years, California’s population of older adults is expected to grow more than twice as fast as the state’s overall population, and this growth is the most significant within Santa Clara County ( The Strategic Plan Advisory Group & MGT, 2005). Figure 8 shows the projected growth of older adults in the state of California, and Figure 9 shows that for Santa Clara County. Table 1.3 displays the historical population and future population projections of the City of San José and Santa Clara County.
50,00040,00030,00020,00010,000010,00020,00030,00040,00050,0000 to 4 years5 to 9 years10 to 14 years15 to 19 years20 to 24 years25 to 29 years30 to 34 years35 to 39 years40 to 44 years45 to 49 years50 to 54 years55 to 59 years60 to 64 years65 to 69 years70 to 74 years75 to 79 years80 to 84 years85 years and overagePopulationFemalesmales Mineta Transportation Institute
18 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
Projected Population of Older Adults in California State: 1950 to 2040 Figure 8
Source: California Department of Aging
Projected Growth in Older Adult Population, Santa Clara County Figure 9
Source: The Strategic Plan Advisory Group & MGT ( 2005) Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 19
T
able 1.3 Historical Populations and Future Population Projections for City of San José and Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County is one of the most diverse regions in the nation. There are about 100 different languages and dialects spoken in Santa Clara County, including about 52 different languages in city of San José ( Santa Clara County, n. d., About Section; City of San José, n. d.). This represents the rich racial and cultural diversities, including 31.4% Hispanic population and 28.4% Asian population ( City of San José, n. d.).
In 1972, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) was created as a County department to oversee the region’s transportation system. The original responsibility was developing, operating and maintaining bus and light rail system within the county. In January 1995, VTA separated from Santa Clara County and merged with the region’s Congestion Management Agency. Besides the original task, VTA now has responsibility to manage the county’s blueprint to reduce congestion and improve air quality. VTA oversees the county’s public transportation system and highway, transit capital improvements, and county- wide transportation planning ( VTA. org, InsideVTA Section).
VTA’s responsibility for public transportation includes regional transportation within San José and Santa Clara County and connections with other inter- county transportation systems. VTA operates 430 buses on 69 routes throughout the urbanized area of Santa Clara County; 3 light rail services, which cover 42 miles and 62 stations; 5 shuttle services that connect other inter- county transportation, such as Caltrain; and, it oversees a contracted paratransit service, called Outreach. VTA also manages 16 transit centers throughout Santa Clara Counties, and operates 46 park- and- ride lots with approximately 12,000 parking spaces at light rail stations, transit centers and Caltrain stations.
Year
City of
San José
Santa Clara County
1900
21,500
60,216
1910
28,946
83,539
1920
39,642
100,676
1930
57,651
145,118
1940
68,457
174,949
1950
95,280
290,547
1960
204,196
642,315
1970
459,913
1,064,714
1980
629,442
1,295,071
1990
782,248
1,497,577
2000
894,943
1,691,183
2010
995,900
1,844,146
2020
1,137,600
2,006,992
2030
1,273,200
2,152,963
Source: U. S. Census Bureau or CA Department of Finance Mineta Transportation Institute
20 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
For the fiscal year ( FY) of 2005, the ridership of VTA was 37,077,149 ( VTA. org, Service Section). However, this is the fourth year of ridership decline since year FY 2002. The system wide average weekday ridership in FY 2005 declined approximately 35% from FY 2001 ( Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2006). There are many reasons why the ridership has sharply declined. The main reason was because of economic downturn, the dot- com bust, and increasing unemployment rate. Even though by June 2005, the unemployment rate had declined to 5.5%, Santa Clara County had lost over 200,000 jobs since 2001, when unemployment was 8.9% ( Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2006). Due to a sharp decrease of the passengers, VTA faced major financial challenges; it cut 20% of its bus and light rail service since the year 2000, and raised the fare by 35% to offset increasing expenses and decreasing revenues ( Transcoalition. org). Service cuts and fare increases might account for ridership declines because 54% of the riders earn less than $ 35,000 per year, including many older adults. Finally, figure 9 displays VTA unlinked passenger trips for recent years. While ridership dipped by about 20% from its highest point, recent years show a trend toward increased ridership.
VTA Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips: 1985 – 2007Figure 10
Source: Valley Transit Authority ( 2007)
Older Adults in San José
California is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. In 1990, California comprised 12% of the nation’s population and is expected to have 14% of the nation’s population by 2020, an increase of 15.7 million people. Nevertheless, California’s older- adult population ( 60 years of age and older) is expected to grow more than twice as fast as the state’s overall population, with a 112% increase from 1990 to 2020. Santa Clara County is one of the 11 California counties with the greatest anticipated older adult population growth. The older adult population in San José is expected to have the fastest rate of growth in Santa Clara County.
VTA Ridership( in millions) 010203040506019851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007MillionsFiscal YearBusLight Rail Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 21
Between the years 2000 and 2020, the population of older adults in Santa Clara County is expected to almost double from approximately 220,600 to 428,300. In 2000, older adults represented 13% of Santa Clara County’s population, compared to the expected 21.3% in 2020. By 2040, the older adult population is expected to peak at roughly 600,000, which will be 27% of the county’s total population ( The Strategic Plan Advisory Group & MGT, 2005).
S
anta Clara County, Projected Racial Distribution of Older Adults Figure 11
Source: The Strategic Plan Advisory Group & MGT ( 2005)
With twice as many older adults living in Santa Clara County by 2020, the demand for senior services will increase as well. Many service needs are similar to other regions, including services such as housing, health care, and social supports. However, Santa Clara County and the City of San José have a unique demand for services that are culturally sensitive and available in multiple languages. As a way of depicting this need, Figure 10 displays the racial distribution of older adults in Santa Clara County.
The fast growing older- adult population is largely driven by the “ baby boomers,” an age cohort that classifies persons born between 1946 and 1964. The oldest of the baby boomers will turn 60 in 2006, the youngest baby boomers will turn 60 in 2024. Between now and the year of 2020, Santa Clara County will experience a surge of younger seniors, and then proportional growth in its older senior population in the later years, as baby boomers age further. The following chart shows the change in age distribution of senior population over time in Santa Clara County. Mineta Transportation Institute
22 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
Projected Age Distribution of Older Adults, Santa Clara County. Figure 12
Source: The Strategic Plan Advisory Group & MGT ( 2005).
According to the U. S. Census Bureau, the average life expectance in the U. S. is approximately 80 years for women and 74 years for men; by 2050, women in the U. S. are projected to live to an average age of 87 and, for men, to age 81. It is no surprise that between the years 2030 and 2050, the population of Santa Clara County’s oldest adults ( 85 years and older) will experience significant growth. However, the oldest adults will still remain a comparatively small percentage among older adults. Based on the age characteristics of this trend, the use of and need for public services and transit services might increase.
As of 2000, one- third of the county’s population was foreign- born. The percentage of the foreign- born population had increased from 23% in 1990 to 36.5% in 2003. In the general population, the low English language proficiency increased from 21% to 23% between the years of 1990 and 2002. Further, in 2000, the population of older adults who speak English ‘ very well’ or ‘ well’ decreased from 65% in 1990 to 57%.
The growing cultural diversity and declining of English proficiency in Santa Clara County’s senior population will impact the needs of senior and how to deliver effectively a variety of services, including public transit. Language inefficiency might be the most significant barrier for older adults to access services. A study was conducted in June 2004 by the Strategic Plan Advisory Group regarding the County wide needs assessment of older adults. Among 1,100 participants, language barriers were the sixth most common concern and is related to other issues including lack of information. Mineta Transportation Institute
Access and Mobility for Older Adults 23
Transportation was the most common issue raised in the study. It includes the cost of transportation, lack of accessible transportation, and a lack of coordination between bus and light rail schedules; and among senior centers, a lack of escorted transportation ( paratransit) for seniors, including those without disabilities, and lack of assistance boarding public transit. Over 10% of surveyed older adults reported that they have difficulty or need assistance using transportation. Among these 10% of adults, 55% stated that no one is helping them get around. As the age increases, the needs of transportation assistance increase: 6.4% of 60- to 74- year- olds reported this need, 14.7% of 75 to 84- year- olds, and 24.2% of adults 85 and older. In addition, non- English speakers were more likely need help using public transportation compared with English speakers: 27.4% versus 7.6% reported that they sometimes, rarely, or almost never get where they want to go.
Despite the difficulties of sharp increased demand of senior services for the near future, how to culturally competently plan and implement the related services to seniors will be one big challenge for San José and Santa Clara County.
S
ynthesis
In general, the population of Erie County is roughly the size of the City of San José, and there are similar challenges related to transportation. However, San José is ethnically more diverse than Erie County, and the weather in each city poses different challenges. In the suburbs of Buffalo, older adults constitute 16.6 percent of residents ( Frey 2003), and in San José, older adults constitute 13% ( The Strategic Plan Advisory Group & MGT, 2005). Both Buffalo and San José share in a common tremendous growth of older adults in the suburbs, where public transit service is sparser than central, denser places ( Burkhardt 2002a).
STR
UCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an in- depth literature review. It summarizes research about access and mobility for older adults and focuses specifically on impediments to public transit use. Section 3 outlines the research methodology for this project. It details our process for conducting focus groups with older adults and developing a written survey questionnaire. Section 4 presents results of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses. Finally, Section 5 discusses the quantitative findings, including implications when considering these findings in conjunction with the qualitative focus group findings. The section ends with discussions of policy implications, limitations to our research, and implications for future research. Mineta Transportation Institute
24 Access and Mobility for Older Adults
Mineta Transportation Institute
25
LITERATLITERAT
U
RE
REVIEW
Previous research about access and mobility issues for older adults has been multidisciplinary. Such research has been by scholars in transportation planning, urban planning, health services, and gerontology. This research identifies access and mobility as the primary challenges in planning for older adults.
Researchers tend to use quantitative methods— U. S. census data, activity and travel surveys, and stated preference surveys— to describe travel behavior and diagnose transportation challenges for older adults. These methods present shortcomings for planners since they rarely provide useful data sets for research about transit for older adults. For instance, U. S. census data related to transportation planning focuses on the journey to work; however, many older adults are out of the labor force. Furthermore, there are limited data sets that assess common older adult activities— such as those involving healthcare, shopping and personal services, socialization, entertainment, and recreation— and their relation to travel behavior.
Because of physiological changes related to aging, there exists an abundance of published work that centers on safety and cessation programs for older drivers. This research documents unmet needs among the older adult population. For example, many older adults report that they often desire to leave home to engage in activities, yet limited transportation access— particularly options other than an automobile— prevents them from doing so.
There is minimal research exploring issues related to older adults and public transit. Research about barriers to public transit for older adults requires more attention. The literature review that follows summarizes the broad range of gaps and needs for older adults in terms of access and mobility. Sources for the literature review include scholarly journals and planning and policy publications from non- profit organizations and advocacy groups. The remainder of this section is organized as follows: First, we provide background on the evolution of public transit research along with an overview of access and mobility for older adults. We then detail previous research that concentrates on older adult barriers to public transit. The barriers are divided into four broad categories: 1) physical barriers; 2) service barriers; 3) perception barriers; and 4) information barriers. Finally, we present a variety of innovative approaches that transit managers currently use to counteract these barriers.
E
VOLUTION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT RESEARCH
Transit systems have been moving people about the United States for centuries. The first omnibus and street railway companies appeared in early 19th century cities ( Schaeffer and Sclar 1980). During the 20th century, transit deprivatization occurred as city governments began to assume control and ownership of bus and rail companies ( Jones 1985). Currently, the majority of urban transit systems are operated as public authorities. 1
Prior to the 1970s, planning activities for public transit operations were often oversimplified— transit managers provided bus and railway service while residents paid a fare to use these services. Early public transit evaluations focused on basic variations among transit users; Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review
26
not surprisingly, a majority of consumers were commuters who traveled daily from home to office. Researchers paid little attention to the complexities of supply and consumption.
More recently, transit managers and transportation researchers have begun to pay careful attention to customers and their riding behavior. As such, they have produced various socio- demographic and geographic studies that involve transit routes and users. Recent studies have primarily focused on the following populations: ( 1) women; ( 2) university students; ( 3) people with disabilities; and ( 4) older adults, age 65 and over. The research is largely aimed at uncovering inequities in access to urban transportation in the U. S. It also explores how to provide transit service that better matches the travel needs of certain “ market segments.”
Much of this current research gains the support of public officials who seek to increase transit ridership and decrease the negative effects of automobile use. Automobile dependency is unfavorably linked to oil shortages, air pollution, and increasing sprawl. Many researchers argue that attractive and convenient public transit systems may serve a dual- purpose: ( 1) mitigate automobile use; and ( 2) provide access and mobility for people without personal vehicles.
ACCESS
AND Mobility for Older Adults
Currently, there is limited research concerning access and mobility for older adults ( Rosenbloom, 2003; Wallace, & Franc, 2000). While the majority of published works focus on commuting patterns from a travel behavior perspective, this investigation closely examines access and mobility for older adults using fixed- route transit. Researchers identify several characteristics of access and mobility for older adults that are important to all urban transportation systems ( Alsnih and Henshner 2003; Banister and Bowling 2003; Cvitkovich and Wister 2001; Wallace and Franc, 2000): access to destinations of desire; access to transportation options that enhance social, physical, and mental well- being; maintenance of independence and employment opportunities; and ease of movement from place to place. These are characteristics that should be more closely examined by researchers, transportation planners, and transit managers in order to better serve the increasing population of older adults.
A
ccess and Mobility Versus Disability
Can older adults with disabilities use public transit? A literature review conducted by the University of Iowa, College of Medicine focused on access and mobility along with transportation requirements for older women. The authors conclude that there has been some confusion surrounding the distinction between disability and mobility. As stated earlier, mobility is the ability to move throughout the transportation system. Disability, on the other hand, is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Research has focused on disability rates among older women with an emphasis on the limitations of physical movement or function as a result of detrimental physical conditions ( Wallace and Franc 2000). Contrary to popular thought, advanced age and the onset of chronic medical conditions do not stand as precursors for successful independent access and mobility ( Burkhardt McGavock and Nelson 2002). Some people with disabilities may successfully use public transportation— either Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 27
paratransit or regular fixed route transit— independently.
Performance Indicators
The 1994- 95 “ Supplement on Aging” portion of the National Health Interview Survey ( NHIS) on Disability specifically addresses a socio- demographic and epidemiological concept known as activities of daily living ( ADLs) ( Burkhardt et al., 2002). ADLs are performance indicators associated with the ease in performance of such everyday activities as, “ bathing, dressing, eating, transferring between bed and chair, toileting, and getting around inside the home.” ( Burkhardt et al., 2002, 17). Many national health organizations and researchers use ADLs as benchmarks to determine whether or not older adults can live independently. They may also be used to characterize the typical symptoms of aging and chronic disease. Poor performances in ADLs and decreased cognitive abilities may be associated with cessation of driving for older adults ( Burkhardt et al, 2002). As a result, those older adults who are not fit for driving because of ADLs may consider public transit as a travel mode.
Older adults commonly report difficulties in the performance of at least two of the previously mentioned ADLs. Often the inability to perform these tasks in the home is linked with the more complex performance indicator known as instrumental activities of daily living ( IADLs). IADLs are associated with the performance of tasks such as shopping for essential items and the preparation of meals. IADLs also take into account “ functional limitations such as difficulty walking, understanding speech, seeing or using stairs” ( Burkhardt et al., 2002, 16). Clearly, many older adults face barriers to fixed route transit because of compromised ADLs and IADLS.
M
ultiple Disabilities and At- Risk Older Adults
Instances of multiple disabilities are not evenly distributed throughout older adult demographic groups. The NHIS reports that there is a greater occurrence of multiple disabilities among older adults who are Black/ African American, female, low- income, and residents of urban centers. It is important for transportation planners to be aware of the greater concentration of these at- risk and difficult- to- serve older adult populations in the central cities of the United States.
A
mericans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Recent research focuses on a movement away from defining disabilities based solely on the presence of debilitating medical conditions. It now favors assessment of the functional capacity of the disabled population to engage in mainstream society ( Burkhardt et al. 2002). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( ADA) provides solid evidence of this trend. The stated goals of the ADA are ( Burkhardt et al. 2002, 16): equality of opportunity, full participation in society, independent living, and economic self- sufficiency.
Through legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the American National Standards Institute ( ANSI) standards ( ANSI 2003), advances have been made in the design of buildings and the built environment. These improvements accommodate the access and mobility of individuals with special needs, such as those having chronic or permanent disabilities. The intent of the ANSI guidelines is to allow a person with Mineta Transportation Institute
28 Literature Review
a physical disability to independently get to, enter, and use a site, facility, building, or element; although the guidelines are aimed at people with disabilities, those older adults who may have limited or reduced physical mobility may also benefit.
The new inclusive approach toward the built environment also includes public transit vehicles and stations. Consequently, an important outcome of the ADA and ANSI has been the mandated retrofitting of trains, buses and stations to accommodate wheelchair users. Additional outcomes include accessible vehicle boarding features, accessible ramps in lieu of stairs, elevators and escalators in lieu of stairs, and tactile surfaces with Braille signage. Most buses and rail vehicles also provide reserved seating at the front for people with disabilities and older adults.
Based on the ADA in 1990, public transit systems in the United States now have to provide services— such as paratransit— for people with disabilities who cannot independently use regular fixed route transit. People with disabilities must be certified to ride paratransit. Paratransit provides individual rides on an on- call basis from customer- specified origins to destinations. This service is much more expensive to operate per ride compared to fixed- route transit. Therefore, shifting ridership from costly paratransit to cheaper fixed route may save operating costs.
N
atural Loss of Access and Mobility
Although design codes in public places now require accessibility for people with disabilities, the same cannot be said about design features for individuals who are experiencing loss of ability due to the natural progression throughout the course of life ( Scott- Webber and Marshall- Baker 1998, Steinfeld 2001). Many researchers have argued that urban design in Nordic countries tends toward a more inclusive design of public spaces to accommodate the changing physical needs and abilities of the population from early childhood to older adulthood ( Scott- Webber and Marshall- Baker 1998).
FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Academic and scholarly research highlights a variety of barriers— physical, service, perception, and information— that may reduce public transit ridership for older adults.
Physical Barriers
Public transit is accessed at nodes— or bus and rail stations— located at strategic points along the route. Patrons use various means to access transit stations from their origins and destinations. Usually, bus or train station access is accomplished by walking from home; however, it may involve the use of a bicycle, a personal automobile, or another mode of public transit.
Distance
One of the greatest impediments to public transit use for older adults is the ability to get from home to a bus or rail station. A 1999 study conducted in Baltimore determined that older adults’ ability to walk three blocks is the strongest predictor of travel frequency Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 29
( KETRON 1999). Most experts agree that the preferred maximum walking distance for older adults to access public transit is one- quarter mile ( Unterman 1984). Consequently, many older adults simply live too far from existing transit routes to have reasonable access ( Rosenbloom 2003). In focus groups of 42 nationwide transportation systems, 100 percent of managers respond that shorter walking distances from home to bus stops are identified as positive service attributes of an ideal transit system ( Burkhardt et al. 2002).
Research demonstrates that the presence of pedestrian infrastructure located along a travel route from home to a transit station may lessen the burden of distance on older adults ( Burkhardt 2003). Beneficial pedestrian infrastructure includes sidewalks, curb ramps, street lighting, street crossings, and rest areas. Findings from a nationwide telephone survey conducted by International Communications Research in cooperation with the American Association of Retired Persons— with 710 respondents age 75 years and older— highlights the potential effectiveness of pedestrian infrastructure. The study concludes that 50 percent of non- driver respondents cannot walk to a bus stop if they want to; yet, 32 percent report that the trip may be possible if a resting place exists along the way.
Automobile- Dominated Infrastructure
The evolution of the built environment since the mid- 20th century has been dominated by the addition of infrastructure that accommodates personal automobiles. This trend— combined with population migration from city centers to suburbs— has left many neighborhoods “ trapped” in a maze of fast moving traffic. Newer residential developments typically lack continuous sidewalks from home to neighborhood amenities, such as grocery stores and post offices ( Evans, 1999). Furthermore, many modern suburban roads stretch over a considerable distance. They often lead from sprawling, low- density residential developments to sprawling, low- density corporate office parks or “ big box” retail plazas. These patterns of sprawl are rarely pedestrian- friendly.
Many new office and retail developments have large setbacks that create large travel distances for pedestrians— especially older adults— to overcome. Newer developments often display large expanses of turf and asphalt parking that separate building entrances from street traffic. Rarely do these developments mirror our perceptions of the classic “ Main Street U. S. A.,” where shoppers disembark from transit or park their cars within steps of shopping destinations. Clearly, the lack of pedestrian- friendly areas within an automobile- dominated society can present insurmountable physical obstacles for older adults to overcome ( Iwarson and Stahl 1999).
Unfriendly Urban Streetscapes
Because most urban infrastructure caters to automobiles, pedestrians must carefully negotiate their environments. Street crossings pose a particular challenge. Walking across multiple lanes of traffic before a traffic light changes may be challenging ( Iwarson and Stahl 1999; Lavery Davey Woodside and Ewart 1996). This may be especially true during commuter rush hours ( Patterson 1985).
Older urban environments are especially challenging for many pedestrians. The original Mineta Transportation Institute
30 Literature Review
public and private buildings in these environments were often built long before the concept of “ universal design” was implemented. Universally- designed features— such as accessibility ramps for individuals using wheeled mobility devices— were nonexistent. Today, pedestrian access and mobility in older urban environments is additionally hampered by surface deterioration that compromises safety. ( Scott- Webber and Marshall- Baker 1998). The unfavorable conditions of older urban sidewalks can present challenges for older adults using mobility assistance mechanisms such as canes, walkers, wheelchairs, or power scooters.
Older adults may encounter additional challenges while navigating urban streetscapes: steep grades, high curbs, excessive stairs, and dangerous entrances into busy roadways to cross streets or access buses ( Iwarson and Stahl 1999). Often, the challenge of navigating the urban streetscape is magnified by the onset of vision, hearing, or other sensory loss associated with the natural aging process ( Walter Althouse Humble Leys and Odom 2004).
Climactic Challenges
The aforementioned physical barriers are present year- round in a variety of climates. In cold weather climates, however, the presence of snow- or ice- covered streets and sidewalks may present significant challenges for older adults. This is especially true for those who use canes, walkers, wheelchairs, or power scooters ( Evans 1999; Burkhardt et al. 2002). Cold temperatures, snow, and winter storms may keep many older adults from leaving their homes on certain days.
Researchers have identified unique demographic trends in certain climactic regions that make transportation planning even more challenging. A comparison of the southern “ Sunbelt” region to the northern “ Rustbelt” region highlights the challenge. “ Younger” older adults with fewer disabilities and more income characterize the older adult population in the Sunbelt. On the contrary, older adults in the Rustbelt are characterized as lower- income seniors “ left behind in areas of economic and population decline” ( Frey 2003, 11). Furthermore, the majority of older adults in Rustbelt metropolitan areas are older women— many of whom are widowed and living alone. In comparison, more married, active, high- income retirees are located in the South and Southwest. 2
Transit Vehicle Design
For many decades, transit vehicle design was driven by technology and not by users’ needs and abilities. Nonetheless, a number of researchers conclude that vehicle design plays a role in the ability of older adults to use transit ( Burkhardt 2002, Burkhardt 2003, Glasgow 2003, Lavery et al. 1996, Peel Westmoreland and Steinberg 2002). For example, a survey of 225 older adult bus riders in Philadelphia reveals that 65 percent of respondents report difficulty with stepping up onto a bus and negotiating steps while in motion ( Patterson, 1985).
We find that far- reaching improvements in transit vehicle design focus on the initial entrance into the vehicle. As mentioned earlier, the ADA now requires wheelchair access on bus and rail vehicles, elevators between levels, and no change of grade to board rail vehicles. Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 31
Many cities have swapped the conventional bus with three steps leading up to a central aisle for a low- floor bus that has only one step up from the street. This modern entrance is more universally accessible to the entire population of transit consumers. While the first step up onto a conventional bus ranges from nine to twelve inches, a “ kneeling” bus typically reduces the height of the first step to a more manageable three inches ( Burkhardt 2002). Burkhardt ( 2002) argues that the most far- reaching “ improvements to vehicle accessibility are likely to be gained from changing to low- floor vehicles.”
Research from Sweden and other European countries uncovers that their vehicle design improvements include lower initial entrance steps and well- designed handrails. Other improvements include reserved seating at the front of the bus for older adults and people with disabilities, poles and grasps, skid- resistant and well- marked floors, bright lighting, and easy- to- read signage. Newer buses in the United States are gaining in popularity, but they have not reached the level of implementation seen in other countries ( Burkhardt 2002).
Overcrowded Conditions
While advances in transit vehicle design may improve comfort levels, peak commuting environments may produce discomfort because of traffic congestion and crowded conditions aboard buses and rail cars. The conditions may make it difficult for older adults to find a seat, stand for long periods, or move around while on overcrowded buses in motion. Additionally, older adults in the United States are increasing their non- work related trips. The majority of these trips are being taken between 6am and 6pm. Based on interviews with 1,000 older adults, a similar study in the United Kingdom found that the older adult population experiences highly mobile activity during daylight hours. After dark, the situation reverses with little activity outside the home. This behavior may contribute to traffic congestion and crowded buses during peak commuting hours ( Alsnih & Henshner, 2003).
We find that a potential solution may be reserved seating in the front of buses for older adults. Reserved seats may alleviate concerns among older adults about overcrowding, and they lessen the need for walking while the bus is in motion ( Glasgow & Blakely, 2000; Patterson, 1985).
S
ervice Barriers
It would be nearly impossible to transform the collective public transit system from a service for the masses into one for individuals. Fixed- route transit, by nature, is not designed to serve individual travel needs as much as it is designed to move large numbers of customers on a system- wide basis ( Burkhardt et al. 2002).
Convenience and Flexibility
The inability of fixed route transit to address individual preferences presents a significant challenge in increasing mobility for older adults. The flexibility afforded by automobiles, in terms of freedom of route and time of travel, helps to explain a finding from the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey. It states that 89 percent of trips made by older Mineta Transportation Institute
32 Literature Review
adults are by car. Surprisingly, older adults have the largest driving mode share among all age groups ( Pucher and Renne 2003). Additionally, research has found that the median number of trips taken by older adult drivers is three times higher than by older adults who do not drive ( Stowell- Ritter et al. 2002).
To address service deficiencies in fixed route transit systems may appear simple at first. It seems that a logical first step would be an adjustment to fixed- route transit that mirrors the freedom and amenities of the private vehicle ( Giuliano 2003). However, it would be prohibitively expensive to design a public transit system that offers the same convenience— door- to- door service, route flexibility, and scheduling independence— as the personal automobile.
Previous to the baby boom generation, a large share of older adult travel was by bus and streetcar; automobiles were not as ubiquitous as they now are. The older adults of today spent most of their adulthood as automobile drivers. Travel by car may be as much a
unction of habit as it is a function of convenience and expediency.
Travel Times and Destinations
Like any consumer- driven industry, public transportation is guided by the law of supply and demand. Transit service is generally supplied in response to the large number of commuters traveling to and from homes and offices during peak travel hours. Unfortunately, travel conditions during these hours— congestion, fast moving traffic and crowded buses— are the very conditions that older adults prefer to avoid ( Ritter 2002).
For older adults, activity outside the home is greatly reduced after dark ( Banister and Bowling 2003). Older adults perform much of their travel during the midday and on weekends. During these times, transit service tends to be less frequent than it is during weekday peak hours ( Nelson 2002, Glasgow 2000, Hayden, 2004). Thus, it may seem that to increase off- peak service might lead to an increase in older adult ridership. However, one barrier to doing so is the lack of cost- effectiveness for transit operations to provide more vehicles and drivers during periods of low ridership. Between three and eleven percent of older adults use public transit. Given these consistently small shares, a paradigm shift in service delivery seems unlikely due to limited system resources ( Taylor Garrett Iseki 2001).
Many communities now use buses as “ moving billboards” in an attempt to generate more revenue for transit systems. “ Bus wraps” are advertisements displayed on the outside of buses. These wraps often cover the entire exterior of the vehicles. Bus wraps that cover the windows can block light and darken the view for passengers. They may create difficulty and confusion for older adults by making destination locations and landmarks less recognizable from inside the buses ( Nelson 2002). In a 1985 study in Philadelphia, 68 percent of 225 respondents report that dirty windows obscured their views from inside the buses ( Patterson 1985). Dirty windows can reduce the ability of older adults to clearly spot familiar landmarks that they commonly use to identify approaching bus stops. This confusion may contribute to a fear of getting lost or taking the wrong transit bus ( Burkhardt 2002). Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 33
Connectivity and Coordination
Very rarely, but occasionally, does fixed route transit offer service from a front doorstep directly to an important destination like a medical office or bank. Consequently, the automobile serves a greater number of destinations than public transit ( Wachs 1986). Even under ideal conditions, travel by public transit is more time- consuming than travel by auto ( Wallace 2000).
To reach destinations, transit riders are often required to combine several transit modes and routes. For example, a typical route may include a bus to point A, a transfer to light rail to reach point B, and then a transfer to another bus to reach point C. Complicated trips on public transit, especially when there is a transfer between modes, can present a number of challenges for older adults. Challenges are both physical ( walking to stations, waiting, ascending or descending stairs) and mental ( reading schedules and maps, following directional signage, keeping track of time).
Public transit systems should be designed to be as “ barrier- free” and seamless as possible in order to provide accessible and convenient travel for all customers— especially older adults ( Burkhardt, 2002). Many solutions for seamless travel on public transit involve new technological innovations. Electronic payment cards are designed to speed boarding ( Mitchell 1988, Burkhardt 2002). Likewise, fare payment systems that allow consumers to purchase round- trip tickets at initial entrance points may assist older adults. Tickets or fare cards that are valid on various transit systems may also be beneficial. Such arrangements may aid older adults by ( 1) reducing the need for prior knowledge of costs for each travel mode and ( 2) lessening the time spent fumbling through purse or pocketbook for exact change.
Physical Isolation
A 2005 transportation study by AARP determined that only 45 percent of households in the United States have access to any kind of public transportation ( Millar 2005). Recent demographic trends reveal that the majority of older adults live in suburban and rural areas where transit service is either limited or is completely lacking. In 2000, three- quarters of older adults lived in suburban or rural areas ( Burkhardt 2000). These areas of dispersed low- density development require more resource expenditure and more infrastructure to maintain mobility ( Giuliano 2003). Perhaps not surprisingly, the greatest share of transit ridership by older adults takes place in areas of concentrated population with efficient urban infrastructure ( Evans, 1995).
In rural Iowa, transit system managers reported that a significant number of rural older adults are in need of transit services that are not available to them ( Cvitkovich 2001). Similarly, in a 1195 study conducted in rural central New York State, only four percent of 737 older adult respondents report that they travel by bus. When asked if they are able to travel as often as they wanted, 85 percent of respondents able to drive reply “ yes,” compared to only 56 percent of non- drivers ( Glasgow 2000).
Social Isolation Mineta Transportation Institute
34 Literature Review
The United Nations Commission for Social Development has recognized worldwide access to transportation “ as an essential component of quality of life for older people” ( Westmoreland 2003, 23). In the United States, a lack of adequate public transit access in suburban and rural areas results in a greater likelihood of social isolation ( Glasgow, 2000).
An analysis of population demographics conducted by the National Highway Transportation Safety Association has identified a large share of older adults that have few family members available to provide social and transportation support ( Wallace 2000). There is a desire among older adults to live among friends and family in order to maintain familiar social networks. This trend has given rise to a rather ubiquitous term, “ naturally occurring retirement communities” ( NORCs). NORCs are characterized by: ( 1) residential- and mixed- uses within walking distance of each other and ( 2) densities sufficient to support frequent transit service. As an example, dense spatial arrangements of residences in relation to libraries, post offices, healthcare facilities, and churches encourage independent living, and they also provide ample opportunity for social networks. Burkhardt refers to these amorphous communities as “ assisted living communities without formal assistance programs” ( Burkhardt et al. 2002, 11). Within NORCs, older adults rely on friends, nearby family and familiarity with their environment to assist them in remaining independent. In this sense, older adults may experience less isolation in NORCs than they would in newer low- density and automobile- oriented suburbs.
Economic Isolation
Social isolation is not only detrimental to personal well- being, but it may lead to economic isolation within a local community. Besides travel for shopping, personal services, medical appointments, and social engagements, older adults often travel in order to volunteer their time. For example, they may care for friends or relatives and donate time to local community organizations. In the Denver metropolitan area, the value of unpaid hours for older adults is estimated at $ 1 billion annually ( Hayden 2004). In order to capitalize on the contribution of older adults to the economy, it is recommended that regional- and community- based transportation and service hubs are developed. These hubs could better connect older adults with opportunities in their communities.
In recent years, gentrification of urban neighborhoods has increased due to the presence of inter- modal transportation centers, arts and entertainment venues, and rising home values. This combination of forces has displaced many poor and elderly residents. The locations where older adults take up residence determine how adequately they are able to fulfill their mobility needs ( Burkhardt 2002). Along with a broad trend toward decentralization of public housing, gentrification has significantly contributed to lower transit ridership by low- income groups and older adults ( Pucher 2003). Trends such as these deserve attention from housing and transportation policy planners. A coordinated effort by planners is required to ensure older adult access to public transit.
Value and Comfort
Many older adults survive on limited incomes. Social security and retirement savings can Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 35
constitute a large share of their income. As a consequence, the cost of using public transit can present a barrier to use— especially for less affluent older adults. A study that focused on willingness- to- pay found older adults to have a low transit fare elasticity of - 0.14. In other words, this fare elasticity translates into a 1.4 percent decrease in ridership for every 10 percent increase in fare ( Litman 2004). This relatively low elasticity, compared to an elasticity of – 0.33 to – 0.22 for all transit riders, demonstrates that older adults using public transit are dependent on it. It also suggests that older adults are not “ choice” transit riders because they may not be able to absorb fare increases due to limited options.
Public transit fares tend to be based on a “ one size fits all” model in which the cost of riding transit during off- peak hours is the same as peak commuting hours. This model highlights the failure of transit systems to establish market- sensitive service concepts. Reduced fares during off- peak hours— mid- day and weekend hours— would encourage older adult ridership when there is excess capacity ( Burkhardt 2002, Taylor Iseki and Garrett 2001).
Several studies have investigated transit passenger comfort. Comfort features of public transit include: comfortable seating on vehicles and in stations, shelter from inclement weather, reasonable waiting times, convenient transfers between routes or modes, convenient access to understandable information about routes and schedules, and noise reduction. While these features may be important to most passengers, they may be particularly so for older adults who tire easily and cannot sit or wait for long periods of time. In general, older adults may be more sensitive to characteristics of comfort than other groups of public transit customers. Research has found that many older adults are inconvenienced by having to wait for bus service without shelter from inclement weather ( Patterson 1985, Cozens 2004). Further research suggests that public restrooms at transit stations and transfer points would increase passenger comfort ( Millar 2005).
Perceptual Barriers
Public transportation systems, by nature, provide public access in various public places. As such, they are used by large volumes of travelers who are constantly on the move. Many people have access to public transit systems ( Boyd and Sullivan 1997 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 2004, Hess 2006, Szyliowicz 2004). However, negative perceptions of public transportation may limit potential ridership.
Safety Perceptions
Many transit riders fear transient individuals who may seek shelter from the elements or may engage in activities such as panhandling and public intoxication in transit stops and stations. Once in motion, crowded buses or trains are enclosed environments that offer few opportunities to exit vehicles if confronted with social deviance ( Fleetwood, 2004). Unrestricted access to public transit makes buses and trains vulnerable to radical disruptions. The recent terror bombings in London provide a relevant example. The perception that public transit does not provide safe and secure travel can curb ridership for certain groups— especially older adults ( Cozens 2004).
The perception of crime and safety— as compared to actual crime rates— deserves further investigation. In a national study conducted by the AARP of 2,422 adults over age 50, Mineta Transportation Institute
36 Literature Review
one in five respondents cites a fear of crime associated with travel on public transit ( Ritter 2002). A fear of crime may result from media representations of ill- behaved youths and gangs. Similarly, in telephone surveys and on- board interviews of 817 people in Greensboro, North Carolina, three times as many non- transit riders ( versus transit riders) perceive problems relating to crime and personal safety issues on transit buses. The most commonly perceived problems are “ soft crimes” such as disorderly conduct, drunkenness and panhandling. However, only 8.2 percent report an actual crime- related experience in the two years prior to the study ( Ingalls 1993).
Many researchers conclude that a lack of certain safety features surrounding transit stations or bus stops serve as barriers to public transit for older adults. The following are often cited as characteristics contributing to fear among older adults ( Ritter 2002, Patterson 1985, Cozens 2004): lack of emergency call boxes, poor lighting around stops, lack of police or security presence, and overgrown vegetation obstructing views at stops.
Prevalence of Crime
The prevalence of criminal activity coupled with a fear of victimization— particularly in central city neighborhoods— prevents many older adults from using public transit ( Loukaitou- Sideris 1999).
Further research should assess the relationship between incidence of crime and the built environment of neighborhoods surrounding bus and train stops. In Los Angeles— where bus ridership is high in many low- income neighborhoods— a two- year investigation reveals that crime incidence is correlated with certain characteristics of the built environment. Ten “ hot spots” of crime incidence are identified among the city’s 19,000 bus stops. At these bus stops a rider is between 20 and 30 times more likely to be the victim of a crime than at other Los Angeles bus stops ( Loukaitou- Sideris 1999).
Attributes of the built environment found in these ten “ hot spots” of crime were multiple combinations of the following undesirable or “ negative” land uses ( Loukaitou- Sideris 1999): check cashing establishments, bars and liquor stores, vacant buildings, adult bookstores, pawn shops, surface parking lots, and alleyways. Such places often attract undesirable activities including prostitution, drug sales and drinking in public. Alleyways provide convenient areas for criminals to hide or use as routes for escape.
Research finds that concentrated commercial activity may result in “ eyes on the street” ( Jacobs 1961), providing an added measure of security for pedestrians and transit patrons. Consequently, this security is largely absent from commercial strips with vacant buildings. The prevalence of crime at bus stops is an important consideration and cause for alarm in inner- city residential areas. This is especially true as the bus system may represent the primary mode of transport for the elderly and poor ( Loukaitou- Sideris 1999). 3
I
nformation Barriers
Just as many older adults may experience physical barriers to the use of fixed- route public transit, they may also face cognitive and information barriers. Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 37
Lack of Awareness
Clear comprehension of timetables, schedules and maps is paramount to successful use of public transit systems by all populations. This is especially true for those who transfer between transit routes and modes. Various research projects have found that graphic presentation of information on maps, timetables and schedules has been identified as a barrier to older adults using transit systems ( Nelson 2002, SEMCOG 1999, Burkhardt 2003, Rosenbloom 2003). Individuals with limited visual capacity or first time transit users may find it challenging to decipher transit schedules and route information.
Perhaps a broader concern is the general lack of awareness about public transit options. This may preclude extensive use of services available to older adults ( Foster 2004, Glasgow 2000). In telephone interviews with fifteen of sixteen regional transit managers and eleven of thirteen managers of aging agencies in rural Iowa, adults over the age of 75 cite information as the greatest barrier to public transit use. Of the 800 adults over age 75 interviewed, 48 percent are not aware that public transit is available in their areas ( Foster 2004). The study concludes that adults over age 75 are unaware of transit services available to them. It also finds that transit managers have difficulty tailoring services to this group.
Limited Information Exchange
Enhanced information exchange between older adults and transit providers should be vigorously pursued as a means to increase transit use ( Rosenbloom 2003). For example, notification of changes in service due to vehicle breakdowns may lessen the discomfort of older adults while waiting for a bus or train.
Data from a survey of 2000 adults over age 60 in the metropolitan Denver area reveals that the ability of older adults to access up- to- the- minute information via the Internet seems to be on the rise. In 2004, 44 percent of respondents reported using the Internet as a source of information at least some of the time as compared to a smaller share of 19 percent in 1999 ( Hayden 2004). Most likely, these Internet user rates do not apply to all income levels of older adults; yet, the Internet certainly provides a source to dispense up- to- the- minute information concerning transit system scheduling and functionality. This form of communication is worthy of future research.
After boarding a bus or train, older adults still face challenges in accessing transit information. Rolling destination signs on the front of buses and bus wraps may confuse riders about destinations and routes ( Nelson 2002). Transit operators often rotate bus drivers to ensure that drivers know multiple routes in case of absences. However, the presence of new faces behind the wheel may confuse some older adults and lessen the comfort and communication levels associated with the familiar face of a regular bus driver ( Burkhardt 2002).
Minimal Access to Planning Process
A lack of coordination among urban designers, transit providers, social service professionals and senior housing advocates may contribute to unfriendly street environments, inaccessible Mineta Transportation Institute
38 Literature Review
and inconvenient transit service, and decentralized service and housing.
Too often, the transportation planning process lacks input from human service agencies that may advocate on behalf of older adults and other groups. This occurs even though these human service advocates may have significant interest in the expenditure of funding to meet community transportation needs. In some cases, a lack of participation is due to a lack of knowledge about planning processes. At the same time, transportation planners are not often versed in the subtleties of health and human service programs. As a result, initiatives often advance towards completion in parallel without coordination among interest groups. These initiatives may subsequently fall short of their potential outcome.
INNO
VATIATIVE APPROACHES IN ACTION
The key conceptual weakness inherent in both research and practice of public transit is quite apparent— a “ one size fits all” approach fails to meet the service preferences and travel needs of older adults. Although it may be impossible for public transit managers to cater to the service needs of specific “ market segments,” we argue that reduction of barriers to public transit for older adults may also benefit other populations— such as the poor and those with mobility limitations ( Steinfeld 2001). The mitigation of barriers to public transit use by older adults could potentially increase transit ridership for all customers. This may subsequently warrant the resource expenditures necessary for the removal of these barriers. Many researchers and policy analysts have argued that the increasing older adult population represents a largely untapped source of ridership for public transit. If older adult ridership levels increase substantially, then an increase in revenue may follow.
Here we present some innovative solutions undertaken by transit managers to reduce the barriers to fixed route public transit that many older adults face. We organize the approaches around three central themes: educational, fare payment, and service improvements.
E
ducational Improvements
Unlike driving a personal automobile, public transportation requires no prerequisites such as testing and training; yet, some may argue that it should. As anyone new to the public transit system knows, the initial journey into the “ unknown” can be a daunting experience.
As a way to educate older adults about the use of fixed route transit, travel training programs have been established in various regions. Peer “ travel buddies” or “ ambassadors” lead orientation sessions that explain routes and schedules, boarding and alighting, and fare payment. Travel buddies may even accompany first- time or returning riders on transit rides. Furthermore, assistance from a travel buddy in the same age cohort may ease the apprehension of an inexperienced transit rider.
In a 2002 study of transportation access for older adults, Burkhardt and McGavock provide profiles of best practices in travel training initiatives. Two highlights include ( Burkhardt 2002): Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 39
Austin Resource Center for Independent Living, Napa, California
“ Travel ambassadors” ride alongside fellow older adult transit trainees and answer their questions and concerns. In exchange for offering eight hours of training assistance per month, ambassadors are given a year of free transit service.
Fort Worth Transit Authority ( FWTA), Fort Worth, Texas
The goals of travel training are ( 1) to educate older adults and others about fixed- route transit and ( 2) to encourage riders to choose fixed- route transit over complementary yet costly paratransit services. If schedules or routes change, follow- up training is provided as a “ refresher.” According to FWTA estimates from the 1996 program inception, ridership among those who received training has increased from between 25,000 and 32,000 annually to between 55,000 and 70,000 annually.
Fare Payment Improvements
Because of driver subsidies, a price of three- dollars in fuel does not capture the total cost associated with an automobile trip from work to home. Similarly, a three- dollar transit fare does not cover all the costs involved in transporting a transit rider from home to office. State and local governments ( and to a smaller degree, the federal government) provide financial operating assistance to transit systems. This assistance provides access and mobility, relieves congestion on roads, and improves air quality in urban centers. Transit systems themselves also raise revenue through other means— such as advertising with bus wraps and signage— to cover costs.
Even with operating subsidies in place, many older adults may still find it difficult to afford transit fares. Some transit authorities offer reduced fares, also known as “ senior fares,” for older adults. Other transit authorities provide reduced fares for off- peak travel. Older adults who are regular transit riders may purchase a monthly pass ( generally for a lower per- ride cost than individual cash fares.) Additionally, they may receive a pass from a social service organization or a volunteer society. Other older adults may carry a card supplied by a municipal or county senior service organization that allows for a reduced fare. Older adults that occasionally ride transit are likely to pay the full cash fare. While older adults tend to take shorter transit trips than commuters, most transit systems charge a fixed fare that does not vary by distance ( Taylor Garrett Iseki 2001) or time of day.
Older adults can experience confusion or difficulty while paying transit fares in rail stations or while boarding buses. Light- and heavy- rail systems generally use ticket agents or ticket vending machines from which passengers purchase proof of fare. Buses require passengers without passes to pay cash fare into a fare box. The purchasing of fares on fixed route transit may be difficult for those older adults experiencing mobility limitations, using canes or walkers, or carrying parcels. Passengers need to know how to use fare payment machines, and in some cases, they need to be prepared with exact change. Many older adults may lack prior knowledge of costs associated with transit trips. Burkhardt and McGavock provide useful examples of fare payment programs intended to alleviate the stress associated with fare payment while boarding transit ( Burkhardt, 2002): Mineta Transportation Institute
40 Literature Review
Contactless Smartcards, Leeds, England
New fare cards are similar to EZ Pass receivers used along U. S. interstate highways at toll plazas and on bridges. The contactless smartcard— which can be read while still in purse or pocket— contains a microchip that deducts the appropriate fare from the holder’s account upon boarding. This eliminates needless fumbling and searching through purse or wallet for a swipe card or correct change. Although smartcard systems may be an effective way to quicken passenger boarding, Burkhardt is quick to point out that the program in Leeds is too new to quantify its benefits for older adults. The high capital costs of installing infrastructure for a new smartcard system may be cost- prohibitive, except in large metropolitan areas.
Burkhardt suggests additional fare payment improvements including prepaid fare cards and transportation accounts. Prepaid fare cards may be purchased in advance of travel, and fares are then deducted upon use. Alternatively, individuals may maintain personal transportation accounts while transportation operators adjust accounts based on fare deductions and account deposits. The labor hours associated with maintenance of these accounts may be too costly for systems outside of large metropolitan areas.
S
ervice Improvements
One of the most frequently cited barriers to public transit for older adults is lower service levels during off- peak hours, as compared to peak hours ( Nelson 2002, Glasgow 2000, Hayden 2004). During off- peak hours when congestion is generally lower, there are less frequent transit services and fewer passengers. Many older adults may avoid travel during the morning and evening peak commuting hours, and instead, travel during the mid- day off- peak. Furthermore, older adults generally avoid unnecessary travel at night and after dark. Several transit authorities have experimented with service adjustments during off- peak hours ( Burkhardt 2002):
Capital Metro Transportation Authority, Austin, Texas
Capital Metro service amenities consist of ( 1) reserved seating at the front of buses for older adults and ( 2) drivers able to provide assistance to persons utilizing canes and walkers. Older adults with a Capital Metro Senior ID card may ride any of the Capital Metro buses free of charge.
In some places, human and social service organizations have addressed mobility challenges for older adults by becoming involved in the provision of transportation service. When carried out well— and in a spirit of cooperation— the results have been favorable. Transportation service has been more responsive to and inclusive of the travel needs of older adults.
CONCL
USION
There is no shortage of literature that explains the transportation challenges faced by older adults; yet, literature rarely specifies their barriers to public transit. Clearly, there Mineta Transportation Institute
Literature Review 41
are significant, but not insurmountable, barriers to public transit ridership for all riders— especially older adults. In the United States, metropolitan areas are experiencing two trends that demand improvements to public transportation services: ( 1) a significant increase in the share of adults over age 65 and ( 2) the increase in life expectancy of the population. In failing to reduce the barriers to public transportation use, transit managers and municipal planners have encouraged continued reliance on the automobile. By reducing the barriers to public transportation, there is enormous opportunity to increase transit ridership, lessen automobile dependency, reduce social isolation, improve access, enhance mobility, and improve quality of life in our communities. Public transit systems should think beyond a “ one- size fits all approach” and better target and market services toward specific segments of the population— including older adults. Mineta Transportation Institute
42 Literature Review
Mineta Transportation Institute
43
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
To supplement knowledge obtained in our literature review, we facilitate focus groups of older adults to assess perceptions about public transit and perceived barriers to utilization of public transit— including those related to safety and accessibility. In the second phase of the study, we develop a survey instrument to be mailed to a larger sample of older adults.
This section details the steps of this research process. We begin by describing the focus group process and findings. Then, we detail the development of the survey questionnaire instrument and the process of mailing. This section concludes with a brief overview of the data analysis process.
FOCUS GROUPS
Four focus groups were conducted to gather perspectives and viewpoints of older adults about the barriers to using public transit. The focus groups unfolded as brainstorming sessions and were intended to gain insight in the areas of ( 1) access to public transit ( including buses and trains), ( 2) physical challenges in reaching stations and stops, ( 3) physical challenges in using vehicles, ( 4) accessing information about the transit system, and ( 5) safety and security.
Focus group participants, who were recruited with the help of staff at the various locations, signed an informed consent to participate in the focus groups and received $ 5 compensation for their time. The focus groups were recorded, and the audiotapes were later