Accessibility in Public Transit - Is it Time to Expand the Definition? by Grecia White

August 10, 2021

By Grecia White


What does it mean in the public transit world? What does it mean to transit agencies vs what it means to riders? How is accessibility measured, tracked and improved by the agency and how closely does this align with the needs of riders?  

"We believe that true accessibility benefits everyone—seniors, parents, students, commuters, tourists, and countless other customers we serve each day." Accessibility on the MBTA

"Metro strives to ensure that its services (including over 200 bus and rail routes) are fully accessible to all of our customers, including those with disabilities. " Los Angeles Metro 

I've chosen to focus both on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Agency, (MBTA) and LA Metro,  since my research project, Bus Stops and Perceived Safety Through a Gender Lens,  took place in the MBTA service area and Los Angeles, to the best of my knowledge, has been doing the most work around gender and transit. In 2019 LA metro released Understanding How Women Travel and this July the Los Angeles Department of Transportation followed it up with, Changing Lanes: A Gender Equity Transportation Study. 

LA metro has an Accessibility Advisory Committee, "comprised of Metro riders with disabilities and those who advocate for them in and around Los Angeles County. The committee provides feedback to Metro regarding accessibility issues and serves as a sounding board for new and innovative Metro programs. " - LA Metro  

And while LA metro's webpage on accessibility does not include gender, the Changing Lanes report does bring up gender, safety and accessibility, "In addition to gender inequities, BIPOC women face racial barriers to safe and accessible transportation, maneuvering factors like historic under investment, racist housing and zoning practices, and economic disenfranchisement." Seeing the words accessibility, gender inequities, and zoning practices all in the same sentence is truly a breath of fresh air. 

I especially like that it also highlights zoning practices. In my study, the bus stops where women and non-women identifying folks reported feeling the safest at, were all located in areas with stores, restaurants and high foot traffic.

The MBTA also has several initiatives focused on accessibility, including the following: 

  • An Internal Access Monitoring Program, "Teams of people, both with and without disabilities, ride buses, trains, and ferries and provide feedback on their experience. Each team works between 3 and 5 hours per assignment. " 

The MBTA also conducted an audit of the amenities in their entire service area - a huge undertaking as part of their Plan for Accessible Transit Infrastructure (PATI). “It’s easy to identify our biggest barriers, like inaccessible stations and stops. But to achieve full accessibility, we need to identify the other meaningful barriers that can make using the MBTA a challenge. One of the primary objectives of PATI is to survey our entire network of stations and bus stops to catalog barriers like missing curb ramps, heavy station doors, and obstructions in the path of travel.”

A map of the survey is publicly available along with a PDF of the data for each stop (click on the stop you’re interested in and scroll down to see the link to the PDF). Here’s an example. 

Each stop is given a score. Bus stops 58 and 57 both have a score of Medium and bus stop 6 has a score of Low.


In the perceived safety audit I conducted for my project bus stops 57, 58, and 6 scored the lowest for nighttime, yet as part of the PATI audit, stops 57 and 58 ranked as Medium. I see this as a disconnect and an opportunity to include safety perceptions as part of what makes a transit stop accessible or not. 


Although adding more nuanced factors such as safety perceptions into the definition of accessibility may seem "messy" and perhaps make transit agency employees cringe- it’s important. It’s okay to embrace the messiness! That is how we'll gain a better understanding of our riders and get closer to truly accessible service- one that folks feel safe accessing in the daytime and nighttime to meet their varying needs and get to where they need or want to go both when the sun is out and when it's nighttime. Our movements throughout the city shouldn't be restricted by time of day.  

Here are some possible starting points for transit agencies and advocacy groups: 

  • Including safety perceptions in accessibility scores 

  • Ask monitors or people who survey stops about their own feelings of safety 

  • Conduct regular perceived safety audits to establish a baseline and track progress  

  • Play! Explore topics such as design thinking to pilot new ideas, iterate, get feedback and improve in a way that is more playful and empathetic 

  • Get out there! Have transit agency staff visit different stops and have conversations with riders 

Most importantly- let’s not be afraid to get to know our riders. I believe accessibility goes beyond physical infrastructure. If folks don’t feel safe waiting at a bus stop past a certain time - how accessible is that bus stop really? If we’re only tracking accessibility based on physical amenities and not how riders feel and experience their environment...how closely can we really meet their current and future needs? Expanding the definition of accessibility to include things like perceived safety can be a start to begin building a more empathetic relationship with our riders.  


CNU New England