Self-reported difficulty and preferences of wheeled mobility device users for simulated low-floor bus boarding, interior circulation and disembarking

• Published in: Disability and rehabilitation: Assistive technology Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. 109 - 121
• Main Authors: D'Souza, Clive, Paquet, Victor L., Lenker, James A., Steinfeld, Edward
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis 17-02-2019; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: accessibility; Adaptive technology; Adult; Aged; Architectural Accessibility; Barriers; Buses; Community involvement; Disabled Persons; Equipment Design; Female; Humans; Interior design; low-floor bus; Male; Middle Aged; Mobility; Mobility Limitation; Motor Vehicles; Positioning; Preferences; Public transportation; Rehabilitation; Self Report; Self-Help Devices; Skill development; Task Performance and Analysis; Usability; Vehicles; Wheelchairs; usability; Wheelchairs; accessibility; low-floor bus; public transportation
• ISSN: 1748-3107; 1748-3115
• DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1401128

Background: Low ridership of public transit buses among wheeled mobility device users suggests the need to identify vehicle design conditions that are either particularly accommodating or challenging. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of low-floor bus interior seating configuration and passenger load on wheeled mobility device user-reported difficulty, overall acceptability and design preference.
Methods: Forty-eight wheeled mobility users evaluated three interior design layouts at two levels of passenger load (high vs. low) after simulating boarding and disembarking tasks on a static full-scale low-floor bus mockup.
Results: User self-reports of task difficulty, acceptability and design preference were analyzed across the different test conditions. Ramp ascent was the most difficult task for manual wheelchair users relative to other tasks. The most difficult tasks for users of power wheelchairs and scooters were related to interior circulation, including moving to the securement area, entry and positioning in the securement area and exiting the securement area. Boarding and disembarking at the rear doorway was significantly more acceptable and preferred compared to the layouts with front doorways.
Conclusion: Understanding transit usability barriers, perceptions and preferences among wheeled mobility users is an important consideration for clinicians who recommend mobility-related device interventions to those who use public transportation.
Implications for Rehabilitation
In order to maximize community participation opportunities for wheeled mobility users, clinicians should consider potential public transit barriers during the processes of wheelchair device selection and skills training.
Usability barriers experienced by wheeled mobility device users on transit vehicles differ by mobility device type and vehicle configurations.
Full-scale environment simulations are an effective means of identifying usability barriers and design needs in people with mobility impairments and may provide an alternative model for determining readiness for using fixed route buses or eligibility for paratransit.