TRansit ACessibility Tool (TRACT): Developing a novel scoring system for public transportation system accessibility
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
The Ladder Rung Walking Task: A Scoring System and its Practical Application.
Published on: June 12, 2009
Erica Twardzik1,2, Jennifer A Schrack1,2, Keshia M Pollack Porter3
1Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Introduction:
Although federal laws require equal access to public transportation for people with disabilities, access barriers persist. Lack of sharing accessibility information on public transportation websites restricts people with disabilities from making transportation plans and effectively using public transportation systems. This project aims to document information provided about public transportation systems accessibility and share this information using an open data platform.
Methods:
We reviewed the top twenty-six public transportation systems in the United States based on federal funding in fiscal year 2020. Information about accessibility was abstracted from each public transportation system website by two independent reviewers from February-March 2022. Informed by universal design principles, public transportation systems were scored across six dimensions: facility accessibility (0-22 points), vehicle accessibility (0-11 points), inclusive policies (0-12 points), rider accommodations (0-9 points), paratransit services (0-6 points), and website accessibility (0-2 points). Total scores were calculated as the sum of each dimension (0-62 points). Data and findings were publicly disseminated (https://disabilityhealth.jhu.edu/transitdashboard/).
Results:
The average overall accessibility information score was 31.9 (SD=6.2) out of 62 possible points. Mean scores were 8.4 (SD=2.9) for facility accessibility, 4.5 (SD=2.1) for vehicle accessibility, 7.8 (SD=1.6) for inclusive policies, 4.9 (SD=1.6) for rider accommodations, 4.5 (SD=2.0) for paratransit services, and 1.8 (SD=0.4) for website accessibility. Eleven public transportation systems (42%) received the maximum score for paratransit services and 20 (77%) received the maximum score for website accessibility. No public transportation system received the maximum score for any of the other dimensions.
Conclusions:
Using a novel scoring system, we found significant variation in the accessibility information presented on public transportation system websites. Websites are a primary mode where users obtain objective information about public transportation systems and are therefore important platforms for communication. Absence of accessibility information creates barriers for the disability community and restricts equal access to public transportation.
