CPB

Corporate Partnership
Board

Sustainable
Accessibility for All

Sustainable
Accessibility for All

Research Report2024

The International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 69 member countries. It acts
as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. The ITF is the
only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively
integrated with the OECD.
The ITF works for transport policies that improve people’s lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper
understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social
inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy.
The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and prenegotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promoteexchange among transport decision makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest
gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of),
Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro,
Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia,
Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uzbekistan.
International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

ITF Research Reports
ITF Research Reports are in-depth studies of transport policy issues of concern to ITF member countries.
They present the findings of dedicated ITF Working Groups, which bring together international experts
over a period of one to two years and are vetted by the ITF Transport Research Committee. Any findings,
interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the International Transport Forum, the OECD or the World Bank. Neither the OECD, the ITF,
the World Bank nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information contained in thispublication and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. This document iswithout prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international
frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Cite this work as: ITF (2024), Sustainable Accessibility for All, ITF Research Report, OECD Publishing, Paris.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements
This report sets out the findings of a Working Group facilitated by the International Transport Forum (ITF),
comprising 25 members from ten ITF member countries. The Working Group met three times between
June 2022 and September 2023. Three virtual workshops with invited experts were held in April 2023.
The report was primarily written by Orla McCarthy and Matthew Ireland (ITF), with substantial
contributions from Chiara Vitrano (Sweden), Jens Dangschat (Austria), Markus Mailer (Austria), Mehmet
Yazici (Türkiye), Rita Prior-Felipe (ITF Secretariat) and Takeru Shibayama (Austria). The project was led byOrla McCarthy, with oversight from Jagoda Egeland and publication management by David Prater (ITF).
The Working Group would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to meetings or reviewsof relevant sections: Anne Durand (KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis), Christina
Lindkvist (Malmö University, Sweden), Flora Fessler (Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria), Fumio
Kurosaki (Japan), Glen Lyons (UWE Bristol), Jean Ryan (WSP, Sweden), Jonna Heikkinen (Uber), Karel
Martens (Technion, Israel), Karen Lucas (University of Manchester), Letícia Rizério (Municipality of Belo
Horizonte, Brazil), Lidia Signor (UITP), Lisa Keveney (Community Policy Unit, Department of Rural andCommunity Development, Ireland), Louise Reardon (University of Birmingham), Manon Espinasse (École
des Ponts, Paris Tech), Nima Dadashzadeh (University of Portsmouth), Pierre-André Horth (CEREMA,
France), Severin Baron (La vie à vélo, France), Teruki Yamada, (Policy Research Institute for Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan) and Tiia Orjasniemi (Government of Finland).
Preliminary findings of the Working Group were presented at a side session of the World Conference on
Transport Research Society in Montreal in July 2023; notes from that discussion have also beenreflected in this report.
The report has also benefited from extensive written and oral feedback from Working Group
members, and the extensive discussions at its three meetings. Annex C lists Working Group members.
This report is part of the ITF’s core Programme of Work for 2022-23, co-ordinated by Jagoda Egeland andOrla McCarthy, and has been approved by the ITF’s Transport Research Committee.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ 6
1. What is sustainable accessibility for all? ...................................................................................... 9
A Sustainable Accessibility for All framework ................................................................................ 10
Policy insights ................................................................................................................................ 12
2. Person-based metrics are crucial to accessibility ....................................................................... 13
Socio-demographic and economic factors .................................................................................... 13
Socio-cultural factors .................................................................................................................... 18
Policy takeaways ........................................................................................................................... 20
3. The role of territorial and modal factors in accessibility is critical to planning solutions ............. 21
Territorial factors .......................................................................................................................... 22
Viable modes differ by territorial setting ...................................................................................... 25
Policy takeaways ........................................................................................................................... 32
4. Modal frameworks and accessibility indicators can help with planning ...................................... 33
Mobility guarantee frameworks .................................................................................................... 33
Accessibility indicators .................................................................................................................. 34
Policy takeaways ........................................................................................................................... 41
5. Incorporating accessibility in governance .................................................................................. 42
National and regional or state governments ................................................................................. 42
Regional authorities and local governments ................................................................................. 46
Meaningful engagement ............................................................................................................... 47
Policy takeaways ........................................................................................................................... 54
6. Looking beyond mobility policy ................................................................................................. 55
Better integrating land-use and digital connectivity into transport planning ............................... 55
Digitalisation and access ............................................................................................................... 57
The potential role of mobility hubs ............................................................................................... 60
Policy takeaways ........................................................................................................................... 61
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 63
References ................................................................................................................................... 64
Annex A. Areas for further research.............................................................................................. 78
Annex B. Extract from OECD guidelines for citizen participation processes .................................... 80
Annex C. List of Working Group participants ................................................................................. 82

4

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

Figures
Figure 1. A conceptual framework for Sustainable Accessibility for All ........................................... 11
Figure 2. Elements relevant to behaviour change.......................................................................... 19
Figure 3. The three main types of human settlement .................................................................... 21
Figure 4. The cycle of automobile dependency and sprawl............................................................ 23
Figure 5. Suitability of shared mobility types by population density and settlement type ............... 26
Figure 6. The urban-rural classification in Finland, 2018 ................................................................ 30
Figure 7. Mobility service guarantee mapping............................................................................... 34
Figure 8. Public Transport Access Level map of Greater London .................................................... 36
Figure 9. Jobs reachable within 45 minutes under the Mayor’s 2041 Transport Strategy ............... 37
Figure 10. Access to the three nearest secondary schools by public transport and/or walking ....... 38
Figure 11. An example of accessibility indicators used in Auckland, New Zealand .......................... 39
Figure 12. The Dutch Multi-Year Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial Planning and Transport .... 40
Figure 13. Ireland’s Hierarchy of Road Users model ...................................................................... 44
Figure 14. The Triple Access System: Adapting access in response to the Covid-19 pandemic ........ 56
Figure 15. Uptake of smartphones and use of digital travel information in the Netherlands .......... 58
Figure 16. Digital tools are indispensable in mobility ..................................................................... 58

TablesTable 1. The Ambiguity–Conflict model of policy implementation ................................................. 46
Table 2. Participative processes for transport policies at the state or regional level ....................... 50
Table 3. Participative processes for transport policies at the local government level ..................... 51
Table 4. The functions of mobility hubs ........................................................................................ 60

Boxes
Box 1. A working definition of sustainable accessibility ................................................................... 9
Box 2. Improving public transport accessibility for health service users in County Leitrim, Ireland . 29
Box 3. The future of public transport funding ............................................................................... 45
Box 4. Accessibility and civic engagement ..................................................................................... 48
Box 5. Examples of representative deliberative processes in transport policy making .................... 52
Box 6. Ten steps for a citizen participation process ....................................................................... 53
Box 7. Making MaaS accessible for all ........................................................................................... 59

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary
Key messages
Accessibility requires broader framing
Physical access is a crucial component of accessible transport services. But accessibility involves anintersection between many different policy areas and frames of reference. Focusing on one aspect is not
sufficient to guarantee accessibility for all.
People need sustainable options
People need opportunities to be available and accessible, and they need sustainable travel options toaccess them for sustainable accessibility to be a reality. Additionally, policies targeted at travel choices
may be needed to change travel behaviours.
Engage effectively with communities
To improve engagement with the people impacted by transport interventions, policy makers should
consider a wide variety of citizen participation processes. The exact form of these processes will depend
on what is most appropriate for the context.

Main findings
This report, aimed at policymakers and transportation planners, explores the concept of sustainable
accessibility for all. It argues that traditional approaches to accessibility, focused solely on physical mobility,
are insufficient. The report highlights the importance of access to opportunities and calls for a broader,more integrated approach that considers land use, social factors, and sustainable travel options.
Accessibility involves an intersection between many different policy areas: not only physically accessing
mobility, and how people access opportunities, but also what those opportunities are and the policies(such as land-use policies) that affect where they are, when are they accessible, as well as who is (or is not)willing and able to access them. Conventional frames for considering accessibility are too narrow. Whilethey help advance understanding, they are a long way from ensuring accessibility for all. Single frames
ignore the intersection of experiences that affect people’s ability to access opportunities but also theirtravel behaviour when accessing available opportunities – a crucial aspect of sustainable travel.
While standards exist for physical access, the level of intersections that impact accessibility means that it
is not likely to be something that can be universally generalised. It will more likely need to be dealt with
progressively at different stages of the governance and planning processes. Accessibility needs to beconsidered in terms of access to opportunities and how that is influenced by a combination of factors of
the communities themselves and the areas in which they live. Transport policy is not the only lever to pull
to enable sustainable accessibility. Many of the solutions we already know from years of work on accessfor persons with disabilities still hold true and need to be acted upon.

6

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives also need to be clear – both sustainability and accessibility can be addressed throughinterventions, but the actions may vary. For example, the installation of a new sustainable mobility service
that increases accessibility for those disadvantaged by the pre-existing transport system may also need tobe accompanied by incentives or other measures to encourage a change of behaviour among thosechoosing to use less sustainable alternatives.
Sustainable accessibility governance will require different actions at different levels. National governments
must lead the way by identifying sustainable accessibility as a strategic priority, legitimising budget
allocations for that purpose. Different levels of government have different competencies and relevance tothe desired outcomes. National governments can set agendas and strategic priorities for investment(either directly or in conjunction with local entities), but local authorities are likely to be better placed tounderstand the circumstances facing the residents, commuters and visitors in their region.
To improve engagement with the people impacted by interventions, policymakers should consider thetools available in the OECD guidance on citizen participation processes. The exact form of participatory
processes will depend on what is most appropriate for the context. Tools exist to consult citizens at a highlevel on strategies or strategic interventions. Equally, community level schemes can inform project designs
and investments at a more local level. Through engagement at these two levels of governance, firstly
strategic direction can be given and, potentially, funding defined. At a more local level, specific projects orinterventions could be identified that will help accessibility in those communities – given the combinationof socio-economic, demographic and territorial factors that prevail in that setting.

Top recommendations
Clearly identify accessibility to opportunities as a priority in national strategies
Providing and improving accessibility to amenities and opportunities must be identified as a priority bynational government so it can feed into all strategies, governance frameworks or planning processes that
follow. Building on section 1, these strategies must include more than just the transport sector and shouldreflect integrated thinking with land use and local development. Including the need to consider different
social groups in relevant engagement should also be prioritised. It will be important that the mostappropriate governance level is involved at each step – for example, for strategic planning, oversight, andfunding, the national ministry may be best placed, but for detailed planning and implementation, the local
authorities should lead the process.
Broaden accessibility considerations beyond conventional frames of gender, age and physical mobility
Efforts to better understand transport users’ travel patterns and needs are a positive step forwards inbreaking conventional transport planning habits that have tended to underserve segments of thecommunity. This work has also helped raise awareness of the need to change and there is a considerable
body of research on many of the individual factors. However, for the translation of that knowledge toimplementable solutions, a greater understanding of the specific circumstances facing a given population
are an essential element to successful outcomes – especially if projects seek to address both accessibility
and sustainability. This could include potentially seeking out new data sources and increasing engagement.
Adopt available methodologies to improve engagement with affected communities
Empowering communities to be a part of the solutions for their accessibility can help with greater
understanding and more appropriate solution design. There are many examples of the deployment of

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

participative processes for transport projects from strategy and budgeting to project design and routing.
There are established engagement processes that the transport sector could adopt, many of which are
outlined in the OECD’s guidelines on citizen participation.
Develop accessibility indicator methodologies suitable to the end purpose
Accessibility indicators can help to identify and communicate gaps in access to opportunities for different
communities or social groups. There is not currently consensus on a single “best” methodology, butdifferent dimensions can be included depending on the size of the area covered and the granularity of thedata available. The inclusion of more complex person-based metrics will most likely lend itself to more
local planning. However, methodologies need to be developed to reflect accessibility of rural and remoteareas, as well as urban contexts. Combining the indicators with sustainable mobility frameworks or modal
hierarchy will help to include the sustainable aspect of sustainable accessibility.
Adopt a comprehensive approach to accessibility planning – include more than just mobility policies
Accessibility cannot be solved by transport policy alone. Proximity to opportunities supports accessibility
and access by sustainable modes. Improving quality of urban space, walkability and cyclability can reinforce
this. Furthermore, alternatives to travel can also support accessibility, such as virtual access, which isimportant also to improving accessibility without increasing transport demand. These aspects rely on nontransport policy domains and infrastructure that can differ by geographical type. Comprehensive planningthat reflects the desired outcomes, as well as stronger cross-agency collaboration in government, will beneeded to support sustainable accessibility.
.

8

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL?

1. What is sustainable accessibility for all?
Although the idea of “accessibility” is not new, the topic has become increasingly important in transport
policy discourse in recent years. This reflects a shift in emphasis from mobility, in which more and fastertravel is better, to access to opportunities, where travel enables people to fulfil their needs (ITF, 2012;2021). As part of this discourse, discussions about physical transport networks and services have given way
to examinations of the people and places these networks do (or do not) serve.
At the same time, the concept of accessibility has grown beyond physical access and mobility. Accessibility
is now a core concern across multiple policy fields besides transport – proximity, land-use planning andalternative forms of access (e.g. digital access) all engage with elements of accessibility. However, despitea significant body of knowledge on accessibility and transport poverty, there is an absence ofcomprehensive policy implementation based on this knowledge.
There are several widely accepted definitions, or components, of accessibility. Expanding the concept ofaccessibility by incorporating “sustainability” means taking additional considerations into account. For
example, people’s choice of transport modes and vehicle types affects the costs their travel and behaviour
impose on society (e.g., air pollution, climate change and exclusion). This report adopts a non-exhaustive
definition of “sustainable accessibility” (see Box 1) that seeks to cover the various aspects that need to beaddressed in translating research and knowledge into policy.
Many of life’s inequities play out in the transport space. When transport is unaffordable, physically anddigitally inaccessible, unsafe and insecure, it directly affects people’s ability to find employment or
education, participate socially, access healthcare and essential services, and improve their quality of life.
But what constitutes a viable opportunity or transport option will vary from person to person. This is why
transport policies focusing on accessibility “explicitly recognise the need to deliver benefits to all socialgroups, implying an allocation of resources favouring those who have the fewest opportunities” (ITF,
2020).

Box 1. A working definition of sustainable accessibility
Sustainable accessibility is the ease of reaching amenities and opportunities.
It depends on the presence of:
1. opportunities across settlement types and times of day
2. attractive sustainable mobility options (or alternatives) that are reliable, affordable,
usable and non-discriminatory.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

9

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL?

Policy makers need better guidance and principles to help frame the myriad decisions they must makewhen ensuring accessibility for their populations. Furthermore, two objectives are at play when seeking
sustainable accessibility. The first is the threshold condition of providing access to opportunities to avoid
access poverty. The second is encouraging travellers and policy makers to move away from choosing or
prioritising unsustainable transport modes such as private cars, especially petrol and diesel cars. Thisobjective focuses on encouraging or enabling people and policy makers to think about access toopportunities using sustainable modes, particularly low-carbon and inclusive modes such as active travel.

A Sustainable Accessibility for All framework
As a starting point, this report proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the different facets ofsustainable accessibility for all (see Figure 1). Its three main dimensions echo the concepts of“accessibility”, “sustainability” and “for all”. The remainder of the report then explores the factors that
influence the necessary actions and governance for planning sustainable accessibility policies.
Accessibility

Accessibility encompasses the ease of independently reaching amenities and opportunities (e.g. housing,work, education, recreation, essential services, and social contacts) provided primarily through land use
and the transport system (Cass et al., 2005; Geurs and Wee, 2004; Fol and Gallez, 2013).
Land-use and planning parameters include settlement types, the balance between existing and needed
infrastructure, the territorial distribution and proximity of services and amenities, the level and quality of
local facilities, and opening times.
The transport system encompasses the existing and needed infrastructure for mobility, walkability,
bikeability; existing and needed public transport and mobility services and level of service provided(spatially and temporally); fares, information, reliability, travel time and timetables.
Mobility provides a degree of freedom of movement to realise accessibility, but enhanced mobility alone
will not increase accessibility. A person lacking accessible mobility options may still have a high level ofmobility. Mobility itself is not necessarily desirable: it can even act as a substitute for local accessibility.
Moving around less and having better accessibility is both desirable and possible.
The framework integrates these parameters. It seeks to articulate spatial and transport planning policies
and strategies to address existing barriers to travel. In this framework, addressing the needs of different
societal groups also presents opportunities to captivate users and non-users of mobility options alike.
Sustainability

The sustainability element includes not only the environmental dimension of transport (e.g. transport
emissions) but also social and economic dimensions such as the ways in which transport presents barriers
and opportunities for particular social groups and settlement types.
For all

The framework captures the societal/user dimensions that must be considered before, during and after
implementation processes. This dimension incorporates the iterative process of considering the different
societal groups – reflecting social, demographic, cultural and economic factors – and their representation
among transport user groups as well as barriers preventing or limiting transport access.
10

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL?

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for Sustainable Accessibility for All

Source: Vitrano and Mailer (2023).

The framework considers the roles of land use and planning, the transport system and mobility in defining
accessibility. In doing so, it addresses 1) the risks of inaccessibility and social exclusion and 2) the need tochange travel behaviour towards sustainable modes.
The framework helps highlight different users’ and stakeholders’ perspectives. This makes addressing
issues of involvement, recognition, and participation easier, especially for under-represented and hard-toreach groups. Furthermore, the framework highlights the need to consider changes in travelling behaviour
as a change in mindset for users, policy makers, and transport operators. Both need to consider thediversity of resources and barriers affecting (sustainable) accessibility for different people.
The framework demonstrates how the levers and barriers for sustainable travel behaviour resulting fromland use and the transport system interact with and affect different social groups in different ways, thereby
contributing to the definitions of users and non-users of transport (and amenities). This can result indifferent potentials for access to (un)sustainable transport modes and exposure to transport, mobility, oraccess poverty risks, which can lead to social exclusion. It also emphasises civic engagement (i.e.
participation) as a crucial method for recognising barriers experienced by different groups and improving
spatial and transport planning.
This report explores the factors influencing accessibility that policy makers must consider in their planning.
It also covers the different levels of government and their remits to help identify when and what level ofconsultation is likely to be most effective in overcoming barriers to accessibility. Finally, the report looks
beyond mobility policy. It considers land-use and spatial planning, the growing digitalisation of economies,
and their roles in securing accessibility for all.
Access to education, healthcare, employment and social opportunities are critical for well-being andequity. In recent years, policy makers in several countries have sought ways to improve transport policy to

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

11

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL?

better reflect equity and participation across social groups and regions, and to focus more on the qualityof travel activity taking place (ITF, 2020; ITF, 2021; Government of Ireland, 2023).
Even within different population cohorts, no social group is homogeneous (Haustein et al., 2013). A range
of factors influence individual mobility. The next two chapters discuss factors that affect accessibility andthe sustainability of travel choices, including person-based (i.e. socio-demographic, economic and sociocultural) factors, territorial factors (ITF, 2021) and available modal options. A separate chapter outlines
tools for incorporating these various factors into planning.
The report then moves on to discuss the challenge of incorporating accessibility in governance, before
concluding with an overview of an emerging approach to transport planning that incorporates land-use
systems and digital connectivity while accounting for future uncertainty about mobility preferences.

Policy insights

12•

Recognise the different elements involved in achieving sustainable accessibility. Focus on accessto opportunities, not just mobility: Transportation policy should aim to ensure people can easily
reach essential services, jobs, and amenities, not just move faster or further.

•

Balance accessibility with sustainability: Encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport(walking, cycling, public transport) while ensuring everyone has access to these options.
Accessibility needs vary across different social groups. Involve citizens, user groups, and otherstakeholders in transport planning to ensure policies reflect community needs.

•

Coordinated planning of land use and transport systems can improve accessibility by bringing
amenities and opportunities closer to where people live. Accessibility also includes digital access,which is crucial for participation in the modern economy.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY

2. Person-based metrics are crucial to accessibility
Much research has been conducted into mobility and accessibility challenges faced by individual groups insociety. This work is critical to understanding the ways conventional transport planning has failed to fairly
provide access to opportunities across society. However, individuals may be members of multiple societalgroups at any one time. Those groups can also differ internally according to socio-economic characteristics,
life stages and responsibilities, disability diversity, competencies (e.g. digital literacy), time-use patterns(e.g. working in non-standard working times) and trip purposes (e.g. work, education, recreation or care
responsibilities), safety perception, cultures, attitudes and preferences, belonging to different urban
populations (e.g. residents, commuters, and city-users); and their unique combination of all of the above.
The lack of recognition of this diversity can result in exclusion from planning processes or different
potentials for access to (un)sustainable transport modes and opportunities.
Modern societies are marked by an increasing diversity of living conditions, ethnic backgrounds,
Indigenous statuses, interests, role models, attitudes and values. Increasing diversification within
traditionally defined socio-demographic and socio-economic groups results in a wider range of attitudes
and behaviour with regards to mobility. Categories such as age, gender, nationality, household type,educational level and income have lost their “explanatory power” for some outcomes, including
preferences for certain transport modes, prioritisation of environmental protection, or propensity to use
new technologies.
This chapter explores some of the more prevalent facets explored in relation to different social groups toillustrate barriers that commonly affect their accessibility in the context of traditional transport
engineering approaches to planning. At the same, however, an individual will be a member of multiple
groups. The concept of intersectionality – that is, the interaction of experiences based on gender, race,income and other types of discrimination – appears to be less well explored in the context of transport
policy (Ravensbergen, Buliung and Laliberté, 2019). Still, it gets closer to the realities of transport barriers
explored in this chapter. Namely, that accessibility is not a one-dimensional concept.

Socio-demographic and economic factors
Previous work has identified socio-demographic and economic groups whose needs are not always
necessarily well understood by transport planners: low-income earners and those who are unemployed;
persons with reduced mobility and disabilities; older adults; children and youth; Indigenous and traditional
rural communities or populations living in rural and deprived areas (covered under territorial factors);
migrants and ethnic minorities; women and girls; and anyone who cannot or does not drive (ITF, 2021;
Dotter, 2016; ECMT, 2006; ITF, 2019a).
GenderThere is a significant body of research on gender-based differences in transport needs. Among the key
considerations are perception of safety, complex travel patterns, different work patterns (e.g. more partSUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

13

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY

time work), travelling encumbered (i.e. with children or older people when acting in a carer role), trip
chaining (which can increase cost) and being negatively impacted by service inefficiencies when relying on
multimodal trips (Duchéne, 2011; Ng and Acker, 2018; ITF, 2018; 2019, 2021). A lack of genderdisaggregated data at a wide scale contributes to blind spots in transport planning (ITF, 2019).
However, gender is not the sole determinant at play. A systematic literature review of the intersections atplay in women’s uptake of active mobility found that, in addition to marked differences between men andwomen, differences in perception and uptake also existed based on socio-economic status, race andethnicity as well as profession and educational attainment (Yuan et al. 2023). The built environment andwomen’s perceptions of neighbourhood safety were found to be important, too.
Built environment and perception of safety and fear of sexual harassment or assault also affect women’s
use of public transport (ITF, 2018; 2019; Sil et al., 2023; Gardner et al. 2017), although the understandingof the impacts is not consistent in all countries (Gardner et al. 2017). Prevailing patriarchal society
structures, socio-economic factors and educational attainment are also limiting factors in some countries(Sil et al., 2023). Connectivity issues can also be a major barrier, especially in rural or poorly served areas.
The travel patterns of those in part-time work and care-giving roles differ from the conventional commuter
patterns on which many transport systems are built. In many societies, carer roles are still predominantly
carried out by women. However, restrictions on travel associated with travelling while escorting adependent or travelling at off-peak times can apply to anyone carrying out these roles. Women are also
more likely to combine purposes and destinations in one journey (trip-chaining), which can result inincreased ticketing costs and time inefficiencies when using public transport (ITF, 2019).
Access to a private car can actually be an opportunity for freedom for women, or essential to access
opportunities; but in many regions, women have lower access than men (Duchéne, 2011; OECD, 2024). In
a recent study in Ireland, for example, the majority of women in both urban and non-urban settings
reported that the car is a necessity in their lives (TII, 2020). Again, gender is not the only factor at play. In
the United Kingdom, for example, the lowest-income households without car access also have the highest
representation of “female heads of house, children, young and older people, black and minority ethnic(BME) and disabled people” (Lucas et al., 2019). This is an important indicator of why sustainable mobility
policies need to be well designed to avoid perpetuating disadvantage. Such policies need to focus on accessto opportunities, in tandem with policies aiming to overcome barriers to using sustainable modes.
Age

The world’s population is growing older (UN DESA, 2022). This will have implications for their mobility
needs. Local area design will have an impact. Greater neighbourhood opportunities (including access toservices) can support in-community ageing, reducing older people’s need to travel. This can also haveknock-on impacts in terms of social participation and reduced risk of loneliness (OECD, 2001; 2021; Frye,2011). The option to drive and the availability of affordable and accessible public transport are importantfor older adults’ mobility and access to society (Pellichero et al., 2021; Dabelko-Schoeny, 2021). However,the presence of public transport or sustainable mobility options does not guarantee their use by older
adults (Durand and Zijstra, 2023; Corran et al., 2018).
The built environment also has an impact on the attractiveness of walking and cycling (Dabelko-Schoeny;
2021; Močnik et al., 2022; Panahi et al., 2022). However, the findings for older adults vary. For example, a
study in Hong Kong found that older adults were not necessarily less mobile than their younger
counterparts, although trip purposes differ (He et al., 2017). Travel pattern differences were found to be

14

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY

related to employment status, car ownership, their income and household characteristics. This points
further to the intersectionality of access needs across and within social groups.
Although many studies of age and mobility or age and environment exist, chronological age is anincreasingly poor substitute as an indicator of frailty, physical and mental disabilities and constraints, aschronical age groups vary internally. Moreover, international comparisons must be analysed carefully, as
physical and transport conditions vary as much as polices and planning, and older people’s societal roles.
There is no single definition of the needs of an older person. The World Health Organization (WHO), forexample, considers healthy ageing in the context of the ability to maintain or develop functional abilities
that support well-being rather than in the context of assumed needs for specific age bands (Meißner and
McNair, 2021; WHO, n.d.). Functional ability, in this context, “is made up of the intrinsic capacity [physicaland mental] of the individual, relevant environmental characteristics and the interactions between theindividual and those characteristics” (WHO, 2023).
However, by the time people reach old age it is too late to begin policy interventions. “Ensuring economic
security and health for all in old age calls for promoting equal opportunity from birth, including throughuniversal access to health care and education as well as opportunities for decent work” (UN DESA, 2023).
In other words, accessibility for older people means accessibility for the whole community.
As with other societal groups, young people’s mobility is context-specific (ITF, 2024a). It has beensuggested that youth mobility is overlooked because young people are not considered economically“productive” (Joelsson et al., 2022). While significant differences exist between different countries, young
people travel for similar reasons and by similar means. For young people, a typical daily journey or schedule
may differ from other transport users. Similar to gendered trip patterns, they may trip chain (multiple
destinations per journey) and use multiple modes.
Youth mobility therefore requires specific analysis and understanding. Young people’s travel choices are
dynamic, driven by an intricate web of factors that extend beyond mere individual preferences.
Interactions between the different factors include, but are not limited to, living arrangements, financial
constraints, residential location, the proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs),
influence of transport policies, and safety and security concerns (ITF, 2024a).
There are significant differences between mode choices in the Global South and Global North. Youth inlow- and middle-income countries travel mainly on foot and bicycles or rely on informal transportation,and they aspire to own modes of personal motorised transport, especially two-wheelers (ITF, 2024a). The
lack of adequate public transportation and active mobility infrastructure, as well as safety and security
concerns, and financial constraints, shape youth mobility in this context. Due to limited youth-specific data,
it is unclear if young people in developing countries make fewer or more trips compared to previous
generations and if trip distances and commute times are increasing or decreasing. Meanwhile, young
people in advanced economies still primarily rely on car travel for their daily activities, although they drive
less than older cohorts (ITF, 2024a).
Young people under the legal driving age depend on being driven by their adult family members. A recent
survey in Japan shows that the about 60% of 16- and 17-year-old youth surveyed in a rural area, and about
30% in a low-density urban area, feel that they cannot often realise basic out-of-school activities such as
meeting friends, shopping where they want, and visiting facilities and amenities they want to visit without
being driven by family members by cars. Approximately 40% of those surveyed in the rural area must
forego such activities as there are no or limited public transport alternatives (Yoshizawa et. al., 2023). As
with other factors, aggregate and disaggregate data with a large representative sample size is necessary

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

15

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY

to truly understand youth mobility, trends, and patterns, reveal specificities, and address context-specificchallenges and opportunities.
Migration

Delbosc and Shafi (2023), reviewing recent studies (mostly from Australia and the United States) ofimmigrant travel behaviour, find few common threads to these cohorts’ travel patterns, although new
immigrants tend to rely less on the private car. Individual cohorts make more use of public transport oractive modes than others. Some are more reliant on carpooling or car-sharing, with their origin country
being important to this outcome. However, the reasons underpinning this behaviour vary greatly.
Socio-economic factors, settlement patterns (e.g. living in communities of other immigrants), origin anddestination countries, and socio-cultural and gender factors all influence immigrant travel patterns.
Delbosc and Shafi conclude that more, and broader, data is needed to better understand immigrant
populations and the “great diversity of intersecting influences on [their] travel behaviour” (2023: 927).
Similar results have been found for refugee migrants, with evidence that gender, age, income levels andcultural norms also interact to impact travel behaviour and attitudes (Smith et al., 2022; Ozkazanc, 2021;
Vais et al., 2020; Bose, 2013). Delbosc and Shafi (2023) also find that the longer immigrants are in theirdestination country, the more their settlement and travel behaviours begin to reflect native-born
populations.
Indigenous communities

While literature on ethnically mediated transport disadvantage is growing internationally, Indigenous
groups’ accessibility challenges remain relatively unstudied and unaddressed in many places (Raerino etal., 2012). Australia and New Zealand, in particular, have started to focus more on identifying Indigenoustransport issues in recent years.
In Australia, mobility options for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in remote communities
or communities at the fringes of urban areas are often very limited, with little access to public transport.
Around one-third of people living in these communities have no access to a motor vehicle (Currie et al.,2007; ABS, 2010). Indeed, a study conducted in 2014-15 indicated Indigenous Australians aged over
15 years were 9.1 times as likely as non-Indigenous Australians (8.2% versus 0.9%) to report either being
unable to get to places they needed to, or never going out, or being housebound (Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare, n.d.). Such mobility challenges can exacerbate other areas of disadvantage sufferedby Indigenous communities, particularly accessibility to employment, health and education as well as
cultural events and obligations (Currie, 2007; Helps et al., 2010; Ivers et al., 2016).
Māori, the Indigenous people of New Zealand, face similar difficulties. The processes of colonisation –particularly loss of land, urbanisation and gentrification – have contributed to Māori homes often being
located further than non-Māori from economic, social, and cultural opportunities (Raerino et al., 2012;
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, 2022). Income and educational inequalities, inadequate public
transport, and the strong link between private vehicle ownership and access to employment foster vicious
cycles of disadvantage. Incentives to drive illegally (either without a valid driver’s licence or a roadworthy
vehicle) increase, leading to a disproportionally higher risk of criminal charges (Raerino et al., 2012). These
factors also contribute to Māori being significantly more likely than non-Māori to be injured or killed intraffic collisions (Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, 2022).
If transport policy is to contribute to addressing wider existing inequalities, it needs to consider Indigenous
peoples’ well-being needs. A strategy designed to include greater participation of Indigenous peoples in

16

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY

decision-making processes, coupled with targeted interventions to counteract factors which inhibit
accessibility, is required for substantial and sustained improvements.
Income and employment

Lucas (2012) reviewed literature from around the world on transport and social exclusion. She observedthat people in the lowest-income cohorts and the most socially disadvantaged groups also experienced
poor access to transport. A systemic review (Simcock et al., 2021) found that more than three-quarters ofenergy and transport poverty studies identified persons on low incomes (the most frequently occurringgroup across the literature) as at-risk.
People on low incomes often find themselves trapped in their situations by poor accessibility, withavailable transport options shaping their opportunities (ITF, 2022). Previous work by the ITF supports thisassertion, finding:. . . significant evidence across countries that lower-income populations tend to suffer more fromrestricted transport options, have lower quality transport services available to them and travel
under worse conditions (safety, security, reliability, comfort). Broad evidence also suggests thatthe lack of, or poor access to, transport options is central to limitations on access to jobs,
educational institutions, health facilities, social networks, etc., which in turn generates a “poverty
trap” (ITF, 2017a: 11).
However, this restriction relates not only to the availability of transport options but also to the availabilityof affordable transport options. For example, high transport costs can dissuade people from remaining
engaged with their education (UNESCO, 2008).
While there is no single working definition of transport poverty, Lucas et al. (2016) and Mattioli (2021a)
analytically distinguish four aspects of transport poverty: 1) mobility poverty, 2) transport affordability,3) accessibility poverty and 4) exposure to transport externalities. While the first three aspects are
considered in most poverty studies, the fourth is often neglected. Exposure to transport externalities
describes a “paradox”: social groups that are less mobile, and produce the fewest emissions, suffer mostfrom the output of better-off cohorts due to where they live (as a basic logic of the housing market but
also the allocation principles of public housing and urban planning).
Lucas (2019) conducted a state-of-play review of transport-related social exclusion research, including
papers from the Global North and the Global South. She found that, by and large, research globally has
noted similar trends. Low-income households travel less than their higher-income counterparts. However,transport challenges vary between economies. The author recommends emerging economies adopt
accessibility in their strategic planning. The ITF Transport Outlook 2023 (ITF, 2023a) also recommends
incorporating strategic planning from a sustainability point of view, especially in urban areas that are
projected to grow, to avoid engendering car dependence as populations and economies increase.
Several studies have highlighted that the ability to own a car does not mean that a low-income household
is not suffering from transport poverty. Car ownership and use can put a low-income household underfinancial strain (Mattioli, 2021). Those living at a great distance from the places they need to go to in orderto fulfil their essential needs can also suffer time poverty, regardless of their mode or income. Thesedemand patterns are exacerbated in areas where car-dominant planning has facilitated a spreading-out of
the settlement footprint (Lucas, 2012). Time poverty due to transport options and distances can also be
an issue in countries in the Global South (Mattioli, 2021).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

17

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY

Mobility constraint and disability

A significant share of historical research on transport accessibility appears to be focused on persons withdisabilities. In 1978, the European Conference of Ministers for Transport (ECMT) issued its first resolution
on the topic of accessibility in transport, focussing on improving access for persons with disabilities (ECMT,1978). Between 1978 and 2001, the ECMT issued a further 10 resolutions on the topic of accessibility intransport. The resolutions primarily focussed on improving the inclusion of persons with physicaldisabilities in transport provision, with some consideration of those with cognitive impairments orexperiencing mental health issues.
Yet despite this prevalence and endurance in policy research, the World Health Organization (WHO)highlights the “health inequities” still endured by persons with disabilities, who face “unfair conditions . . .
including stigma, discrimination, poverty, exclusion from education and employment, and barriers facedin the health system itself” (WHO, n.d.). Navigating the transport system can be "15 times more difficult”
for persons with disabilities than for those without, due in large part to issues with access and affordability(WHO, n.d.).
A Swedish study on persons with neuropsychiatric disabilities found that such disabilities limits accessibility
by public transport, as they avoid travel due to consequences such as fatigue, anxiety, stress and sensory
overstimulation. Public transport service and organisation are not adapted for people with social
difficulties, sensory hypersensitivity and difficulties with planning and organization (Berg and Ihlström,2020). Mobility constraints and disability do not belong to minority groups in society: a survey in Madrid
showed that 51% of public transport users felt that they had at least one permanent or temporary mobility
restriction or disability (Lemmerer et. al., 2018).
ITF work published in 2004 identified recommendations on how to operationalise accessibility
improvements, particularly for improving access to public transport for persons with disabilities. Drawing
on case studies from four European cities, it emphasises “the role of national governments in improving
accessibility of local public transport”, the need for “co-operation between local authorities and public
transport operators”, as well as co-operation with persons with disabilities in defining and implementing
accessibility. In addition, it is important to ensure full accessibility through technical issues, specialised
services, transport infrastructure, information, driver training, costs and benefits and future planning(ECMT and UITP, 2004).
These principles remain true two decades later and can be broadened to apply to sustainable accessibility
for all social groups – not solely in relation to physical access for those with disabilities.

Socio-cultural factors
Using multi-dimensional as opposed to single typologies can help unpack the role that socio-cultural
factors play in mobility decisions (Sonnberger and Graf, 2021). In particular, examining the interaction of“resources”, “habitus” and “social milieus” aids an understanding of individual behaviour.
In socio-cultural analysis, “resources” denotes the amount of economic (income and wealth), cultural(graduation, ownership of cultural goods, cultural expertise), social (social networks) and symbolic capital(image, reputation) an individual possesses, as well as the ability to transfer one type of capital into another(Bourdieu, 1977). Examples include an individual’s ability to buy a car (economic capital), use car sharing
among friends (social capital) or know how to use a mobility app (cultural capital).

18

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY“Habitus” refers to a combination of central values, attitudes and tastes. The term describes what makes
people tick and is an important mediator between resources and constraints set by structures and habits.
Habitus explains how individuals self-regulate their behaviour to fit the expectations of their social
environment.
People’s “social milieus”, or social environments, also have some indirect impact on mobility preferences(e.g. propensity to use private vehicles, public transport or micromobility), as well as on decisions regarding
where to live and work, which cumulatively affect settlement structures (Markvica et al. 2020; Millonig2021). Social milieus constitute sound societal target groups to consider when designing policies focusedon changing mobility behaviour as they are based on attitudes, which are strong drivers for behaviour
patterns. Strategies to support mobility transition beyond technological innovation should be based on
better knowledge of a given social group’s ideas and aims (Dangschat and Millonig, 2023).
Although extreme structural dichotomies (e.g. poverty versus richness, or remoteness versus inner-city
location) still determine mobility behaviour, socio-cultural aspects can explain the choices and behaviourof structurally similar persons, particularly in the context of a wider range of opportunities. Therefore, if
the aim is to change mobility behaviour, then material access, participative ability and individual ambition
are relevant (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Elements relevant to behaviour change

Material Access
physical infrastructure
digital infrastructure
distance to faciities for daily demand
time regime

Participative Ability
individual capabilities(physical / mental / know how)
individual resources (financial / time)
individual constraints (financial / time)

Individual Ambition
attitudes / habits
perceptions
cognitions(Changed) Behaviour© Jens S. Da ngs cha t & Al exa ndra Mi l l oni g

Source: Jens Dangschat,

While considering social-cultural factors could help policy makers better design and target interventions
aimed at incentivising uptake of more sustainable transport modes, relevant indicators are absent in
official statistics. This has two negative outcomes. First, political and planning decisions are made underblind conditions regarding societal diversity. Second, social science research on the determinants ofsustainable accessibility is hampered.
In automobile-oriented environments, people develop their needs around the use of their cars. In the realworld policy-making environment, merely pursuing behavioural change would lead to a potential loss ofwidespread support and confidence from the voting public or taxpayers. While there is no single or correct

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

19

PERSON-BASED METRICS ARE CRUCIAL TO ACCESSIBILITY

way to address this risk, measures implemented in the right order, and packages with indirect measures
addressing people’s needs, would provide important avenues for change.

Policy takeaways

20•

While standards exist for physical access, the level of interactions between socio-demographic
and socio-economic, socio-cultural, territorial, and modal mix aspects that impact accessibility
means that it is not likely to be universally generalisable.

•

Accessibility will more likely need to be dealt with progressively at different stages of governanceand planning processes. One-dimensional frames for considering accessibility needs are also too
narrow. Using a multi-dimensional approach, considering factors including age, gender, disability,
social background, and cultural preferences, will better inform design for truly accessible
transport systems and sustainable travel behaviour.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

3. The role of territorial and modal factors inaccessibility is critical to planning solutions
The area where a person lives or stays is central to the availability of amenities, opportunities andaccessible transport options. Broadly speaking, transport options are assumed to be most heavily
influenced by the physical and functional density of an area. For example, fixed-route conventional public
transport options can do very well in densely populated urban areas. However, they can be less attractive
in low-density rural regions.
Figure 3 illustrates the three main types of settlement. However, differing settlement forms, related topopulation size and proximity to other settlements, exist within each of these types. Reasons for living indifferent settlement types also vary, with the availability of a car influencing where people choose to live
and travel (Dangschat, 2018; Scheiner, 2010). Urban settlements include city cores and surrounding areasfrom where people commute (often referred to as a functional urban area). Towns and semi-dense areas
are less dense than urban settlements, while rural settlements are the least dense (OECD, 2020).
Figure 3. The three main types of human settlement

Source: OECD (2020).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

21

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

Each settlement type will have different viable modes. In many cases, different agencies and authorities
will be responsible for planning, service operations and infrastructure management. Generally speaking,the more central a place is, the more alternative modes people have. For this reason, mobility behaviour
in central areas is more inter-modal. Policy makers and planners have a greater range of policy tools andmeasures available to improve the sustainability of travel within urban settlements.
By contrast, regional, intercity and international trips are typically longer on average. Here, it is important
to improve the availability of modern, safe, reliable and affordable sustainable alternatives to the private
car to support widening accessibility for deprived social groups without having to rely on their own car. In
the case of regional transport and rural regions, potentially sparser availability of essential services (e.g.
healthcare and schooling) and amenities, along with the potentially wider dispersal of origin destination
pairs, can also influence the most suitable modes.
For walkability and bikeability, the quality of public space (including foot and bicycle paths, parks, squares
and water courses) are important for encouraging active mobility, which is the cheapest and healthiest
way to be physically mobile. Therefore, it is important to focus not only the physical proximity to amenities,
services and meeting points but also the attractiveness and comfort of the built environment. Besides
objective standards of functionality, safety and security, cognitive awareness of the variety of experiences,
design and presence of other social groups are relevant. However, all these aspects are discerned
individually or highly selectively among different social groups (Löw, 2016).
The re-organisation of public space is sometimes described as “tactical urbanism” (see e.g. Pfeifer, 2013;
Stevens and Dovey, 2022) in the form of bottom-up initiatives instigated by community groups and as topdown initiatives instigated by town planners. Barcelona, Paris and Vienna are forerunners of tacticalurbanism in Europe. The concept of the 15-minute city also emphasises the reorganisation of public space
and urban mobility (Allam et al., 2022; Pozoukidou and Angelidou 2022; Driving Urban Transitions
Partnership, n.d).
A recent Austrian research project, Trans|formator:in, looked at the transformation of public space. It
focused on the re-organisation of physical spaces in seven Austrian communities; participation andlearning processes among urban stakeholders and citizens; and lessons for other cities looking to focus on
active mobility.

Territorial factors
Accessibility in urban areas

Urban settings are generally assumed to have better accessibility due to their greater population density,
making public transport solutions viable, and the greater density (and proximity) of points of interest.
However, while this can be true for denser city cores, the outer area of cities, particularly commuting
zones, can still suffer from poor accessibility by public transport and active modes. Even access by private
motorised vehicle can be lower in commuting zones due to longer trip distances (ITF, 2019b).
However, cities are not homogenous. A city’s size and form also affect its accessibility. A study in Sweden
found that only large cities provided comprehensive accessibility by public transport alone (Larsson et al.,2022). Lower-density suburbs and small towns see higher car dependency. Data from India (Soman, Kaurand Ganesan, 2019) also suggest that private motorised vehicles (cars and motorbikes) are more popularin smaller cities (with populations between 100 000 and 2 million) than in the largest cities (withpopulations above 7 million).

22

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

Likewise, while walking can be more viable in settings with a greater density of opportunities, metropolitan
areas with a large footprint can undermine walkability. Tao, Fu and Comber (2019), in a study of theYorkshire region in the United Kingdom, found that although urban commuters were more likely to walk,cycle or take the bus, private motorised vehicles still held the largest mode share in both urban and ruralcontexts. This highlights that accessibility by sustainable modes is not universally true for all urban
settlements.
Cities that are more spread-out can impact the access to the public transport network and the level of“access to high-frequency public transport varies strongly across cities” (OCED/European Commission,2020). Cities with a higher share of commuters living in suburbs can also face greater costs when expanding
public transport networks to meet their needs.
In many developed countries, the prevailing moto-normative approach to urban design has also baked in
car-dependency. This reliance on cars then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as more people own cars,
settlements develop around the assumption that essential services will be accessed by car, fewer collectivemodes are planned (or are viable) and car ownership becomes essential (Litman, 1995; see also Figure 4).
In the United States, for example, a car is generally required to access goods and services. This isparticularly the case for older people, families with children, persons with disabilities and low-income
households (ITDP, 2019).
Figure 4. The cycle of automobile dependency and sprawl

Source: Litman (1995).

The five Ds of urban planning – density, design, diversity (of land use), distance (to transport options) and(accessibility of) destinations – are important for demand management and mode choice in terms ofsustainable travel. However, the role of population density is sometimes over-estimated, with design anddiversity also being associated with vehicle-kilometres travelled, and the choice to use public transport orwalk (Ewing and Cervero, 2010; 2017).
In the case of walking, job availability relative to housing is more important than general land-use mix.
Proximity to public transport stops is strongly associated with public transport use, and transit-oriented

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 202423

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

development coupled with infrastructure investment that improves access to, and by, public transport canalso contribute to achieving sustainable travel goals (Lund et al., 2006; ITF, 2023c). As Ewing and Cervero
note: “Almost any development in a central location is likely to generate less automobile travel than thebest designed, compact, mixed-use development in a remote location” (2010: 276). This is important when
considering the potential future role of the car in accessibility beyond urban centres.
Integrated land-use and transport planning can help provide access to opportunities for people on lowincomes. It is important to incorporate “transport-related indicators (travel times and costs), particularly
for reaching jobs, into housing quality definitions used in the design and evaluation of social and affordable
housing programmes” (ITF, 2017a; 2022). This is also consistent with the finding of a future mobility review
conducted by the UK Government, which found that the planning of urban settlements and mobility should
be integrated “with particular attention to the provision of low-cost accommodation in areas with highlevels of walking and public transport access to employment and other key activities” (DfT, 2021).
A study of Santiago de Chile found that residents in the wealthiest neighbourhoods benefited from greaterpublic investment by a factor of 2.5 and had shorter car-trip distances (-13.4% on average). The results
suggest these residents have better access to amenities and employment opportunities than those living
in lowest-cost housing (Tiznado-Aitken et al., 2022). Transport costs can also be a heavy burden for young
adults with limited financial resources, particularly unemployed youths. As Henriksson et al. concluded: “Ifsocial inclusion is to be regarded as important, to be able to live and work locally should be an important
goal for policy” (2021: 804).
Accessibility in rural and remote regions

People living in rural settings often have fewer opportunities accessible by sustainable modes. But they
can often access these opportunities by car, and this can also be true for peri-urban residents. This puts
them at higher risk of car dependency (Carroll, Benevenuto and Caulfield, 2021; Mattioli, 2021b). In termsof lowering carbon emissions, these areas could also benefit from greater uptake of zero-emission
vehicles, such as electric vehicles. However, if these are still private motorised vehicles, issues ofaccessibility associated with lack of access, affordability or ability to drive will remain unaddressed.
Rural settings that have lower densities, less infrastructure and more dispersed demand patterns present
a challenge to conventional public transport (UITP, 2022). An assessment in Sweden, for example, showedthat the car provided the greatest access to opportunities compared to public transport and walking. In
this study, cycling even “provided access to a wider range of activity categories than public transport”(Larsson et al., 2022). This underscores the potential role for better cycling provision in rural settings.
Modelling projections for the ITF Transport Outlook 2023 also showed that, at the global scale, passenger
cars are expected to remain the largest mode for this type of rural travel through to 2050, even with more
ambitious transport decarbonisation policies in place. However, the share of cars will naturally vary bycountry. By contrast, according to the Outlook, when a higher decarbonisation ambition is adopted, moresustainable alternatives grow their mode share for both urban and intercity activity (ITF, 2023a).
This discrepancy between rural and urban and intercity activity speaks to the challenge of moving rural
travel away from reliance on private cars while maintaining access levels. While new solutions may become
available as technologies develop, the Outlook results suggest that rural mobility in many countries will
likely still need more flexible, lower-occupancy options rather than relying solely on conventional fixedroute buses, for example, where motorised modes are being considered. Some existing alternatives are
discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.

24

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

In terms of infrastructure and service provision, rural settings can suffer deficiencies in both transport anddigital connectivity. OECD work on access and service delivery has found that rural residents in Europe
must travel an additional five kilometres, on average, to access education compared to their urban
counterparts. Rural residents also face longer access times for healthcare facilities, which is true for both
OECD and G20 countries. This, in turn, can contribute to poorer health and education outcomes for rural
residents (OECD, 2022).
Within the classification of rural settlements, the OECD categorises rural areas into three distinct types(OECD, 2020):
1. Rural within functional urban areas (FUAs) – rural areas in close proximity to urban centres
2. Rural outside FUAs – outside of the functional urban area, but with an FUA close-by
3. Rural remote – rural areas far from any functional urban area.
The OECD framework highlights the fact that rural communities are responsible for the majority ofresources needed for modern life. However, within OECD countries, only 30% of the population is ruraland often, there is a sense of the benefits of economic growth being far removed from rural communities(OECD, 2020). Rural areas face a unique set of challenges and opportunities, depending on their proximity
to urban settlements. Rural remote regions, in particular, can face extreme economic cycles if their local
economy is reliant on a single industry, such as tourism (OECD, 2020). This will affect the range of viabletransport solutions available for residents to access essential services.
Coastal and archipelagic areas constitute a special type of rural area, which has a fluctuation in population,
but is often overlooked in research and policy plans. Statistically, the population is low, although in certain
periods of the year there is a large influx of second-home residents and tourists. This dynamic can be seenin Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, for example, and in Croatia on the Adriatic coast and Dalmatianarchipelago, whose geography is characterised by lakes and long coastlines. The infrastructure (roads,
broadband, electricity and water supply) in these areas needs to be better adapted to the enormous loadthat occurs during parts of the year. Better access to sustainable transport options on road and on watermust be ensured to avoid an even greater burden from car traffic as these areas become populated.
In established regions, the solutions may need to look different. Wiersma, Bertolini and Straatemeier(2017), for example, considered the development of economic centres and road investments in the South
Limburg region of the Netherlands, which is facing population decline. Based on an investigation ofdifferent policy scenarios, they concluded that trying to improve land use along routes with existing public
transport was less effective than improving the transport links to “existing economic centers”.

Viable modes differ by territorial setting
Dulmen et al. (2022) concluded that the car-based activity “of disadvantaged people” was more influenced
by their socio-economic status than, for example, the region where they lived. In the United Kingdom,
deprivation tends to be higher among urban residents than rural ones (UK Government, 2019). In theEuropean Union, in contrast, on average the rate of individuals “at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion” washighest in rural areas. However, among some of the more affluent countries in the EU, the rate was highest
in urban settings (European Commission, 2022).
Poverty and unemployment rates in Europe have tended to be higher in the biggest cities than the national
average, due to labour markets and international migration. In the bigger cities, poor people rarely own
cars as they can use cheaper transport modes. In more car-dependent areas, poor households are trapped

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 202425

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

as they have no alternatives, and suffer disproportionately from increases in energy prices (Mattioli et al.
2019).
Providing public transport services does not, in and of itself, enhance accessibility. By contrast, improving
access to jobs by public transport “improves individual employment probabilities, in particular in
metropolitan areas and smaller cities and towns with lower car ownership rates and in low-income
neighbourhoods”. Young people and those with lower levels of education attainment benefit most fromsuch interventions (Bastiaanssen, Johnson and Lucas, 2022).
Lucas et al. (2018) concluded that “both social and environmental factors are almost certainly at play indetermining the travel behaviour outcomes of low-income households, and these are highly specific to themicro-scale neighbourhoods in which people live”. This suggests that not all aspects of accessibility policy
can be dictated through a top-down structure, such as by national government. Bottom-up elements will
be needed to develop interventions that address the specific needs of individual areas. Chapter 5 of thisreport looks more closely at the levels of government and their remits.
The network of transport modes available will necessarily differ by geographic scope, as not all modes are
viable in all settings. The denser urban settings, as well as intercity routes, can be viable locations forconventional public transport modes (i.e. bus, light rail, metro and rail). Bus or coach travel can also be
prevalent in regional travel, although in lower-density areas the wider distribution of origin destination
pairs does not lend itself to fixed-route transport options. That being said, flexible transport solutions canalso face challenges in rural settings (ITF, 2021) and there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution – rather,solutions tailored to the specific local context are likely to be needed (Bauchinger et al., 2021).
Regardless of the form the transport mode takes, affordability will also be a key component of its
contribution to accessibility (ITF, 2017b). In many cases, the availability of good communications
infrastructure or Internet coverage will be important, and rural settings are often at a disadvantage in thatregard. Figure 5 considers some alternative or complementary shared modes that may form part ofmobility solutions beyond trunk networks. It also considers the settings in which these solutions are likely
to be most appropriate. It shows the different models of transport provision that could be suited todifferent levels of population density.
Figure 5. Suitability of shared mobility types by population density and settlement type26

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

Source: ITF (2021).

Active mobility and micromobility

Promoting walking, cycling and other forms of light mobility involves putting a greater focus on the qualityof the provision for these modes – not solely by increasing the numbers of people using these modes bypushing people out of motorised modes. Reducing moto-normativity in planning will reduce thedominance of cars and improve the attractiveness of the built environment. Security, in addition to roadsafety, needs to be a core part of transport policy (ITF, 2024b).
Walking, cycling and other forms of light mobility have the potential to act as standalone solutions andalso as feeder modes to the trunk network. To date, the design of walking and cycling infrastructure has
tended to focus on urban settings (Ayur et al in ITF, 2021); this needs to expand to better reflect peri-urban
and rural settings. The United Nations and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy havedeveloped design guidance to support walkability, including the elements of the built environment that
require investment to deliver attractive walking and cycling routes (UN Habitat and ITDP, 2018).
Micromobility modes such as e-scooters and e-bikes can play a role in expanding the access areas for trunk
networks in urban areas (ITF, 2021e). However, as micromobility remains an emerging sector, themanagement of micromobility services, particularly in urban spaces, should remain under review to ensure
policies are delivering against objectives. Many new shared micromobility fleets are also accessed via
mobile applications, which bring their own accessibility considerations (see Chapter 6 in this report).
Public authorities have a role to play in ensuring active mobility objectives are included in nationalframeworks and funded accordingly. This is especially important in rural settings. The provision of
dedicated infrastructure will also be important. Policy makers and planners should also consider e-bikes
and other forms of micromobility; well-designed interchange points, such as mobility hubs that enabletrain and bike trips, have a role to play as well. Road space reallocation away from cars is also suggested
as a way to improve provision for micromobility use, bikeability, walkability and the place function of public
space in urban settings (ITF, 2021e).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 202427

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

Demand-responsive transport

Depending on its setting, demand-responsive transport (DRT) can act either as a first- or last-mile mode to
supplement the trunk public transport network, or as a substitute mode to replace fixed-route services
where they are not viable. Experiences of rural DRT documented by the ITF (2021) suggest that its successis not guaranteed, and that viable models need to be “based on careful consideration of the operational
environment, funding arrangements and user needs”.
This finding is also borne out by the results of trials of demand-responsive solutions in lower-density
suburbs of London, which did not result in cost reductions for the public transport authority (London
Assembly, 2022). However, where a role for DRT is identified, it is important to clarify whether it isexpected to play a substitute or feeder role in the local modal mix (ITF, 2021). Public authorities can help
ensure DRT services are co-ordinated with other public transport modes – but only if the authority is
operating the services.
Ridesharing and ride-hailing services

Ridesharing and carpooling are examples of peer-to-peer shared mobility. These modes can provide
mobility solutions in rural settings for those who do not drive and reduce the number of individuals driving
to a particular location. However, where ridesharing is considered an appropriate solution, publicauthorities can support it by providing political and administrative support at the local level as well as
dedicated infrastructure, such as parking, integrated with the public transport network, potentiallythrough mobility hubs (ITF, 2021).
An ITF modelling exercise on ridesharing in urban areas and their commuting zones using taxis and taxibus-type services found that it would be possible to reduce the size of the private vehicle fleet required toachieve the same mobility and could result in environmental benefits, even before vehicle fleets transition
to zero-emissions (ITF, 2016). Ridesharing has the advantage of increased flexibility without the users
needing to be able to drive or have access to a private car.
Case studies of ride-hailing services in Hanover, Germany, and Barcelona, Spain, observed no“noteworthy” difference in participants’ stated intention to use the services, based on “gender, age, users
with or without driving license, or access to motorized vehicles” (Gilibert et al., 2020). This finding suggests
ride-hailing services may not create barriers based on these factors. The top three criteria reported byparticipants as reasons for intending to use the service were availability, reliability and safety.
Community and commingled transport solutions

Community transport services operated by local providers to address identified local needs are typicallynot-for-profit and provided at low cost to users. As these are “bottom-up” solutions, public authorities canbetter facilitate their introduction by providing “easy-to-access information about how to start up andfinance” them (ITF, 2021).
Community groups, such as Community Rail in the United Kingdom, can also support better access toexisting modes. Community rail partnerships work with volunteers, operators and stations to improveaccess to rail and stations for people with disabilities and marginalised groups. The specific activities
depend on the location and target audience, but they are tailored to reduce the barriers that some groups
experience (Lowson, 2023).
Combining transport solutions for assisted mobility or public obligation transport (e.g. school transport)
and wider on-demand solutions is known as the “commingled” or “integrated” transport (see Box 2 for an
28

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

example). The aim is to find efficiencies by offering multiple service types through a single fleet or operator,
optimising the usage of the service. The continued development of multimodal transport platforms, suchas Mobility as a Service (MaaS), has greatly advanced this concept (Schweiger, 2022).
Carsharing

Carsharing refers to schemes where the “ownership of the vehicles . . . is legally separated from the use”
(ITF, 2021b: 29). These schemes are more financially viable in denser urban areas where they could reduce
the size of the private car fleet (ITF, 2017; 2018; 2020). However, even in urban areas carsharing also risks
substituting trips away from public transport. Carsharing schemes could contribute to a network ofsustainable mobility options in peri-urban and rural settings. However, the business models are also lessobvious in these settings and will likely need to be socially focussed (ITF, 2021b).
For some islands, as well as remote or archipelagic regions, connectivity and access are reliant on both air
and maritime transport. These links are often too low in terms of usership to be commercially viable bysea or air. Smaller airports can struggle, while regional routes can have difficulty competing for airport
slots at larger airports. In these cases, government action has included subsidising services and funding
critical infrastructure (ITF, 2021c).
The private car still forms part of the modal mix, and outside of urban areas, is expected to continue to doso (ITF, 2023a). The role of the private car in sustainable accessibility can be a complex one. On the one
hand, fossil-fuel cars are a significant contributor to CO2 emissions due to passenger transport and comewith other negative externalities such as congestion, crash risk and noise. On the other hand, as discussed
in Chapter 2, for some segments of society and regions, the car represents the key to accessing theiropportunities.

Box 2. Improving public transport accessibility for health service users in County Leitrim, Ireland
In Ireland, commingled (or “integrated”) transport services were trialled between the local, on-demandsolutions and the provision of local healthcare access services by the national health authority (HSE). In
an integrated pilot project for the County of Leitrim, the National Transport Authority (NTA) and the
Donegal Sligo Leitrim Transport Coordination Unit (TCU) worked closely with the HSE to plan anddevelop a revised network of TFI Local Link services for Leitrim. The services are designed to meet theneeds of mainstream public transport users as well as passengers accessing (non-emergency) healthcare services. The first phase was implemented on 28 June 2021, with all services introduced shortly
after.
Prior to the rollout of the pilot, the TCU procured and managed several “closed” transport routes onbehalf of the HSE with a charge to passengers. These routes served a range of HSE day services including
mental health, intellectual disability and older people services. The revised network and timetableamalgamate these closed routes into mainstream public transport, providing fully integrated andaccessible services covered by the Free Travel Scheme. Similarly, many of the former door-to-door,
demand-responsive transport (DRT) services secured by the TCU served single destinations and may nothave been the most suitable or beneficial to other transport users.
The solution resulted in improvements for service users, including an expanded service schedule,
improved availability of accessible vehicles; newer and larger fleets; improved connectivity and service
provision; and improved accessibility and social participation. Efficiency of routing and vehicle

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

29

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

occupancy also improved and stakeholder feedback has been largely positive. However, there werechallenges in establishing the pilot, with significant time and work involved in planning and preparation
to ensure the best network to facilitate passengers. Support had to be provided to health authority
clients who were used to closed services and were transferred to open public transport. Some support
was also required where passengers no longer had allocated seating or where passengers now had totravel a minimal distance to a pick-up/drop-off point but had previously travelled on a door-to-door
service.
Co-ordination with the HSE also took significant time and work to provide transport for all passengers –the needs of each HSE user were considered on a case-by-case basis as part of the planning process.
Some HSE users were allocated services similar to what they were used to, but some now travel on
regular fixed-route bus services with a short walk to their nearest stop. Personal assistants and escorts
continue to be allocated as required; HSE also allocated assistants on a temporary basis to familiarise
users with new routes.
Since the introduction of the enhanced TFI Local Link network in Leitrim, passenger numbers havecontinued to increase. With a return to normal operations and travelling patterns and initiatives suchas cheaper fares, the increase in passenger numbers on the revised regular services since July 2021 issignificant.
Source: Government of Ireland (2024).

Digital platforms

Digitalisation plays an important role in the functioning of many of the solutions discussed in this chapter.
However, digitalisation also poses potential limitations or risks to accessibility, due to users’ lack ofknowledge, capacity or access to the appropriate technology. Over-reliance on technology to resolve
access issues could result in exclusion for different user groups and geographic environments (seeChapter 6 of this report).
While traditional public transport should form the backbone of a sustainable mobility offering in many
contexts, it is not always a viable solution, particularly for places with low population density, or for users
who cannot feasibly access it. In these cases, digitally enabled taxis and ride-hailing services can provide amobility safety net (UITP, 2023).
Previous ITF work has highlighted how, in many countries, limited transport options in rural areas hinderaccess to basic services, jobs and social activities. To improve accessibility for these populations, several
countries are developing novel ways to provide economically viable, affordable, inclusive and sustainablemobility in contexts where private and conventional public transport struggle to provide appropriate
connections (ITF, 2021).
In Finland, a sparsely populated country of approximately 5.5 million people of which more than 72%
reside in urban areas (see Figure 6), only a few bigger cities have the conditions necessary for efficientpublic transport in its traditional meaning. While there is no obligation for competent authorities toprovide traditional public transport services, some vulnerable user groups have a legal right to accessmobility services.
Figure 6. The urban-rural classification in Finland, 2018

30

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

Source: Finnish Environment Institute (2020).

In 2020, Finnish public funding for mobility services totalled EUR 1.186 billion per year, with a roughly 5050 split between public transport and travel imbursements for selected groups (36% of which goes to
traditional taxi services).
Finland faces several significant challenges in organising subsidised passenger transport in rural areas. The
cost of journeys for vulnerable user groups provided for by the Finnish Disability Services Act and the Health
Insurance Act is projected to increase significantly and the planning of subsidised services is fragmented.
No single entity is responsible for the overall co-ordination of such services at the local, regional or national
level, hampering delivery optimisation. Furthermore, service procurement models vary considerablyacross competent authorities, and taxi services are very limited in sparsely populated areas.
The Finnish government aims to develop public transport services as a whole and ensure efficient use of
public funding. Several possible measures have been identified to reach this goal, including:•making better use of data to plan and improve the quality of services by developing a centralised
national database of customer needs and availability of services to reduce overlapping work
between competent authorities, thus generating cost savings•

better co-ordinating publicly subsidised transport with market-based service offerings byfacilitating necessary information flows and the formation of travel chains•using co-ordinated public procurement between competent authorities to generate sufficientdemand to incentivise the development and growth of innovative market-based approaches toaddress rural accessibility (Government of Finland, 2023).

This approach is broadly consistent with findings from recent ITF research on approaches to enhancing
rural mobility informed by 80 case studies across 20 countries. The research recommended adapting

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 202431THE ROLE OF TERRITORIAL AND MODAL FACTORS IN ACCESSIBILITY

tender and operator licensing requirements to allow local taxi, demand-responsive and community
transport providers to bid for public service contracts in rural areas (ITF, 2021).
In North America, competent authorities are also exploring closer partnerships with private-sector
operators of ride-hailing services to overcome accessibility challenges.
Innisfil, Ontario in Canada is a small, rural local authority with a sparsely distributed population of around
43,000. No traditional public transport services operate in the area. To enable an alternative to private
vehicle travel, the local authority has (since 2017) partnered with Uber, a prominent digital ride-hailing
platform, to offer a partially subsided on-demand taxi service. The average subsidy per trip is CAD 14.72,
resulting in an average per-trip cost for users of CAD 4-6. Approximately 30 trips are undertaken eachmonth with an average waiting time of seven minutes for an average trip distance of 13.5 kilometres. For
Innisfil, this has proven to be a good-quality, cost-effective solution to the challenge of providing a viable
alternative to private vehicle travel in rural areas – a model that may also bear fruit in other similar
geographical contexts (Uber Transit, 2023).
Similar public-private partnership models can be deployed to improve sustainable accessibility forvulnerable user groups. In the United States, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) which does not regulate
taxis or ride-hailing, has established a demand-responsive transport service to improve accessibility forpeople with reduced mobility which is supplement by taxi and ride-hailing operators (UITP, 2023). A hybrid
fleet of 36 DART minibuses (dedicated vehicles) and a flexible number of Uber Pool vans (non-dedicatedvehicles) offer trips ordered through DART’s GoPass app, the Uber app, or by calling DART’s service
number. Approximately 70% of trips are taken with DART’s dedicated vehicles, with the remaining 30%
through Uber, using a flexible contract model where DART only pays for rides actually taken with Uber (nofixed costs). According to Uber, this model has reduced per trip costs from USD 16 to USD 5, with anaverage wait time of 5-15 minutes, leading to a 120% increase in ridership (Uber Transit, 2023).
These examples illustrate the potential efficiency gains and improvements in service levels that astutepartnerships between local authorities and private sector ride-hailing operators can generate to overcome
common mobility challenges and enhance sustainable accessibility, particularly for vulnerable user groups.

Policy takeaways

32•

Accessibility must be considered in terms of sustainable access to opportunities, which is
influenced by a combination of factors related to communities themselves (and their diverse
needs and abilities) as well as the areas in which they live. In addition to the physical presence ofopportunities, the availability and attractiveness of the means to access them is important.

•

The objectives of policies relating to sustainable accessibility need to be clear. Both sustainability
and accessibility can be addressed through interventions, but the actions may vary. For example,
the installation of a new sustainable mobility service that increases accessibility for thosedisadvantaged by the existing transport system may also need to be accompanied by incentives
or other measures to encourage a change of behaviour among those choosing to use lesssustainable alternatives.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS

4. Modal frameworks and accessibility indicators
can help with planning
Single-issue research can help with raising awareness but is not particularly functional for designinginterventions or planning strategies that must cater to communities that vary according to person-based
metrics, and territorial and modal factors. This chapter explores two possible approaches: mobility
guarantee frameworks, which document and map available modes and possible barriers to their use in an
area, and accessibility indicators, which allow the use of person- and territorial-based factors tounderstand how well different groups can access opportunities.

Mobility guarantee frameworks
For conventional public transport, reliability is one of the key parameters for attractiveness. A
comprehensive review of the literature has indicated that “reliability” takes into account many factors
including experience in the vehicle, at the stop and ahead of the trip, as well as adherence to the schedule(Alkubati et al., 2022). Reliability is also a factor explaining why people may choose to use ride-hailingservices.
In general, the dependability of a transport option will have an impact on people’s choice to use it, or todepend on it. In this regard, private vehicles (e.g. cars, motorcycles and bicycles, and other two- and threewheelers), and walking have a significant advantage over collective motorised modes. While walking,cycling and micromobility can all be relied on for trips up to certain distances, making the switch awayfrom individual motorised vehicles attractive requires any alternatives to be dependable.
Minimum service-level guarantees or guarantees for taxi-like rides for those with mobility impairments or
who cannot commute at times when scheduled services operate in the main public transport network, do
exist in some regions. The concept of a mobility guarantee takes this approach one step further. It seeks
to take account of overcoming barriers faced by the public rather than a specific cohort of people. The
mobility guarantee framework provides mobility options, and their limitations, by sustainable means oftransport that work as an alternative to individual motorised modes (see Figure 7).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

33

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS

Figure 7. Mobility service guarantee mapping

Source: Shibayama and Laa (2023).

The Flächendeckende Mobilitäts-Servicegarantie (FLADEMO) project has examined the different potential
legal structures and governance levels that could come into play in the case of a mobility guarantee(Shibayama, 2023; Laa et al., 2023). The work has identified that transport strategies, such as sustainableurban mobility plans (SUMPs) and sustainable regional mobility plans (SRMPs), could provide initial
avenues for setting targets and objectives. This process of target-setting would then act as a transition toa legislative basis for the guarantee.
Strategies such as SUMPs could be developed by a regional authority, whereas legislation would benational. One of the crucial issues related to rural accessibility (outlined in Chapter 3 of this report) is thatbusiness models for modes in lower-density regions remain uncertain, making a legal guarantee difficult
to define nationally.
However, this is an area where a combination of policies, measures and actions could play a significant
role in better advancing the network of sustainable alternatives in rural contexts. For example, regional
authorities, service providers and users could operate under national-level policy frameworks andprogrammes. Well-informed regional strategy and pilots could also help identify the nature of what isbeing guaranteed.

Accessibility indicators
Proximity of opportunity can be subjective. Two people living at the same address may not necessarily
have the same level of accessibility, depending on their personal circumstances. According to a recent
report by [KiM]: “If accessibility is a policy goal, indicators are needed to evaluate whether this goal is being
achieved” [translated from Dutch] (KiM, 2023). Accessibility indicators provide a means of quantifying andvisualising accessibility to address the issue of common “language” in different fields involved in
34

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS

accessibility improvement. They can help identify gaps and communicate accessibility issues for different
groups. They can also help monitor the progress of accessibility policies.
Accessibility indicators can combine various aspects, including financial and non-financial costs (e.g. time
consumption), the distribution of points of interest (so-called “valued destinations”) and land-use mix, andthe perception of transport costs (i.e. how far is “far” away) (ITF, 2017). They may also address temporal
aspects (e.g. peak/off-peak travel patterns for shift workers) and person-based metrics (although theserequire significant data).
Recent ITF work on accessibility suggests indicators can help identify gaps in provision, communicate
potential issues with access to opportunities, and evaluate interventions (ITF, 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2023;
Martens, 2020). Accessibility indicators can also help measure the distribution of impacts, as the available
data sources are richer than they were in the past. Generally, indicators need to reflect a wide selectionof modes, not just the conventional public transport modes and schedules. The objective of a specificindicator also needs to be clear. For example, an indicator might aim to evaluate sustainable modes or
inclusive access.
There is no consensus on a single best approach to accessibility indicators, although many methodologies
focus on urban analysis, which would need to be broadened out for application to different geographies.
However, regardless of the methodology adopted, it is necessary to ensure that the indicators are tailoredto the appropriate level of government for the analysis and that that governance level is able to act on the
results of the analysis (ITF, 2021). National governments can lead the way by providing guidelines on theassessment and approval of interventions, including equity considerations (ITF, 2023).
Working Group participants discussed the possibility of combining sustainable mobility frameworks (e.g.
mobility guarantees) with accessibility indicators to help evaluate how far policy makers should go in terms
of providing or subsidising public services. This possibility was considered in the context of freedom of
choice in terms of where people live. This would be a topic for further research but points to a potential
further use for both accessibility indicators and modal frameworks or hierarchies.
Case studies

The nature and extent of use of accessibility indicators varies considerably across different cities, regions
and countries. The following examples illustrate distinct approaches used in a large metropolitan area witha developed public transport network; a mid-sized metropolitan area aiming to better manage high private
vehicle dependency; and a geographically small country with high population density.
Greater London, United Kingdom (population 8.8 million)

In London, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018 (amended in 2022) sets out policies and proposals toreshape transport across Greater London over a two-decade period. Implemented by Transport for London(TfL), the central objective of the strategy is to change the way people travel. The aim is that, by 2041, 80%of all trips will be made on foot, by bicycle or using public transport.
The strategy uses the “Healthy Streets Approach”, which makes health and personal experience thepriority for transport planning, with a particular focus providing good public transport services while
improving accessibility for new homes and jobs as the city grows (TfL, 2018). To achieve the outcomessought in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, TfL has developed and maintains various accessibility indicators
which can be categorised into four distinct groups. These are:
1. access to the public transport network (or Public Transport Access Level, PTAL)
2. access through the network (measuring location-based catchment statistics)SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

35

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS

3. access through the network (measuring London-wide catchment statistics)
4. access through the network to specific opportunities and services (Inayathusein and Cooper2018).
For any location in London, the PTAL indicator combines walk access time to public transport with service
availability at network access points (e.g. metro/rail stations, bus stops) within a given catchment. A public
transport access index is calculated from this data and allocated a level, where PTAL 0 represents thelowest and PTAL 6b represents the highest level of connectivity. Figure 8 shows markedly different
accessibility levels between inner and outer London.
Figure 8. Public Transport Access Level map of Greater London

Source: Inayathusein and Cooper (2018).

The PTAL is TfL’s most widely used accessibility indicator, having been adopted in the early 2000s andembedded in strategic planning processes through the “London Plan” – a statutory spatial development
strategy for the Greater London area which guides decisions on planning applications by local councils, orboroughs, and the Mayor’s Office. Specific use cases of the PTAL include:

36•

prioritising the location of high-density employment generators in areas with PTAL ratings of 5 or
above

•

relating housing densities to PTAL ratings where areas with good public transport provision (i.e.
higher PTAL ratings) can support higher housing densities
SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS•

restricting car parking provision in areas with a high PTAL rating (Inayathusein and Cooper, 2018).

The second and third groups of accessibility indicators used by TfL focus on using travel-time mapping andassociated catchment data to provide an assessment of connectivity, either by all public transport modes,
or a specific mode, or by car. The second indicator generates travel time plots for individual locations foruse at a more granular project assessment level, while the third aggregates travel time for zones acrossLondon for strategic planning (see Figure 9).
Figure 9. Jobs reachable within 45 minutes under the Mayor’s 2041 Transport Strategy

Source: Inayathusein and Cooper (2018).

The fourth indicator, named Access to Opportunities and Services (ATOS), was developed by TfL in
response to a 2007 UK Department for Transport (DfT) initiative requiring local authorities to publish
accessibility indicators (DfT, 2014). The ATOS indicator measures access to discrete points of interest orservices (e.g. schools or medical centres) within a set travel time.
Figure 10 shows ATOS scores based on average travel time to the three nearest secondary schools for eachzone in London by walking only, or by walking and public transport. In this example, category A corresponds
to an average travel time of up to nine minutes, while category E corresponds to an average travel time ofover 23 minutes (Inayathusein and Cooper 2018).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

37

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS

Figure 10. Access to the three nearest secondary schools by public transport and/or walking

Source: Inayathusein and Cooper (2018).

Finally, to bring together various accessibility indicators into a single interactive mapping application for
professional planners and the public, TfL has developed and published a tool called WebCAT (TfL, 2023).
WebCAT offers two principal ways of measuring accessibility: the PTAL indicator, and location-based travel
time mapping/catchment analysis (Inayathusein and Cooper 2018; TfL 2023). Users can select discrete
parameters for a chosen location, including scenario year, mode (all public transport, cycle, step-freeaccess), time period (morning, inter, and evening peak), user group (e.g. working age population,pensioners), and service location (e.g. town centres, educational establishments, medical centres).
Auckland region, New Zealand (population 1.7 million)

Transport planning and investment across the Auckland region in New Zealand reflect a partnershipapproach between the national and local governments, with several organisations involved including the
Ministry of Transport, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, the NZ Treasury, KiwiRail, Auckland Transport,
and Auckland Council.
Inequity of access to public transport services is a major consideration in investment and planning
decisions. The Western and Southern areas of Auckland have less rapid and frequent transit services thancentral suburbs. Additionally, certain members of the community – particularly Māori, Pasifika andLGBQTI+ people, and people with disabilities – typically experience less equal access to transport.

38

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS

Auckland Transport’s Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) sets out the land transport objectives, policies
and measures for the Auckland region for 2021-31. The RLTP addresses four major challenges:
1. Climate change and the environment. Emissions and other consequences of transport harm theenvironment and contribute to the transport system becoming increasingly susceptible to theimpacts of climate change.
1. Travel options. A lack of competitive travel options and high car dependency as the city grows limit
the ability to achieve the quality compact urban approach for Auckland.
2. Safety. The transport system has become increasingly harmful and does not support better healthoutcomes.
3. Access and connectivity. Existing deficiencies in the transport system and an inability to keep pacewith increasing travel demand limit improved and equitable access to employment and social
opportunities.
These four challenges reflect the region’s substantial ongoing population growth, a challenging natural
setting and historical approach to land use, a legacy of under-investment (particularly in public transportand cycling), ageing roads and transport facilities, and global threats.
Figure 11 sets out the measures and indicators the RLTP uses to assess progress in addressing the “Accessand connectivity” challenge using a combination of modelled and real-world data sources. It focuses on
expected results from RLTP implementation, as well as what is considered necessary for improved
outcomes but requires additional funding or policy tools. In implementing the RTLP, Auckland Transport
undertakes regular monitoring and reporting to inform the Regional Transport Committee of local
government representatives, in accordance with the New Zealand Land Transport Management Act(Auckland Transport, 2021).
Figure 11. An example of accessibility indicators used in Auckland, New Zealand

Source: Auckland Transport (2021).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

39

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORSThe Netherlands (population 17.9 million)

Since 2008, the Government of the Netherlands has merged funding for infrastructure and spatial
development, setting out a Multi-Year Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial Planning and Transport(MIRT), and an accompanying framework of rules for planning, programming and budgeting processes(Geurs, 2018).
The MIRT includes projects and programmes for the built environment. It takes a collaborative approachto development between the national and regional governments. The programme is principally led by the
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, with contributions from other ministries, provinces,
municipalities, transport regions, district water boards, non-governmental organisations and businesses(Government of the Netherlands 2018; Heers et al., 2012).
The MIRT process includes different phases encompassing exploratory studies, planning studies, andproject construction and management/maintenance. During the exploratory phase, analysis is undertaken
at the regional level to explore potential interventions, involving national, regional and/or local
governments. During the planning phase, social cost–benefit analysis is carried out to examine theeconomic efficiency of proposed investments (Geurs, 2018). See Figure 12 for an example.
To date, national and regional transport policy and planning processes as encapsulated by the MIRT haveprimarily relied on infrastructure-based accessibility indicators, with objectives targeting traffic
congestion, travel speeds, travel time reliability and service levels (e.g. public transport service frequency).
Figure 12. The Dutch Multi-Year Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial Planning and Transport

Source: Government of the Netherlands (2018).

At the national level, efforts have been made to streamline the use of accessibility indicators for regional
studies and project appraisal. The National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning (whichsets out a vision to 2040 for the development of spatial planning and mobility policy across the
Netherlands) prioritises the integration of indicators across all modes to provide insights on the standardof accessibility enjoyed by different transport users (Government of the Netherlands, 2013).
More recently, consultation on the Government’s “Mobility Vision 2050 Framework Memorandum”(2023), which focusses on creating a more integrated national accessibility policy, resulted inparliamentary motions to investigate setting a minimum accessibility standard for key social and economic
facilities (e.g. education, healthcare and employment clusters). National and regional government
agencies are now examining which accessibility objectives and indicators would be most appropriate toimplement this approach (Government of the Netherlands, 2023).

40

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

MODAL FRAMEWORKS AND ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS

Policy takeaways•

Use accessibility indicators to broaden the scope of project appraisal, identify areas to target andcommunicate impact of transport policy in accessibility to policy makers and wider stakeholders.
This is an area for further research (see Annex A). Develop accessibility indicators that areappropriate to the scale of governance they are being used at and for the objective they aim toachieve. National governments could develop guidance and associate resources for the researchand development of national and local indicators appropriate to their contexts. This should include
expanding accessibility indicators beyond urban settings.

•

Develop a hierarchy or framework of sustainable modes based on desirable travel behaviour. Use
this framework to inform accessibility and equity analyses. Use the results of these analyses toinform strategies and intervention design. Frameworks, such as mobility guarantees, areimportant strategies for identifying and overcoming accessibility barriers. These could build
towards the concept of an accessibility guarantee, or accessibility by design, focusing on proximity
and walkability, could go beyond this by decreasing the dependency on means of transport thatmight be discriminatory.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

41

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

5. Incorporating accessibility in governance
Both national and local government should have responsibilities for the development of accessible
transport and infrastructure. The balance between the two will differ [from one country to another](ECMT, 2006).
What kinds of intervention, at which level of government, are needed to make accessibility a reality? Purely
top-down, highly centralised approaches to governance featuring generalised policies (Matland, 1995)
could undermine the need for more nuanced understanding of accessibility. At the same time, solely
bottom-up approaches can reflect a greater understanding of what is happening on the ground, but risk
being unable to generate sufficient support (and, by extension, risk being omitted from resource
allocations).
Sustainable accessibility can be viewed in the context of a “wicked problem”, according to the “wicked”
and “tame” framing described by Rittel and Webber (1973) and further developed in the literature (seee.g. Head 2008; Peters 2017).
In the case of sustainable accessibility for all, the problem cannot be clearly defined at the level at which
it needs to be solved and in fact requires integrated action at multiple governance levels. There are myriad
factors involved that differ by socio-economic, socio-demographic, socio-cultural and territorial contexts,
with the intersection of these factors creating yet further nuances. There is likely to be no single solution,or single set of solutions, that can be stipulated by governments to solve the issues.
Successful resolution will rely on co-operation between different levels of government, and with different
stakeholders, which will differ from place to place. Fostering trust and a shared understanding, including
through meaningful engagement and communication, will be important. This chapter outlines thedifferent roles for different levels of government and discusses processes for incorporating meaningful
engagement.

National and regional or state governments
National governments are responsible for setting national regulations and stipulating the standards underwhich all subsequent actions will be governed. With regard to ensuring access for persons with disabilities,
a joint task force of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the International
Association of Public Transport (UITP) (2006) concluded that the role of national governments in settingout legislation “requiring the provision of fully accessible public transport” was crucial to creating aframework “within which local authorities and transport operators can work together to achieveaccessibility” (ECMT, 2006).
Many governments have gone on to implement regulations to ensure physical access is reflected intransport planning. However, over time the concept of accessibility has expanded, as described in previous
chapters, and legislation has not always kept pace. Indeed, even solely within the physical access domain,
regulating for the range of groups in need of provision has faced challenges in the past. For example, theonboard transport infrastructure required for wheelchair users is not the same as the need for assisting
blind and/or partially sighted people. Moreover, there is a chance that accessibility requirements might

42

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

need careful balancing, an example being the bus/train space needed for wheelchairs which could reduce
the seating space required for other priority groups such as elderly people or pregnant women (ECMT,2000).
Legal provisions for accessibility have also extended to setting or guaranteeing minimum levels of service
at a regional level in some countries. The Swiss cantons of Zurich and Bern have minimum level-of-service
requirements based on the size of the community (Hinchcliff and Taylor, 2021). The government of
Catalonia, in Spain, guarantees minimum levels of intercity connectivity for communities of different sizes
in the region (ITF, 2021).
There has been some move to establish legislation covering broader accessibility requirements. The
government of the Flanders region of Belgium legislated in 2001 for minimum public transport levels ofservice based on priority residential areas, the location of stops and service frequency. In 2019 it
introduced the Decree on Basic Mobility, which moved the focus of planning from the services to thepeople using them. The transport network is now structured in layers, from mass transit corridors for rail(layer 1) down through, four layers of gradually more local needs to first- or last-mile solutions, such as
taxi and demand responsive solutions.
The Flanders regional government has introduced a (non-regulatory) regional mobility plan to complement
the Decree on Basic Mobility and provides funding in the form of project subsidies. However, 15 local
transport regions, and their councils, are responsible for implementation. These local councils include
representatives of key mobility stakeholders such as transport operators, the highways agency and local
municipalities. The decree also provides for local-level consultations (Government of Flanders, 2019; ITF,
2021).
National governments also set strategies for mobility and accessibility. Although these strategies may notinclude the explicit levels of service regulations of other instruments, they set targets and create the policy
frameworks within which local stakeholders can collaborate and act. For example, Austria’s 2030 Mobility
Master Plan (Government of Austria, 2021) provides guidance and sets targets for the transport sector inAustria to achieve climate goals (set by a legally binding directive). The plan incorporates the results of aback-casting exercise based on achieving net-zero in 2040.
Austria’s Mobility Master Plan focuses on access to (sustainable) transport modes but also, indirectly, on
equal, non-discriminatory access to opportunities. The plan is being accompanied by a review of alltransport and mobility laws at the federal level with a view to ensuring climate protection is included in
sectoral transport law. Draft legislation “will provide the legal tools to achieve the targets and measuresof the 2030 Mobility Master Plan” (Government of Austria, 2021: 45).
In Canada, the Accessible Canada Act came into effect in 2019. This law aims to remove barriers to the fullparticipation of persons with any disability or impairment by 2040 (Government of Canada, 2019). This law
has acted as the basis for several follow-on agencies and actions that will be vital to the implementationand monitoring of the Act’s ambitions. For example, Accessibility Standards Canada (further discussed in
the section on meaningful engagement) was established to develop standards for all federally regulated
sectors and environments (Accessibility Standards Canada, n.d.). Likewise, Statistics Canada was charged
with developing a framework of performance indicators for monitoring the progress in the different
priority areas. A subsequent set of indicators is also planned to monitor the removal of attitudinal barriers(Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023).
Ireland’s National Sustainable Mobility Policy provides a strategic framework for improving walking, cycling
and the use of public transport, and sets targets for additional sustainable trips and reductions in vehiclekilometres for fossil-fuel cars by 2030 (Government of Ireland, 2022a). The strategy includes clear

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

43

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

directions on the principles for informing the design of interventions (see e.g. Figure 13, which shows thehierarchy of road users). The policy is accompanied by a shorter-term action plan which clearly identifies
the roles of different actors and levels of government.
Under the National Sustainable Mobility Policy, the Irish Department of Transport’s actions mainly focus
on strategic infrastructure (rail and road networks); reviewing or developing relevant legislation or
standards; providing funding to local authorities for various aspects of implementation; and promoting orproviding guidance on core principles, including “access for all”. Its role also includes managing pilot
programmes to test new principles and organising capacity building or awareness raising among relevant
stakeholders (Government of Ireland, 2022b).
Figure 13. Ireland’s Hierarchy of Road Users model

Source: Department of Transport, Ireland.

In Ireland, the National Transport Authority (NTA) is responsible for funding public service obligationagreements and manages all such agreements as well as public transport contracts (NTA, n.d.). The NTA
also stepped in to encourage innovation in the provision of accessible bus services by issuing a call for
tenders for low-floor, single-deck coaches. The NTA developed the vehicle specifications and managed thefull procurement exercise. A framework agreement was signed with the winning bidder, allowing the NTA
to purchase accessible vehicles at a larger scale, which are then operated by service providers on
designated routes (Government of Ireland, 2023).
The Indian Government also conducted an aggregated procurement exercise (including subsidies) under
its Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles (FAME) scheme. The scheme was developed tosupport the purchase of electric and hybrid buses on behalf of local governments and cities to help themovercome the high capital costs of renewing their bus fleets (UITP, 2020). While procurement exercises
such as these are not without their challenges (UITP, 2020), they enable national or regional governments
to use their procurement powers to advance strategic goals and support local authorities or agencies that
may not have the resources to do so themselves.

44

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

Box 3. The future of public transport fundingtransport is crucial to a low-carbon transport future. Public transport trips must be maintained andexpanded, and fleets will need to transition to low or zero-emission vehicles. Additionally, public transport
will need to form the backbone of the transport network in peri-urban areas, complemented by othermodes. The loads carried by future public transport networks will therefore be considerable.
A recent ITF Working Group report found that all means of revenue generation for public transport willneed to be optimised in the future. It recommends:•

funding public transport as a crucial part of a sustainable, decarbonised and accessible transportsystem•formulating integrated funding strategies for future public transport services•

ensuring effective co-ordination between levels of government when funding public transport
investments•

improving the efficiency of public transport infrastructure investments and service provision•

adopting explicit fare policies and implement them via formal processes•

using structured fare policies for more equitable accessibility.

Source: ITF (2024).

Developing national strategies consumes considerable resources. One complete, long-term strategies canprove inflexible in the face of unexpected changes, such as demographic changes in regions experiencing
short-term changes in migration patterns. For example, accessibility for refugees or temporary protection
seekers will be based on the interaction between many different factors, and governments may need totake reactive measures at short notice. While local government engagement, as well as bottom-up andtop-down communication, can support efficient responses to such new circumstances, this is an area thatwould benefit from greater research on access and governance.
Even with a high-level policy goal in place, implementing it across the levels of government can run into
barriers (see Box 3 for an example). The Ambiguity–Conflict model of policy implementation (Matland,1995) seeks to conceptualise the relative success of policy implementation to identify whether top-down
or bottom-up approaches may be most appropriate (see Table 1). It does so by focusing on two
dimensions: 1) the degree of conflict between actors on the goal, its urgency or the means of delivering it;
and 2) the level of ambiguity around the outcome to be achieved and /or ambiguity around the means ofdelivering those outcomes. Ambiguity can be a drawback in a top-down process, as it makes prescribing
solutions more difficult. However, it can also allow space for learning and developing better solutions(Matland, 1995).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

45

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

Table 1. The Ambiguity–Conflict model of policy implementation
Low Ambiguity–Low Conflict
Implementation through provision of adequate resources

Low Ambiguity–High Conflict
Political implementation, reliant on power differences

High Ambiguity–Low Conflict

High Ambiguity–High Conflict

Experimental implementation, allowing space to learn and,hopefully, improve. Success will rely on the engagement of
stakeholders and the availability of resources (contextual
conditions).

Symbolic implementation, wherein the high level ofambiguity allows the actors to form coalitions around theirinterpretations of the symbolic goal. This implementation
is likely to lead to differing results in different locations, as
the interpretations of the goals vary in line with local needs
and priorities.

Source: based on Matland (1995).

Policy conflict can occur even within groups that are ostensibly looking to achieve the same goal. The ability
to deliver this goal depends on the relative power of the different actors to persuade or coerce others,
and the availability of resources (Matland, 1995). Top-down approaches can work well where there is low
ambiguity on what is being delivered. But in cases where there the goal, or means of delivering it, are lessclear, allowing elements of bottom-up learning and development can be more effective for success(Froschauer, 2010).
Froschauer (2010) examined the application of different policy implementation models to a bus rapidtransit (BRT) project in South Africa. The research identified the Ambiguity–Conflict Model as mostappropriate because “it does not discard other approaches, but rather seeks to determine which approach
may be most appropriate for successful implementation” (Froschauer, 2010: 66). It also found thatvariance between BRT sites increased ambiguity, as did the co-ordination (or lack-there-of) between the
different implementation tools, with different locations implementing different versions of BRT.
Furthermore, a wide range of stakeholders with differing objectives (even within the overall goal ofdelivering the BRT system) added to the level of conflict around the implementation in this case. The
author concluded that implementation represented a high conflict–medium ambiguity case, wherein the
difference in power between the actors would be the deciding factor, and that the main implementation
mechanism was therefore political. However, the author’s identified preferred experimental model of
implementation would also require potentially greater resources and time than the project had available.

Regional authorities and local governments
Implementation is best catered for by local authorities and the transport operators (ECMT, 2006; ITF,
2020). In several of the examples mentioned above, detailed planning or implementation was the
responsibility of local governments or local authorities. In Flanders, the 15 local transport regions are
responsible for developing their own mobility plans, as well as ensuring cross-boundary co-operation withother regions (ITF, 2021). In Germany, the Federal Government conducted analysis on transport
accessibility of public transport and active modes, as well as organising a participative process for public
engagement. However, regional authorities are responsible for taking the work forwards and developing
accessibility standards (BVDI, 2018). In such cases it is important to ensure appropriate awareness andskills at the regional level to take planning forwards in a way that recognises the needs of people in theregion.
46

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

France’s 2019 Loi d’orientation des mobilités (mobility orientation law, LOM) established regional transport
authorities (autorité organisatrices de la Mobilité, AOMs). Expanding on previous urban planning entities,
AOMs can organise urban and non-urban mobility within their region, depending on their make-up (Brown,2020). This new method of organising mobility governance moves away from centralised decision making
stipulating the services that must be provided. Instead, AOMs can develop plans and provide services
based on what they evaluate as most effective for their region. However, AOMs in sparsely populated
regions will receive special advice from the French government on mobility planning (ITF, 2021).
In the United Kingdom, the Greater London Authority Act (1999) devolved powers for some functions,
including the planning and operating of public transport, to the Greater London Authority (GLA). TfL is astatutory body created to carry out the functions of passenger transport provision, road safety, traffic
reduction and traffic signal management. TfL is also the Highways Authority for the strategic GLA roads,
which account for about 5% of London’s road network (TfL, n.d.).
Transport strategy for London is set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, a statutory 25-year transport
strategy that guides TfL’s activities for the duration of its validity. A new Mayor’s Transport Strategy canbe issued after a mayoral election, which take place every four years (TfL, n.d.). London is also divided into
33 local authorities, which act as local highways authorities for the roads in their borough (excluding GLA
roads). The local authorities are required to prepare Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) detailing how they
will deliver the strategy in their areas, subject to the Mayor’s approval (UK Government, n.d.). TFL thenmanages funding support to the boroughs to deliver their LIPs (TfL, n.d.).
In Austria, each regional government is obliged by law to establish a Verkehrsverbund (public transport
association) as a special-purpose company. The associations work as pseudo-public bodies to integratedifferent financing sources for public transport and demand-responsive (or on-demand) transport
including fare incomes and budget from the education sector for obligatory transport services for schools.
They also co-ordinate fares and timetables of different services, and work as a primary regional “orderer”
of public transport services to operators, managing public procurement.
Small local governments in Austria intending to provide local transport services can delegate planning andservice procurement upwards to the regional Verkehrsverbund. This allows local governments lacking inexpertise or dedicated resources to organise locally tailored transport services. Some Verkehrsverbünde
work as the primary entity responsible for national and regional pilots, testing innovative solutions such as
integrated transport information platforms and new mobility services.
In New Zealand, Auckland Transport aggregates transport responsibilities from across the Auckland
region’s eight former councils and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. It has responsibility for all
functions and operations related to transport, except for state roads (Auckland Transport, n.d.). Auckland
Transport contracts public transport infrastructure and manages infrastructure. It is also responsible for
improving road safety and encouraging more sustainable travel choices in Auckland.

Meaningful engagement
How can transport policy makers engage meaningfully with their populations to ensure solutions aredesigned based on representative feedback? In April 2022 the ITF conducted a workshop on accessibility
and civic engagement under the auspices of the ITF Corporate Partnership Board. The workshop focusedon how to improve the inclusiveness of transport policy making and published findings on how bettertransport (accessibility) policy could in turn improve that engagement (see Box 4).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

47

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

Box 4. Accessibility and civic engagement
Transport options shape people’s lives. The transport options available and affordable to different
neighbourhoods and user groups can impact employment, education, economic and social mobility
opportunities. Transport decisions can lead to access gaps and create, or reinforce, inequity among
different communities and social groups. Transport needs evidence-based decision-making to ensure agood fit for those who use the system.
Evidence-based decision-making needs good data. Better data can also support a greater understandingof transport needs by sociodemographic groups and demand patterns. This data is not always available,or collected specifically for the purposes of transport planning. Engagement across stakeholder groups,
and breaking down traditional organisational silos, can help to gather greater spatial data andunderstanding of communities.
There is a need to recognise the voices missing from transport discussions. Adopting a variety of channels
to reach-out to different potential user groups and those impacted by transport decisions can help
improve the representativeness of the engagement. When planning outreach and engagement activities,
there is a need to think of accessible venues and information formats beforehand (for example, wheelchairfriendly buildings, childcare facilities at meetings, etc.). Enabling engagement from different groups ofsociety can help policymakers and planners identify potential pitfalls at the design stage, before
implementation begins.
Diversity in the transport labour-force can support more inclusive decision-making. Diversity in thetransport sector’s workforce, particularly in decision-making roles, can support better awareness ofdifferent needs when planning transport policies and system design. Training for planning professionals
could also help to improve awareness of the different issues facing different sectors of society at theplanning stage.
Two-way communication can help to engender confidence in the process. Once mechanisms have been
set up to engage with target user or social groups, it is important to provide feedback to those citizens
who have spent their time and effort to provide input. Without it, there is a risk that participants in such
exercise would not see value in further engagement activities. While one-off meetings can help to reachvarious groups, establishing working groups can also help ensure a longer dialogue between different
stakeholder groups. This can help evaluate policy impacts and therefore address some accountability gaps
in the governance sphere of transport planning.
Commercial entities can also adopt civil engagement practices. For example, with new mobility modes (i.e.
e-scooters) and safety considerations for other users of public spaces, the discussion heard of the conceptof safety boards established for all groups to have the opportunity to raise their concerns.
Source: ITF (2022).

For many years, governments have sought to improve the reflection of different viewpoints in their policy
making through the engagement of expert panels. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Disabled
Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) was established in 1985 to provide advice to the
Department for Transport (and the Office of Road and Rail) on policy development, proposals anddecisions, act as a “sounding board” and make recommendations on research directions.
DPTAC has a standing membership of 10 to 20 members, each of whom serves for three years. At least
half of the members are required to be persons with disabilities. The Committee must meet at least four48

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

times per year (UK Government, n.d.). As a non-departmental body of the UK Government, DPTAC was
subject to a review of its form and existence in 2010. Based on that review and public consultation, thegovernment concluded that it should continue operating (UK Parliament, 2013).
A more recent example of advisory committees comes from the United States, where the Transforming
Transportation Advisory Committee advises the Secretary of Transportation on transport innovations,
including “[p]athways to safe, secure, equitable, environmentally friendly and accessible deployments ofemerging technologies”. The committee members are expected to serve two-year terms and will comprise“safety advocates, labor, technical experts (e.g., automation, data, privacy, cybersecurity), and industry
representatives” (US DoT, n.d.).
In 2019, the Government of Canada established a body, Accessibility Standards Canada, to develop
accessibility standards for all federally regulated entities to ensure accessibility for all persons withdisabilities. The body’s remit covers all areas of accessibility, but transportation (regulated federally), built
environment and access to goods and services are included among their priorities. The standards aredeveloped by technical committees that include those with lived experience of disability as well as industry
and experts on the relevant fields. The standards will be voluntary, however, there is scope for them to be
adopted as regulations (Accessibility Standards Canada, n.d.).
In recent years, some governments and authorities have begun to adopt broader citizen participation to
engage a more representative sample of the population in decision-making and design processes.
Participative processes across all sectors have become more common in the last decade, and the OECD
has developed dedicated guidelines on citizen participation (OECD, 2020).
Beyond traditional forms of information sharing or discussion fora such as town hall meetings, or standard
public consultations, some other techniques have begun to be used by authorities looking to engage
citizens in decision making. Participatory budgets, for example, have become more prevalent since theirfirst use in Brazil in 1989. This method gives citizens the power to directly influence budget policy andallocations (OECD and CEUP, 2020; UN DESA, 2022). The UN Committee of Experts on Public
Administration (CEPA) describes participatory budgeting as having the potential to be “a process that helps
to localize the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the community level” (UN DESA, 2022).
Although the Participatory Budgeting World Atlas (2019) has identified both national and regional-levelinstances worldwide, in some regions there are no national-level exercises noted, while regional or cityled instances have been recorded in every region (n.d.). However, global challenges such as poverty, social
exclusion and climate change cannot be comprehensively tackled at the micro-scale alone without macroscale strategies by governments and industry actors.
Lee and Min (2023) estimated that participatory budgeting in Korea had a positive impact on investment
in some sectors, including transport. However, it also skewed investments towards short-term deliverables
and away from long-term solutions (Lee and Min, 2023). The ITF has recommended the use of longerterm, vision-led planning for transport systems to help strategically align investment in sustainablesystems, and as some insulation against uncertainty (ITF, 2021; 2023a; 2023b).
In the long run, trends towards short-term decisions could undermine the sustainable development oftransport systems if investments are made in a piecemeal fashion. This underlines the importance of the
choice, design and management of the process being well informed. CEPA at the UN, and the OECDworking with the European Commission, have developed guidance on the use of participatory budgets(OECD and CEUP, 2020; UN DESA, 2022).
Innovative solutions, such as the collection of data through crowdsourcing or hackathons, have also been
seen in transport. In Mexico City, where there was a dearth of data on existing bus routes, the city
SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

49

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

authorities used gamification to improve their knowledge. This crowdsourcing initiative, known as
Mapatón, was led by the mayor in conjunction with a consortium of partners in a larger project to improveurban planning. An NGO then organised a hackathon using the data collected and included experts ofrelevant disciplines. The data-collection exercise was estimated to have cost the city authorities a fractionof the cost of traditional mapping exercises (OECD, 2016).
Other tools for involving citizens in data collection include citizen science and civic monitoring. The latter
involves the citizens in the evaluation of an intervention after it has taken place (OECD and CEUP, 2020).
Behaviour change will also be an important part of any strategy, with interventions needed to encourage
people to choose the most sustainable modes available. Such measures can be politically challenging to
implement but will be crucial to improving the sustainability of the transport system.
The OECD maintains a database of representative deliberative processes for all sectors. Of the 31 casestudies related to transport or infrastructure planning, 10 were implemented at the regional or national
level (see Table 2), and 21 at the local government scale (see Table 3). The processes used for the transport
sector in the database are citizens’ juries, citizens’ dialogues, citizens’ councils, planning cells anddeliberative polls, with the citizens juries being the most common (OECD, 2021). Ultimately, the process
chosen should be decided based on the complexity and scale of impact of the policy problem.
Table 2. Participative processes for transport policies at the state or regional level
Deliberative model

Nature of topic being put to publicCountry

Citizens' Jury

Consultation on highway planning

Spain

Citizens' Jury

Consultation on highway planning

Australia

Citizens' Jury

State transport insurance policy

Australia

Citizens' Jury

Development of regional transport plan

CanadaCitizens' Jury

Development of regional transport plan

CanadaCitizens' Jury

Long-term strategic planning for funding

CanadaCitizens' Jury

Long-term strategic planning for road / PT use payments

Australia

Citizens' Jury

Long-term strategic planning for state

Australia

Citizens' Dialogues

Priorities for state transport spending

USA

Citizens' Council

State level priorities for mobility planning next 10 - 15 years

Austria

Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2021).

50

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

Table 3. Participative processes for transport policies at the local government level
Deliberative model

Nature of topic being put to publicCountry

Planning Cell

Discussion of specific interventions for amenity spaceJapan

Planning CellPT problems in a specific city region

Germany

Planning Cell

PT solutions for a specific city wardJapan

Planning Cell

Feedback from local residents impacted by a specificintervention

Germany

Deliberative poll

Transit and Traffic issues in a specific city

Argentina

Deliberative poll

City level infrastructure planning

Mongolia

Citizens' Jury

Solutions for PT, congestion and air quality in Cambridgecity

United Kingdom

Citizens' Jury

Design of a specific intervention in Vancouver

CanadaCitizens' Jury

Decide whether to build a metro in a specific city

South Korea

Citizens' Jury

Design of a specific intervention in Toronto

CanadaCitizens' JuryTo gather input on impacts on a community of growth at a
specific airport

CanadaCitizens' Jury

Informing service design and network development in a
specific region

CanadaCitizens' Jury

Help development of footpath planning in specific city
(Toronto)

CanadaCitizens' Jury

Developing plan for complementary measures in thecommunities immediately surrounding a freight terminal

Australia

Citizens' Jury

Developing plan for local infrastructure in a specific city

Australia

Citizens' Jury

Development of an infrastructure plan for a specific city

Australia

Citizens' Jury

Development of an infrastructure plan for a specific city

Australia

Citizens' Jury

Prioritisation of infrastructure interventions for a specific
city

Australia

Citizens' Dialogues

Looking at revenue for infrastructure development in a
specific city

CanadaCitizens' Dialogues

Development of the urban mobility plan for a specificFrench city (Amiens)

FranceCitizens' Dialogues

Development of the urban mobility plan for a specificFrench city (Grenoble)

FranceSource: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2021).

Consistent with the remits described in the previous section, regional and state level governments haveprimarily conducted the processes in relation to strategic planning, such as highway networks and budget
allocation. Local governments have conducted processes on specific interventions or transport plans,
together with the communities that will be impacted by them. This is a very relevant point considering thediscussion in Chapter 2 of this report – the specific spatial impacts for individual communities are mostly
assessed through engagement at the local level. Box 5 outlines two examples of local-level processes.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

51

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

Box 5. Examples of representative deliberative processes in transport policy making
Citizens’ juries
In Vancouver, Canada, a community panel was assembled to consider the routing of an arterial roadthrough their community that would also cross a railway line, to support community connectivity andsafety. The independent panel comprised 42 individuals drawn from the community and was designed toreflect the demographics of the community, based on age, gender and ethnicity. The panel consideredseveral possible routes for the road, taking on board presentations from 50 others and inputs from afurther 200 participants, and ultimately made recommendations to the city council and the parks board,both of which contributed funding for the exercise (community flats full report). The Jeffersen Centre
managed the four-month process, which involved seven meetings (Jeffersen Centre, 2019a).
The recommendations from the panel were then incorporated into the deliberations of the city council
and parks board in identifying the final route alignment. The panel did not select the first proposedalignment, which had an estimated cost of CAD 400 million, but they did select the second preference
route (estimated at CAD 125 million) recommended by the panel. At the same time, the council approved“a pilot project to improve walkability and reduce vehicle speeds along Prior-Venables, as well as increase
permanent park space in the area”, aimed at addressing key concerns raised by the participants throughthe community panel process (Jeffersen Centre, 2019a).
In a post-process survey, the majority of respondents (sample size = 36) were satisfied with the process
and found the information presented useful. The majority also responded that the city council should
consider using the process more often (Jeffersen Centre, 2019). “Even if we didn’t always agree with one
another, we are now more able to understand one another and those whose experiences and perspectives
differ from our own” (Jeffersen Centre, 2019b).
Deliberative polls
In Buenos Aires, Argentina a survey (nearly 1 500 participants) and follow up one-day discussion (62participants), were organised to understand transit and traffic issues in the La Plata area. The process
threw up several conflicting viewpoints, but also saw specific areas for action identified (e.g. therestoration of five bus lines) and statistically significant changes in opinion. The process also saw trust in
the government and mayor increase significantly, with 68.9% of discussants saying they had confidence inthe mayor and his government “to do the right thing” and 80% of discussants thought the exercise wasworthwhile (Deliberative Democracy Lab, 2009).

The OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes

The OECD has developed Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, which include a ten-step pathway
for citizen participation (OECD, 2020; see also Box 6). The Working Group considered the guidelines in thecontext of transport systems, and it is important to note that the citizen participation process discussions
that follow are distinct from the mandatory consultations required in a transport project.
The OECD guidance recommends that citizen participation takes place throughout the course of a project.
However, it is especially important in the early stages of concept development and design to ensure
proposed solutions reflect the needs of the relevant community and support “social sustainability” (OECD,2021). The experience in Ireland in developing guidelines for community engagement by public authorities
emphasises the importance of this early, and ongoing, engagement to build relationships with the52

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

community (Government of Ireland, 2023). Although the recommendations in that report focus on
infrastructure construction (see Table 2 and Table 3), there is scope for meaningful engagement in strategy
and planning projects too.
A crucial element in the citizen participation process is to clearly identify the problem the public is being
asked to help solve. From there, it is possible to identify the correct point(s) in the project process at whichto engage with citizens (OECD, 2022: 10). This is particularly relevant in transport, as there are often several
layers of authorities and agencies involved in the planning and delivery of transport interventions,sometimes with conflicting viewpoints and priorities. The Working Group highlighted that making theappropriate intervention at the appropriate level of governance is important. The OECD guidance on
citizen participation (2022) provides a clear tabulation of the options and reasons for each of the processes
which can assist in this process (see Annex B).
For a successful citizen participation process, it is imperative to identify upfront the resources needed todeliver it. The organising body should be fully committed to the process and plan to commit the necessary
resources (OECD and CEUPT). Time should also be invested in identifying which voices are needed toparticipate. Relying solely on existing representative groups with which relationships exist risks continuing
to overlook certain people (Government of Ireland, 2023). This can be particularly a risk for the mostvulnerable groups.
In the later phases of the process, feedback to the citizens involved and the wider public is very important
to contribute to transparency. It also signals to participants that their time invested in the process wasworthwhile. As part of this, authorities must clearly communicate the outcomes of the process and how
those results were used or considered in the overall decision-making process (OECD, 2022; ITF, 2022).

Box 6. Ten steps for a citizen participation process
1. Identify the problem to solve and the moment for participation
2. Define the expected results
3. Identify the relevant group of people to involve and recruit participants
4. Choose the participation method
5. Choose the right digital tools
6. Communicate about the process
7. Implement the process
8. Use citizen input and provide feedback
9. Evaluate the participation process
10. Cultivate a culture of participation
Source: OECD (2022).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

53

INCORPORATING ACCESSIBILITY IN GOVERNANCE

Policy takeaways

54•

National governments must identify sustainable accessibility as a priority so that it can feed into
all strategies, governance frameworks, investment priorities and planning processes that follow.
Building on the discussion in Chapter 1, these strategies must include more than just the transport
sector and should reflect integrated thinking with development planning. Collaboration acrossdepartments is therefore very important to achieving accessibility objectives.

•

Different levels of government have different competencies and relevance to the desired
outcomes. National governments have the power to create the mandate and guidance at anational level. They should set the principles or strategies that councils should be operating under.
Regional and local authorities are likely to be better placed to understand the circumstances facing
the residents and visitors in their region and should be supported by national governments to takeforward implementation.

•

National governments should define funding mechanisms for delivering the necessary transport
schemes and participative processes as appropriate. They can define conditions for receiving
national money on the regional and/or local level, such as setting sustainability and social equity
goals for any funded projects or bodies. Impact monitoring can also help identify successfulinterventions and help future funding decisions. Depending on the population size, establishmentof dedicated institution or team at the regional or local level would be an option if such an
institution does not yet exist. A framework should be provided by national governments.

•

Improve engagement with the people impacted by the decisions, consider the tools available (e.g.
as detailed in the OECD guidance on citizen participation processes). The exact form of thisengagement will depend on what is most appropriate for the context. Improved data collection
will also aid more informed decision making and support monitoring the effectiveness of any
measures implemented in how well they are delivering against equity and inclusion goals.

•

Tools exist to consult citizens at a high level on strategies or strategic interventions. Equally,
community-level schemes can inform local-level project designs and investments. Engagement atthese two levels of governance can provide strategic direction and, potentially, define funding.
Furthermore, specific local projects or interventions could help accessibility in those communities– given the combination of socio-economic, demographic and territorial factors that prevail in
local settings.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

6. Looking beyond mobility policy
Accessibility is a question of more than just the provision of transport modes. While transport planning
has in many places focused on achieving accessibility through physical mobility, integration with land-use
planning has been insufficient, as has the recognition of the increasingly prominent role played by digitalconnectivity (Lyons, 2015; Handy, 2020; ITF, 2020).
This chapter sets out an emerging approach to transport planning that aims to incorporate the land-use
system and digital connectivity more holistically into the policy development process while taking accountof future uncertainty about societal mobility preferences. It explores how applications of digital mobility
technologies and developments in land-use practice, particularly in the form of mobility hubs, can affectsustainable accessibility in urban, peri-urban and rural settings.

Better integrating land-use and digital connectivity into transport
planning
Triple Access Planning for Uncertain Futures is a three-year research project carried out between May
2021 and April 2024 that sought to quantify and schematise these inter-relationships. Involving academics,
city authorities, national transport authorities and private consultants in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom, the project aimed to enhance guidance for SUMPs for both passenger
and freight movements through two additional significant considerations:
1. conceiving accessibility through the tripartite lens of the transport system (physical mobility), theland-use system (spatial proximity), and the telecommunications system (digital connectivity)
2. a greater focus on explicitly taking into account multifaceted uncertainty in the development ofplans, stemming from variables such as demographics, economic developments, locational
choices, regulatory context, technological breakthroughs, travel demand, and stakeholder
behaviour (Triple Access Planning for Uncertain Futures 2023).
The Triple Access Planning approach builds on insights derived from a New Zealand Ministry of Transport
strategic project undertaken in 2014 to consider future demand for mobility through the use of scenario
planning (New Zealand Ministry of Transport, 2014).
Triple Access Planning seeks to explicitly recognise the two and three-way interactions between thetransport system, land-use system, and telecommunications system (see Figure 14). Each is an enabler of
economic and social activities, with their associated resource requirements and negative externalities.
Global disruptions in recent years have brought into sharper focus the need to fully consider theinteractions between each of these three sub-systems. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, muchof the world adjusted to home-working/shopping/education/socialising, and restrictions limited travel
beyond immediate neighbourhoods. This demonstrated how an unexpected shock can shift the relative
dominance of physical mobility for access to opportunities towards digital connectivity and spatial
proximity.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

55

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

Figure 14. The Triple Access System

Source: Lyons and Davidson (2016).

Furthermore, as addressing climate change has moved up policy agendas in most countries, the “Avoid,
Shift, Improve” paradigm for decarbonising transport has undergone some modifications, with additional
focus placed on the “Avoid” (demand management), and “Shift” (mode shift) pillars. This transformation
adds further weight to the role of land-use and telecommunications systems in achieving sustainable
accessibility (ITF, 2024c).
The Triple Access Planning approach is also couched in the “decide and provide” paradigm advocated forin several recent ITF publications (ITF 2021c; 2023a; 2023b), which involves making investments that are
strategically aligned to a preferred vision of the future transport system, while taking uncertainty into
account through scenario planning.
1. Three recent projects have adopted vision-led approaches to specific aspects of accessibility,
demonstrating the ways in which interventions could conceivably be combined. Scotland’s 20202022 National Transport Strategy Delivery Plan is an example of a project focused on physicalmobility, which aims to develop a co-ordinated package of policy interventions to reduce car
kilometres travelled by 20% by 2030 compared to pre-pandemic levels (Transport Scotland, 2020).
2. The “15-minute city” concept, which focuses on spatial proximity, was a centrepiece of the 2020
mayoral election campaign in Paris (City of Paris, 2022).
3. The Welsh Government’s long-term ambition to see around 30% of Welsh workers working fromhome or near from home in the post-pandemic era clearly focuses on digital connectivity(Government of Wales, 2020).

56

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

Aligned with these types of projects, both the concept of desired density (of population and amenities)
and the idea of clusters of amenities, are emerging in academic discussions as measures to achieve moreaccessible settlements.
While conceptually attractive, the Triple Access Planning framework faces several significant challenges.
First, the complexity of the system, the number of pertinent variables, and the potential lack of available
data make quantifying and modelling demand and supply interactions for physical mobility, spatial
proximity and digital connectivity under different scenarios challenging. Similar, and perhaps even more
pronounced, challenges are likely to exist when incorporating the Triple Access Planning approach into
individual project appraisal processes (ITF, 2020). Related to this is the fact that effective implementationof the framework could require additional skillsets in public authorities.
Finally, the success of Triple Access Planning is predicated on different parts of government sharing
information and working effectively across complex and busy portfolios. The organisational distribution of
responsibilities across central and local government departments can make this very difficult, and indeed
efforts to align transport and land-use planning more closely through organisational reform has not always
led to better outcomes (Handy, 2020).
For example, in the United Kingdom, voluntary local enterprise partnerships between local authorities andbusinesses identify and act on local economic growth priorities. The integration of these partnerships withtransport authorities has led to greater recognition of the role of mobility in fostering positive
agglomeration effects to support economic development (Marsden and Docherty, 2019). Similarly,
significant steps have been taken to align transport and public health interventions more closely within
local government across Great Britain (Heath, 2014; Government of Scotland, 2008).
However, despite clear aspirations to enhance cross-sectoral collaboration between agencies, it remains
difficult to achieve in practice. This is in large part due to ongoing pressure on public sector funding while
demand for services increase, making resource allocation to anything other than core operating activities
difficult (Maguire et al., 2016). To improve synergies across government in a resource-constrained
environment, policy practitioners could aim to highlight the potential for expenditure in one sectoral area
to save costs in another related sector, to help build the case for detailed collaborative discussion andaction (Mueller et al., 2016; Greener Journeys, 2016).

Digitalisation and access
Since the release of the first widely consumed smartphone 15 years ago, the use of digital travel
information and services has become ubiquitous in many ITF member countries (Aguilera, 2019). A recent
study by KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (Durand, Hamersma and Rienstra, 2023)
found that 96% of respondents to an online survey use digital forms of travel information (see Figure 15).
While the Netherlands has a relatively digitally skilled population, and an online survey is likely tounderrepresent people who use digital tools infrequently, these findings could be expected to be broadly
equivalent for many other similar ITF member countries.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

57

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

Figure 15. Uptake of smartphones and use of digital travel information in the Netherlands

Source: Durand, Hamersma and Rienstra (2023).

The same survey revealed that, in 2022, 75% of car and public transport users found travel without asmartphone to be more difficult, with only 37% of respondents considering road signs or signs in public
transport to be sufficient in facilitating worry-free travel (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. Digital tools are indispensable in mobility

Source: Durand, Hamersma and Rienstra (2023).

The use of digital travel information contributes to increased traveller convenience for both car and public
transport users, with perceived journey time-savings, greater certainty regarding potential disruptions,and increased adaptability to vary route and departure times in comparison to analogue travel
information. However, the impact of digital travel information on safety (a key enabler of accessibility) andsustainability are mixed (Durand, Hamersma and Rienstra, 2023).
While digital travel information and other digital services offer many benefits for transport users, noteveryone is willing or able to take advantage of them. Research on digital inequality for mobility is in a
nascent stage, but a 2022 review of 25 published papers on the topic revealed that vulnerability todigitalisation in transport services is particularly acute for older adults, women, people with lower
education levels, with lower income levels, from ethnic minorities, and rural areas (Durand et al., 2022).

58

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

Furthermore, these findings have proved consistent across multiple countries where the impact of digitalinequality have been studied on particular user groups (Bertolaccini and Hickman, 2019; Carney and Kandt,
2022; Bigby et al., 2017).
Exclusion from digitalisation can occur both due to inequalities in material access to quality technology,
and from inequalities in sufficient digital skills to harness it. In the Netherlands, for example, an online
survey found around 8.5% of car and public transport users have no access to a smartphone with sufficientmobile data or battery and storage space to adequately use digital information services. The same survey
found around 9% struggle to use travel apps or websites to plan and execute a journey, with paper-based
surveys in Spain and Germany finding closer to 20% of the population experience difficulties (Durand,
Hamersma and Rienstra, 2023).
Experiencing difficulties in access and application of digital services does not always result in vulnerable
users failing to use them. Coping strategies, in particular support from individuals’ social network, plays amajor role in facilitating use, although the extent of such support varies greatly and typically leads toeffectively raising the generalised cost (more time, money, and/or effort) of travel for these people(Durand et al., 2022; Bertolaccini and Hickman 2019). This can result in vulnerable users becoming evenmore dependent on others as mobility services become increasingly digital (see Box 7), contributing todriving some people from public to private means of transport, potentially reinforcing patterns of social
inequality (Durand et al., 2022; Lucas, 2019).
Box 7. Making MaaS accessible for all
Mobility as a Service (MaaS) has garnered significant attention internationally as a mobility solution.
Most research on the MaaS concept has focused on its potential to enhance the efficiency orsustainability of urban mobility systems, possible governance models, challenges related to regulatory
approaches, and data architecture. However, there has been relatively little written on how the
implementation of MaaS can be made accessible for vulnerable user groups (ITF 2021a; 2023;
Dadashzadeh et al., 2022; Dadashzadeh, Sagmanli and Ouelhad, 2022; Durand et al., 2018; Ho et al.,2020; Matyas, 2020; Reck and Axhausen 2021).
Research to date has found that age, gender, income, education, and current travel behaviour all play
an important part in determining an individual’s propensity to purchase MaaS packages (Matyas andKamargiani, 2021). The proportion of the population considered as vulnerable transport users(particularly older adults, people with disabilities, lower-income groups, and people with digital
illiteracy) has increased in recent decades, and is projected to continue to do so. This means thatdesigning inclusive MaaS platforms will be important for widespread uptake of more sustainabletransport and access to social and economic opportunities (Pangbourne et al., 2020; Polydoropoulou etal., 2020; Alyavina et al., 2020; Kyiakidis et al., 2020).
Work to better understand accessibility and MaaS has begun to pick up. For example, a study funded by
the UK Department for Transport and led by the University of Portsmouth has developed a “MaaS
Inclusion Index” which aims to evaluate a given MaaS platform at the service level rather than city/arealevel, to help guide stakeholders in enhancing accessibility for vulnerable user groups. The framework
groups different aspects of accessibility for MaaS into three sub-indexes which look at the accessibilityof the transport services, the accessibility data available on the services, and the accessibility of the
MaaS interface itself. Researchers (Dadashzadeh et al., 2022; Dadashzadeh, Sagmanli and Ouelhad,2022) identified the following main aspects necessary to include in the evaluation: physical accessibility

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

59

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

of the transport services; collection and availability of data on accessibility; and accessibility of theintegrated mobility services platform.
Public transport passes such as the KlimaTicket in Austria (implemented 2021), parallel card-based andapp-based ticketing offers such as the Deutschlandticket in Germany (implemented in 2023) and the
Climate Card in Seoul, Korea (pilot planned for 2024) demonstrate that integrated subscription-based
passes are not only possible through smart-phone apps.
Combining app- and non-app-based approaches could potentially enhance the inclusiveness ofvulnerable users and improve their access to MaaS-type services. This area requires further
investigation as ticketing products evolve.

The potential role of mobility hubs
A “mobility hub” provides a focal point in the transport network that seamlessly integrates different
modes, especially public transport, shared, and active mobility. It also combines supportive multimodal
infrastructure with other policy goals such as charging points and placemaking strategies. The idea builds
on earlier concepts used in the literature and planning practice focussing on transfers in the passenger
transport domain (e.g. park and ride facilities, multi-modal transfer centres) and in the freight logistics
domain (e.g. urban and regional distribution centres).
Table 4. The functions of mobility hubs
Mobility Hub Function

Description

Multimodality (feeder mode)

Ability to use shared services (such as shared bike) as first/last mile mode (activityend)

Multimodality (main-mode)

Ability to use shared services (car-sharing, micro-transit) at the hub in place of public
transport

Multi-Activity Destination

Ability to perform multiple activities within the same location

Additional Function

Travellers using personal modes to access hub

Parking

Ability to park personal mode at the mobility hub

Source Tippabhatla (2020).

A well-designed hub maximises access to mobility and other resources, while ensuring a transfer between
modes for first and last-mile connectivity (UITP, 2023a). The term is generally used to refer to the spatialconnection of multiple mobility modes including shared mobility, offering a physical location for users toswitch between modes (see Table 4).
Mobility hubs should act as the glue between the core network and local services, accompanied byinitiatives to integrate trip planning and booking on a regional or national level. A convenient andaffordable transport offer does not only improve access, but also provides the basis for incentivising moresustainable mobility behaviours.
A core element of strategic rural transport policy is multimodal rural mobility co-ordination (e.g. at theregional level) for more sustainable, convenient and seamless travel. Mobility hubs act as important links
between the core network and local rural collective or shared services. Mobility hubs also offer possibilities

60

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

to integrate local services and businesses to make waiting times more attractive. The scale and range ofservices offered through hubs should vary according to location and population density (ITF, 2021).
A study assessing the impact of mobility hubs in Germany indicates that, after their introduction, residents
became more aware of shared mobility services (Miramontes et al., 2017). With respect to modal shift,findings suggest that introducing mobility hubs increases the use of car-sharing and public transport(Miramontes et al., 2017). Tippabhatla (2020) analysed the roles of mobility hubs for travel behaviouralchange and concluded that shared mobility services offered in mobility hubs had an impact on travellers’choices. The study also highlighted their roles in terms of accessibility (Table 4).
A recent ITF report (ITF, 2022) emphasises equitable accessibility principles of mobility hubs to support
mobility networks becoming more accessible and affordable for more people, and to promote liveable andequitable communities. Mobility hub typologies differ, particularly in relation to how they serve urban
land, suburban and rural activity centres, therefore providing benefits to all types of communities. The
primary objective of mobility hubs should be to facilitate improvements in how people access and use
existing and new mobility services around settlements. This includes the ability to customise journeys fordifferent customer segments including fully accessible journey options for those with disabilities (ARUP,n.d.).
A study conducted by Imperial College London, in partnership with Enterprise and Brompton Bike Hire,
looked at the impact of offering employees free access to a car club or bicycle as an alternative to theirown vehicle (Imperial College, n.d.). Another project, SmartHubs, looked at the accessibility andinclusiveness of mobility hubs as a key point especially in the context of traditionally less-well served users(e.g. older persons, people with reduced mobility, vision or cognitive abilities, people having no access tothe internet, persons with low income, women, ethnic minorities, caregivers, children, foreigners), who
might experience barriers to using mobility hubs (Geurs et al., 2022).
However, there is no comprehensive body of literature on the impacts of mobility hubs on mode choice
and wider transport objectives such as emissions and congestion. SEStran (2022) suggests that the impacts
should be monitored to build an evidence base for planning the future expansion or continuation of service
provision. The study also suggests implementing a pilot project which evaluates the overall impact of the
hub in terms of demand for services and travel behaviour change for the services offered to provide robust
evidence of its impacts and estimated benefits.
Building a network of mobility hubs can be challenging. Strong leadership at the political and departmental
level, a clear division of responsibilities between relevant stakeholders, an enabling regulatoryenvironment, and co-ordinated branding and communication are all crucial to success. Furthermore,mobility hubs should ideally be implemented in a scalable network to facilitate sustainable multimodal
lifestyles and an enduring shift away from private vehicle dependency. To achieve this, mobility hubs must
be stable enough to balance the volatility of the shared mobility market and flexible enough to adapt toemerging needs. Finally, the role of mobility hubs in achieving improved accessibility outcomes should befully integrated, and clearly communicated, in strategic planning documents of the relevant competentauthority (UITP, 2023a).

Policy takeaways•

Accessibility goes far beyond transport policy, with cross-departmental consideration of thetripartite interactions between the transport system (physical mobility), land-use system (spatial
proximity), and telecommunications system (digital connectivity) needed to both take account of

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

61

LOOKING BEYOND MOBILITY POLICY

multifaceted uncertainty in societal preferences for access over time, and efficiently shift towards
more sustainable travel options.

62•

While digital travel information and other digital services offer many benefits for transport users,
not everyone is willing or able to take advantage of them. Investigating digital inequality and its
consequences in a systemic manner is an important pre-requisite to designing policy and services
that harness the efficiency gains of digitalisation while ensuring all user groups can reap the
benefits. Investigate what options can be provided to improve inclusiveness.

•

Mobility hubs should act as the glue between the core network and local services, accompanied
by initiatives to integrate trip planning and booking on a regional or national level. The scale andrange of services offered through hubs should vary according to location and population density,
also considering leisure and tourism travel.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions
The concept of accessibility has grown beyond physical access and mobility. The term “sustainable
accessibility” refers to the ease of reaching amenities and opportunities by using sustainable mobility
options that are reliable, affordable, usable and non-discriminatory. The focus is on different groups ofpeople, their needs and places they have to reach to conduct activities to fulfil them.
However, as understanding of the facets of accessibility has grown, implementation through governanceprocesses has become more complex. Classification by individual factors (e.g. gender, income orgeography) helps raise awareness of a variety of travel patterns that conventional transport planning has
not always recognised, but each factor is too one-dimensional to fully address the needs and behaviouralfactors that affect sustainable accessibility. At the same time, it is unlikely that a solely top-down approach
could succeed in defining the more granular understanding of the intersections between all the various
facets needed to better understand mobility and sustainable travel choices. Additionally, given the impactsof territorial and socio-cultural factors, solutions cannot always be generalised across populations.
The principles identified by previous ITF work on accessibility still stand, even allowing for the expanded
remit of accessibility interventions according to the broader concept of sustainable accessibility. Namely,accessibility will rely on co-operation across government levels and with public and private sector
operators, as well as participation of different social groups in defining the necessary solutions. Fullaccessibility will rely on the existence of the right services, infrastructure technologies and strategic,
integrated transport and land-use planning. Additionally, those strategies will need to reflect the fact thatdifferent societal groups have different abilities and ambitions. Implementation will require actions at
every level of government, with different levels taking on different roles, from strategic direction to project
design. Proper implementation should also include participation, communication and learning strategies
that fit both stakeholders and citizens as specific target groups.
Involving communities and different societal groups in new governance processes will be important.
Several methodologies have already been developed and applied to transport projects. Participative
processes, such as those outlined in the OECD’s Guidelines for Citizen Participation (see Annex B), can be
useful in incorporating meaningful engagement at appropriate steps in the governance processes.
Accessibility indicators, in combination with a mobility service framework or modal hierarchies, can help
with understanding and communicating gaps in sustainable accessibility, although they will require greater
amounts of data and guidelines on their application. Indicators can also be used for monitoring andcommunicating whether an intervention is successful. Data on demographics, service availability and travel
patterns from various sources (e.g. public surveys, transportation agencies) can be leveraged for creating
indicators. These indicators can be used for monitoring and evaluating the success of interventions.
Finally, mobility policy alone will not be sufficient to address sustainable accessibility. Different policy
domains will need to come together, including land-use and development policies, and infrastructure andservice planning (e.g. through the expansion of broadband infrastructure, or the location of schools andhospitals). National governments will need to signal the importance of sustainable accessibility as an
outcome by including it as a priority in strategic planning documents and providing guidelines on how toachieve it across different levels of government.

63

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

References
ABS (2010), “Access to health and community services: barriers to accessing services”, The Health andWelfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, October 2010, Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Canberra, www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/lookup/4704.0Chapter960Oct+2010.
Accessibility Standards Canada (n.d.), “About us”, Government of Canada,
https://accessible.canada.ca/about-us (accessed: 10 November 2023).
Alkubati, M.A. et al. (2023), “An overview of public transport reliability studies using a bibliometricanalysis”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 14/3, 101908, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101908.
Aguiléra, A. (2019), “Smartphone and Individual Travel Behavior”, in A. Aguilera and V. Boutueil (eds),
Urban Mobility and the Smartphone, Elsevier, pp. 1-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8126479.00001-9.
Allam, Z. et al. (2022), “The ‘15-Minute City’ concept can shape a net-zero urban future”, Humanities andSocial Sciences Communications, Vol. 9/1, pp. 1-5, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01145-0.
Alyavina, E., A. Nikitas and E. Tchouamou Njoya (2020), “Mobility as a service and sustainable travel
behaviour: A thematic analysis study”, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
Vol. 73, pp 362-81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.07.004.
ARUP (n.d.), “Future Mobility Hubs”, www.arup.com/insights/future-mobility-hubs/ (accessed 24 June2024).
Auckland Transport (2021), “Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031”,
https://at.govt.nz/media/1986141/final-regional-land-transport-plan-2021-2031-web-version.pdf(accessed 4 October 2023).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (n.d.), “Determinants of health: Transport”, Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework, www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/2-13transport.
Aytur, S. A. et al. (2011), “Pedestrian and bicycle planning in rural communities: Tools for active living”,
Family and Community Health, Vol. 34/2, pp. 173-81, https://doi.org/10.1097/fch.0b013e31820e0d47.
Banerjee, I.; P. Jittrapirom and J.S. Dangschat (2023), “Data-driven urbanism, digital platforms and theplanning of MaaS in times of deep uncertainty: What does it mean fur CAVs?”, in M. Mitteregger et al.
(eds), AVENUE21: Planning and Policy Considerations for an Age of Automated Mobility, Springer Vieweg,
Berlin, pp. 431-60, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-63354-0_20.
Bastiaanssen, J., D. Johnson and K. Lucas (2022), “Does better job accessibility help people gain
employment? The role of public transport in Great Britain”, Urban Studies, Vol. 59/2, pp. 301-22,
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211012635.
Bauchinger, L. et al. (2021), “Developing sustainable and flexible rural-urban connectivity throughcomplementary mobility services”, Sustainability, Vol. 13/3, pp. 1-23,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031280.

64

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

Berg, J. and J. Ihlström (2020), “Erfarenheter och upplevda hinder i kollektivtrafiken hos personer med
neuropsykiatriska funktionsnedsättningar”[Experiences of public transport among people withneuropsychiatric disabilities], Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute Report No. 1123,
http://vti.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1654798&dswid=200.
Bertolaccini, K. and M. Hickman (2019), “Age, transport and technology: A survey of older
Queenslanders”, Proceedings of the 41st Australasian Transport Research Forum, Vol. 30, 30 September2 October 2019, Canberra, https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/age-transport-andtechnology-a-survey-of-older-queenslanders.
Bigby, C. et al. (2019), “Communication access on trains: A qualitative exploration of the perspectives ofpassengers with communication disabilities”, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 41/2, pp. 12532, https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1380721.
Bose, P. (2013), “Refugees and Transportation in Vermont: Travel behaviour and critical questions basedon gender, age, and transportation hierarchies”, University of Vermont Transportation Research Center
Report No. 13-002, https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/trc/198.
Bourdieu, P. (1977), “Structures and the Habitus”, in P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 72-95,
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507.004.
Brown L. (20 June 2020), “Let’s talk LOM (French mobility orientation law)”, Futura-Mobility,
https://futuramobility.org/en/lets-talk-lom-french-mobility-orientation-law.
BVDI (2018), “Sicherung von Versorgung und Mobilität: Strategien und Praxisbeispiele für gleichwertige
Lebensverhältnisse in ländlichen Räumen“ [Securing supplies and mobility: Strategies and practicalexamples for equivalent living conditions in rural areas], German Federal Ministry of Transport andDigital Infrastructure, Berlin, www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/publikationen/sicherung-vonversorgung-und-mobilitaet-im-laendlichen-raum-1539704.
Carney, F. and J. Kandt (2022), “Health, out-of-home activities and digital inclusion in later life:
Implications for emerging mobility services”, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol 24, 101311,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101311.
Cass, N., E. Shove and J. Urry (2005), “Social exclusion, mobility and access”, The Sociological Review,Vol. 53/3, pp. 539-55, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00565.x.
City of Paris (2022), « Paris ville du quart d'heure, ou le pari de la proximité » [Paris, quarter-hour city, orthe bet of proximity], www.paris.fr/dossiers/paris-ville-du-quart-d-heure-ou-le-pari-de-la-proximite-37(accessed 16 June 2023).
Corran, P. et al. (2018), “Age, disability and everyday mobility in London: An analysis of the correlates of‘non-travel’ in travel diary data”, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 8, pp. 129-36,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.12.008.
Carroll, P., R. Benevenuto and B. Caulfield (2021), “Identifying hotspots of transport disadvantage and car
dependency in rural Ireland”, Transport Policy, Vol. 101, pp. 46-56,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.11.004.
Currie, G. and Z. Senbergs (2007), “Indigenous communities: Transport disadvantage and Aboriginalcommunities”, in G. Currie, J. Stanley and J. Stanley (eds), No Way To Go: Transport and Social
Disadvantage in Australian Communities, Monash University Press, Melbourne,
https://doi.org/10.26180/5f3c69de1ba87.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

65

REFERENCES

Dabelko-Schoeny, H. et al. (2021), “‘We want to go, but there are no options’: Exploring barriers andfacilitators of transportation among diverse older adults”, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 20, 100994,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100994.
Dadashzadeh, N. et al. (2022), “Mobility as a Service Inclusion Index (MaaSINI): Evaluation of inclusivity in
MaaS systems and policy recommendations”, Transport Policy, Vol. 127, pp. 191-202,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.09.006.
Dadashzadeh, N., S.S. Sagmanli and D. Ouelhadj (2022), “Inclusive Mobility as a Service (MaaS): Key
performance indicators and a conceptual framework for evaluation”, in Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Conference on Mobility as a Service, 29-30 November, Tampere University,
https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/publications/inclusive-mobility-as-a-service-maas-key-performanceindicators-a.
Dangschat, J.S. (2023), “Connected and automated transport in the socio-technical transition”, in M.
Mitteregger et al. (eds), AVENUE21: Planning and Policy Considerations for an Age of AutomatedMobility, Springer Vieweg, Berlin, pp. 395-430, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-66267004-0_19.
Dangschat, J.S. (2018), “Soziale Milieus in der Mobilitätsforschung” [Social milieus in mobility research],
in B. Barth et al. (eds), Praxis der Sinus-Milieus: Gegenwart und Zukunft eines modernen Gesellschaftsund Zielgruppenmodells, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 139-54, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-193355_10.
Dangschat, J.S. and A. Millonig (2023), “Die Mobilitätswende kann nur gelingen, wenn wir die Menschen
in ihrer Differenziertheit verstehen” [The mobility transition can only succeed if we understand people intheir diversity], in B. Barth et al. (eds), Praxis der Sinus-Milieus: Gegenwart und Zukunft eines modernen
Gesellschafts- und Zielgruppenmodells, 2nd edition, Springer, Wiesbaden [in print].
Dangschat, J.S. and A. Stickler (2023), “Does automation strengthen the ‘system of automobility’? Criticalconsiderations and alternatives to connected and automated vehicles”, Applied Mobilities, Vol. 8/3, pp.
245-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2023.2243579.
Delbosc, A and R. Shafi (2023), “What do we know about immigrants’ travel behaviour? A systematic
literature review and proposed conceptual framework”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 43/5, pp. 914-34,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2179683.
Dotter, F. (2016), “Thematic Policy Note: Transport Poverty”, CIVITAS Institute,
https://civitas.eu/resources/civitas-thematic-policy-note-transport-poverty-0.
Driving Urban Transitions Partnership (n.d.), “The 15-minute City Transition Pathway (15mC)”,
https://dutpartnership.eu/the-dut-partnership/the-15-minute-city-transition-pathway-15mc.
Duchène, C. (2011), “Gender and Transport”, ITF Discussion Papers, No. 2011/11, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg9mq47w59w-en.
Durand, A. et al. (2022), “Access denied? Digital inequality in transport services”, Transport Reviews,
Vol. 42/1, pp. 32-57, https//doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1923584.
Durand, A. et al. (2018), “Mobility-as-a-Service and changes in travel preferences and travel behaviour: A
systematic literature review”, Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid (KiM), Den Haag,
https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/documents-research-publications/2018/09/17/mobility-as-aservice-and-changes-in-travel-preferences-and-travel-behaviour-a-literature-review.

66

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

Durand, A., M. Hamersma and S. Rienstra (2023), “Digitale reisinformatie: Gebruik en gepercipieerde
effecten bij auto- en ov-reizen – Achtergrondrapport” [Digital travel information: Use and perceived
effects in car and public transport travel – Background report], Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid(KiM), Den Haag, www.kimnet.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2023/03/21/digitale-reisinformatie-gebruik-engepercipieerde-effecten-bij-auto--en-ov-reizen.
Durand, A. and T. Zijlstra (2023), “Public transport as travel alternative for users of Special Transport
Services in the Netherlands”, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol 29, 101568,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2023.101568.
ECMT (2006), “Improving Transport Accessibility for All: Guide to Good Practice”, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789282101407-en.
ECMT (2000), “Improving Transport for People with Mobility Handicaps: A Guide to Good Practice”,
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264182356-en.
ECMT (1991), “Transport for people with mobility handicaps: Bus”, in “Resolution No. 54 Regarding
Transport for Disabled People”, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Pub. L. No. CM(85)19(1985).
ECMT (1978), “Resolution No. 38 on Transport for Handicapped persons”, European Conference ofMinisters of Transport, Pub. L. No. CM(78)23.
ECMT and International Union of Public Transport (2004), “Improving Access to Public Transport”, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789282113257-en.
Employment and Social Development Canada (2023), “A Performance Indicator Framework forAccessibility Data: Phase 1”, www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/accessiblecanada/reports/accessibility-data-measurement-indicator-framework.html.
Eurostat (2023), “Urban-rural Europe: Income and living conditions”, Statistics explained, October 2022,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/112339.pdf.
Ewing, R. and R. Cervero (2017), “Does compact development make people drive less?” The answer isyes”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 83/1, pp. 19-25,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1245112.
Ewing, R. and R. Cervero (2010), “Travel and the built environment”, Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 76/3, pp. 265-94, https//doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766.
Finnish Environment Institute (29 May 2020), “Updated urban-rural classification: Finland’s degree ofurbanisation currently at over 72 per cent”, Press release, www.syke.fi/enUS/Current/Updated_urbanrural_classification_Finlan(57443) (accessed 16 June 2023).
Fol S and Gallez C. (2013), « Mobilité, accessibilité et équité: pour un renouvellement de l’analyse desinégalités sociales d’accés à la ville » [Mobility, accessibility and equity: For a renewal of the analysis ofsocial inequalities in access to the city], Colloque International Futurs urbains: Enjeux interdisciplinairesémergents pour comprendre, projeter et fabriquer la ville de demain, Janvier 2013, Champs-sur-Marne,
France, https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00780292.
Froschauer, P. (2010), “An analysis of the South African Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) policy implementation
paradigm”, Proceedings of the 29th Southern African Transport Conference, 16-19 August 2010,
Pretoria, South Africa, http://hdl.handle.net/2263/14844.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

67

REFERENCES

Frye, A. (2011), “Mobility: Rights, Obligations and Equity in an Aging Society”, ITF Discussion Papers, No.
2011/05, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg9mq4tbtvh-en.
Gardner, N., J. Cui and E. Coiacetto (2017), “Harassment on public transport and its impacts on women’s
travel behaviour”, Australian Planner, Vol. 54/1,pp. 815, https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2017.1299189.
Geurs, K.T. (2018), “Transport Planning with Accessibility Indices in the Netherlands”, International
Transport Forum Discussion Papers, No. 2018/09, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/c62be65d-en.
Geurs, K.T. et al. (2022), “A multidimensional mobility hub typology and inventory”, SmartHubs
Deliverable D 2.1, https://doi.org/10.34726/3567.
Geurs, K.T. and Wee, B. (2004), “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review andresearch directions”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 12/2, pp. 127-40,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
Gilibert, M. et al. (2020), “On-demand shared ride-hailing for commuting purposes: Comparison ofBarcelona and Hanover case studies”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 47, pp. 323-30,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.03.105.
Government of Austria (2021), “Austria’s 2030 Mobility Master Plan”,
https://www.bmk.gv.at/en/topics/mobility/mobilitymasterplan2030.html
Government of Canada (2019), Accessible Canada Act, Justice Laws Website, https://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-0.6/page-1.html#h-1153395 (accessed: 10 November 2023).
Government of Flanders (2019), “Decreet betreffende de basisbereikbaarheid 25/04/2019” [Decree
regarding basic accessibility 25/04/2019], Vlaamse Codex,
https://codex.vlaanderen.be/Zoeken/Document.aspx?DID=1031764&param=informatie.
Government of Ireland (2022), “National Sustainable Mobility Policy”, Department of Transport, Dublin,www.gov.ie/en/publication/848df-national-sustainable-mobility-policy/.
Government of Ireland (2023), “A Guide for Inclusive Community Engagement in Local Planning and
Decision Making”, Department of Rural and Community Development, www.gov.ie/en/collection/bcc24a-guide-for-inclusive-community-engagement-in-local-planning-and-decision-making.
Government of the Netherlands (2023), “Mobility Vision 2050 Framework Memorandum”,
www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-infrastructure-and-watermanagement/documents/publications/2023/03/31/mobility-vision-2050-framework-memorandum(accessed 4 October 2023).
Government of the Netherlands (2018), “The Dutch Multi-Year Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial
Planning and Transport (MIRT): Summary”, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management,www.government.nl/documents/leaflets/2018/02/07/the-dutch-multi-year-programme-forinfrastructure-spatial-planning-and-transport-mirt---summary (accessed 4 October 2023).
Government of the Netherlands (2013), “Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial
Planning”, Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment,www.government.nl/documents/publications/2013/07/24/summary-national-policy-strategy-forinfrastructure-and-spatial-planning (accessed 4 October 2023).

68

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

Government of Scotland (2021), “Transport and Travel in Scotland Results from the Scottish Household
Survey 2021 Telephone Survey: Experimental Statistic”,
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/53451/sct04232232881.pdf.
Government of Scotland (2008), The Public Heath etc. (Scotland) Act 2008,
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0039/00398162.pdf.
Government of Wales (2020), “Aim for 30% of the Welsh workforce to work remotely”, Press release,www.gov.wales/aim-30-welsh-workforce-work-remotely (accessed 16 June 2023).
Groth, S. (2019), “Multimodal divide: reproduction of transport poverty in smart mobility trends”,
Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 125, pp. 56-71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.04.018.
Handy, S (2020), “Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come?”, Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, Vol. 83, 102319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319.
Haustein, S. et al. (2013), “Demographic change and transport”, CONcerns and SOLutions – Road Safety
in the Ageing Societies, European Commission, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00867029.
He, S.Y., H.Y. Yannie and S.T. Cheung (2018), “Travel mobility and social participation among older people
in a transit metropolis: A socio-spatial-temporal perspective”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy andPractice, Vol. 118, pp. 608-26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.09.006.
Head, B. (2008), “Wicked problems in public policy”, Public Policy, Vol. 3/2, pp. 101-18,
https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.662880306504754.
Heath, S. (2014), “Local authorities’ public health responsibilities (England)”, UK Parliament, House ofCommons Library Standard Note, SN06844,
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06844#fullreport.
Heeres, N., T. Tillema and J. Arts (2012), “Integration in Dutch planning of motorways: From ‘line’
towards ‘area-oriented’ approaches”, Transport Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 148-58,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.08.002.
Helps Y., D. Moodie and G. Warman (2010), “Aboriginal People Travelling Well: Community Report”, The
Lowitja Institute, Melbourne, www.lowitja.org.au/content/Document/travelling-well-report-2010.pdf.
Henriksson, M. Et al. (2021), “Questioning mobility ideals: The value of proximity for residents in sociallydeprived urban areas in Sweden”, Mobilities, Vol. 16/5, pp. 792-808,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2021.1947134.
Hinchcliff, C. and I. Taylor (2021), “Every village, every hour: A comprehensive bus network for rural
England”, CPRE, London, www.cpre.org.uk/resources/every-village-every-hour-2021-buses-report-fullreport.
Ho, C.Q., C. Mulley and D.A. Hensher (2020), “Public preferences for mobility as a service: Insights fromstated preference surveys”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 131, pp. 70-90,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.031.
Imperial College London (n.d.), “Mobility Hub”, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/zero-pollution/mobility-hub(accessed: 24 June 2024).
Inayathusein, A. and S. Cooper (2018), “London’s Accessibility Indicators: Strengths, Weaknesses andChallenges”, Discussion Paper, International Transport Forum, Paris, www.itf-oecd.org/londonaccessibility-indicators.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

69

REFERENCES

ITDP (2019), “Opportunities for Increasing Sustainable Transport: Spotlight on Dallas, Denver, Nashville”,
Intitute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York, www.itdp.org/publication/indicatorssustainable-mobility/.
ITF (2024a), “Youth on the move: Young people and transport in the 21st century”, International
Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 128, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/686a7ed5-en.
ITF (2024b), Improving the Quality of Walking and Cycling in Cities: Summary and Conclusions, ITF
Roundtable Reports, No. 193, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdeb3fe8-en.
ITF (2024c), The Future of Public Transport Funding, ITF Research Report, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/82a4ba65-en.
ITF (2023a), ITF Transport Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b6cc9ad5-en.
ITF (2023b), “Accessibility in the Seoul Metropolitan Area: Does Transport Serve All Equally?”,
International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 117, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/4ef85abc-en.
ITF (2023c), “Transit-oriented development and accessibility”, International Transport Forum Policy
Papers, No. 124, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/41b95623-en.
ITF (2023d), “Mix and MaaS: Data Architecture for Mobility as a Service”, International Transport Forum
Policy Papers, No. 113, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4272475b-en.
ITF (2023e), Shaping Post-Covid Mobility in Cities: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports,
No. 190, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a8bf0bdb-en.
ITF (2022), Broadening Transport Appraisal: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 188,
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a0e2e0a6-en.
ITF (2021a), ITF Transport Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16826a30-en.
ITF (2021b), Innovations for Better Rural Mobility, ITF Research Report, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/6dbf832a-en.
ITF (2021c), Connecting Remote Communities: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports,
No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a259ab33-en.
ITF (2021d), “The Innovative Mobility Landscape: The Case of Mobility as a Service”, International
Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 92, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/46903a00-en.
ITF (2021e), Micromobility, Equity and Sustainability: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports,
No. 185, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b71317cd-en.
ITF (2021f), Travel Transitions: How Transport Planners and Policy Makers Can Respond to Shifting
Mobility Trends, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a83c2f7-en.
ITF (2020), Accessibility and Transport Appraisal: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No.
182, ITF Research Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/61af7bd8-en.
ITF (2019a), “Transport Connectivity: A Gender Perspective”, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.itfoecd.org/transport-connectivity-gender-perspective.
ITF (2019b), “Benchmarking Accessibility in Cities: Measuring the Impact of Proximity and Transport
Performance”, International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 68, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/4b1f722b-en.

70

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

ITF (2018), “Women’s Safety and Security: A Public Transport Priority”, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.itfoecd.org/womens-safety-security.
ITF (2017a), Income Inequality, Social Inclusion and Mobility, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 164, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g7ae77-en.
ITF (2017b), “Linking People and Places: New ways of understanding spatial access in cities”,
International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 35, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/996cc49e-en.
ITF (2016), “Shared Mobility: Innovation for Liveable Cities”, International Transport Forum Policy Papers,
No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvz8bd4mx-en.
Ivers R.Q. et al. (2016), “Driver licensing: Descriptive epidemiology of a social determinant of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander health”, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 40/4, pp. 37782, https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12535.
Jittrapirom, P. et al. (2018), “Dynamic adaptive policymaking for implementing Mobility-as-a-Service(MaaS)”, Research in Transportation Business & Management, Vol. 27, pp. 46-55,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.07.001.
Joelsson, T., D. Balkmar and M. Henriksson (2022), “‘Less-than’ and ‘barely’ citizens: Young people’s
public mobilities as precarious experiments of democracy”, Urban Matters, December 2022,
https://urbanmattersjournal.com/less-than-and-barely-citizens-young-peoples-public-mobilities-asprecarious-experiments-of-democracy.
KiM (2023), “Op weg naar bereikbaarheidsdoelen in mobiliteitsbeleid”[Towards accessibility goals in
mobility policy], Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, Den Haag,
www.kimnet.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2023/03/17/op-weg-naar-bereikbaarheidsdoelen-inmobiliteitsbeleid
Kyriakidis, M. et al. (2020), “The role of human operators in safety perception of AV deployment: Insightsfrom a large European survey”, Sustainability, Vol. 12, 9166, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219166.
Larsson, A. et al. (2022), “Exploring the potential for sustainable accessibility across settlement types: A
Swedish case”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 107, 103297,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103297.
Lemmerer, H. et al (2018), “User Needs and Expectations of the General Public and PRMs”, Future
Secure and Accessible Rail Stations Project Deliverable D2.1, https://doi.org/10.3030/777636.
Litman, T. (1995), “Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts”, Victoria Transport Policy Institute,Victoria, Canada, www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf.
London Assembly (2022), “Mayor’s Question Time: Go Sutton Bus and ULEZ Expansion”,
www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/gosutton-bus-and-ulez-expansion.
Löw, M. (2016), The Sociology of Space: Materiality, Social Structures, and Action, Palgrave McMillan,
New York.
Lowson, R. (2023), “Community rail and inclusive, accessible travel”, Community Rail Network,
Huddersfield, https://communityrail.org.uk/reports-and-research/community-rail-and-inclusiveaccessible-travel.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

71

REFERENCES

Lucas, K. (2019), “A new evolution for transport-related social exclusion research?”, Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 81, 102529, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102529.
Lucas, K. (2013), “Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?”, Transport Policy, Vol. 20, pp. 10513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013.
Lucas, K. et al. (2019), “Inequalities in Mobility and Access in the UK Transport System”, UK Government
Office for Science, London, www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-mobility-inequalities-inmobility-and-access-in-the-uk.
Lucas, K. et al. (2018), “Is transport poverty socially or environmentally driven? Comparing the travel
behaviours of two low-income populations living in central and peripheral locations in the same city”,
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 116, pp. 622-34,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.07.007.
Lucas, K. et al. (2016), “Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences”, Transport, Vol. 169/6,
pp. 353-65, https://doi.org/10.1680/jtran.15.00073.
Lyons, G. (2021), “Triple Access Planning: Discovering ‘the sweet spot’”, Local Transport Today, Vol. 823,
pp. 16-17, https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/7420650.
Lyons, G. (2015), “Transport’s digital age transition”, Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8/2, pp. 119, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26202710.
Lyons, G. and Davidson, C. (2016), “Guidance for transport planning and policymaking in the face of anuncertain future”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 88, pp. 104-16,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.012.
Maeng, D.-M. and Z. Nedovic-Budic (2008), “Urban form and planning in the information age: Lessons
from the literature”, Spatium, Vol 17-18, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT0818001M.
Maguire, D., P. Dunn and H. McKenna (2016), “How hospital activity in the NHS in England has changed
over time”, The King’s Fund, www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/hospital-activity-funding-changes.
Markvica, K. et al. (2020), “Promoting active mobility behavior by addressing information target groups:
The case of Austria”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 83, 102664,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102664.
Marsden, G and I. Docherty (2019), “Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures”, UK Government
Office for Science, Huddersfield, www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-mobility-governanceof-uk-transport-infrastructures.
Mattioli, G. (2021), “Transport poverty and car dependence: A European perspective”, Advances inTransport Policy and Planning, Vol. 8, pp. 101-31, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2021.06.004.
Mattioli, G. et al. (2019), “Vulnerability to motor fuel price increases: Socio-spatial patterns in England”,
Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 78, pp. 98-114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trangeo.2019.05.009.
Matland, R.E. (1995), “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of
Policy Implementation”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, Vol. 5/2, pp. 14574, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1181674.
Matyas, M. and M. Kamargianni (2021), “Investigating heterogeneity in preferences for Mobility-as-aService plans through a latent class choice model”, Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 23, pp. 143-56,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.12.002.

72

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

Matyas, M., (2020), “Investigating Individual Preferences for New Mobility Services: The Case of ‘Mobility
as a Service’ Products”, PhD thesis, University College, London,
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28328.72969.
Meißner, A. and S. McNair (2021), “Ageing and technologies: Creating a vision of care in times ofdigitisation”, 2nd edition, Results of a fast-track process of the Joint Programming Initiative “More Years,
Better Lives”, https://dx.doi.org/10.25528/062
Millonig, A. (2021), “What drives us to walk: Understanding components and processes of behaviourchange towards active mobility”, Active Travel Studies, Vol. 1/1, pp. 1-6,
https://doi.org/10.16997/ats.1075.
Miramontes, M. et al. (2017), “Impacts of a multimodal mobility service on travel behavior andpreferences: User insights from Munich’s first Mobility Station”, Transportation, Vol. 44, pp. 1325-42,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9806-y.
Mitteregger, M. et al. (eds) (2023), AVENUE21: Planning and Policy Considerations for an Age ofAutomated Mobility, Springer Vieweg, Berlin, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-670040.
Močnik, Š., A. Moogoor and B. Yuen (2022), “Exploring facilitators and barriers of older adults’ outdoor
mobility: A walk-along study in Singapore”, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 26, 101386,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101386.
Mokhtarian, P.L. (2009), “If telecommunication is such a good substitute for travel, why does congestion
continue to get worse?”, Transportation Letters, Vol. 1, pp. 1-17,
https://doi.org/10.3328/TL.2009.01.01.1-17.
Mokhtarian, P.L. (2003), “Telecommunications and travel: The case for complementarity”, Journal ofIndustrial Ecology, Vol. 6/2, pp. 43-57, https://doi.org/10.1162/108819802763471771.
Mouter, N. et al. (2021), “Including young people, cutting time and producing useful outcomes:
Participatory value evaluation as a new practice of public participation in the Dutch energy transition”,
Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 75, 101965, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101965.
Mueller, N. et al. (2016), “Health impacts related to urban and transport planning: A burden of diseaseassessment”, Environment International, Vol. 107, pp. 243-57,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.020.
National Transport Authority of Ireland (n.d.), “About Us”, www.nationaltransport.ie/about-us
New Zealand Ministry of Transport (2014), Future Demand: How could or should our transport systemevolve in order to support mobility in the future?, www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Report/fdfinal-report.pdf (accessed 16 June 2023).
Ng, W. and A. Acker (2018), “Understanding Urban Travel Behaviour by Gender for Efficient andEquitable Transport Policies”, International Transport Forum Discussion Papers, No. 2018/01, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eaf64f94-en.
OECD (2022), Addressing territorial disparities in future infrastructure needs in the wake of the COVID-19
crisis: A G20 perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e246f50f-en.
OECD (2021), OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2021),
https://airtable.com/apppPtOagL1JQ6KqK/shrHEM12ogzPs0nQG/tblWOTlH2GTOznAgg/viwCpVFJ3HVZef
ig1?blocks=hide.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

73

REFERENCES

OECD (2020), Rural Well-being: Geography of Opportunities, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/d25cef80-en.
OECD (2001), Aging and Transport: Mobility Needs and Safety Issues, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195851-en.
OECD (n.d.), “Policies for depopulation and service delivery in rural regions”,
https://www.oecd.org/regional/rural-development/rural-service-delivery.htm
OECD/European Commission (2020), Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanisation, OECD Urban
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d0efcbda-en
Ozkazanc, S. (2021), “Transportation experiences of Syrian refugees under the clampdown of poverty,social exclusion and spatial segregation”, Cities, Vol. 112, 103117,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103117.
Page, S and B. Phillips (2010), “Telecommunications and urban design”, City, Vol. 7/1, pp. 7394, https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810302222.
Pangbourne, K. et al. (2020), “Questioning mobility as a service: unanticipated implications for society
and governance”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 131, pp. 35-49,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.033.
Panahi, N. et al. (2022), “Examining older adults’ attitudes towards different mobility modes in Iran”,
Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 26, 101413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101413.
Participatory Budgeting World Atlas (2019), The World Atlas of Participatory Budgeting,https://www.pbatlas.net/pb-world-atlas-2019.html.
Pellichero, A. et al. (2021), “Barriers and facilitators to social participation after driving cessation amongolder adults: A cohort study”, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol. 64/2, 101373,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2020.03.003.
Peters, B.G. (2017), “What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research
program”, Policy and Society, Vol. 36/3, pp. 385-96, https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633.
Pfeifer, L. (2013), The Planner’s Guide to Tactical Urbanism,
https://reginaurbanecology.wordpress.com/projects/tactical-urbanism-guide.
Pozoukidou, G. and M. Angelidou (2022), “Urban Planning in the 15-Minute City: Revisited under
Sustainable and Smart City Developments until 2030”, Smart Cities, Vol. 5/4, pp. 1356-75, .
Polydoropoulou, A. et al. (2020), “Prototype business models for Mobility-as-a-Service”, Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 131, pp. 149-62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.035.
Ravensbergen, L, R. Buliung and M. Laliberté (2019), “Toward feminist geographies of cycling”,
Geography Compass, Vol. 13/7, e12461, https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12461.
Raerino, K. (Ngāti Awa, Te Arawa), A. Macmillan and R. Jones (Ngāti Kahungunu) (2013), “Indigenous
Māori perspectives on urban transport patterns linked to health and wellbeing”, Health & Place, Vol. 23,
pp. 54-62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.04.007.
Reck, D.J. and K.W. Axhausen (2021), “Who uses shared micro-mobility services? Empirical evidence
from Zurich, Switzerland”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 94, 102803,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803.

74

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

Rittel, H.W.J. and W. Webber (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, Vol.
4/2, pp. 155-69, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Rode, P. et al. (2014), “Accessibility in Cities: Transport and Urban Form”, NCE Cities Papers, No. 3,
London School of Economics and Political Science, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60477.
Scheiner, J. (2010), “Social inequalities in travel behaviour: Trip distances in the context of residential
self-selection and lifestyles”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18/6, pp. 679-90,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.09.002.
Schweiger, C. (2022), “Forecasting what lies ahead in 2022 for technology-enabled mobility”, Intelligent
Transport, www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/135087/2022-technology-enabled-mobility.
SEStran (2022), “Mobility Hubs: A Strategic Study for the South East of Scotland/SEStran region”, South
East of Scotland Transport Partnership, https://sestran.gov.uk/publications/east-fife-mobility-hubsfeasibility-studies.
Shibayama, T. and Laa, B. (2023), “Development of a concept for Sustainable Mobility Guarantee”, Paper
presented at the World Conference on Transport Research, Montréal, 17-21 July 2023.
Sil, A., S. Chowdhury and R. Thoreau (2023), “Moving towards an inclusive public transport system for
women in the South and Southeast Asian region”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 43/6, pp. 114464, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2200983.
Simcock, N. et al. (2021), “Identifying double energy vulnerability: A systematic and narrative review ofgroups at-risk of energy and transport poverty in the global north”, Energy Research & Social Science,Vol. 82, 102351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102351.
Smith, C. et al. (2022), “Making of home: Transportation mobility and well-being among Tucson
refugees”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 103, 103409,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103409.
Soman, A., H. Kaur and K. Ganesan (2019), “How Urban India Moves: Sustainable Mobility and Citizen
Preferences”, Council on Energy, Environment and Water New Delhi,
www.ceew.in/publications/sustainable-and-green-mobility-in-urban-india.
Sonnberger, M. and A. Graf (2021), “Sociocultural dimensions of mobility transitions to come:Introduction of the special issue”, Sustainability: Science, Practise and Policy, Vol. 17/1, pp. 173-84,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2001.1927359.
Stevens, Q. and K. Dovey (2022), Temporary and Tactical Urbanism: (Re)Assembling Urban Space,
Routledge, New York and London.
TfGM (2022), “Great Manchester Travel Diary Survey 2021: Summary”, Travel for Greater Manchester,
https://tfgm.com/trads.
Tippabhatla, R. (2020), “Analysing Mobility Hubs Using Microsimulation Travel Demand Model: The Caseof OCTAVIUS”, Master Thesis, TU Delft, the Netherlands,
https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Adbdb926d-3ad6-473c-a5a6-62bf873e91a3.
Tao, X., Z. Fu and A.J. Comber (2019), “An analysis of modes of commuting in urban and rural areas”,
Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 831-45, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-018-9271-9.
TfL (2023), “WebCAT”, Transport for London, https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-andconstruction/planning-with-webcat/webcat (accessed 4 October 2023).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

75

REFERENCES

TfL (2018), “The Mayor’s Transport Strategy”, Transport for London, https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abouttfl/the-mayors-transport-strategy (accessed 4 October 2023).
TfL (n.d.), “Legislative Framework”, Transport for London, https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-wework/corporate-governance/legislative-framework.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (2022), “Travelling in a Woman’s Shoes: Understanding women’s travelneeds in ireland to inform the future of sustainable transport policy and design”, www.tii.ie/technicalservices/research/TII-Travelling-in-a-Womans-Shoes-Report_Issue.pdf.
Transport Scotland (2020), “National Transport Strategy: Delivery Plan 2020-2022”,
www.transport.gov.scot/media/48839/nts-delivery-plan-2020-2022.pdf (accessed 16 June 2023).
Triple Access Planning for Uncertain Futures (2023), “Exploring triple access in sustainable urban mobility
planning, https://www.tapforuncertainty.eu/ (accessed 16 June 2023).
UAB (2022), “Hareketlilik Merkezi Tasarım Rehberi” [Mobility Center Design Guide], Turkish Ministry ofTransport and Infrastructure, Ankara, www.uab.gov.tr/uploads/pages/kutuphane/hareketlilikmerkezi.pdf (accessed 4 June 2023).
Uber Transit (2023), Presentation to International Transport Forum Sustainable Accessibility for All
Working Group Expert Call, 27 April 2023.
UITP (2023), “The latest trends in taxi and ride-hailing”, International Association of Public Transport
Statistics Brief, www.uitp.org/news/the-latest-trends-in-taxi-and-ride-hailing (accessed 16 June 2023).
UITP (2023a), “Mobility Hubs: Steering the shift towards integrated sustainable mobility”, International
Association of Public Transport Policy Brief, www.uitp.org/news/mobility-hubs-steering-the-shifttowards-integrated-sustainable-mobility (accessed 16 June 2023).
UITP (2022), “The rural mobility challenge for public transport: How combined mobility can help”,
International Association of Public Transport Knowledge Brief, www.uitp.org/publications/the-ruralmobility-challenge-for-public-transport-how-combined-mobility-can-help (accessed 23 November 2023).
UITP (2020), “Electric Bus Procurement Under Fame-Ii: Lessons Learnt And Recommendations For
Phase-I”, International Association of Public Transport, https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/UITP-India_FAMEII_E-Bus-Procurement.pdf.
UK DfT (2021), “The future of public transport and the role of Local Government”, Department forTransport, London, https://www.local.gov.uk/systra-lga-bus-report.
UK DfT (2014), “Accessibility Statistics: Guidance”, Department for Transport, London,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d9909ed915d3fb9594b32/accessibility-statisticsguidance.pdf (accessed 4 October 2023).
UK Government (n.d.), “Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC): Terms of Reference”,
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disabled-persons-transport-advisory-committee/about/termsof-reference.
UK Parliament (2013), “Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee”, Vol. 564, debated on 12 June
2013, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-0612/debates/13061246000009/DisabledPersonsTransportAdvisoryCommittee#contribution13061246000027 (accessed 8 November 2023).
UN DESA (2023), World Social Report 2023: Leaving No One Behind In An Ageing World, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York,76

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

REFERENCES

https://desapublications.un.org/publications/world-social-report-2023-leaving-no-one-behind-ageingworld.
UN DESA (2022), World Population Prospects 2022, United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division, New York, https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications.
UN HABITAT and ITDP (2018), “Streets for Walking and Cycling: Designing for safety, accessibility, andcomfort in African cities”, United Nations Human Settlements Programme and Institute forTransportation and Development Policy, Nairobi and New York, https://unhabitat.org/streets-forwalking-cycling-designing-for-safety-accessibility-and-comfort-in-african-cities.
Van der Berg, S. (2008), “Poverty and Education”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization Education Policy Series, No. 10, UNESCO-IIEP/International Academy of Education,
Paris/Brussels, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000181754.locale=en.
Vais, S. et al. (2020), “Rides for Refugees: A transportation assistance pilot for women’s health”, Journalof Immigrant and Minority Health, Vol. 22, pp. 74-81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-019-00946-x
Van Dülmen, C., M. Šimon and A. Klärner (2022), “Transport poverty meets car dependency: A GPS
tracking study of socially disadvantaged groups in European rural peripheries”, Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 101, 103351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103351.
Vitrano, C. and M. Mailer (2023), “Understanding users and non-users of (sustainable) transport”,
Presentation at the ITF Working Group, “Sustainable Accessibility for All”, Paris, 9-10 February 2023
[available on request].
Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (2022), “A pathway towards understanding Māori
aspirations for land transport in Aotearoa New Zealand”, Research Report No. 688,
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/688.
WHO (2023), “National programmes for age-friendly cities and communities: A guide”, World HealthOrganization, Geneva, www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240068698.
WHO (2022), “Ageing and Health”, Fact sheet, World Health Organization, www.who.int/newsroom/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health (accessed 8 November 2023).
Wiersma, J., L. Bertolini and T. Straatemeier (2017), “Adapting spatial conditions to reduce car
dependency in mid-sized ‘post growth’ European city regions: The case of South Limburg, Netherlands”,
Transport Policy, Vol. 55, pp. 62-69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.12.004.
Yoshizawa, Y, T. Shingu and T. Shibayama (2023), “Koukyo-kotsu-no Ribensei-to Kazoku-ra-no Kodomono Sougei: Ishinomaki-shi-no Anketo-ni-miru Koukousei-no Seikatsu-no Sitsu-ya Hattasu-e-no Eikyou”[Service levels of public transport and mobility helps by family members for children and youth: Impact
on quality of life and their growth implied from a questionnaire survey in Ishinomaki], Transportation andEconomics, Vol. 83/3, https://trec.itej.or.jp/unkei/202303 [in Japanese].
Yuan, Y. et al. (2023), “Intersectionality and urban mobility: A systematic review on gender differences in
active transport uptake”, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 29, 101572,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2023.101572.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

77

ANNEX A

Annex A. Areas for further researchWorking Group members identified a wide array of research and knowledge on sustainable accessibility,
including case studies from ITF member countries and other contexts. However, the group also identified
significant knowledge gaps. This Annex outlines some potential areas for future research.
Accessibility indicators

Researcher could consider developing guidance for more people-centred accessibility measurement that
could be adapted by national and local governments. Indicators need to be adapted to reflect a definitionof accessibility in rural and remote areas. Building on existing benchmarking for cities (see ITF, 2019) andwork by the OECD on service delivery and well-being in rural areas (see OECD, n.d.) could also be beneficial.
Person-based metrics

Policy makers require greater understanding of (and better data on) different social groups and theinteractions that affect their travel options and choices. International research can contribute to thisunderstanding, but the context-specific nature of many travel choices suggests that national-level researchis also needed. It is crucial to go beyond classical socio-demographic and socio-economic typologies, asvalue change leads to increasing diversity “behind” these classes. Multi-dimensional classifications are one
useful alternative. Another could be to concentrate on socio-cultural variables, which can “enlighten” theinternal diversity of classes. Unfortunately, this information is not covered by official statistics, which
contributes to a lack of insights on the part of policy makers or planning administrations about the diversityof modern societies. Therefore, basic research is needed to develop proper typologies.
Participatory design

There is a need to look more closely at the integration of people of interest (i.e. persons with a disability,
people living in rural areas, and any social group denied accessibility due to the four aspects of transport
poverty outlined in Chapter 2 of this report) into the processes of defining and implementing accessibility,
to make participatory co-operation possible at all levels. Participatory research and design are not easy to
implement, and more work would also need to be done on how to introduce them in transport
policymaking and find good ways to implement them.
Freedom of choice

The Working Group discussed this topic in the context of mobility service guarantees and where (or forwhom) governments should guarantee or subsidise mobility services. In seeking sustainable accessibility,
research on the topic would be especially relevant in contexts with (seasonal) influxes of visitors, who may
be more heterogeneous than residents in terms of their needs and travel patterns.

78

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

ANNEX A

Transport optimisation models

Traditional modelling approaches need to be updated to over a wider range of criteria.
“Leapfrog”

Research could contribute to identifying how regions experiencing economic and population growth could
integrate sustainable accessibility into the design of their urban settlements and transport systems andavoid the entrenched car-dependency of many established cities. This would need to consider asustainable development pathway that avoids high levels of motorisation leading to lower levels ofaccessibility during economic growth. Participation of experts from emerging economies will be necessary.
Sustainable business and funding models

Moving forward, addressing the challenge of funding sustainable accessibility solutions will be critical.
Innovative financing models, such as public-private partnerships, can be explored. Additionally, emerging
technologies like autonomous vehicles, if implemented with accessibility in mind, could hold promise forextending mobility options.
Environmental impact

Develop methodologies to assess the lifecycle environmental impact of various accessibility solutions,considering resource use, emissions and potential for end-of-life recycling or reuse. This would inform thedesign of solutions that minimise environmental footprint while maximising accessibility.
Cost-effectiveness

Analyse the cost-effectiveness of implementing different accessibility solutions across diverse contexts(e.g. developed versus developing economies, rural versus urban). Research should consider both upfront
investment and long-term operational costs to identify the most sustainable and equitable approaches forvarious settings.
Technological advancements

Investigate how emerging technologies can contribute to sustainable accessibility. This could include
research on integrating autonomous vehicles, electric micro-mobility options, and connected and datadriven traffic management systems into accessible transport networks. The research should explore howthese technologies can be implemented in a way that is affordable, inclusive, and environmentally
responsible.

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

79

ANNEX B

Annex B. Extract from OECD guidelines for citizen
participation processes

80

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

ANNEX B

Source: OECD (2022).

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

81

ANNEX C

Annex C. List of Working Group participants
Orla McCARTHY (Chair), International Transport Forum
Aline ALAUZET, France
Jimmy ARMOOGUM, France
Darren ATKINSON, Australia
Nacima BARON, France
Jessica BERG, Sweden
Akriti BRADY, Ireland
Elif ÇAĞLIN YATARKALKMAZ, Türkiye
Fati ÇAKIR, Türkiye
Nicolas CARRIN, Australia
Jens DANGSCHAT, Austriaİkra DURMUŞ, Türkiye
Sema KATRAN, Türkiye
Natascha KÖNIGS, Germany
Lizet KRABBENBORG, the Netherlands
Joanne LEUNG, New ZealandMarkus MAILER, Austria
Dermot MURPHY, Ireland
Stefan SEER, Austria
Takeru SHIBAYAMA, Austria
Chiara VITRANO, Sweden
Xianguang WANG, China
Regina WEBER, Germany
Mehmet YAZICI, Türkiye
Xin ZHAO, China
Weiqing ZHENG, China

82

SUSTAINABLE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL © OECD/ITF 2024

Sustainable
Accessibility for All

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16+33 (0)1 73 31 25 00
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

Published: 06/2024 | Photo credit: Gorgev/Shutterstock

Although the term “accessibility” is
not new, it has become increasingly
important in the transport policy
discourse in recent years. This report
explores the idea of “sustainable
accessibility” as it applies totransport. It focuses on the needsof vulnerable demographics,
including older persons, people withdisabilities, low-income groups,
and residents of urban peripheries,
regional towns and remote areas. In
doing so, the report looks beyond
mobility policy to consider land-use
and spatial planning, the growing
digitalisation of economies, and theirroles in securing accessibility for all.