Improving Accessibility across Bay Area Transit
People use tools such as Google Maps, Apple Maps and Transit App to find out when the next bus and train are coming and to plan trips. For people with disabilities, there are special features detailing accessibility information. Unfortunately, this accessibility data is unreliable. This blog post explains how these systems work, why there are problems with the accessibility features, and what we riders can do to improve the situation.
Caltrans maintains and manages the California Transit Data Guidelines (CTDG), a set of recommendations on the content and format of transit data. In 2022, Caltrans updated the Data Guidelines to Version 3, which incorporated General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) Flex and adopted additional accessibility standards. GTFS is an open source standard to which transit providers can align themselves to make their data more digestible or comprehensible to things like Google Maps or the Transit App. GTFS Flex includes recommendations to help sync up routes between operators and to make sure as many as transit services provided by an operator are discoverable. The Guidelines also include accessibility data. For example, is a stop wheelchair accessible, is there enough information so a screen reader or audio announcement can pronounce an ambiguous stop names clearly (think St. Francis St.).
Unfortunately, because they are guidelines, they are non-binding and compliance is first on the chopping block due to constrained resources and staffing. This is very clear when one views the “Bay Area GTFS Accessibility Report”, an audit of accessibility data reported by Bay Area transit agencies prepared by BlinkTag Inc. The majority of Bay Area transit operators report wheelchair accessible stops, but there are gaps in other data. This leaves a lot of room for improvement on the table for reported accessibility data. Brendan Nee, with BlinkTag Inc, noted from his experience consulting and developing transit data solutions for smaller operators that staffing capacity restricts the ability of operators to report data, accessible or not. Consequently, local agencies also rely on consultants and third-party vendors to provide GTFS reporting capabilities, and an agency may be hamstrung when their vendor is not interested in updating GTFS reporting to comply with other standards.
This is unfortunate because major transit apps including Google Maps, Apple Maps, and the Transit App leverage a lot of this data in a variety of ways. Google Maps provides an “Accessibility” option which can be toggled on to prioritize more accessible and less steep routes as opposed to the “cheapest route” or “fastest available route” (the default). Google’s developer website highlights the range of GTFS features which are used by Google Maps, special extensions that are unique to Google Maps, and GTFS features which are not supported. Moreover, Google Maps leverages crowdsourced data reported by transit riders who can report if a vehicle is busy, whether it has accessible seating, whether it is well-lit, whether there is security, etc. The data may not always route to an elevator or indicate the accessibility of a particular entrance.
Wheelchair accessibility graphics from the Transit App.
Although Apple Maps features an accessible routes option, their developer website does not provide guidance or specifications on how Apple Maps utilizes the GTFS standards. By comparison, the Transit App’s website clearly displays how a variety of GTFS data are visualized and used in their app. Similar to Google Maps, users can toggle on Accessibility features to prioritize less steep routes and to showcase whether stops are accessible.
How GTFS data is used by the Transit App.
With that in mind, we can really see how much more quality information could be shown to transit riders, though agencies are making some progress. The SFMTA began evaluating its transit accessibility strategy – documenting everything it has done so far and what the community needs – and released the first phase of its needs assessment in September 2024. When asked for comment, AC Transit similarly stated they were conducting a “gap analysis to assess current performance and identify where there may be areas for improvement.”
When asked for comment on the accessibility data audit, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) noted “[they] prepare [VTA’s] GTFS feed to meet the required specifications in the Bay Area Regional Transit Data Guidelines as published by 511 SF Bay (MTC)” and that VTA was “limited by staff capacity and resources.” These budget and staffing challenges are unfortunately common across agencies.
For Tri Delta Transit, which serves the eastern part of Contra Costa County, accessibility information is completely missing from their published GTFS data. Their website notes “All Tri Delta Transit buses are wheelchair lift equipped, however not all bus stops are safe for deployment of the lift” and it further instructs riders to call ahead to determine if a given stop is accessible. This is a solemn reminder that getting around in public transit, especially for folks living with a disability, is not seamless.
So how can we improve the data quality of accessibility information? There are a few ways forward:
Tie future grant funding to compliance - this would be a strong incentive, but it may be an undue pressure to smaller operators without support from the federal, state, regional or local government.
Sync up competing data standards - the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) – the transportation planning, financing, and coordinating agency for the San Francisco Bay Area – manages the SF 511 website for the Bay Area, and its GTFS data does not require the accessibility data fields in the latest version of the CTDG. Aligning MTC and Caltrans guidelines ensure that all agencies have “one source of truth” – and it would be an important milestone toward making public transit more seamless for everyone in the Bay Area.
Time-limited funding or challenge grants - the state government sets aside general fund revenue to provide $20-40 million dollars each year awards that must be used to hire staff or pay time to support this work (for up to 2 years)
