Public Transit Accessibility Methods
The public transit accessibility score is created from unique sources of data across the five dimensions of accessibility. Using these data, the public transit disability dashboard scores cities and public transit systems by looking at how accessible they are.
Public Transit Accessibility Methods
To create our scores, we gathered information from seven unique data sources (see below for more information). Using this data, the Public Transit Disability Dashboard scores areas and public transit systems by looking at how accessible public transit is for people with disabilities.
The Public Transit home page includes a summary of this project and key results. Public transit resources for people with disabilities are listed on the Public Transit User Guides page.
Study Area
This dashboard assesses the top federally funded 100 public transit systems in the U.S. We identified these systems using the National Transit Database, selecting them based on their 2020 funding.
National impact: While we focus on 100 systems, they account for 89% of all passenger miles traveled in the country.
To make our scores as accurate as possible, we look at every neighborhood where these systems operate. We also include other transit lines that pass through those areas. This allows us to account for transfers, which estimates how different services work together to help riders reach their final destination.
Five Dimensions of Accessibility
To capture a more complete picture of transit justice, our dashboard evaluates accessibility through five dimensions. These dimensions capture everything from the information on a website to physical distance to destinations of interest.
- Accommodation: Evaluates how well transit systems communicate accessibility features and the usability of their websites
- Adjacency: Measures the number of destinations older adults with disabilities can reach in a 30-minute transit trip
- Availability: Assesses the frequency of service, capturing how long riders must wait for a vehicle to arrive at their stop
- Affordability: Analyzes the financial cost of travel, including standard fares and paratransit-specific costs
- Acceptability: We are actively seeking community input and data to help us round out this final measure of the rider experience
Measurement
Each of the five dimensions has a unique approach to capture information. Currently, four of these dimensions are complete. However, we need your help to round out our data collection efforts for the fifth dimension: Acceptability. By sharing your experiences and local knowledge, you can help us create a more accurate and powerful tool for change.
Measures of Accessibility
What is it?
For older adults and people with disabilities, a successful trip starts before even leaving the house. Accommodation measures how well a transit system communicates its accessibility features. This includes everything from finding out if a station has an elevator to knowing how to request a paratransit ride. Because most people use a smartphone or computer to plan their trips, the accessibility of the transit system’s website is a key part of this score.
Why it matters
If a rider can’t figure out if a bus ramp is present or if announcements are made on board, they may not feel confident enough to use the system at all. Clear, digital information empowers riders to plan their journeys with interdependence and dignity.
How we measured it
We scored each transit system out of 60 total points across six key areas. Our scoring makes sure systems aren’t penalized for lacking features that don’t apply to them (for example, we don’t look for elevators on a system that only uses buses). We reviewed their websites to see if they clearly listed the following:
- Facility accessibility (20 points): Information about station features such as wayfinding signs, hearing loops, elevators, and ramps
- Vehicle accessibility (10 points): Details on boarding assistance (such as kneeling buses) and on-board features like audio announcements and securement devices
- Inclusive policies (12 points): How easy it is for the public to give feedback or contact an ADA coordinator
- Rider accommodations (9 points): How a rider can request specific help and whether the system provides updates on equipment (like elevators out of service)
- Paratransit services (6 points): Clear information on how to qualify for, schedule, and use paratransit
- Website accessibility (3 points): How easy the website is to use for people with disabilities.
About the Data
We have been collecting this information annually since 2022. Our most recent update was completed in the summer of 2025. Like in the rest of this dashboard, we focused on the top 100 federally funded systems in the U.S.
- Want to dive into the raw numbers? Visit our Raw Data section.
- Looking for specific resources? Check out our User Guides
What is it?
Adjacency measures how many destinations in your community are reachable when you use public transit. It isn’t just about whether a bus stop exists; it’s about whether that bus can get you to important places in a reasonable amount of time.
Why it matters
For a transit system to be inclusive, it must account for how different people move. By measuring reachable destinations for the average older adult (65+) with a disability, we can see if transit supports social participation and physical activity.
How we measured it
We looked at every neighborhood (census block) within 1,500 meters of transit routes and stops. We then used a specialized tool (the R package r5r) to calculate how many destinations an older adult with a disability could reach within 30 minutes. The following five layers of data were combined to create these measures:
Data Type
Street Network
Source
OpenStreetMap (from GeoFabrik)
Data Type
Transit Routes
Source
General Transit Feed Specification (from Urban iNTD)
Data Type
Elevation
Source
Digital Elevation Model (from USGS)
Data Type
Origins
Data Type | Source |
|---|---|
Street Network | OpenStreetMap (from GeoFabrik) |
Transit Routes | General Transit Feed Specification (from Urban iNTD) |
Elevation | Digital Elevation Model (from USGS) |
Origins | |
Destinations |
As a result, census blocks are assigned a reachable destination count. Higher counts represent a greater variety of destination options within the given timeframe. These scores are based on scheduled transit times. Because we use official schedules, these estimates may not reflect daily delays, detours, or other factors that riders experience in real life.
About the Data
This data was processed in late 2025. Because transit systems often overlap, we grouped them into 56 transit regions to better reflect how riders transfer between different public transit systems.
- View the Map: You can see this data geographically on our interactive map.
- Find Your Neighborhood: Use the census geocoder to find which tract your specific address falls into.
What is it?
Availability measures how often public transit shows up. Even if a bus stop is directly outside someone's home, public transit may not be “available” if it runs infrequently. We measure this by calculating the average wait time between vehicles at every stop in a neighborhood.
Why it matters
For many people with disabilities and older adults, waiting at a bus stop or train station can be physically demanding or even unsafe, especially in extreme weather or late at night. High-frequency service (short wait times) means riders spend less time exposed to the elements and have more flexibility to travel on their own schedules.
How we measured it
We analyzed every stop within a transit system to determine the average time between vehicle arrivals. For example, if a route has a bus arriving at a stop every 10 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes after 6 p.m., the average wait time for the route at that stop would be 20 minutes. We combined the data from these individual stops into census tracts. This provides an average wait time for all stops and routes within a specific neighborhood. We used official stop times reported in each of the transit systems’ General Transit Feed Specifications (GTFS), processed through the R package tidytransit.
Due to the static nature of the reported schedules in GTFS files, this does not reflect actual wait times that may be impacted by delays, detours, or other factors that may better represent lived experience.
About the Data
This information was collected from August to October 2025.
- View the Map: You can see how wait times change across different neighborhoods on our interactive map.
- Find Your Neighborhood: Use the census geocoder to find which tract your specific address falls into.
What is it?
Affordability looks at the financial cost of using public transit. By analyzing fare structures, we can see which areas are the most economically accessible for the community.
Why it matters
For many people with disabilities and older adults, transportation costs are a major part of their monthly budget. If fares are too high, it can lead to challenging decisions to stay home and miss medical appointments, grocery trips, or social gatherings because they cannot afford the ride.
How we measured it
We used monthly ridership data from the National Transit Database. Key measures include:
- Total Fare Revenue: All fares collected, including cash, tickets, and passes
- Total Boarding: Every time someone gets on a transit vehicle, including transfers
- Average Fare per Trip: We divided the total fares by the number of total boardings. This represents actual paid fares across all riders, including discounts and free rides.
Total and Demand Response Measures: Affordability was summarized across all transit modes offered by each system (e.g., bus, rail, demand response). Most U.S. paratransit services operate using a demand response model, where vehicles are dispatched based on the needs of riders in the area. Therefore, affordability measures for demand response modes were summarized independently as well.
About the Data
- Because we are measuring cost, lower dollar amounts represent higher affordability. When a system has a lower average fare, it is more financially accessible for the community.
Share Your Lived Experience
Are you a rider with a disability or an older adult? We need your voice.
We are looking for participants to help us flesh out this fifth dimension. Your feedback will directly influence how we score transit systems in the future, ensuring this tool serves the disability community.
By clicking the link below, you’ll be added to our list for the University of Michigan Public Transit Disability Study.
Categorized Dimensions
What is it?
The categorized dimensions group transit systems and cities scores into High, Medium, or Low. These categories are assigned for all four dimensions: accommodation, adjacency, affordability, and availability.
Why it matters
These categories provide meaning to the numerical values. By grouping these numbers we provide important context for numerical values, allowing for a greater understanding of what those values mean and represent. Providing this contextual information helps people understand how well a transit system or city is doing for each dimension.
How we measured it
We categorized each accessibility dimension into “High”, “Medium”, or “Low” (Table 2). Our scoring criteria was informed by previous research, members of the Disability Community, and public transit riders.
Dimension
Accommodation
(points)
Category
High
Medium
Low
Values
41-60
21-40
0-20
Dimension
Adjacency
(destinations)
Category
High
Medium
Low
Values
100 or more
More than 0 and less than 100
0
Dimension
Availability
(arrivals per hour of operation)
Category
High
Medium
Low
Values
6 or more
More than 0 and less than 6
0
Dimension
Affordability
(USD)
Category
High
Medium
Low
Values
$0
More than $0 and less than $3
$3 or more
Dimension | Category | Values |
|---|---|---|
Accommodation | High | 41-60 21-40 0-20 |
Adjacency | High Medium Low | 100 or more More than 0 and less than 100 0 |
Availability (arrivals per hour of operation) | High Medium Low | 6 or more More than 0 and less than 6 0 |
Affordability (USD) | High Medium Low | $0 More than $0 and less than $3 $3 or more |
Ranked Dimensions
What is it?
The ranked dimensions order accommodation, adjacency, affordability, and availability from best to worst performance.
Why it matters
Comparing accessibility within one transit system or city to that of other transit systems and cities can be helpful for benchmarking. This information can be used for decision making and advocacy. For example, riders can compare the affordability for multiple transit systems within a city to inform which system they choose to ride.
How we measured it
We individually ranked the numerical values of each dimension. For accommodation, adjacency, and availability, higher values were better. For affordability, lower values were better. Rankings are out of 100 for transit systems and 85 for cities, with a ranking of 1 being the best. We provide the same rank to transit systems and cities with the same numerical value.
Accessibility Status and Rank
What is it?
Accessibility status evaluates the overall accessibility of a transit system and the transit systems within a city.
Why does it matter?
Accommodation, adjacency, affordability, and availability on their own do not sufficiently represent accessibility. In order for a transit system to be truly accessible, it must allow a rider to effectively plan a trip that will then take them where they want to go in a reasonable amount of time at a fare they can afford. Accessibility status measures a transit system’s and city’s ability to do just this, providing riders with key information regarding not only whether or not a specific transit system or city’s transit system is accessible to them, but also to all other potential riders.
How we measured it
We created the accessibility status based on the accommodation, adjacency, availability, and affordability dimensions described previously. When developing the accessibility status, we had to consider the importance of each of the four dimensions to a public transit user. Which dimension(s) will most heavily determine whether or not a person will take public transportation? Is it their ability to afford the fare? Maybe, it’s their ability to safely and comfortably board and ride the transit vehicle. Perhaps it’s whether or not there is even a stop nearby allowing them to use the transportation. Ultimately, we decided that each of these measures were significant in a rider’s journey and decided to consider them as having equal importance in our calculations.
Using the categorized dimensions, we determined each transit system and city to have one of four possible accessibility statuses, “Optimal”, “Sufficient”, “Fragmented”, and “Inadequate”. We created the criteria for the accessibility statuses based on the idea that a transit system or city is only as strong as its weakest link, or, in this case, dimension. Even if a transit system has 3 high performing dimensions, a single low performing dimension results in lower accessibility status. This can be seen in the table below, which describes the exact criteria for each possible accessibility statuses.
Accessibility Status
Optimal
Criteria
All 4 dimensions are "High"
Accessibility Status
Sufficient
Criteria
All 4 dimensions are “Medium” or “High”, but not all are “High”
Accessibility Status
Fragmented
Criteria
1 to 3 dimensions are “Low”
Accessibility Status
Inadequate
Criteria
All 4 dimensions are “Low”
Accessibility Status | Criteria |
|---|---|
Optimal | All 4 dimensions are "High" |
Sufficient | All 4 dimensions are “Medium” or “High”, but not all are “High” |
Fragmented | 1 to 3 dimensions are “Low” |
Inadequate | All 4 dimensions are “Low” |
What is it?
The accessibility ranking orders transit systems and cities from most to least accessible.
Why it matters
Ranking the accessibility of a transit system or the transit systems within a city, allows for an evaluation of how well a transit system or city is doing in terms of accessibility compared to others. With this information, transit systems and cities can understand their relative performance and identify ways to improve accessibility.
How we measured it
The accessibility ranking was developed for both transit systems and cities. For transit systems, accessibility was ranked out of 100, with a ranking of 1 being the most accessible transit system. For cities, accessibility was ranked out of 85, with a ranking of 1 being the city with the most accessible transit.
We created the accessibility ranking in two steps:
- We averaged each systems’s four dimension rankings.
- We ranked those averages from best to worst.
The table below provides an example to illustrate the two-step process.
Example Calculation for the Two-Step Accessibility Ranking Process
The table below provides an example calculation for the accessibility ranking of fictional transit systems A, B, C, and D. The Average Rank column is the average of the ranked dimensions, found via the calculation: (Accommodation Rank + Adjacency Rank + Affordability Rank + Availability Rank) /4. The Accessibility Rank column is the re-ranking of the Average Rank column.
Transit System
Accommodation Rank
Adjacency Rank
Availability Rank
Affordability Rank
Step 1
Average Rank
Step 2
Accessibility Rank
A
1
1
4
2
Step 1
2
Step 2
2
B
3
4
2
3
Step 1
3
Step 2
3
C
2
2
1
1
Step 1
1.5
Step 2
1
D
4
3
3
4
Step 1
3.5
Step 2
4
|
|
|
|
| Step 1 | Step 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transit System | Accommodation Rank | Adjacency Rank | Availability Rank | Affordability Rank | Average Rank | Accessibility Rank |
A | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
B | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
C | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 |
D | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 |
Interested in seeing the transit systems and cities with the highest? Or how you transit system or city scored? Visit our home page where the top 3 systems and cities are listed or you can search the city you live in.