> TE Home
> About TE
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> E-Mail Update
> IEEE-USA

05.08

Transport Policy Options for an Aging Population

By Patrick E. Meyer

Between 1960 and 2003, the elderly population in the United States more than doubled, increasing 116 percent [1]. Furthermore, projections show that the steady increase in elderly population growth will continue unabated until at least 2030 [2]. Simultaneously, the U.S. poverty rate for the population over 65 years old has declined from 35 percent in 1960 to about 10 percent in 2002; compared to a decline from 22 percent to 11 percent among the entire population over the same period [3]. In other words, the elderly of the nation are wealthier, healthier and more numerous than ever before [4]. Many other developed Western nations are experiencing similar trends, including but not limited to most of the wealthier members of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Japan. Some of those nations (Japan in particular) have begun to make dedicated, progressive changes to national policy which account for the needs of the increasing elderly population [5]. However, nations are finding that the positive population and financial trends among elderly populations are coupled with numerous negative trends in the realm of elderly and transportation: “transportation choices for the elderly are often very limited. Many places seniors want to go are too far to walk, taxis are expensive, and in many areas transit or specialized transportation services are limited” [6].

Recently, it has become acknowledged that the link between elderly populations and their access to transportation systems must be studied and conditions must be improved. Elderly transport issues are deep and complex; recent research has shown that a lack of mobility can prevent older people from participating in social activities and lead to low morale, depression and loneliness [7]. The London-based Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) identified four major problems associated with transport and the elderly: accessibility, safety, affordability and availability. DETR explains that access to public transportation, even in cities, can be difficult for elderly due to poor condition of pavements, inadequate crossing facilities, boarding busses/trains, and steps at railway stations; safety becomes problematic because elderly are more likely to be injured, take longer to recover, and suffer greater psychological impact than younger people; affordability is a problem in the light of increasing rail and bus fares, fuel prices, and car insurance costs; and availability is a major concern given that a significant percentage of elderly must give up personal transport due to some form of disability.

Statistics show that older populations need to be studied more closely for several reasons; according to the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 56 percent of seniors live outside city centers in the suburbs — areas often underserved by public transportation. Due to the spread of the population, and a number of other factors, the highway fatality rate has increased 33 percent for elderly in the past decade, even though it has fallen nearly 10 percent overall [8].

The primary problem facing elderly and transportation is the lack of coordinated services, and a lack of understanding of the linkages between elderly and their transportation needs. The State of Connecticut identifies four outstanding obstacles associated with transportation planning for the elderly. Although these obstacles specifically pertain to Connecticut, they can be generalized for most U.S. states: (1) no state agency has responsibility for program oversight; (2) no single funding source exists, instead funding is a patchwork of federal, state and local monies; (3) identification of specific programs is problematic; and (4) there is a disconnect between local needs and governing transit districts [9].

“In recent years, transportation researchers have recognized the need to see the aging and transportation nexus beyond the usual social equity issues of mobility demand provision to embrace a wide range of health, economic, political, and environmental ramifications” [10]. In other words, it has become recognized that researchers and policy-makers must formulate holistic policy which considers a broad range of socio-economic and demographic factors to ensure effectiveness. Experience in Japan, which has a particularly large elderly population, has shown that the most successful elderly transport policy is that which views an aging society as an opportunity, rather than the usual view of it as a problem to be overcome [11].

A number of specific policies are being pursued to ensure available, safe, affordable, and accessible transportation for our aging population. For example, some areas have implemented “community-based transportation services.” The benefit of community-based transportation services is that they tend to take over where public transportation fails to reach. These groups are based on volunteer drivers using their own cars to provide door-to-door transportation service for nearby elderly residents [12]. Such services are typically organized among community members with an individual or a group of individuals acting as the head coordinator(s). Such programs can greatly increase availability, affordability and accessibility to transport, as well as considerably improve community ties, social interaction and personal esteem.

Some areas have implemented elderly-friendly testing, training and remediation programs to assist in extending elderly peoples’ safe driving and independent living abilities for as long as possible [13]. Some such programs include the increased involvement of doctors and opticians in deciding whether drivers are safe to continue driving, and some include compulsory eye tests for 70-year-olds [14]. The usefulness of these programs is twofold: (1) the programs serve to ensure that elderly are able to drive and ensure their own safety as well as the safety of others; and (2) in the event that an individual should prove to be unfit to drive, the program serves as a method to educate the individual on available public transport alternatives. The educational component of these programs is particularly important because it provides a direct medium to introduce transport alternatives to those who may otherwise not learn of such alternatives.

Recently, it has also been popular to implement policies that encourage programs which promote communities that would allow elderly individuals to age in place. Such plans have been effective in encouraging less long-distance transportation and more car-pooling among elderly populations [15]. With a focus on strong community-building and local goods and services, such programs can greatly reduce the need for elderly to travel more than a few miles from their home. Further, many programs have begun including the elderly in the planning process. By allowing the elderly to have a say in policy making, transport systems can be built which are barrier-free and include factors that are of interest to elderly users, helping to promote more widespread usage [16]. Some programs promote transportation partnering with local churches, senior centers, and community groups; public awareness; and funding for elderly to ride for free, or at concessionary or reduced fares [17]. Funding for such programs have come from a variety of sources. For example, Pennsylvania uses part of the proceeds from the Pennsylvania Lottery to underwrite free transportation for citizens age 65 and older [19].

The aforementioned policies aimed at elderly transportation, although proven effective in some locales, are only piecemeal advances. Indeed, overall progress in elderly transportation is very difficult to evaluate, in part due to a lack of suitable methodologies, and as a consequence, progress is hindered [20]. Still, the above policy options serve as a sound starting point. These options, as well as many others used throughout the country, may ensure a higher degree of available, safe, affordable and accessible transportation for the growing elderly population of the nation and the world.

References

1. Community-Based Transportation for Elderly, Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, Md., 2006. Retrieved 16 April 2007 from www.baltometro.org/content/view/556/393/
    

2. Summary of Findings Concerning Elderly Travel in the Baltimore Region, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, Md., 2004.
    

3. "Over 60 and Overlooked," Economist, 364(8285), pp. 55-56, 2002.
    

4. D. Banister and A. Bowling, "Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension," Transport Policy, 11(2), 105-115, 2004.
    

5. R. Mercado, A. Páez, D.M. Scott, K.B. Newbold, and P. Kanaroglou, "Transport policy in aging societies: An international comparison and implications for Canada," The Open Transportation Journal, 1(1), pp. 1-13, 2007.
    

6. Aging & Transportation, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, Md., 2006. Retrieved 16 April 2007 from www.baltometro.org/content/view/100/184/
    

7. Older people: Their transport needs and requirements. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Department for Transportation, London, UK, 2001.
    

8. Aging & Transportation, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, Md., 2006. Retrieved 16 April 2007 from www.baltometro.org/content/view/100/184/
    

9. Elderly Transportation Services, State of Connecticut Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee, Hartford, Conn., 1998. Retrieved 16 April  2007 from www.cga.ct.gov/ps98/pridata/studies/elderly_transportation_executive.htm
    

10. R. Mercado, A. Páez, D.M. Scott, K.B. Newbold, and P. Kanaroglou, "Transport policy in aging societies: An international comparison and implications for Canada," The Open Transportation Journal, 1(1), pp. 1-13, 2007.
     

11. Ibid.
     

12. Community-Based Transportation for Elderly, Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, Md., 2006. Retrieved 16 April 2007 from www.baltometro.org/content/view/556/393/
     

13. Assessment of Fiscal and Other Effects of Alternative Strategies to Improve Mobility Options for the Elderly in the Baltimore Region, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, Md., 2005.
     

14. Older people: Their transport needs and requirements. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Department for Transportation, London, UK, 2001.
     

15. Transportation Options for Elderly Among Top Concerns at White House Conference on Aging, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2003. Retrieved 16 April, 2007, from www.apta.com/media/whcoa/passenger_transport_051219.cfm
     

16. R. Mercado, A. Páez, D.M. Scott, K.B. Newbold, and P. Kanaroglou, "Transport policy in aging societies: An international comparison and implications for Canada," The Open Transportation Journal, 1(1), pp. 1-13, 2007.
     

17. Expanding the Transportation Options in an Aging Society, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2003, Retrieved 16 April  2007, from www.apta.com/research/info/online/aging_options.cfm
     

18. D. Metz, "Transport policy for an aging population," Transport Reviews, 23(4), pp. 375-376, 2003.
     

19. Expanding the Transportation Options in an Aging Society, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2003, Retrieved 16 April  2007, from www.apta.com/research/info/online/aging_options.cfm
     

20. D. Metz, Transport policy for an aging population, Transport Reviews, 23(4), pp. 375-376, 2003.

Patrick E. Meyer is IEEE-USA Today's Engineer Students' Voice Editor, and a doctoral student at the University of Delaware. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org. Opinions expressed are the author's.