**3. How can transport system changes benefit older people?**

The UK Government has published details of a MaaS approach [65], which would allow for personalized transport in some ways; this would include ticketing and many other services through single systems – early examples include smartcards that can allow the user to go from mode to mode without any reticketing. In the longer run, it would move towards a more bespoke service that can benefit the less mobile by allowing transport to be summonsed to precise destinations for personalized journeys. This is one example of new technology working to enhance and improve, and for the less mobile actually enable travel to be undertaken.

In the UK Government report on engagement with new technology by older travellers [66], ideas were proposed that related to a smart user interface that could enable travelling. However, several researchers have commented that older people have a long list of needs that would be important for their travelling, for example the availability of rest places, toilet facilities and ease of access and egress at all points. Whilst Transport for London [TfL] has gone a long way in enabling wheelchairs on buses and other travel places, this is clearly not a completed exercise as for example many tube stations remain wheelchair-unfriendly and information about when the next bus is arriving is not sufficient to enable trouble-free travelling; nor with much lower levels of per capita spending on transport outside of London, are things looking as good.

The report [66] also proposed that big data and information being provided by users can work towards the data base needed so that the full panoply of needed information is accurate, precise to what is needed and provided in real time for older and less physically able travellers. As an example, you as a disabled might want to go on a journey to eat a meal at a restaurant with your friends, calling on the way back to collect some items from [say] the chemist. The information you will need includes the transport availability, estimated arrival time, whether or not you will be able to board, the availability of facilities at the destination stop, the availability of ramps, or stairs, or seating, whether under cover, etc. at the destination. Then all the same information to get to the next destination, the chemist, then more information again about the homeward part of the journey. You also need to be fairly certain that the service will actually be running with no cancellations, no temporary movement of stops, for all three journeys. In the world of totally personalisable transport, you would be able to book the whole journey using a personalized vehicle from start to destination to destination to home, and do all this booking by touchscreen.

So the question is- where are we in relation to the ideal world of reliable transport, full information provided in real time, integration of services, etc. And further, can all this be achieved using a full blown Maas? And if so, how will this work in rural and small-town environments as opposed to large cities, particularly London, where there is already some integration?

It has been argued by many authors that this requires a political will, some legislation, and planning and infrastructure changes to get there. The recent massive changes to cycling infrastructure following from making transport more Covid-compliant has actually, at the time of writing, moved people out of buses and into cars and some onto cycles. The Cycle superhighways in London are certainly reducing road space for other vehicles; the congestion charging there has also

**63**

*Attitudes and Behaviours in Relation to New Technology in Transport and the Take-Up…*

changed how traffic is operating. However these are somewhat piecemeal and need to be even more integrated, which is possible of course, but so far at a much larger expenditure rate [in London] than for any other region or city in the country. We still see bus stops moved temporarily, and other issues that make a journey for a

The UK government has also reported on what a future might be like for more active modes of travel, including walking of course but also electric bikes, scooters, and e-boards. The possibility for electric bikes and scooters is that they will bring more, and older, women into travelling and possibly leaving their cars behind especially for shorter journeys. The evidence is that shorter journeys dominate car use in cities and towns in the UK and elsewhere, and ebikes that can take cargo offer the possibility of local shopping in a more environmentally friendly, healthier and more sustainable way; however these also require some infrastructure changes to ensure they are as safe as possible, for example cycling highways and safe and secure parking (as things such as batteries are valuable) [67]. Ebikes are also likely to require legislation since at the moment they can go quite fast with an unlicensed driver, such as a 70 year old woman who does not hold any driving license can buy

The problem is however more complicated, as many of these solutions suit shorter journeys, especially in better weather conditions and necessitate their own infrastructure. On top of that, there is how we address longer journeys- so city to city, from 20 to 30 right up to 500–600 miles. In addition to this, there is the need for MaaS for the older traveller who cannot drive or walk with any ease, and who, as we have seen, might have memory problems and need logistical support and real

There are several major over-arching issues here, from which all the require-

• There are design features that are absolutely necessary for older people but

• That the primary way forward, especially for older users of transport, will be personalised and bespoke use of technology - for transport, assisted living,

decades into the future; therefore it is *not* proposed here that we try to increase

• Using new technology is never going to be intuitive to people on the lower levels of tech-savviness unless it's design is specifically targeted for that level of user.

There are already many examples of what constitute 'good' and 'poor' features from an ergonomic perspective, and to this we can also add design principles and what research on technology acceptance is telling us. Examples of technology design featured include the following with comments about why each may deter users:

health etc., all designed in a user-centred and participatory way.

'tech-savviness' as such but adapt the technology instead.

• That there is always going to be a 'tech-savvy' divide, for at least several

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94963*

and drive one of these.

time information to enable the journey.

**4. The needs of the older traveller**

which can benefit all users.

**4.1 Design features that deter users**

ments may be derived, and these issues are:

disabled person much more hazardous and difficult.
