Perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane, South Africa

1 Introduction

Transport systems are increasingly recognized as central to social equity, particularly for groups who experience structural mobility disadvantages (Cantilina et al., 2021; Pereira and Karner, 2021; Mijailović et al., 2024). Transport equity, as a dimension of social equity, refers to the fair distribution of transport infrastructure, services, and opportunities (Di Ciommo and Shiftan, 2017; Oliveira Soares and Glaser, 2025), ensuring that disadvantaged groups such as people with disabilities are not excluded from mobility opportunities. Accessibility is a core component of transport equity, encompassing not only the physical availability of infrastructure but also service attributes such as affordability, service reliability, and access to information that enables inclusive mobility (Curl, 2018; Brown, 2022). However, people with disabilities are not a homogeneous group, as mobility needs vary according to impairment type, severity, and individual capabilities (Low et al., 2020; Tennakoon et al., 2020). The differences in the needs of people with disabilities contribute to diverse travel barriers, including inaccessible infrastructure, unreliable services, limited information, and affordability constraints (Haning et al., 2014; Mindell et al., 2025). In the context of the Global South, mobility challenges are further shaped by fragmented transport networks, economic precarity, and limited accessibility features within public transport systems (Mogaji et al., 2026). Consequently, advancing transport equity requires inclusive mobility systems that recognize diverse needs and prioritize accessible infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities. This need is particularly relevant in the South African context, where transport inequities continue to affect mobility outcomes for people with disabilities.

In South Africa, disability remains a significant social equity concern, with approximately 3.3 million people living with disabilities (Statistics South Africa, 2023), representing a notable share of the national population. People with disabilities continue to encounter substantial barriers to accessing transport infrastructure and services (Chakwizira et al., 2021; Fredericks et al., 2024), which constrain equitable mobility outcomes. South Africa has several policies and legislation aimed at promoting inclusive mobility. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees equality and non-discrimination (Republic of South Africa, 1996), while the White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasizes accessible environments and inclusive service provision (Department of Women Youth and Persons with Disabilities, 2023). The National Land Transport Act Amendment Act, 2024, promotes universal access and recognizes people with disabilities as a priority group in transport planning (Republic of South Africa, 2024). Complementary regulations, including national building standards requiring accessible infrastructure in public facilities, further support an inclusive built environment (Department of Public Works, 2001). However, despite these policy commitments, accessibility gaps persist, and public transport systems in South Africa remain insufficiently inclusive for many people with disabilities (Vanderschuren and Nnene, 2021; Bardien, 2025). These national challenges are also reflected at the metropolitan level, including in the City of Tshwane, where inclusive mobility remains a critical planning concern.

The City of Tshwane represents a major metropolitan area in South Africa (Statistics South Africa, 2026) with a diverse population and a complex transport system that includes buses, rail, minibus taxis, and non-motorized transport infrastructure. Like many other cities in South Africa, mobility within the City of Tshwane is shaped by Apartheid spatial inequality, varying levels of infrastructure provision, and reliance on public transport (Department of Transport, 2023). For people with disabilities, these conditions may influence access to transport services and the overall travel experience. Understanding accessibility within the City of Tshwane is therefore important for informing inclusive mobility planning and improving transport infrastructure and service provision for people with disabilities.

Despite increasing attention to universally accessible transport in South Africa, empirical research remains limited and unevenly distributed across geographic contexts. Existing studies have largely focused on specific themes rather than identifying priority transport measures. For examples (Gibberd and Hankwebe, 2022), examined the provision of transport for youth with disabilities in Cape Town, highlighting challenges related to accessibility and service provision. Similarly, (Gibberd and Hankwebe, 2022), examined barriers to accessing education and employment opportunities for people with disabilities, while (Vanderschuren and Nnene, 2021) focused on inclusive transport planning and policy considerations. Importantly, much of the available research has been conducted in the Western Cape (Rivasplata and Le Roux, 2018; Schnitzler, 2021; Fredericks et al., 2024), often focusing on specific disability groups or particular transport modes. Evidence specific to the City of Tshwane remains scarce, despite the city’s growing general population (Statistics South Africa, 2026). There are approximately 184,000 people in Tshwane who live with some form of disability (Statistics South Africa, 2016). Although national policies and legislation emphasize universal access and inclusive mobility, there is limited localized evidence to guide planning decisions on which infrastructure and service improvements should be prioritized for people with disabilities.

Therefore, this study aims to identify perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. By highlighting priority measures, this study contributes to the literature on transport equity and accessibility. The findings provide empirical, user-centered evidence on how transport equity and accessibility for people with disabilities are shaped by the relative importance of infrastructure and service measures. Rather than treating accessibility as a purely technical or infrastructural issue, the study demonstrates that effective mobility systems rely on a combination of service quality, physical access, and institutional or awareness-based measures.

2 Literature review

2.1 Transport equity and accessibility for people with disabilities

This study is grounded in the concept of transport equity as a framework for understanding accessibility and mobility inequalities experienced by people with disabilities. There is no single agreed upon definition of transport equity (Brown, 2022; Bruzzone et al., 2023), as the concept can be interpreted in terms of process, opportunity, or outcomes, depending on the planning context. Transport equity concerns how transport systems allocate benefits and burdens, including accessibility, affordability, safety, and service provision, across users (Litman, 2018; Pereira and Karner, 2021). From a social equity perspective, transport planning should prioritize disadvantaged groups, such as people with disabilities, by addressing inequalities in access to mobility opportunities and essential services (Di Ciommo and Shiftan, 2017). However, transport equity is directly impacted by accessibility, as limitations in accessible infrastructure and services can disproportionately disadvantage people with disabilities (Cantilina et al., 2021; Zhu and Lucas, 2025).

Accessibility reflects the interaction between individual abilities and the transport environment. For people with disabilities, accessibility is influenced by factors such as physical infrastructure and service attributes such as availability, travel information, and affordability (Curl, 2018; Brown, 2022). However, variations in disability types and individual needs highlight the importance of universal design principles in support of equitable transport systems. Universal design principles support transport equity by promoting infrastructure and services that are accessible to all users, including those with disabilities (Litman, 2018). Designing transport systems to accommodate users with different abilities can improve accessibility not only for people with disabilities but for all (Di Ciommo and Shiftan, 2017; Litman, 2018). As such, transport equity provides a useful theoretical lens for examining transport infrastructure and service measures that support inclusive mobility for people with disabilities.

2.2 Transport barriers experienced by people with disabilities

People with disabilities encounter a wide range of transport barriers that limit their mobility and access to transport systems. In this study, transport barriers experienced by people with disabilities are broadly categorized into two main dimensions: infrastructure and transport services. Infrastructure barriers are commonly associated with the built environment surrounding transport systems and transport vehicles. The built environment, such as inaccessible pedestrian infrastructure, uneven sidewalks, the absence of curb ramps, inadequate lighting, and poorly designed crossings, can limit independent mobility and access to public transport (Jahangir et al., 2024; Elorduy and Pino, 2026). Similarly, transport stops and terminals that lack accessible features such as tactile paving, shelters, and clear pathways create additional challenges for people with disabilities (Crudden, 2018; Mijailović et al., 2024). The design of transport vehicles also contributes to infrastructure-related barriers, particularly when buses lack low-floor access, ramps, or adequate space for assistive devices (Tennakoon et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2026).

Service-related barriers have a relatively greater influence on the travel experience of people with disabilities. Unreliable services, long waiting times, and limited route coverage have been identified as common challenges that reduce the usability of public transport (Mindell et al., 2025). In addition, driver attitudes and lack of disability awareness can further discourage public transport use, particularly when assistance is not provided during boarding or alighting (Tessier et al., 2024). Limitations in service attributes can reduce independent mobility among people with disabilities. Information and communication barriers also affect accessibility (Lid and Solvang, 2016; Vaughan et al., 2025). Limited visual and audio information, unclear signage, and inadequate announcements can make navigation difficult, particularly for individuals with vision or hearing impairments (Crudden, 2018; Bigby et al., 2019). Furthermore, affordability remains a major barrier (Halvorsen et al., 2021). People with disabilities often have lower incomes and may face additional transport-related costs (Haning et al., 2014; Tessier et al., 2024; Flynn et al., 2025).

2.3 Transport measures for disability inclusion

Addressing transport barriers for people with disabilities requires measures that enhance the accessibility and usability of transport systems (Litman, 2018). Accessible information technologies, such as automated voice announcements, visual display systems, and real-time travel information, can improve navigation and reduce uncertainty for users with vision and hearing impairments (Park et al., 2023). Similarly, improved signage and orientation systems can support independent travel and enhance accessibility within transport environments (Tennakoon et al., 2020; Valenzuela-Zambrano et al., 2025).

Accessibility measures through the built environment also play a critical role in supporting inclusive mobility. For example, signalized crossings, tactile paving, accessible sidewalks, and safe pedestrian routes are essential for enabling independent movement to and from transport services (Tennakoon et al., 2020; Elorduy and Pino, 2026). The availability of low-floor buses, ramps, and designated wheelchair spaces further improves boarding and alighting for users with mobility impairments (Tennakoon et al., 2020). Technological and infrastructure measures should be supported by integrated transport facilities that improve connections between modes. Seamless intermodal transfers, accessible terminals, and improved pedestrian access to stops can reduce travel complexity and support inclusive mobility systems (Mindell et al., 2025). The literature highlights that transport equity for people with disabilities is closely linked to accessibility, which is influenced by both infrastructure provision and transport service delivery (Cantilina et al., 2021; Zhu and Lucas, 2025).

Existing studies have largely emphasized transport barriers rather than identifying and grouping priority accessibility measures that can guide inclusive transport planning and policy interventions. This study contributes to the broader transport equity and accessibility literature by providing empirical, user-centered evidence on perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities and by identifying the underlying dimensions shaping inclusive mobility through exploratory factor analysis.

3 Materials and methods

This study adopted a quantitative research method to examine perceived transport infrastructure and service measures among people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane. The target population comprised three groups of people with disabilities: mobility, vision, and hearing impairments. These groups were included to capture diverse experiences, as transport barriers are not homogeneous and may differ across disability groups. A total of 214 fully completed questionnaires were obtained and included in the analysis. The sample consisted of both male and female respondents, with participants with mobility disabilities representing the largest group.

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire developed from the literature on disability and public transport accessibility. The survey focused on transport services and infrastructure measures affecting people with disabilities. The questionnaire included sixteen items measuring perceived transport-related measures. Respondents were asked to rate each item using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale was used to assess the perceived importance of transport measures for improving accessibility and mobility.

A pilot study was conducted prior to the main survey to assess the clarity and relevance of the questions. Based on feedback from participants, ambiguous questions were revised to improve understanding and ensure accessibility for people with disabilities. Data were collected in July 2020 using a structured questionnaire. Both online and hard copy questionnaires were used to accommodate diverse accessibility needs among participants with mobility, vision, and hearing impairments. The researcher remained available during the completion of hard-copy questionnaires to provide assistance where required. Participants who experienced difficulties reading or interpreting questions, particularly some respondents with vision impairments, were assisted by having the questions read aloud and clarified where necessary. Participants were recruited through organizations representing people with disabilities in Tshwane, including disability advocacy and support groups. To increase participation, snowball sampling was employed to reach additional respondents across different areas of the city. This approach was appropriate due to the absence of a comprehensive database of people with disabilities. The online questionnaire was designed to be compatible with screen reader software to enable participation by individuals with vision impairments. Where necessary, respondents completed questionnaires in the presence of the researchers to minimize incomplete responses and ensure clarity.

The data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize respondent characteristics and transport measures. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify underlying dimensions of perceived transport infrastructure and service measures. To minimize potential bias, standardized Likert-scale responses were used to ensure consistency in measurement across participants. Factor analysis was employed to reduce researcher subjectivity by identifying underlying constructs based on statistical relationships among items. Reliability testing was conducted to confirm internal consistency and reduce measurement bias. Additionally, data were screened for completeness and outliers prior to analysis to limit response bias and improve the robustness of the findings.

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical research principles. Ethical approval was granted by the Department of Transport and Supply Chain Management at the University of Johannesburg. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. People with disabilities are considered a vulnerable population; therefore, particular attention was given to confidentiality and data protection. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, and their responses were kept anonymous. All data were securely stored and used solely for research purposes. Research procedures adhered to accepted ethical standards to ensure privacy, confidentiality, and responsible handling of information.

4 Results

This section presents the findings of the study based on data collected from respondents with disabilities in the City of Tshwane. The results are organized into subsections covering the demographic profile of respondents and the analysis of transport-related measures. Descriptive statistics are used to summarise respondents’ characteristics, while EFA was employed to identify underlying dimensions of perceived transport measures.

4.1 Profile of participants

This section presents the demographic profile of the participants included in the study. The purpose is to provide an overview of the characteristics of respondents with disabilities in the City of Tshwane, as presented in Table 1. The profile includes age group, disability type, employment status, income level, and level of education. Understanding these characteristics is important for contextualizing the findings and interpreting perceived transport infrastructure and service measures.

TABLE 1. Profile of participants.

Adapted (Duri, 2022).

4.2 Descriptive statistics

Section 4.2 presents the descriptive statistics for perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane. Descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize respondents’ ratings of the proposed transport measures using mean scores and standard deviations.

The results in Table 2 show that all items recorded relatively high mean scores, suggesting that respondents considered the proposed measures important for improving transport accessibility. The highest-ranked measure was item E5 ‘intersections with safety devices’ (M = 4.64, SD = 0.886), indicating that safe road-crossing infrastructure is a major priority for people with disabilities. This was followed by item E11 (M = 4.61, SD = 0.812) and item E15 (M = 4.61, SD = 0.768), highlighting the importance of service dependability and affordability. Reserved seats for people with disabilities in public transport also recorded a high mean score, emphasizing the need for inclusive onboard accommodations.

TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics.

Overall, the standard deviations range from 0.768 to 1.853, suggesting varying levels of agreement among participants. Lower standard deviation values were observed for reliable transport service (SD = 0.812), cheaper transport fares (SD = 0.768), and intersections with safety devices (SD = 0.886). These relatively small values indicate strong agreement among respondents regarding the importance of these measures. Higher standard deviation values were observed for automated voice announcement systems (SD = 1.633), visual transport information (SD = 1.702), priority area behind the driver (SD = 1.853), and accessible parking for private vehicles (SD = 1.756). These larger values indicate greater variability in respondents’ opinions, suggesting that these measures may be more relevant to specific disability groups than to the general population.

4.3 Exploratory factor analysis

Section 4.3 presents the EFA conducted to identify the underlying dimensions of perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane. EFA was employed to reduce the number of observed variables and to group related items into meaningful factors based on their correlations.

The KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were conducted to assess the suitability of the data for exploratory factor analysis (see Table 3). The KMO value was 0.875, which exceeds the recommended minimum threshold of 0.60 (Pallant, 2020), indicating that the sample size was adequate and the data were appropriate for factor analysis. This value also suggests that the correlations among variables were sufficiently compact to produce reliable factors. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (χ² = 1899.426, df = 105, p < 0.001), indicating that the correlation matrix was not an identity matrix. This result confirms that there were significant relationships among the variables, making them suitable for factor extraction. Overall, the KMO and Bartlett’s test results confirm that the data were appropriate for conducting exploratory factor analysis. Table 4 presents the total variance explained, indicating the number of factors extracted and the proportion of variance accounted for by each factor.

TABLE 3. KMO and Bartlett’s test.

TABLE 4. Total variance explained.

Table 4 shows that three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, collectively explaining 72.125% of the total variance. After extraction, the three factors accounted for 66.107% of the cumulative variance, indicating that a substantial proportion of the variability in perceived transport infrastructure and service measures was explained by the retained factors. The scree plot, Figure 1, was examined to confirm the number of factors to retain.

The plot shows a break after the third factor, indicating that only three factors should be retained. This finding supports the eigenvalue criterion and confirms that a three-factor solution is appropriate for representing the underlying dimensions of perceived transport infrastructure and service measures.

Principal axis factoring with Varimax rotation was applied, and the rotation converged in four iterations. The factor loadings in Table 5 indicate the strength of the relationship between each item and its underlying factor, while communalities represent the proportion of variance in each item explained by the extracted factors.

TABLE 5. Rotated factor pattern and communality.

The transport measures that form Factor 1 are E11, E15, E10, E5, E16, and E7. These transport measures were grouped as ‘Infrastructure and Service Quality Measures’. Factor 2, which relates to physical accessibility measures, consists of the following items: E9, E14, E12, E4, and E1. Measures that form Factor 3 are E6, E8, E3, and E13. These measures were grouped into bus service and awareness measures.

Overall, the factor loadings are above the commonly accepted threshold of 0.40, and most communalities exceed 0.350, indicating that the extracted factors adequately explain the variance in the items. These results support the retention of the three-factor structure representing transport infrastructure and service measures. With this information, a reliability test was conducted and the results are summarized in Table 6.

TABLE 6. Reliability.

The results in Table 6 indicate that all three factors demonstrated acceptable to excellent reliability. Factor 1, labeled Infrastructure and Service Quality Measures, recorded a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.920, indicating excellent internal consistency among the items. This suggests that the variables grouped under this factor reliably measure the same underlying construct. Factor 2, labeled Physical Accessibility Measures, produced a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.858, indicating good reliability. This shows that the items within this factor are consistently related and suitable for measuring physical accessibility aspects. Factor 3, labeled Bus Service and Awareness Measures, yielded a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.855, which also indicates good internal consistency. This confirms that the items grouped under this factor adequately measure service coverage and awareness-related measures. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha values for all three factors exceed the recommended threshold of 0.70, confirming that the constructs are reliable and suitable for further analysis.

5 Discussion

This study aimed to identify perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. The findings indicate that accessibility for people with disabilities is shaped by both infrastructure provision and transport service delivery. The exploratory factor analysis identified three underlying dimensions of perceived transport infrastructure and service measures. The first factor is infrastructure and service quality; the second is physical accessibility; the third is bus service and awareness.

The first factor, infrastructure and service quality measures, highlights the importance of reliable, affordable, and inclusive transport systems for people with disabilities. Measures such as reliable transport services, cheaper fares, reserved seating, safer intersections, improved connections between transport modes, and universally designed vehicles were identified as key priorities. These findings align with the existing literature, which indicates that accessibility is influenced not only by physical infrastructure but also by attributes such as service reliability, affordability, and integrated transport systems (Curl, 2018; Cantilina et al., 2021). Reliability and affordability are particularly important for people with disabilities, who often rely on public transport and may experience additional travel costs and limited transport options (Haning et al., 2014; Tessier et al., 2024). Similarly, accessible intersections and improved intermodal connectivity support safer and more seamless journeys, which are essential for reducing mobility barriers and improving accessibility (Tennakoon et al., 2020; Mindell et al., 2025). The importance of universally designed vehicles further supports the literature, which emphasizes that inclusive transport infrastructure can accommodate diverse user needs and improve mobility outcomes for vulnerable groups (Di Ciommo and Shiftan, 2017; Litman, 2018). From a transport equity perspective, these findings suggest that equitable mobility requires both accessible infrastructure and high-quality service provision, as limitations in reliability, affordability, and integration can disproportionately disadvantage people with disabilities. Therefore, infrastructure and service quality measures collectively contribute to transport equity by improving accessibility, reducing mobility disadvantages, and supporting inclusive transport systems.

The second factor, labeled physical accessibility measures, emphasizes the importance of built environment and vehicle accessibility in supporting mobility for people with disabilities. This factor included measures such as low-floor buses, improved pedestrian paths, accessible parking, priority areas within vehicles, and automated voice announcement systems. These findings highlight the role of physical infrastructure in enabling independent travel and reducing mobility barriers. Previous research indicates that inaccessible pedestrian environments, poorly designed transport vehicles, and lack of accessible facilities are barriers that limit the usability of public transport for people with disabilities (Tennakoon et al., 2020; Elorduy and Pino, 2026). Improvements to accessible boarding features, such as vehicle accessible equipment, are therefore essential for enhancing accessibility and supporting inclusive mobility, especially for those with mobility and vision disabilities (Mindell et al., 2025). The importance of priority spaces in buses enhance safety of users with disabilities. These findings align with universal design principles, which emphasize designing infrastructure that is usable by individuals with varying abilities (Litman, 2018). In addition, automated voice announcement systems improve accessibility for individuals with visual impairments by supporting navigation and independent travel (Park et al., 2023). From a transport equity perspective, physical accessibility measures help reduce disparities in access to transport services by addressing structural barriers within the built environment. These measures therefore contribute to equitable mobility by improving accessibility, enhancing independence, and supporting inclusive transport systems for people with disabilities.

The third factor, labeled bus service and awareness measures, reflects the importance of service coverage and institutional support in improving mobility for people with disabilities. This factor included measures such as additional bus routes, accessible bus shelters, training of transport staff, and disability awareness campaigns. These findings highlight that accessibility is also influenced by service availability and the behavior of transport personnel. Previous studies indicate that limited route coverage and inadequate waiting facilities can restrict access to public transport and reduce travel opportunities for people with disabilities (Mijailović et al., 2024; Mindell et al., 2025). The provision of accessible shelters and expanded service coverage can therefore improve comfort, safety, and usability of public transport systems. Training of transport staff and disability awareness campaigns were also identified as important measures (Abraham et al., 2021; Mogaji et al., 2026), emphasizing the role of institutional and behavioral factors in shaping accessibility. Literature shows that driver attitudes, lack of awareness, and insufficient training can discourage public transport use among people with disabilities (Sajib, 2022; Ngezahayo et al., 2023; Mansilla et al., 2024). Improving staff training and promoting disability awareness can therefore enhance service quality and reduce attitudinal barriers. From a transport equity perspective, these findings suggest that equitable mobility requires not only accessible infrastructure but also inclusive service delivery and supportive institutional practices. Bus service and awareness measures, therefore, contribute to transport equity by addressing service availability, improving user experience, and supporting inclusive mobility for people with disabilities.

The three factors identified in this study highlight the multidimensional nature of transport equity, where services, accessible infrastructure, and supportive institutional practices collectively shape mobility outcomes. These findings are consistent with literature emphasizing that accessibility is influenced by both the built environment and transport service provision, and that addressing only one dimension may not adequately reduce mobility barriers for people with disabilities (Cantilina et al., 2021; Zhu and Lucas, 2025). The results further indicate that user-centered transport measures are critical for developing inclusive mobility systems that respond to diverse disability needs.

5.1 Limitations

The study focused on people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane, which may limit the generalizability of the results to other cities with different transport systems and infrastructure conditions. Mobility experiences and accessibility challenges may vary across geographic contexts, particularly between metropolitan areas and smaller cities. The study included respondents with mobility, vision, and hearing disabilities; however, other disability types, such as cognitive or psychosocial disabilities, were not explicitly examined. Mobility needs may differ across disability groups, and future research could include a broader range of disability categories. The study focused only on people with disabilities and did not include perspectives from caregivers, family members, or personal assistants who often support travel. These stakeholders may provide additional insights into mobility challenges and accessibility needs.

The socio-economic profile of respondents, characterized by relatively high unemployment and low-income levels, may have influenced the prioritization of transport measures. This finding is consistent with broader trends observed in South Africa and many developing country contexts, where people with disabilities often experience disproportionately high levels of unemployment, poverty, and limited access to private vehicles. As a result, many people with disabilities rely heavily on public transport systems, which may explain the greater priority given to public transport services compared to private vehicle-related measures.

Data collection was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period characterized by disruptions to public transport services and mobility restrictions. These conditions may have influenced respondents’ perceptions of transport difficulties and the prioritization of certain transport measures. Although the study provides important insights into accessibility challenges experienced by people with disabilities, the findings should therefore be interpreted within the broader context of the pandemic period.

The importance of examining variations in transport priorities across different disability groups is acknowledged. The primary focus of this paper was to identify the overall dimensions of perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane using exploratory factor analysis. While comparative analysis across disability groups was conducted in the broader study, it yielded extensive findings beyond the scope of the current paper and may warrant a separate, detailed study. This is acknowledged in the manuscript as an important area for future research.

6 Conclusion

This study examined perceived transport infrastructure and service measures for people with disabilities in the City of Tshwane. The findings highlight that inclusive mobility is shaped by a combination of infrastructure provision and service quality measures. The identified dimensions emphasize that accessibility for people with disabilities extends beyond physical access to include reliable services, affordability, supportive travel environments, and improved service delivery. These elements collectively influence the ability of people with disabilities to use transport systems effectively.

From a policy perspective, the findings suggest that transport planning should move beyond infrastructure-only approaches and incorporate measures to improve service quality. Integrating these measures can support more equitable transport systems and improve accessibility for people with disabilities. In addition, the identification of prioritized measures provides practical guidance for transport planners and decision-makers in the City of Tshwane. By focusing on infrastructure and service improvements that directly address mobility barriers, transport systems can better support inclusive and accessible mobility. The government should introduce subsidy-based policies that encourage bus operators to acquire and operate accessible fleets. Financial incentives can support the acquisition of low-floor buses, vehicles with ramps, and universally designed features that accommodate people with disabilities. Subsidy programs linked to accessibility requirements can ensure that public transport operators gradually transition toward inclusive fleets while maintaining service sustainability. Such policies can promote equitable access to transport by increasing the availability of accessible vehicles and supporting inclusive mobility for people with disabilities.

Transport operators should implement regular disability awareness and training programs for transport staff while expanding accessible service coverage. Training drivers and frontline personnel can improve assistance and reduce attitudinal barriers, while increasing bus routes can improve service availability. These measures can enhance the overall travel experience and promote inclusive mobility for people with disabilities. Overall, the study contributes to the literature on transport equity and accessibility by providing empirical evidence on transport infrastructure and service measures that can enhance accessibility and support inclusive mobility for people with disabilities.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI tools were used solely to improve grammar, clarity, and readability. All ideas, analysis, and conclusions presented in this work are my own.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Taru Saigal, Christ University, India

Reviewed by: Stanley Ojekere, Faculty of Environmental Design and Management University of Ibadan Nigeria., Nigeria

Aiga Stokenberga, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, World Bank, United States