The purpose of this study is to develop an accessibility model for the mobility handicapped in the Seoul bus system and establish evaluation criteria and an agenda for improvement. The study adopts interactive qualitative analysis as the primary research method.

In the process, 12 people created statements about bus accessibility for the mobility handicapped. Five experts on mobility handicaps participated in classifying the statements and evaluating the measurability. In addition, 30 mobility-handicapped people evaluated the affinity relationships and importance of concept clusters. Six hundred six mobility-handicapped people were recruited to identify the status of low-floor bus use and assess the urgency of improving accessibility. The bus accessibility model is the modulating process by which the mobility handicapped use directions between ‘active movement’ in bus stops and access roads and ‘passive movement’, in low-floor buses to reach their destination stop. The model was categorized into 11 clusters based on 40 concept statements. These clusters were interpreted in five ways. 1) ‘Stop and access road connection system: access road connection facility (cluster 1), bus stop convenience facility (cluster 2)’, 2) ‘Low-floor bus convenience system: bus convenience facility (cluster 8), bus floor connection status (cluster 9), bus safety facility (cluster 10), support services (cluster 11)’,  3) ‘Boarding and alighting information system: bus information facility (cluster 3), bus stop information facility (cluster 5), information sign status (cluster 6), information technology and tools (cluster 7), support services (cluster 11)’, 4) ‘Bus stop convenience system: bus stop convenience facility (cluster 2), bus stop information facility (cluster 5), information sign status (cluster 6)’, and 5) ‘Direction information adjustment system: bus stop direction information facility (cluster 4), bus stop information facility (cluster 5), information technology and tools (cluster 7).’ In this conceptual system, the priority for

improvement is first, the direction information adjustment system; second, the bus stop convenience system; third, the low-floor bus convenience system; fourth, the stop and access road  connection system; and fifth, the boarding and alighting information system. Further, 20 bus accessibility evaluation indicators were derived for each type of mobility handicapped (the physically

disabled, the visually impaired, the hearing impaired, people with developmental disabilities, the elderly, and people with children and/or infants) based on the model for deriving the evaluation indicators of bus accessibility for the mobility handicapped. In the future, the Seoul Metropolitan Government should plan and implement accessibility improvement strategies in stages according to the directions of improvement of bus accessibility for the mobility handicapped. At the same time, it is necessary to develop a bus accessibility evaluation model based on the evaluation indicators for each type of mobility handicapped and to identify the level of bus accessibility in Seoul from the viewpoint of the mobility handicapped.