Abstract
ABSTRACT As cities work to support greater uptake and equity in cycling, the terminology ‘All Ages and Abilities’ (or AAA) is increasingly common in cycling research and practice vernacular. However, it is unclear the values that underlie this. We undertook a policy scan of Canadian municipal and regional policy documents to understand: the language used to describe ‘All Ages and Abilities’; the infrastructure specified; how municipalities and regions define a cycling network; and how equity and priority populations are incorporated into these plans. Of 35 plans, 25 mentioned ‘All Ages and Abilities’. Fourteen mentioned specific ‘All Ages and Abilities’ infrastructure, with cycle tracks, local street bikeways, and multi-use paths most frequent. Reference to the idea of a network was common (32 plans), with some defining this as a minimum grid. Within plans that used ‘All Ages and Abilities’ language, children and older adults were the most common populations mentioned (e.g. ‘Ages’), but there was more ambiguity around who was being referred to with ‘Abilities’. As use of this terminology continues, clarity is needed on the meaning and values that underpin it. A lack of specificity in design standards and whom this infrastructure serves is a barrier to concrete, consistent implementation.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.