Women’s First- and Last-Mile Safety in Public Transport: The Journey Beyond the Vehicle

CASE STUDY 30 / 200

Research area: India — urban public transport and commuting

Status: Independent desk-research draft; evidence and local implementation details require verification

Abstract / Executive Summary

Public-transport safety is not limited to the time spent inside a bus or train. Walking to a stop, waiting, changing modes, finding an auto-rickshaw or ride-hail vehicle, and completing the final walk can each introduce different risks and barriers. This review synthesises India-focused transport and public-space evidence to frame the whole journey as the unit of safety analysis. It proposes practical design and product questions for VETRIPEN without claiming that an app can replace safer infrastructure, accountable transport operations or emergency services.

Keywords

first-mile safety; last-mile access; women commuters; public transport; lighting; wayfinding; VETRIPEN

1. Introduction and Research Question

How should women’s safety be assessed across the complete door-to-door journey, rather than only inside a transport vehicle?

The purpose of this case study is to translate evidence into practical questions for prevention, service design and evaluation. It does not claim to investigate an individual incident or to provide a comprehensive account of all experiences.

2. Methods and Evidence Selection

Targeted desk review of a multi-city India public-transport gender-inclusion study, a Chennai public-transport harassment study, and qualitative research on women’s negotiation of public spaces in Kolkata. This is a narrative synthesis, not a systematic review or original field audit. Search and source selection were purposive; no new participants were recruited.

3. Case Context

Transport systems are experienced as linked segments: origin-to-stop, waiting, boarding, in-vehicle travel, interchange, onward mode and destination access. A comparatively well-managed vehicle can still be reached through a poorly lit approach, an isolated stop, a long wait, unclear interchange signage or an unreliable onward connection. Women may adapt through route changes, accompaniment, timing restrictions or avoiding destinations; these adaptations can reduce autonomy even where no incident is formally reported.

4. Findings from the Reviewed Evidence

• ITDP India and GIZ describe a multi-city study combining workforce insights with passenger input from the Transport4All Challenge. The publisher summary reports over 200,000 responses overall, including 78,000 from women commuters; these are programme responses, not automatically a representative national prevalence estimate.
• A Chennai study abstract reports a cross-sectional sample of 270 adult women recruited at five randomly chosen public-transport facilities. It reports 57 respondents (21.1%) experienced at least one verbal or physical harassment form, while 172 (63.7%) reported having been stalked at least once. These are the study’s sample-specific self-reports and should not be generalised to all Chennai or Indian women.
• Qualitative research in Kolkata found that perceived safety is shaped by both people and spatial conditions. Participants described avoiding or negotiating spaces they perceived as unsafe; busy streets with purposeful activity were often perceived differently from locations associated with repeated harassment.
• Whole-journey assessment should record the segment and time of concern, waiting duration, access route, visibility, available help, accessibility, crowding and transfer conditions. A single generic ‘safe/unsafe trip’ label can conceal the point where support is needed.

5. Discussion and Interpretation

A useful safety model distinguishes (1) exposure to harmful behaviour, (2) perceived safety and anxiety, (3) travel restrictions or avoidance, (4) ability to seek help, and (5) institutional response. These are related but not interchangeable outcomes. A design that increases reporting can initially increase recorded incidents without implying that actual harm increased; likewise, low reports cannot prove safety.

6. Legal and Policy Context

This document does not give legal advice. Applicable criminal law, transport rules, accessibility obligations, local police procedures and emergency numbers should be checked for the specific jurisdiction and date before release or deployment.

7. Potential VETRIPEN Design Implications

The following are design hypotheses for research and testing, not claims that VETRIPEN currently provides these capabilities or has demonstrated effectiveness.

• Offer an opt-in journey plan with start/end points and expected arrival time; avoid continuous tracking by default.
• Allow the user to mark a concern by journey segment (approach, stop, vehicle, interchange, final walk) and choose a trusted contact or emergency action.
• Show a clear status for any message or alert: drafted, sent, delivered where the platform provides that signal, or failed/unknown. Never imply that an alert guarantees response.
• Use accessibility-first interaction: large touch targets, screen-reader labels, high contrast, low-bandwidth behaviour and minimal steps during distress.
• Treat location sharing as consent-based, time-bounded and revocable; explain what is shared, with whom and for how long.

8. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics

• Conduct local safety walks with women commuters, disabled travellers and transport staff before selecting product defaults.
• Measure journey-segment completion, perceived safety, opt-in rate, alert delivery failures, false activation and user-reported burden separately.
• Pair digital tools with physical interventions: lighting maintenance, visible staff, clear signage, reliable service, accessible stops and complaint pathways.
• Publish a data dictionary and retention schedule; do not use raw location histories for marketing or unrelated analytics.

Suggested metrics for future pilots: task completion under stress; consent comprehension; alert success/failure rates; false activations; accessibility task success; user-reported sense of control; trip abandonment or route change where relevant; and privacy complaints. Choose only metrics appropriate to the specific intervention and predefine how they will be measured.

9. Limitations

This synthesis uses publisher summaries and abstracts where noted, not a full systematic review. Study settings and samples differ; the Chennai sample is not nationally representative. The report makes no claims about the current safety of a particular route, operator or stop. Primary sources and local conditions must be rechecked before external publication.

10. Conclusion

The evidence supports a context-aware, rights-based approach that combines women’s lived experience, service accountability, physical conditions and carefully governed technology. Any proposed intervention should be tested locally, report failures honestly and avoid transferring the burden of prevention to women.

11. References and Source Notes

1. ITDP India. Gender Inclusivity in India’s Public Transport (publisher page and linked report). https://itdp.in/resource/gender-inclusivity-in-india-pt/
2. G. Sushmitha, R. Umadevi & V. M. A. Eashwar (2024). Harassment in public transport: A study to quantify the violence against women in Chennai district, Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 49(Suppl 1), S16 (conference abstract). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11156118/
3. Sanghamitra Roy & Ajay Bailey (2021). Safe in the City? Negotiating safety, public space and the male gaze in Kolkata, India. Cities, 117, 103321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103321

12. Research and Ethics Declaration

No original interviews, participant recruitment, surveys or field observations were conducted for this report. No participant quotations have been invented. Any product implications are proposals, not validated outcomes. Before external publication, verify full-text sources, bibliographic details, current laws and all numerical claims against primary materials.

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. Prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. For research, education, discussion and preliminary product planning only. Unless expressly stated and documented, this document has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.

← Back to all research