Ergonomic Conditions in Public Transportation Spaces: The Case of Istanbul

Year 2025, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 1 - 21, 29.09.2025

Mutlu Oral

Abstract

This study explores the ergonomic performance of public transportation systems in Istanbul by focusing on the spatial, psychological, and social aspects of user experience. The research aims to evaluate and compare the ergonomic conditions of three main transport modes—metrobus (Söğütlüçeşme), metro (Kadıköy), and maritime transport (Kadıköy Pier)—to identify factors affecting comfort, accessibility, and usability.
Grounded in interdisciplinary ergonomic theory, the study draws from environmental psychology, user-centered design, and spatial justice, incorporating standards such as the UNCRPD and inclusive design principles. A mixed-methods approach was used, combining field observations, user surveys, and spatial measurements to assess variables like crowding, thermal comfort, noise, and accessibility features.
The findings indicate that each system presents distinct ergonomic challenges. Metrobus experiences severe overcrowding, the metro lacks effective navigational tools, and maritime transport—though spatially open—falls short in accessibility and acoustic comfort. These issues are analyzed within the study’s theoretical framework, highlighting systemic and design-related shortcomings.
The study concludes with recommendations for improving user-centered transport design and accessibility through inclusive planning and participatory feedback. By offering a holistic assessment of ergonomics in public transportation, this research contributes both theoretically and practically to the field of urban mobility and infrastructure planning.

Keywords

Public transportation , ergonomics , accessibility , user experience , spatial justice , public space.

Toplu Taşıma Mekânlarında Ergonomik Koşullar: İstanbul Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışma, İstanbul’daki toplu taşıma sistemlerinin ergonomik performansını kullanıcı deneyiminin mekânsal, psikolojik ve sosyal boyutlarına odaklanarak incelemektedir. Araştırmanın amacı; metrobus (Söğütlüçeşme), metro (Kadıköy) ve deniz ulaşımı (Kadıköy İskelesi) olmak üzere üç ana ulaşım sisteminin ergonomik koşullarını değerlendirmek ve karşılaştırmak, konfor, erişilebilirlik ve kullanılabilirliği etkileyen faktörleri belirlemektir.

Çalışma, disiplinlerarası ergonomi kuramına dayanmaktadır; çevresel psikoloji, kullanıcı odaklı tasarım ve mekânsal adalet yaklaşımlarından yararlanılmakta, UNCRPD (Birleşmiş Milletler Engelli Hakları Sözleşmesi) gibi erişilebilirlik standartları ve kapsayıcı tasarım ilkeleri dikkate alınmaktadır. Karma yöntemli bir yaklaşım benimsenmiş; saha gözlemleri, kullanıcı anketleri ve mekânsal ölçümler yoluyla yoğunluk, ısıl konfor, gürültü düzeyi ve erişilebilirlik gibi değişkenler analiz edilmiştir.

Bulgular, her ulaşım sisteminin kendine özgü ergonomik sorunlar barındırdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Metrobüste aşırı kalabalık ciddi bir sorunken, metroda yönlendirme araçlarının yetersizliği dikkat çekmektedir. Deniz ulaşımı ise mekânsal olarak avantajlı olmasına rağmen, erişilebilirlik ve akustik konfor açısından eksiklikler taşımaktadır. Bu sorunlar çalışmanın kuramsal çerçevesiyle birlikte değerlendirilmiş, sistemsel ve tasarımsal eksiklikler ortaya konmuştur.

Çalışma, kullanıcı odaklı ulaşım tasarımı ve erişilebilirlik konusunda kapsayıcı planlama ile katılımcı geri bildirim mekanizmalarına dayalı çözüm önerileri sunmaktadır. Ergonomi kavramını fiziksel, psikolojik ve sosyal boyutlarıyla ele alan bütüncül bir değerlendirme sunarak, kentsel hareketlilik ve altyapı planlaması alanlarına kuramsal ve pratik katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

Toplu taşıma , ergonomi , erişilebilirlik , kullanıcı deneyimi , mekânsal adalet , kamusal mekân.

References

• Çelebi, G. (2015). Comparative analysis of rail transit systems in global cities. Istanbul Technical University Press.
• Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.
• Demir, A., & Kaya, E. (2021). Metro systems and urban congestion: Istanbul case study. Journal of Transport Geography, 45(2), 112–125.
• Ergül, H., & Öztürk, M. (2020). Platform design challenges in BRT systems: A case study of Istanbul. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 134, 215–228.
• Evans, G. W., & Wener, R. E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 90–94.
• Fruin, J. J. (1971). Pedestrian planning and design. New York: Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners.
• Güven, A., & Şahin, İ. (2009). Performance evaluation of Istanbul's BRT system.
• Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23–40. Human Rights Watch. (2021). Disability rights on the metro: Accessibility failures in Istanbul's public transport. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/transport-accessibility
• IETT. (2022). Istanbul public transportation statistics 2021. Istanbul Electricity, Tramway and Tunnel General Management.
• IETT. (2024). 2024 Faaliyet Raporu [Annual Activity Report]. İstanbul Elektrik Tramvay ve Tünel İşletmeleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://raillynews.com/2025/04/iett-2024-faaliyet-raporu-onaylandi/
• IETT. (2024). Metrobus ridership and operational statistics. İETT.
• Imrie, R. (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873–882.
• International Maritime Organization. (2018). Guidelines for passenger ship terminals. IMO Publishing.
• ISO. (1979). ISO 5970:1979 – Furniture — Seating — Determination of dimensions. International Organization for Standardization.
• ISO. (1997). ISO 2631-1:1997 – Mechanical vibration and shock – Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration.
• ISO. (1998). ISO 9241-5:1998 – Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals – Part 5: Workstation layout and postural requirements. International Organization for Standardization.
• ISO. (2002). ISO 8995-1:2002 – Lighting of indoor work places.
• ISO. (2005). ISO 7730:2005 – Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort.
• ISO. (2007). ISO 23600:2007 – Acoustic signals for pedestrian traffic lights.
• ISO. (2008). ISO 9241-171:2008 – Guidance on software accessibility. International Organization for Standardization.
• ISO. (2008). ISO/TR 22411:2008 – Ergonomics data and guidelines for the application of ISO/IEC Guide 71. International Organization for Standardization.
• ISO. (2010). ISO 24500:2010 – Accessibility and usability of passenger seating in public transport.
• ISO. (2010). ISO 4190-1:2010 – Lifts and service lifts — Part 1: Class I lifts.
• ISO. (2011). ISO 21542:2011 – Accessibility and usability of the built environment. International Organization for Standardization.
• ISO. (2011). ISO 9241-303:2011 – Requirements for electronic visual displays.
• ISO. (2012). ISO 23599:2012 – Tactile walking surface indicators for the visually impaired.
• ISO/IEC. (2012). ISO/IEC 40500:2012 – Information technology — W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. International Organization for Standardization.
• İBB. (2022). Istanbul metropolitan municipality transportation report 2021.
• IMM Transportation Department. (2023). Maritime transportation annual report. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality.
• İstanbul Ulaşım A.Ş. (2023). Yolcu hareketliliği ve terminal performans raporu [Passenger mobility and terminal performance report].
• Karwowski, W. (2006). The discipline of ergonomics and human factors. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 3–31).
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)
• Metro İstanbul. (2023, October 31). Historic record from Metro Istanbul: Over 3 million passengers in a day. https://www.metro.istanbul/en/news/detail/historic-record-from-metro-istanbul-over-3-million-passengers-in-a-day
• Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. Basic Books.
• Norman, D. A. (2013). The psychopathology of everyday things. In The design of everyday things (Rev. ed., pp. 1–36). Basic Books.
• Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268
• Şişman, E. (2015). Urban transportation policies in Istanbul. I.U. Press.
• Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
• Toka, H. (1978). Urban transportation ergonomics. T. R. Institute.
• Toka, M. (1978). İnsan – Makine Uyum Ölçütleri. İstanbul: İTÜ Yayınları.
• Transportation Research Board (TRB). (2013). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [TÜİK]. (2022). Kent içi ulaşım istatistikleri [Urban transportation statistics].
• UITP. (2011). Design and Management of Passenger Transfer Facilities. International Association of Public Transport.
• UITP. (2011). Quality of Service Indicators for Public Transport. International Association of Public Transport. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
• Vuchic, V. R. (2007). Urban transit systems and technology. Wiley.
• WHO. (2018). Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
• World Health Organization. (2020). Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities: Accessibility in public transport systems.
• W3C. (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
• Yıldız Technical University. (2021). Pedestrian flow analysis in Kadıköy Metro Station: Annual congestion report (Research Report No. 2021-UT-47).
• Yurtkuran, S. (2005). Psychological effects of transportation noise. Ankara University Press.