Measuring Accessibility as Experienced by Different

Socially Disadvantaged Groups

Funded by the EPSRC FIT Programme

Working Paper 1

User Needs Literature Review

Updated
June 2005

Prepared by: Sarah Wixey, Peter Jones, Karen Lucas and Mark Aldridge
Transport Studies Group - University of Westminster.
CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 11
1.1 Context of the Review ........................................................................................... 11
1.2 The Study Groups ................................................................................................. 12
1.3 The Structure of the Report................................................................................... 13
2 DEFINING SOCIAL EXCLUSION ..................................................................... 14
2.1 Concept of Social Exclusion.................................................................................. 14
2.2 The Effects of Social Exclusion ............................................................................. 17
2.3 Transport And Social Exclusion ............................................................................ 18
2.3.1 The Relationship Between Poor Transport and Social Exclusion ................. 18
2.3.2 Changes to Public Transport Provision ......................................................... 22
2.3.3 Car Ownership .............................................................................................. 23
2.3.4 Land-Use Planning........................................................................................ 25
3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL GROUPS .................................................... 26
3.1 Who is Socially Excluded? .................................................................................... 26
3.1.1 Composition of The Lowest Income Quintile ................................................. 27
3.2 Young people (16-24)............................................................................................ 28
3.3 Older people (60+) ................................................................................................ 30
3.4 Black and Minority Ethnic People.......................................................................... 31
3.5 Disabled People .................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Parents with Young Children (under 11) ............................................................... 35
3.7 Unemployed .......................................................................................................... 36
3.8 Shift workers.......................................................................................................... 37
4 THE TRAVEL PATTERNS OF SOCIALLY EXCLUDED GROUPS................... 39
4.1 Number of Trips..................................................................................................... 39
4.1.1 Trips by Income Quintile................................................................................ 39
4.1.2 Trips by Age and Gender .............................................................................. 40
4.1.3 Trips by Age and Mode ................................................................................. 40
4.2 Distance Travelled by Income Quintile.................................................................. 41
4.3 Variations in Distance Travelled by Location ........................................................ 42
4.3.1 The Average Length of Journeys Completed on Each Transport Mode ....... 42
4.3.2 Travel to Work by Mode and Income Quintile ............................................... 43
4.3.3 Shopping Travel by Mode and Income Quintile............................................. 44
4.4 Transport Expenditure by Mode ............................................................................ 46
5 COMMON BARRIERS TO TRAVEL BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT....................... 48
5.1 Identifying the Barriers .......................................................................................... 48
5.2 Access to Services ................................................................................................ 49
5.2.1 Access to Education & Training..................................................................... 49
5.2.2 Access to Healthcare .................................................................................... 50
5.2.3 Access to Employment .................................................................................. 50
5.2.4 Access to Cultural and Leisure Services ....................................................... 51
5.3 Location of Activities.............................................................................................. 51
5.4 Public Transport Availability .................................................................................. 54
5.4.1 Availability in Rural Areas.............................................................................. 55
5.4.2 Availability in Urban Areas ............................................................................ 55
5.5 Proximity to Transport Networks ........................................................................... 55
5.5.1 Distance to Bus Stops ................................................................................... 56
5.5.2 Distance to Railway Stations ......................................................................... 57
5.5.3 Effect of Distance on Use of Public Transport............................................... 58
5.6 Waiting for Public Transport Services ................................................................... 59
5.7 Travelling by Public Transport............................................................................... 59
5.8 Frequency and Reliability of Services ................................................................... 60

2
 5.8.1 Service Frequency and Reliability ................................................................. 60
5.8.2 The Effect of Infrequent Services .................................................................. 60
5.8.3 The Effect of Unreliable Services .................................................................. 61
5.8.4 Impacts of Unreliability on Trip Chains .......................................................... 61
5.9 Design Barriers...................................................................................................... 62
5.9.1 Design of the Street Environment.................................................................. 62
5.9.2 General Pavement Problems and Hazards ................................................... 62
5.9.3 Street Furniture ............................................................................................. 63
5.9.4 Road Crossings ............................................................................................. 63
5.9.5 Design of Bus Stops ...................................................................................... 64
5.9.6 Train & Bus Stations...................................................................................... 65
5.10 Public Transport Vehicles...................................................................................... 66
5.10.1 Boarding and Alighting Public Transport ....................................................... 66
5.10.2 Design of the Interior of Vehicles................................................................... 67
5.10.3 Comfort and Safety ....................................................................................... 67
5.10.4 Overcrowding ................................................................................................ 67
5.11 Access To Information........................................................................................... 68
5.11.1 Poor Signing.................................................................................................. 68
5.11.2 Language Problems ...................................................................................... 68
5.11.3 Sensory Disabilities ....................................................................................... 69
5.11.4 Mental and Cognitive Difficulties ................................................................... 70
5.12 The Cost Of Transport........................................................................................... 70
5.12.1 Cost of Bus Fares.......................................................................................... 70
5.12.2 Fare Uncertainties and Inconsistencies ........................................................ 71
5.12.3 Concessionary Fares .................................................................................... 72
5.13 Physical and Psychological Barriers ..................................................................... 72
5.13.1 Availability and Acceptability of Community Transport.................................. 72
5.13.2 Fear of Crime in the Local Environment ........................................................ 73
5.13.3 Fear of Crime on Public Transport ................................................................ 74
5.13.4 Racial Harassment ........................................................................................ 75
5.13.5 Fear of Injury when on Public Transport or in the Local Environment........... 76
5.14 Suitability ............................................................................................................... 76
5.14.1 Poor Image .................................................................................................... 76
5.14.2 Cultural Issues............................................................................................... 77
5.15 Remote Access ..................................................................................................... 77
6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 79

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The University of Westminster’s Transport Studies Group has received funding from
the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) to develop
more refined and sensitive measures of accessibility that take into account the
concerns of various socially disadvantaged groups. The partners for this project
include: Transport for London (TfL), the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH),
West Yorkshire PTE (METRO) and Bradford Metropolitan District Council (BMDC).

• The following definition of ‘accessibility’ was used in the project proposal:

“Accessibility refers to the ability of individuals to easily reach desired goods,

services, activities and destinations at appropriate times using an integrated
transport system without being restricted by physical, financial or safety
concerns”.

• Issues explored in the research include: existing travel patterns (destinations,

timings, purposes and modes), suppressed travel demand and preferred activity
patterns, key journey attributes (travel times, reliability, interchange, cost, personal
safety, physical access issues), key destination attributes (type of shop, employment,
etc.) and relative importance of attributes, key thresholds (e.g. maximum walking
distance).

• This project focuses on people who are unable to access essential services because
of transport or mobility related constraints. For example, the inability to board a bus
before 10am would limit the opportunity to access hospital and GP appointments and
may affect health care use. Exclusion can therefore be viewed as a self-perpetuating
process with the effect of detachment from jobs, education, healthcare and other
essential services.

• This report summarises the findings of a review of literature about the ‘user needs’ of
different groups of socially disadvantaged people including: young people (16-24),
older people (60+), Black and Minority People (BME), disabled people, parents
travelling with young children, unemployed people and shift workers who work
unsociable hours. It has been updated during the course of this project.

General Findings

• Many definitions of social exclusion lack a clear explanation of what precisely what
such people are excluded from, and why. From a transport perspective, changes in
the predominant patterns of modal use and in facility location, particularly in the last
30 years, have resulted in motorised mobility becoming increasingly necessary to
take part in everyday activities in society. As a result, those with insufficient mobility
are more limited in their ability to participate and their level of accessibility becomes
increasingly restricted.

• Accessibility is a concept used in a number of fields such as transport planning,

urban planning, geography and marketing. Although ‘accessibility’ is a well-
established concept in the disciplines of geography and urban economics, it is a fairly
new concept for many transport practitioners. Within Engalnd, a new framework is
now emerging whereby transport professionals have started exploring the
implications of basing transport planning on access requirements rather than just
traffic or mobility needs, encouraged by recent Department for Transport guidance on

4
 accessibility planning, now required as an input to preparing the second round of
Local Transport Plans. Other key measures that promote accessibility include (DfT,
2003a):

- Minimum half-fare discounts on local bus services for older and disabled
people;
- Enabling the provision of innovative bus services through the Urban and
Rural Bus Challenge schemes, supporting rural buses, and extending the Bus
Services Operators' Grant to community transport;
- Making vehicles and transport more accessible to disabled people following
the Disability Discrimination Act;
- Providing better travel information, for example by initiating 'traveline', a
telephone service run with partner organisations that provides information on
transport routes and times;
- DfT policy guidance for local authorities places increased emphasis on
measures to improve accessibility and promote social inclusion.

• Seven main types of transport exclusion have been identified within the available
literature, including:
- Spatial: the location of where people live in relation to the places they need to
access or the difficulty they experience in making a journey (e.g. the number
of interchanges they need to make);
- Temporal: where people do not have access to places they need to get to at
certain times, such as in the early morning or late evening or on Sundays
because bus services are not available;
- Personal: where people do not have access to places because of a mobility
impairment, or are effectively prisoners in their own home because of fear for
their personal safety if they venture out;
- Financial: where people are unable to access places because the cost to
them of doing so is regarded as excessive;
- Environmental: where urban social housing is located near busy roads and
vulnerable people living in the area are exposed to greater risk from traffic
pollution and accidents;
- Infrastructural: where access to places and/or quality of life is affected by
transport infrastructure; and
- Institutional: where groups or organisations exclude the interests of some
groups.

• This review has shown that social exclusion encompasses those individuals (as well
as communities) who experience a diverse range of barriers including: discrimination,
lack of local job opportunities, low skills, chronic ill health, fear of crime, lack of
available childcare, isolated geographical location, problems of cultural identification,
isolation within their community, disaffecting interest in mainstream education and
alienation from the political process.

• Whilst socially disadvantaged groups of people may have different activity needs, it is
suggested that in many respects they share a common experience of social
exclusion. Research suggests that these groups also share the most common
indicator of social exclusion, namely low income, and the associated effects of
poverty.

5
The User Needs of Specific Social Groups

• Although the review identified a number of issues and concerns that are specific to
each of the social groups that were studies (see below), there are a number of
concerns that are common across the groups. The type of factors that might inhibit
an individual’s accessibility include:

- Lack of information on the availability of public transport services and/or

opening times of different facilities;
- Lack of money,
- Lack of confidence,
- Inappropriate operating practices or rules,
- Lack of help from staff,
- Lack of security, and
- Poor design of vehicles and infrastructure.

Concerns affecting particular groups are summarised below:

Young people (16-24)

• Transport is a key issue for many young people, as it can be one of the main factors
that determine which school or college they can attend, if they can participate in after
school activities, how and where they access health care and employment, and
whether or not they are able to see their friends out of school hours at times that are
convenient to them.

• Safety issues when using public transport in the evenings – i.e. when walking to and
from the bus stop, whilst waiting at poorly lit bus stops, and whilst travelling on board
the bus - are real concerns for many young people.

• In addition, 38% of young disabled people stated that they experience problems
when using public transport, because of reasons relating to their impairment (e.g.
cannot hear the public announcements, cannot see the information, or cannot grab
hold of hand rails etc). Of these, half reported that this makes it difficult for them to
participate in activities with other people of their age (DPTAC, 2002).

• Within the UK there is no legal requirement for operators to offer young people
concessionary fares, even if they are still in full-time education (DEFRA, 2004). For
those young people who do use discount or season tickets in parts of the country
with competing bus companies, it means having to use the same operator each day
and in some cases they may have to wait longer at a bus stop for the right bus to
come along. Proof of age is a real issue for many young people. A complaint often
voiced is that bus/train drivers display negative attitudes towards them, particularly
when they try and obtain the discounted fare they are entitled to.

• A recent DEFRA report (2004) showed that young people living in rural areas are
more dependent on other family members to take them by car to the places they
want to go, and that their choice of leisure and social activities is likely to be
influenced by the places their parents are willing and able to take them, and access
to confidential personal advice services (e.g. drugs, contraception etc) may be
difficult.

6
Older people (60+)

• Older people travel less often than any other age group, are more likely to make local
journeys and are more likely to walk or to use public transport. They typically make
fewer trips, not because of a reduced desire but because it becomes harder to
access both the transport node (bus stop, rail station) and the vehicle itself, as the
ageing process limits their functioning. Recent statistics show that 3.5m people over
the age of 65 report having a limiting longstanding illness or disability (Prime
Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2004).

• Fear of becoming the victim of crime affects the number of trips that they make in the
evening, with most aiming to complete their journeys during daytime or restrict their
evening travel to locations they are familiar with. These trends are even more
accentuated in those over 75 years.

• Other barriers to travel include: absence of low floor buses; concessionary pass
travel time restrictions; reluctance to travel during busy periods when they are less
likely to be able to get a seat (e.g. after school hours); fear of travel when buses are
full of rowdy school children; and, feelings of resentment from other passengers if
they take too long when boarding or alighting vehicles.

Black and Minority Ethnic People (BME)

• The UK 2001 Census revealed that the BME population had grown to 4.6 million and
now constitutes 7.8 percent of the total national population (Office of National
Statistics, 2001). The largest BME group is the Indian population, which numbers
over a million people, followed by the Pakistani, Black Caribbean, Black African,
Bangladeshi and Chinese populations, in that order. Whilst a lot of attention is paid to
the established BME groups, it is also important to consider the smaller minority
groups, many of whom are relatively recent immigrants and tend to be much less
familiar with the English language, such as Albanians, Iraqis and Somalis. It is also
necessary to consider the religious diversity of the UK’s populace, as this is another
important component of an individual’s identity.

• Perceived lack of safety, both in the general environment and on public transport, is
greater amongst the BME community (Crime Concern, 1997). Muslim women are
particularly reluctant to use public transport and are dependent on male relatives or
car drivers in their family network. This is aligned with a strong sense of community
and extended family support, which ensures that the women who aren’t able to drive
are able to travel further afield (Lucas et al, 2001).

• The concentration of particular BME populations in certain locations and the strong
sense of community within these groups, as well as the ability for community related
goods and services to be provided locally, means that many of their retail, social and
religious needs are very close by. In all BME groups, the importance of walking as a
method of travel is accentuated and people often restrict their travel to areas and
modes they area familiar with. Some of the reasons include: lack of cultural
awareness amongst transport authorities; poor understanding of timetable
information; language barriers preventing people from accessing information about
various ticket types (therefore paying more than necessary); and cultural differences
(e.g. Asian women feel embarrassed talking to bus drivers because a large majority
are men) (DfT, 2003b).

7
People with mental ill-health disabilities and people with physical disabilities:

• There are approximately 8.6 million disabled people living in Britain (DRC, 2001).
The range of impairments disabled people experience has been classified into three
broad categories: mobility, sensory and mental health including learning disabilities.
The other common disabilities are in the areas of dexterity, personal care or
behaviour (Tyler, 2002).

• Transport is the most highly reported problem facing disabled people, despite many
existing initiatives. People with impairments (such as deafness, spinal injury, learning
difficulties, autism) become disabled through barriers such as discrimination, an
inaccessible built environment and exclusionary policies. Fears of crime and
intimidation increase the likelihood of disabled people re-evaluating what constitutes
an essential trip, which results in shrinking journey prisms and increased social
isolation. Inability to travel freely can seriously restrict the ability of disabled people to
carry out activities; for example 25% of disabled people (and 50% without a car)
report that inaccessible transport restricts their leisure pursuits (Tyler, 2002).

• People who have a mental health illness often limit their travel to areas that they are
familiar with. The disorientating effects of these disabilities means they are unwilling
to risk the possibility of ‘an episode’ occurring. When undertaking an unfamiliar
journey for the first time, these people often prefer to be accompanied. Greater
awareness of the information presentation needs of people with mental health
problems and learning disabilities is needed to ensure that they are able to obtain
information and adapt to unexpected changes on their route.

• For those individuals with mobility impairments, limitations include: their inability to
access the public transport network due to barriers that exist in the street
environment that inhibit their movement; the design of public transport vehicles; and
attitudes of drivers and other passengers when boarding or alighting vehicles.

• Whether a disabled person can successfully complete a journey will rely as much on
the accessibility of the street and bus stop infrastructure as on the accessibility of the
bus. In many cases, the absence of a safe road crossing close to the bus stop will
provide a sufficient deterrent. More stringent parking controls around bus stops,
raising the height of the kerbs and improving access to the bus stop facilities, as well
as providing accessible information are all needed.

Parents travelling with young children (under 11)

• The 2001 Census shows that around 30% of households contain dependent children,
and one in nine have children under 5. The data also show that approximately 25%
of dependent children live in lone-parent families, of which over 90% are living with
the mother.

• It is becoming increasingly common for parents to escort their children on trips to a

variety of locations. This is principally in response to fears for their child's safety, both
from traffic, other people and because the school is some distance away. Adult
women are much more likely to make escort education trips, which accounts for 15
per cent of all trips for women aged 30-39, compared with only 3 per cent for men in
this age group (DfT, 2004a).

8
• For parents travelling with young children, the street environment can pose several
barriers including: negotiating past street furniture, vehicles parked on the pavement,
road works, lack of dropped kerbs at crossing points, steep hills and uneven paving.
Even travelling along a good, flat pavement can cause tiredness (particularly
amongst young children) and reduce travel distances.

• The frequency and reliability of public transport is particularly important to parents of

young children, as they are more likely to trip-chain – combine journeys to work,
school, childcare and shopping. The trip chains that are undertaken by parents are
not consistent but vary daily.

• The time of day that these trips take place can be restricted to off-peak times, due to
the levels of overcrowding associated with travel during peak periods. For example,
parents reported that travelling with their young children during peak periods means
that they are often unable to board the first bus or train and consequently spend
longer ‘waiting’ to board a vehicle than other groups. In addition to overcrowding,
parents have also reported difficulties when boarding and alighting low-floor buses,
because drivers are not always able to stop adjacent to the bus stop, and pushchairs
can be caught in the gap between the vehicle and the kerb.

Unemployed

• As the trip to work constitutes a large proportion of the travel of an employed person,
unemployed people generally have a lot less travel experience. In addition, their low-
income level means that they have reduced financial capability to travel longer
distances. Over time, this reinforces the pattern of limited travel and reduces the
travel horizons of the unemployed.

• Unemployed people have a tendency to look for work in areas familiar to them, due
to a lack of confidence in making unfamiliar journeys to new destinations. They also
have a distrust of the ability of public transport to deliver them to the desired location
on schedule, and have a limited willingness to travel substantial distances to work.
Infrequent buses and the need to interchange whilst travelling on public transport can
further reduce acceptable travel-to-work distances. However, the primary factors
affecting an unemployed persons’ potential travel-to-work time threshold are socio-
economic rather than spatial; the individual’s skill level and educational attainment
have the greatest effect.

• The cost of public transport can limit an unemployed person’s ability to obtain a job.
The conditions of use of concessionary passes – where these exist - can be very
restrictive, both in terms of the time of day when the pass is valid (typically between
09.30 and 15.00) and the administrative areas where it applies. In addition, it can be
difficult for recently employed people to buy money-saving priced season tickets, as
there is usually a delay between the last benefit payment and the first pay cheque,
and employer-loans are often not available for newly appointed staff.

Shift workers (unsociable hours)

• In recent years there has been a proliferation of jobs for shift workers, particularly in
the retail sector with more shops opening later and on a Sunday. Whereas shift
working was once mainly a feature of essential services which needed to operate
around the clock, such as health, transport and communications, the growth of the

9
 ‘24/7’ economy has resulted in increasing expectations of people being able to
access services at times that are convenient for them; this means that workers in a
growing number of sectors and occupations are working shift hours. For example,
people working in the "personal services" employee group, such as care assistants,
home carers or nursing auxiliaries and assistants are most likely to work shifts.

• A high level of car use has been recorded amongst shift workers for the trip to work.
This is in response to both concerns about personal safety, particularly when the shift
finishes after dark, the lack of service provision in some time periods, and the need to
trip chain on the way to or from work. Personal safety whilst waiting for public
transport is a greater concern for shift workers than safety on public transport itself
(METRO, 2000).

• A further problem is that those starting / finishing work in the early morning on a
weekday, have to pay the peak travel fare even though they travel before the network
is busy.

Social Accessibility Profile

• Based on the literature review findings and desk based research, the research team
have developed a ‘Social Accessibility Profile’ to assist them in the next stage of
their research, that of further investigating the needs, issues and concerns of
different social groups.

• The profile takes into account the personal needs and circumstances of the individual
as well as the land use, service provision and transport characteristics when
undertaking a required activity, whether this is a home location (e.g. tele-services,
home visits or home deliveries) or non-home based destination (e.g. access to
goods, services and amenities). As shown in the Components of Accessibility
framework (see Figure 18), the types of problem that can be encountered include:

1. Spatial: topography, poor land use planning, peripherality, poor transport

provision and inaccessible locations for key services;
2. Physical: difficulties associated with the built environment (e.g. obstacles on
the pavement; uneven surfaces; lack of crossing points; lack of acoustic
signals; short pedestrian crossing cycles; large steps onto public transport
vehicles; large gaps between platforms and vehicles) and/or the design and
planning of the transport system itself;
3. Temporal: public transport operating times, opening hours of facilities and an
individual’s time constraints;
4. Financial: income constraints and cost of public transport services;
5. Environmental: perceptions of safety and fear of crime;
6. Information: lack of information about public transport operating times,
concessionary passes, or clear, concise, accurate and timely information
available in different languages, Braille, large print and audio formats.

10
1 INTRODUCTION
Lack of accessibility is a key component of social exclusion, as for many groups of people
their ability to reach many opportunities and services is severely reduced due to the lack of
accessible, affordable and available transport. Other factors such as lack of timetable
information, limited transport operating hours and financial ability can also affect a person’s
ability to take part in leisure activities, visiting family and friends, employment, education and
training opportunities, regardless or age and skill groups. Research has shown that social
groups vary in their need to access different goods and services and in their ability to do so,
according to their physical condition, their psychological state (e.g. fear of crime), the
resources at their disposal, and the local availability of suitable transport and land use
facilities. The latter vary from area to area, and by time of day.

This literature review forms part of a wider study which examines the ways in which public
transport accessibility models can be adapted to meet the transport needs, attitudes and
perceptions of different social groups, with particular emphasis on those individuals that
might be disadvantaged by or excluded from the present transport system. This literature
review examines the concept of social exclusion in relation to the mobility and accessibility
dimension. It goes on to identify the needs of different groups of people and explores the
determinants of their travel behaviour.

1.1 Context of the Review

The importance of ‘Accessibility Planning’ for social inclusion was clearly identified within the
Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report on ‘Making the Connections: Transport and Social
Exclusion’ (2003). The report highlights that transport is a significant barrier to social
inclusion. It demonstrates that an individual’s full participation in society, which includes
access to healthcare, can be restricted by poor transport. The report also suggests that
overemphasis on planning around car use can result in social exclusion, as individuals on
low incomes cannot afford the cost of motoring and their use of public transport may be far
from ideal because of poor transport networks, unaffordable fares and unreliability. In
addition, people with disabilities, the young and older people are restricted from much of the
transport system due to an over emphasis placed upon motorised transport.

The recent ‘Focus on Personal Travel’ (DfT, 2005) showed that:

• In the last decade the average distance travelled per person per year increased by 6
per cent to nearly 6,900 miles. Over the same period, the number of trips fell by 5 per
cent to under 1,000, though the average time spent travelling stayed at around 350
hours. The average trip length rose by 12 per cent to nearly 7 miles.

• Although the total number of trips has fallen between 1992/94 and 2002/03, total trips
made by car have increased by over 3 per cent. The distance travelled by car drivers
increased by 10 per cent during this period.

• The average distance walked fell by 20 per cent during the 1990s and the distance
travelled by local bus declined by 11 per cent. The number of walking and cycling
trips both fell by 20 per cent between 1992/94 and 2002/03. Walking now accounts
for less than a quarter of all trips made in Great Britain. These declines are offset by
increased use of cars.

• The proportion of households with access to one or more cars increased from 59 per
cent in 1980 to 74 per cent in 2002.

11
 • Bus and rail fares both rose by over a third in real terms between 1980 and 2003. In
contrast, the overall cost of motoring has remained at or below its 1980 level.

• The largest percentage increase in average trip distances has been in shopping trips,
rising 24 per cent from 3.5 miles to 4.3 miles in the period 1992/94-2002/03. In
2002/03, leisure accounted for 31 per cent of trips and 41 per cent of the total
distance travelled.

• About a fifth of households without access to a car had some difficulty accessing
supermarkets and doctors.

• The lowest levels of household car ownership were in single pensioner households,
where around two thirds were without a car, and lone parent families, where half did
not own a car. The highest levels were in households with three or more adults and
households with two or more adults with children.

• Only 51 per cent of households in rural areas were within 13 minutes walk of a bus
stop with at least an hourly bus service, compared with an average of 96 per cent in
urban areas.

• Access to a car is related to income levels. As incomes rise, it is likely that car
access and car mileage will increase in poorer regions towards the levels currently
seen in wealthier regions.

As a response to the SEU report, the DfT (2004a) issued a series of Accessibility Planning
Guidance documents for local authorities and other agencies to assess more systematically
whether people can get to places of work, healthcare facilities, education and food shops.
Local authorities are also required to include policies to improve levels of accessibility within
their second round of Local Transport Plans. Accessibility planning has been defined as:
“A process that aims to promote social inclusion by helping people from
disadvantaged groups or areas access jobs and essential services. Accessibility
is not just about transport and can be influenced by decisions on the location,
design and delivery of other services and by people’s perceptions of personal
safety” (DfT, 2004a).

1.2 The Study Groups

There are a number of different ‘groups’ of individuals who are most at risk of being socially
excluded. The groups that are often studied are: minority ethnic and faith groups; people
with physical or learning disabilities; people with mental health support needs; substance
mis-users; offenders and those at risk of offending; unemployed; homeless single people
and families; young people; older people and women at risk of domestic violence.

A selection of these ‘traditional’ groups, taken from the above list, and a couple of ‘unique’
groups make up the seven social groups studied within this project and reviewed in this
report, namely:

- Young People (aged between 16 and 21) (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b; Lucas et al, 2001;
SEU Report, 2001).
- Older People (those over 60) (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a; Hine & Mitchell, 2001b; Lucas et
al, 2001; Simpson & Lucas, 2000; Einstadt & Witcher, 1998; Murray, 1998).

12
- Black and Minority Ethnic people (BME) (SEU Report, 2001; Lucas et al, 2001;
Simpson & Lucas, 2000; Einstadt & Witcher, 1998).
- Physically Disabled People and People with Mental Health Illness (Hine & Mitchell,
2001a; Hine & Mitchell, 2001a; Lucas et al, 2001; Simpson & Lucas, 2000; Einstadt &
Witcher).
- Parents of Young Children (aged 11 or under) (Lucas et al, 2001; Simpson & Lucas,
2000; Einstadt & Witcher, 1998).
- The Unemployed (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a; Hine & Mitchell, 2001b; SEU Report, 2001;
Lucas et al, 2001).
- Shift Workers (Lucas et al, 2001).

Although shift workers are not a well established group within social exclusion studies, their
inclusion here was merited on the basis of the low incomes they usually achieve, the
unsociable hours they work and the mismatch of these working hours with public transport
operating times. Resulting in the impact of these factors on their ability to participate in other
activities.

1.3 The Structure of the Report

This review has sought to determine whether, and if so how, poor transport and reduced
accessibility contribute to the social exclusion experienced by the different population groups
that are already identified as ‘at risk’ within the academic and policy literature. The review
considers concepts of social exclusion, the different population groups that are particularly
affected by it, the relationship of transport to social exclusion, and what is known about key
barriers to travel in relation to these groups. It is based on an extensive literature drawn from
government reports, localised surveys, NGO reports, the academic literature and
professional journal articles.

The report is divided into six chapters. Following this introduction (chapter one), chapter two
introduces the concept of social exclusion and discusses the relationship between poor
transport and social exclusion.

Chapter three identifies the socially excluded groups pertinent to this study. It examines the
travel concerns and characteristics of the study groups, and establishes the extent to which
they share similar travel experiences.

Chapter four goes on to explore some of the differences between the travel patterns of
people on low income and the average income, and among different age groups, using data
from the National Travel Survey.

Chapter five forms a major part of the review. It looks at the extent to which the reduced
accessibility to key destinations impacts on the actions of the different socially excluded
groups, by looking at the barriers that limit or inhibit different individuals’ ability to undertake
journeys, and the impact this has on the trips they make and the modes they use. The
section also includes information on the other factors that influence public transport use.

Chapter six briefly draws conclusions from the review and stresses the need for a better
understanding amongst transport professionals about the user needs of different socially
excluded groups of people.

There is some repetition of material between chapter 3 (population groups) and chapter 6
(barriers), where it is of primary importance to both themes.

13
2 DEFINING SOCIAL EXCLUSION

2.1 Concept of Social Exclusion

A product of the French republican tradition, the concept of social exclusion was forged from
the idea that the existence of groups whom are excluded threatens to undermine the unity of
the state (Gaffron et al, 2001; Burchardt et al, 2002). It's growth in common parlance in both
academic and policy debates since the early 1990s has occurred in response to the
realisation of the need to re-evaluate what constitutes and causes disadvantage in society
(Littlewood et al, 1999). Unlike earlier explanations of ‘societal disadvantage’, which was
based on income-centric approaches such as poverty, underclass and deprivation (Gaffron
et al, 2001; Spicker, 1998; Church et al, unpublished), the concept of social exclusion is
more dynamic and adopts a more holistic approach to life satisfaction (see table 1). As
suggested by Gaffron et al (2001), being poor or unemployed does not necessarily mean
that a person is socially excluded and likewise, it cannot be inferred that those who are
socially excluded are always poor or unemployed.

Many definitions of social exclusion lack a clear explanation of what precisely people
experiencing social exclusion are excluded from. Most agree, however, that wider economic
and social participation or the ability to act, as ‘full citizens’ is the essential target behind
polices to address social exclusion (Lee & Murie, 1999). Within the UK context many
definitions of social exclusion have been proffered. It is acknowledged that the following
definitions (Table 1) are not a comprehensive list of the symptoms of social exclusion, but
just provide some examples from the literature.

Table 1: Definitions of Social Exclusion

'Social exclusion is not only about shortage of money. It is about rights and Foley, 1999
relationships; and about how people are treated and how they regard themselves;
about powerlessness, exclusion and loss of dignity. Yet the lack of adequate income is
at its heart'.

'An individual is socially excluded if (a) he or she is geographically resident in a society Burchardt et al,
but (b) for reasons beyond his or her control, he or she cannot participate in the normal 1999
activities of citizens in that society, and (c) he or she would like to so participate'.

'A situation in which certain members of a society are, or become, separated from Philo, 2000
much that comprises the normal round of living and working in the society'.

'People excluded from society are those who accept the goals of society in some loose Pearce, 2001
sense but who either do not agree with the socially acceptable means to achieve this
or find that the means are not available to them'.

'A shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a SEU Report,
combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor 2001
housing, high crime, bad health and family breakdown’.

‘The unique interplay of a number of factors, whose consequence is the denial of Kenyon et al,
access, to an individual or group, to the opportunity to participate in the social and 2002
political life of the community, resulting not only in diminished material and non-
material quality of life, but also in tempered life chances, choices and reduced
citizenship’.

14
As can be seen from Table 1, whilst there is no precise agreement on its meaning (Gaffron
et al, 2001; Preston et al, 2003) there is a general concurrence as to what social exclusion
entails. The above definitions suggest that the concept of exclusion is politically and socially
sensitive and it varies according to the time or situation. Littlewood et al (1999) argue that an
open definition is needed to ensure that it is not restrictive and remains flexible.

Both Atkinson et al (1998) and Burchardt et al (2002) identified three crucial elements, or
‘schools of thought’, common to understanding social exclusion. Their definitions are fairly
similar and can be described as:

1. Relativity - individuals or groups are always socially excluded in comparison to

others and the events or activities going on elsewhere in society. Here the socially
excluded individuals or groups themselves are seen as responsible for their situation,
because of some aspect of their personal behaviour and/or moral values.
2. Agencies and Institutions – The institutions and systems that structure society are
seen as responsible.
3. Societal Dynamics and Limitations - this means that the conditions that
characterise the current situation of those who are socially excluded are a result of
their background and past decisions, rather than just the current processes acting on
them. It also recognises that the situation may be modified depending their on future
development.

The first school of thought has become less popular in research circles and current studies
usually refer to a combination of the second and third agencies (Kenyon et al, 2002; Murray,
1998). Indeed, various documents have contributed to the debate on what specific aspects
of society people are excluded from (see for example: Scottish Office Education and Industry
Department, 1998; Preston et al, 2003; Lee & Murie, 1999; Scottish Social Inclusion Strategy
Action Team, 1999). Furthermore some commentators (De Haan, 1999, in Gaffron et al,
2001); Eisenstadt & Witcher, 1998) indicate that social exclusion can occur at all levels of
society. Barry (2002) contends that the effect of social exclusion can be observed at a
national level. He argues that social solidarity and a shared identity is lost through social
exclusion as it reduces the shared experiences of the populace. He considers social
solidarity as being an important component of a contented and successful nation. He also
points out that individuals or groups are socially excluded if they are denied the opportunity
of participation, whether they actually desire to participate or not, such as in South Africa
during the years of apartheid.

In addition, all conceptions of social exclusion need to address the issue of voluntary
exclusion (Burchardt et al, 2002); Barry (2002) identifies three conditions in which this can
take place:

1. When an individual or group experience hostility, so withdraws from the particular

activity or even society as a whole.
2. When people choose not to participate, but would not be able to if they wanted.
3. It can occur when people themselves choose to be isolated, even if they have the
means not to be.

In other words, beyond income and material resources, social exclusion encompasses those
who are limited because of a diverse range of barriers including: discrimination, lack of local
job opportunities, low skills, chronic ill health, fear-of-crime, lack of available child care,
geographic location, cultural identification, isolation within their community, disaffecting
interest in mainstream education and alienation from the political process (Burchardt et al,
2002; Eistadtadt & Witcher, 1998; Gaffron et al, 2001; Scottish Social Inclusion Strategy
Action Team, 1999).

15
Burchardt et al (1999) have conducted the most complete analysis of the functions of
‘normal’ activity. They have used the activities of individuals in Britain in the 1990s as the
base for their study. They were able to categorise normal activity into five distinct but
interconnected strands:

1. Consumption activity: the ability to purchase and use, to a mutually

acceptable/certain level, the goods and services considered normal in the society
2. Savings activity: the ability to accumulate savings or invest (particularly in a house)
as a means of fulfilling aspirations and providing security for times when income is
turbulent.
3. Production activity: the ability to undertake an economically and/or socially valued
activity, which both contributes towards self-respect and provides a positive
contribution to society.
4. Political activity: the ability to engage in a collective effort in an issue which impacts
on the future of the group or individual.
5. Social activity: the ability to engage in significant social interaction and obtain a
sense of belonging to a cultural group or community.

It is not suggested that all of these activities are necessary to achieve social inclusion, just
the ability to access them and to take part should one choose to. Barry (2002) suggests that
there are actually two thresholds at which social exclusion occurs. The first is where people
are unable to participate, as they do not have the opportunity to do so and the second,
usually associated with high-income groups, are those who choose to insulate themselves
from the masses through measures such as private healthcare or education. The focus of
this study is on the former rather than the latter. In other words, the issue of access is
considered necessary to the domains of health care, education or training, transport, labour
markets, financial markets, welfare markets, housing markets, the decision-making process
and political arena, public utilities, social networks, leisure, recreational and cultural
activities. The inter-linked nature of these domains means that if social exclusion occurs in
one of them, it can expand into another (Gaffron et al, 2001; Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997;
Murray, 1998). For example, the inability to take part in leisure, recreational and cultural
activities would limit social networks and may affect health care use.

Exclusion can be viewed as a self-perpetuating process, with the cumulative effect being the
progressive detachment from jobs and services (Church & Frost, 1999). This process
diminishes the chances of the socially excluded ever reversing the spiral of increasing
isolation and makes it harder for them to reconnect (Gaffron et al, 2001; Church and Frost,
1999). Social inclusion is, therefore, generally recognised as the process by which social
exclusion is ameliorated, as particular individuals, social groups or geographical areas are
integrated into society and people have the opportunity to reach their potential (Centre for
Economic and Social Exclusion, 2002). Many have argued that social exclusion is an
inevitable result of inequality in society (Byrne, 1999; Barry, 2002) and whilst this is not
recognised by all, the Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion (2002) acknowledge that an
inclusive society is characterised by the pursuit of reduced inequality. This is achieved by
pursuing a variety of objectives and whilst increased income and employment are necessary
to social inclusion, they are not sufficient on their own to achieve it (Centre for Economic and
Social Exclusion, 2002).

Luxton (2002 quoted in Preston et al, 2003) has pursued the topic in greater depth and has
identified five pre-requisites for social inclusion. They are:

1. Valuing people' or groups' individuality, including being sensitive to any cultural,

religious, ethnic, gender and/or age differences.
2. Authority structures permitting and facilitating individuals to make choices and, if
desired, to contribute to wider society.

16
 3. The ability to be involved in decisions affecting oneself at any scale.
4. The availability of opportunities.
5. The necessary resources for everybody to participate fully in society, if they
choose to.

2.2 The Effects of Social Exclusion

A number of studies have examined the effects of social exclusion, particularly its impact
upon different groups of people. For example, the ‘Social Exclusion and the Provision of
Public Transport’ study (DETR, 2000a) examined the relationship between social exclusion
and transport and identified the contribution that public and community transport can make
to reducing levels of exclusion. A study by Social Research Associates examined the
transport requirements and the provision of public transport for minority ethnic and faith
communities (DfT, 2003b). The research sought to support the Government’s New Deal for
Transport aim, ‘to produce a step change in public transport to both town and country with
better mobility for all in society’ (DETR, 1999).

After the SEU’s report ‘Bringing Britain Together’ was published in July 1998, eighteen
Policy Action Teams (PATs) were established to look at issues around Neighbourhood
renewal. A number of the PATs identified the problem of inadequate service provision and
the draining of certain key services and facilities in deprived areas as a key contributor to
social exclusion. The Transport and Social Exclusion Interim Report ‘Preventing Exclusion’
(2001) supported this view and it stressed that a major aspect of the problem of poor
transport for socially excluded people is their inability to access key services.

In other words, it can be argued that the effect of social exclusion is to deny certain
individuals or groups the chance of equal opportunity. Whilst it is dependent on individuals to
decide how they generate their own opportunities, it is important that these opportunities are
equally available to individuals or groups and they are not prevented from accessing them
due to their personal circumstances. For example, the DfEE report ‘Jobs for All: National
Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Policy Action Team on Jobs’ (2000) showed that
opportunities in the labour market are unequal and employment opportunity is highly
dependent on where people live. In deprived areas and rural communities, traditional labour
markets, such as farming, fishing, mining and manufacturing have declined and this has
resulted in higher levels of unemployment and fewer job opportunities. The report also
showed that new technological developments have resulted in new employment
opportunities opening up in areas affected by the decline of traditional industries.

However, such new opportunities demand different skills of those living in such areas. These
problems were highlighted in the DfEE report: ‘Schools Plus: Building Learning
Communities’ (2000). The report suggested a major factor in the high unemployment of such
areas is the mismatch between educational achievement and work-based skills amongst the
local population and those required by employers in the area. Adults in deprived areas are
also likely to have low levels of qualifications and low basic skills and this can serve to
undermine the educational achievement of their children.

A recent ONS Omnibus Survey (2001) identified that poor access to primary healthcare, due
to either poor transport or the location of facilities, has resulted in people experiencing
difficulty in getting to the hospital (15%), doctor’s surgeries (6%) and/or dentists (5%). In
addition, 3% of respondents said they had missed, turned down or decided not to seek
medical help in the last 12 months because of transport problems. Access to healthy and
affordable food shops can also be problematic for socially excluded people. The majority of
shops serving people living in deprived communities and remote rural areas tend to be

17
small, independent, convenience stores that are more expensive than larger supermarkets.
A report for the Department of Health ‘PAT Report 13: Improving Shopping Access for
People Living in Deprived Neighbourhoods’ (2000) showed that between 1986 and 1997 the
number of local corner shops declined by almost 40% due to i) falling demand; ii)
competition and iii) crime and the threat of crime.

Closure of local banks and post offices, and the mismatch between the type and affordability
of the financial products available, have contributed to the existence of the 1.5 million low
income households (2 million adults) who do not have access to financial services (Kempson
and Whyley, 1998). A report for the Department of Trade and Industry (2000) ‘PAT 15:
Closing the Digital Divide’ showed that financial inclusion, both in terms of personal banking
and other financial services and for the purposes of home shopping, is also assisted through
access to the Internet and ICT. However, the take up of ICT in deprived areas is lower than
the national average and resulted in a lack of awareness, the skills or the opportunity to
access ICT.

A report for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport ‘PAT 10: Arts and Sport’ (1999)
recognised that participation in social, cultural and leisure activities can play a major part in
promoting a number a number of key policy goals in the areas of health, crime, employment
and education, as well as building social capital. In common with other areas of service
delivery, the poorest areas have received the lowest levels of funding and provision for such
activities.

2.3 Transport And Social Exclusion

2.3.1 The Relationship Between Poor Transport and Social Exclusion

The role of transport in contributing to social exclusion was not fully appreciated in the earlier
debates about social exclusion, which focused only on access to health care and rural
isolation (Gaffron et al, 2001). As mentioned in the previous section, the availability of, or
access to, transport and transport services can act as a facilitator or barrier to participation.

The role of transport is considered a part of the mobility dimension of social exclusion, which
includes personal mobility (Church & Frost, 1999; Kenyon et al, 2002). The mobility
dimension of social exclusion refers to the need for movement to access many of the
domains of society required for full participation (this requirement for mobility can – in some
cases - be replaced by remote access, which will be discussed at the end of section 4.) The
inability to access certain services, opportunities, goods or networks because of inadequate
transport or restricted personal mobility is a major cause of social exclusion (Kenyon et al,
2002). They define mobility-related exclusion as:

'The process by which people are prevented from participating in the

economic, political and social life of the Community because of reduced
accessibility to opportunities, services and social networks, due in whole or
in part to insufficient mobility in a society and environment built around the
assumption of high mobility.'

As the definition suggests, it is recognised that there is a reciprocal relationship between

transport and social exclusion, as it is both a cause and a consequence (Gaffron et al, 2001;
Preston et al, 2002). Changes in patterns of modal use and in facility location, particularly in
the last 30 years, have resulted in motorised mobility becoming increasingly necessary to
play a full part in society. As a result, those with insufficient mobility are more limited in their
ability to participate, leading to an inequality of opportunity (Gray, 2001; Kenyon et al, 2002).

18
This dispersal of people and activities has added importance to the role of transport in
enabling this mobility to take place.

Mobility-related exclusion occurs at the neighbourhood as well as the individual level

(Kenyon et al, 2002). Neighbourhoods can be characterised by poor transport infrastructure
and provision. The self-enforcing nature of social exclusion is particularly acute at the
neighbourhood scale (Lupton and Power, 2002). However, even within neighbourhoods with
good transport provision, individuals can be excluded (Grieco et al, 2000) because of
barriers specific to them. These individuals usually also experience other types of exclusion
(Whitelegg, 1997).

Lucas et al (2001) approach the contribution of transport to social exclusion from a more
expansive perspective than the definitions quoted previously. They look beyond its direct
association with the concept of social exclusion to the wider impact it has on society. They
identify four ways in which transport can cause social exclusion:

1. Reduced accessibility to basic facilities: the inability of transport provision to

continue to match people's needs as the dispersal of activities occurs.
2. Transport poverty: the boundaries of their existing mobility capabilities, matched
against the types of transport access available (financial and physical), limit people’s
ability to participate.
3. Negative effect of road traffic: smaller or non-existent gardens and the closer
proximity of busy roads mean that those in lower socio-economic groups are more
likely to be killed or injured on the road (DETR, 2000a). The increased exposure to
traffic also means that the risk of adverse health conditions from pollution is greater
(Friends of the Earth, 2001).
4. Inadequate public transport services: public transport needs to provide a realistic
alternative to car use, particularly in areas with low car ownership (Lucas et al, 2001).
Compared to cars, travel by public transport usually requires greater time, effort and
more regular costs and therefore fortifies the experience of social exclusion (DETR,
2000a; Kenyon et al, 2002).

There is currently little work on how to measure the levels of transport or accessibility, as
there is little agreement on what factors constitute the effects of poor transport (Church &
Frost, 1999). One of the problems identified is a lack of data concerning potential factors,
with only car ownership available nationally (Church & Frost, 1999). Many government and
academic studies have established a link between mobility and social exclusion (Kenyon et
al, 2002; Church & Frost, 1999; Preston et al, 2002; Hine & Mitchell, 2001b), yet little
numerical data has been collected on the correlation between the level of mobility of an
individual and their degree of exclusion (Gaffron et al, 2001). Despite this absence of
empirical evidence, most discussions of exclusion are based on a working assumption that
low levels of mobility and consequent difficulties in accessing local services and
opportunities intensify problems of exclusion (Church & Frost, 1999).

Church & Frost (1999) defined three variables which determine the ability of public transport
to meet the needs of socially exclude households (but can equally be applied to individuals
or neighbourhoods). These are:

1. The distribution of the social and activity networks of household members - who and
what they need to get to, when they need to go;
2. The nature of the transport options available, including cost, coverage, accessibility
and personal preference; and
3. The location of the destinations that the household members are seeking to access.

19
It is widely agreed that transport can play a crucial role in creating a more inclusive society,
especially in light of the increased mobility required to be able to participate (Church & Frost,
1999). For example the 1998 United Nations Development Report outlines the target of
access for all to safe and low-cost transport services, which is essential for access to
education, health services, employment, markets and community life (UNED UK, 1998).

Table 2 shows a list of examples that illustrate how transport contributes to social exclusion
among particular domains of society. It should be noted that evidence of any causal
relationship between poor transport and other factors which contribute to social exclusion is
limited, largely due to insufficient consideration of this in the literature.

Six main types of transport exclusion can be identified as follows:

• Spatial – where people live some distance from the places they need to get to, and have
an awkward or near-impossible journey to make to get there. For example, when getting
to a hospital or job interview means a long bus journey with a number of interchanges, or
where in a rural area there are no local shops and very infrequent public transport
services to nearby towns.

• Temporal – where people do not have access to places they need to get to at certain
times, such as in the early morning or late evening or on Sundays, because of lack od
bus services. For example, shift-workers needing to get to or from work in the middle of
the night, or young people who cannot take part in night time social activities because
there is no transport home.

• Personal – where people do not have access to places because of a mobility

impairment, or are effectively prisoners in their own home because of fear for their
personal safety if they venture out. For example, someone with learning difficulties who
cannot read a bus timetable but has to travel alone, or an older person who finds it
difficult or intimidating to walk to the bus stop.

• Financial – where people are unable to access places because the cost to them of doing
so is regarded as excessive. For example, where the bus fare to take four children to a
leisure activity combined with the cost of that activity is prohibitive, when considered as a
percentage of that family’s household income. This is especially the case where a family
is unable to find the money to pay for cheaper tickets in advance.

• Environmental – where urban social housing is located near a busy radial route and
vulnerable people living in there are exposed to greater risk from traffic pollution and
accidents. For example, children having to play near busy roads because there are no
play areas on their estate, or older people with poor health who suffer from
cardiovascular diseases.

• Infrastructural - where access to places and/or quality of life is affected by transport

infrastructure. For example, where new road building cuts through the middle of a
housing estate and physically divides a community, or where the lack of a pedestrian
crossing makes it difficult to cross the road.

• Institutional – where groups or organisations exclude the interests of some groups. For
example, a regular bus forum is held on a Friday when practising Muslims would not be
able to participate because they are attending Mosque, or where a crèche is not
available making it difficult for lone parents to attend.

20
Table 2: Causal Relationship Between Poor Transport and Social Exclusion.

Access to Consequences of limited transport provision

Services /
Activities
Labour Markets - 38 per cent of jobseekers report that transport, either private or
public, is a crucial barrier to getting a job (SEU report, 2003).
- A quarter of those aged between 16-25 have not applied for a job in
the last year because of transport problems (SEU report, 2003).
- The Department for Transport (SEU report, 2003) found that 10 per
cent of residents living in low-income areas who have been offered a
job within the last year were forced to decline it because of transport
problems.
- Participants of the New Deal for Young People scheme listed 'lack of
transport' and 'no jobs nearby' most frequently when asked about the
problems they experienced finding or keeping a job (SEU report,
2003).

Financial - People living in disadvantaged areas were found to have greater

Services difficulty accessing financial services like banks, often because their
local branch had closed and there was no public transport to the
closest alternative one (Gaffron et al, 2003).

Education & - Almost half of pupils of a school in a rural area were missing out on
Training after-school activities because of a lack of transport home (SEU
report, 2003).
- 6 per cent of 16-24 year olds have turned down training or further
education because of transport problems (SEU report, 2003).

Healthcare - Almost a third of people without a car have difficulty accessing

hospital (SEU report, 2003).
- The Countryside Agency / Yorkshire Forward (SEU report, 2003)
discovered that within the previous 12 months, over 1.4 million
people in the country had missed, turned down or not sought
medical help because of transport problems.
- Young (quoted in Gaffron et al, 2001) found that women caring for
children in low-income households and without access to a car were
likely to sacrifice their own health appointments if they were forced to
prioritise activities because transport would not allow them to
complete them all.

Food Shops - 16 per cent of people without a car find it difficult to access
supermarkets, compared to 6 per cent of people with a car (SEU
report, 2003).
- The increasing re-location of the cheap supermarket chains to out-
of-town locations has meant that people on lower incomes are not
able to access them (SEU report, 2003).

Participation in - Almost one in five people without a car report difficulties seeing their
Social, Cultural & friends and family, compared with 8 per cent of those with a car
Religious (SEU report, 2003).
Activities - Approximately 10 per cent of people without a car have difficulty
accessing leisure facilities (SEU report, 2003).

21
The DfT’s Central Local Working Group on Accessibility Planning (CLWGAP) recommended
that, given the variable nature of accessibility problems, priorities and solutions in different
areas (e.g. education and training, healthcare, employment and food shops) there is a need
for a set of both local and core indicators and targets (DfT, 2004a). In its Guidance notes on
Accessibility Planning, the DfT (2004a) have issued local authorities with the following set of
core indicators, that should be measured on a consistent basis and included in round 2 of
their Local Transport Plans (to be submitted in mid-2005):

• Education
o % of a) pupils of compulsory school age; b) pupils of compulsory school age
in receipt of free school meals within 15 and 30 minutes of a primary school
and 20 and 40 minutes of a secondary school by public transport, and those
who live beyond those distances;
o % of 16-19 year olds within 30 and 60 minutes of a further education
establishment by public transport, and those who live beyond that distance.

• Employment
o % of a) people of working age; b) % of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s
Allowance within 20 and 40 minutes of work by public transport.

• Healthcare
o % of a) households; b) % of households without access to a car within 30 and
60 minutes of a hospital with an outpatients’ facility department by public
transport;
o % of a) households; b) households without access to a car, within 15 and 30
minutes of a GP by public transport.

• Food Shop
o % of a) households; b) % of households without access to a car within 15 and
30 minutes of a major centre by public transport.

2.3.2 Changes to Public Transport Provision

Greater levels of car ownership and an increase in the proportion of those able to drive has
reduced public transport patronage. The reduced revenue collected by public transport
operators is just one of the reasons for the deterioration in the frequency, reliability and
quality of services (Lucas et al, 2001).

The deregulation of bus services outside London in 1985 has resulted in monopolies forming
in some areas, as bigger companies have taken over the services run by smaller ones
(Lucas et al, 2001; Social Exclusion Unit, 2003). The absence of competition allows
transport operators to create a wide variation in service provision between routes and
between times of day. Services are run to maximise profit so on some occasions services
may be abolished or limited to certain times, with evenings and Sundays being the worst
affected (Lucas et al, 2001). Under deregulation, local authorities can only subsidise routes
and not fares, which has resulted in a 30 per cent increase in real terms in bus fares (Social
Exclusion Unit, 2003). This rate of growth is considerably faster than that of the costs of
travelling by car (Lucas et al, 2001).

The dispersion of activities and services has affected ability of bus companies to provide
suitable services. It is difficult to operate efficient and profitable public transport services
around these out-of-town locations (Lucas et al, 2001), and few bus operators have adapted
services in an attempt to realistically meet potential new demand (Social Exclusion Unit,

22
2003). There remains a disproportionate number of radial public transport routes which
serve the urban centre (Gaffron et al, 2001). Whilst it is virtually impossible to provide public
transport to all of the residents within the car defined catchment area of an out-of-town
destination, provision could realistically serve larger clusters of the population.

Furthermore, the location of some out-of-town activities alongside fast roads is inappropriate
for bus services, because of the unavailability of suitable stopping locations or the high
average speed on the road. This means that for those without a car, an increasing proportion
of employment, commercial and leisure activities are inaccessible (Hay & Trindler, 1991).

2.3.3 Car Ownership

Car travel now accounts for four fifths of the total distance travelled. Overall, the distance
travelled by car increased by 10 per cent between 1991/1993 and 2002. Not surprisingly, car
availability is very strongly related to household income.

As can be seen from Figure 1, the higher the household income the greater the level of car
ownership: in 2002/03 73 per cent of households in the lowest income quintile had no car
compared with 8 per cent in the highest income quintile. Over half of households in the
highest income quintile had 2 or more cars, compared to 7 per cent of households in the
lowest quintile (DfT, 2005). The disparity is more significant if looked at in greater detail at
the decile level; here 78 per cent of the poorest 10 per cent of households do not have a car
(Friends of the Earth, 2001).

The current levels of car ownership are higher for all income quintiles than those recorded in
the National Travel Survey a decade ago. Car ownership has been on the increase since the
1950s as national prosperity levels – and car dependency - have risen (SEU report, 2003).
Overall three-quarters of households now own at least one car, and its possession is often
regarded as a type of ‘status symbol’ (DETR, 2000a). As well as status, the car is also
associated with the ideals of individualism, freedom and most notably progress (Kenyon et
al, 2002). Car ownership is a high priority for those on low income as well as those who can
more easily afford it (Lucas et al, 2001). There is evidence that those on low incomes will
make significant sacrifices in order to obtain a car (Kenyon et al, 2002). In some ways,
therefore, lack of car ownership can, in and of itself, be said to contribute towards at least a
feeling of social exclusion.

The majority of those that are in the lowest income quintile do not own a car. They are forced
to rely on public transport, which Kenyon et al (2002) identifies as making access to
services, facilities and social networks problematic and sometimes impossible.

It is important to note here that household car ownership does not indicate that there is car
access for all of the individuals living in that household. In single-car households’ access to
the car is likely to be unequally distributed (Kenyon et al, 2002).

23
Figure 1: Household car availability, by income quintile: 1989/91 and 2002/03

80 73
Percentage of households

70
59
60 55 53 55
52
48 47 47 46 47
50 44 42
40 40
40 34 33
30
30 24 25
20
17
20 13 12 11
7 8 7 8
10 3
0
0 1 1+ 0 1 1+ 0 1 1+ 0 1 1+ 0 1 1+

Lowest quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Highest quintile

1989/91 2002/03

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

Note: Individuals income quintile is defined by the income quintile of the household they live in.

Figure 2 shows the results of some research that was carried out in 2001/02 by the Disabled
Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DiPTAC). The figures suggest that household
access to a car is much lower in households containing a disabled person than in other
households, despite a disabled people's greater reliance on the car. Sixty per cent of
disabled people have no car available in their household, compared with 27 per cent of the
general public.

Figure 2: Household car access for disabled people and general public: 2001/02

70
61
Percentage of households

60

50 45

40
32
28
30
22
20

10 5 5
2
0
0 car 1 car 2 cars 3+ cars

Disabled General public

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

24
2.3.4 Land-Use Planning

An extensive road building programme, particularly in the 1980s, alongside the growth in car
ownership has resulted in a dramatic change in the location of many facilities and services.
Retail was the first sector to radically modify its location practices. Prime locations were
those that are well served by roads connecting the site to a number of areas. Policy
incentives also encouraged the development in these out-of-town locations and resulted in
many retail developments being located on the edge of urban areas. The success of such
centres resulted in a rapid change in retail type and location. The number of small-
specialised shops has halved in the last 20 years, (Lucas et al, 2001) and the number of out-
of-town shopping centres increasing four-fold (SEU report, 2003). These location trends
have resulted in reduced access to the cheaper out-of-town stores for those without a car,
meaning they have to shop at local stores where reduced competition has raised prices
(Lucas et al, 2001).

A significant number of large employers have tried to achieve the benefits that were obtained
by the retail sector, by relocating to out-of-town locations with financial incentives and good
car access for their employees. In addition, many leisure facilities have repeated this
relocation pattern (Kenyon, 2002). The centralisation of health and social services led to the
closure of smaller hospitals in favour of the growth of specialist centres of excellence (SEU,
2003; Kenyon et al, 2002). The financial crisis of the early 1990s resulted in the financial
markets making selective branch closures in rural and poorer urban areas (Gaffron et al,
2001). This means many basic services are further away than previously, and it is now
generally accepted that local services and facilities are less accessible to people living in the
poorest areas (Church & Frost, 1999).

In many instances, this dispersal of facilities has made travel-intensive lifestyles a

prerequisite for achieving social inclusion (Lucas et al, 2001). This is dependent on an
individual’s mobility and the transport options available to them. In the absence of good
public transport provision these land use changes have exacerbated the travel problems of
those without a car (Kenyon, 2002).

25
3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL GROUPS
There are a number of personal conditions and external factors that provide the context in
which the travel behaviour of those in the lowest income quintile, takes place. The main
personal characteristics are poverty and car ownership, while the external factors are land
use change and changes to public transport provision.

3.1 Who is Socially Excluded?

Despite considerable debate within the literature, there remains much confusion as to whom
is considered to be socially excluded and individual interpretations are often motivated by
political expediency (Kenyon et al, 2002). Burchardt et al (2002) suggest that there are three
ways within academia of understanding who is socially excluded. The first assumes it is
based on those in poverty. The second considers it to be those within the lower classes
relating to the problems of inequality. The third is a more complex conception and considers
it to be those who are outside rather than inside society. The last of these is the
conceptualisation most popular currently (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997; Kenyon et al, 2002).
Spicker (1998) however warns of the need to clarify the distinction between marginalisation
– i.e. limited use, and exclusion – i.e. non-use.

Whilst socially disadvantaged groups of people may have different activity needs, it is
suggested that to a large extent they share a common experience of social exclusion. They
also tend to share the most common indicator of social exclusion, namely low income
(Kenyon et al, 2002; Gaffron et al, 2002; Barry, 2002). To check that low income is a
common denominator between these populations, it is necessary to look at the composition
of the population in the lowest income quintile, where we find that all such groups are likely
to be disproportionately represented.

As has been noted previously, poverty is not a pre-requisite for, or a guarantee of, social
exclusion. However, Pierson (2002) describes poverty as the most potent element in the
social exclusion process. The most recent Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey found that
by the end of 1999, approximately 14.5 million people in Britain were living in poverty. This
constitutes a quarter of the population and it represents the continuation of a trend towards
an increased number of people in poverty (Gordon et al, 2000).

People on lower incomes are constrained in their ability to participate in society (Eisenstadt
& Witcher, 1998). The disaggregation of the data on poverty reveals that 7.5 million people
are unable to engage in common social activities, such as visiting friends or family or
attending special occasions because they are too poor (Gordon et al, 2000). This statistic
clearly has a transport component. Looking in more detail, Gordon et al (2000), report an
association between poverty and the feeling of isolation. Around a quarter of people whom
are currently poor feel isolated and/or depressed (Gordon et al, 2000). Again transport
contributes to this phenomenon.

Disparity in incomes has significant implications for personal mobility. The impact is greater
in this country because of the lack of general fare subsidies on commercial deregulated bus
services (Barry, 2002). The Family Expenditure survey 2001/02 found that less than 10 per
cent of the total expenditure of households in the lowest income quintile was spent on
motoring costs. In comparison households in the other quintile groups spent at least 15 per
cent. The much smaller amount being spent on travel by households in the lowest income
quintile will affect the amount of non-walking trips they are able to make, the locations they
are able to travel to access, and the methods that they use. Despite the economic problems
faced by a significant number of the population, it was found that the non-availability of
services was a bigger barrier than non-affordability (Gordon et al, 2000).

26
3.1.1 Composition of The Lowest Income Quintile

The ‘Households Below Average Income 2000/01 Survey’ provides details on the
composition of the lowest income quintile. Table 3 shows the proportion of the groups
examined in this study that are in the lowest income quintile. The survey does not enable us
to establish the situation of younger people or those in shift work. Table 3 shows that, for all
the groups that are featured, they are over-represented in the lowest income quintile.

Table 3: Composition of the Bottom Income Quintile

Characteristics of household (except for Percentage of Groups in Lowest Household

pensioners which is based on individuals) Income Quintile
Before housing costs After housing costs

Ethnic group White 19 18

Black Caribbean 29 34
Black Non-Caribbean 31 43
Indian 24 26
Pakistani/ Bangladeshi 60 61
Other 29 37
Age Pensioner in Overall 27 20
couple Under 70 20 16
71 to 75 30 21
Over 75 37 26
Single pensioners Overall 26 18
Under 70 20 16
71 to 75 26 18
Over 75 30 20
Disability Containing at least 1 disabled 28 27
person
Containing at least 1 disabled 28 27
adult
Containing no disabled 17 18
people
Unemployed Head or spouse unemployed 69 73
Parents Couple with children 18 18
Single with children 40 49
Notes: Results presented in this table include the self-employed.
Source: DWP, Households Below Average Income 2000/01 Survey (2001).

With regard to ethnicity, the table shows that, before housing costs are considered, 19 per
cent of white people are in the lowest income quintile, compared to 29 per cent of Black
Caribbean people, 31 per cent of Black Non-Caribbeans, 24 per cent of Indians, 60 per cent
of Pakistani/Bangladeshi people and 29 per cent of ‘other’ ethnic minority groups. When
housing costs are considered the difference is accentuated, and people in BME groups are
even more strongly concentrated in low income groups.

Pensioners are more likely to be in the lowest income quintile before housing costs are
considered. Surprisingly, pensioner couples are more likely to be in the lowest income
quintile than single pensioners. Older pensioners are more likely to have a low income.
Households containing disabled people are much more likely to be in the lowest income

27
quintile than those without. 70 per cent of unemployed people are located in the lowest
income quintile, meaning they have the strongest correlation with low income. Having
children in a household only appears to have a negative association with income if it is a
single-parent household. The number of single parent households in the lowest income
quintile is double the average; the number of two parent households in this quintile, however,
is slightly less than average.

Alternative information is available on certain groups from the effects of taxes and benefits
on household income 2001/02. This suggests that 42 per cent of single parents were in the
lowest income quintile, compared to 16 per cent of couples with children. For households
whose chief economic supporter is over 74, 34 per cent were in the lowest income quintile.
For households whose chief economic supporter is over 64 but under 75, this proportion is
24 per cent. The survey also finds that over 60 per cent of unemployed people are in the
lowest income quintile. Although there is no information on the quintile distribution of shift
workers and young people, there is evidence that both groups are also highly concentrated
in lower income groupings.

One of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) ten ‘Public Service Agreement’
targets for Spring 2006 is to increase the employment rates of disadvantaged areas and
groups, taking account of the economic cycle - lone parents, ethnic minorities, people aged
50 and over, those with the lowest qualifications and people in the 30 Local Authority
districts with the poorest initial labour market position, and to significantly reduce the
difference between their employment rates and the overall rate (DWP, 2003).

3.2 Young people (16-24)

There are approximately 6 million people aged between 14 and 21 in Britain (Census, 2001).
Transport is a key issue for many young people, as it can be one of the main factors that
determine which school or college they attend, if they can participate in after school
activities, how and where they access health care and employment, and whether or not they
are able to see their friends out of school hours at times that are convenient to them.

They are keen to assert their independence and their individual mobility increases as they
become older, but concerns about crime and traffic safety mean that they make few trips
unaccompanied by adults until the age of 16 or 17. A recent DEFRA report (2004) showed
that young people living in rural areas are more dependent on other family members to take
them by car to the places they want to go, and that their choice of leisure and social activities
is likely to be influenced by the places their parents are willing and able to take them. In such
circumstances, access to confidential personal advice (on drugs, contraception, etc.) may be
difficult to obtain.

Teenagers are prepared to walk for a longer distance than adults, due probably to a
combination of a lower budget, being fitter and a more relaxed perception of the importance
of time.

Young people have shown low levels of societal participation (SEU Report, 2001), relating to
higher than average levels of unemployment and the disillusionment this causes (Labour
Force Survey, 2003). In addition, they face mobility problems associated with being
predominantly dependent on others for transport (DETR, 1999). The proportion of teenagers
relying on lifts to access leisure activities has increased in the last 20 years as a result of the
dispersal of activities and the reduction and increased price of off-peak public transport
services. The cost of peak-time public transport prevents some young people from attending
education courses or causes them to miss classes. Young people in further education (aged

28
16-19) and those continuing in courses they started before their 19th birthday can receive
financial support, in the form of concessionary fares, from their Local Education Authority
(LEA) but this practice is discretionary to the individual LEA in consultation with their
partners in colleges, Learning and Skills Councils, Connexions and Passenger Transport
Authorities (where they exist).

Since August 2002 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has given powers to
LEAs and their partners to decide how they wish to use Learner Support Funds (which help
students in further education overcome financial barriers (e.g. the cost of books, childcare
and transport) to participate in learning). For example the funds can be used to fund free or
subsidised transport as long as they benefit all students (DfT, 2004a). Adult students (19+)
in FE colleges may also be entitled to support from the college administered Learner
Support Fund, but once again this is discretionary.

Young people feel that public transport employees often display a negative attitude towards
them as they assume that all young people are going to cause trouble. Proof of age is a real
issue for many young people, particularly if they try and obtain the discounted fare they are
entitled to. Within the UK there is no legal requirement for operators to offer young people
concessionary fares, even if they are still in full-time education (DEFRA, 2004). For those
young people who do use discount or season tickets in parts of the country with competing
bus companies, it means having to use the same operator each day and in some cases they
may have to wait longer at a bus stop for the right bus to come along.

In addition, 38% of young disabled people stated that they experience problems when using
public transport, because of reasons relating to their impairment (e.g. cannot hear the public
announcements, cannot see the information, or cannot grab hold of hand rails etc). Of these,
half reported that this makes it difficult for them to participate in activities with other people
their age (DPTAC, 2002).

National research for the then DETR (1999) with children and young people on using public
transport has revealed that they have a great deal in common with adult passengers in their
perception of personal security and what makes them feel unsafe. Most young people feel
much less secure after dark and whilst they are waiting or travelling alone. Safety issues
when using public transport in the evenings (i.e. when walking to and from the bus stop,
whilst waiting at poorly lit bus stops and whilst travelling on board the bus) are real concerns
for many young people.

Although often perceived to be the perpetrators of crime on public transport, it is important to

note that young people have also reported adapting their travel patterns because of the
threat of crime. Half of young women and 20 per cent of young men were deterred from
using facilities because they would have to walk / from the bus stop or train station late at
night (DETR, 1999). They also stated that they would not travel on the upper deck of buses
as it is considered to be unsafe [e.g. fear of being intimidated by other passengers and other
forms of harassment]. The introduction of bus conductors on all services was seen as a
suitable means of reducing these problems and reassuring passengers (DETR, 2000a).

The image of public transport amongst young people is fairly negative and cars are often
seen as the antithesis of this. They are viewed as convenient, more comfortable, cleaner
and cheaper, as well as providing more freedom and respect amongst individuals within their
peer group (Save the Children 2000). All of the 16 to 17 year-olds questioned in the Save
the Children (2000) survey aspired to car ownership. However, the proportion of young
driving licence holders has decreased in recent years with 32 per cent of those aged 17-20
with a licence, compared with 49 per cent in 1991/1993 (DfT, 2004b).

29
3.3 Older people (60+)
There are almost 8 million people over 65 in England and Wales, which constitutes 15% of
the population. For the first time in recorded history, people aged 60 and above (at 21%)
form a larger segment of the population than children aged under 16 (20%) (Census, 2001).
Of those aged over 65, half are aged between 65 and 74, 35 per cent are aged between 75
and 84 and 13 per cent are 85 and over. The age group 85 and above make up 1.1 million
(1.9%) of the population (Census, 2001). The proportion is set to increase further in the next
20 years as the age structure of the population changes. The projected population of Great
Britain for people aged 75 and above will double from 4 million, the population now, to 8
million in 2050 (Census, 2001).

Older people travel less often than any other age group, are more likely to make local
journeys and are more likely to walk or to use public transport. They typically make fewer
trips, not because of a reduced desire but because it becomes harder to access both the
transport node (bus stop, rail station) and the vehicle itself, as the ageing process limits their
functioning. Recent statistics show that 3.5m people over the age of 65 report having a
limiting longstanding illness or disability (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2004).

The relative importance of shopping and personal business increases with age. For people
aged 70 and over, 60 per cent of trips were for shopping and personal business in 2002
(DfT, 2004b: 13). The times at which they are able to travel are limited due to the
restrictions of their concession passes and their reluctance to travel during busy periods
when they are less likely to be able to sit down, may be confronted by aggressive school
children and may experience resentment from other passengers. One of the problems they
face in their attempt to make off-peak trips is the reduced public transport service,
particularly on Sundays.

A recent report by Help the Aged (2005) reported that older people are considerably more
likely to report difficulties accessing local amenities such as shops, banks and hospitals. In
2002-2003, 33% women and 21% of men aged 75 and over in ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ health, said
they had difficulties getting to shops and were most likely to report such access difficulties.

Bus use among both genders was higher for those aged 70 or over than in middle age,
probably reflecting the availability of concessionary bus fares for older people. The Transport
Act 2000 required all local authorities to provide the national minimum standard of a half
fare, free permit scheme for women aged 60 or over and men aged 65 or over. Older people
(60+) in Wales and Scotland enjoy free, full fare travel passes. Those over 65 years of age
do so in Northern Ireland but only 20% of English pensioners (60+) are eligible for such a
level of travel benefits, the rest are statutory half fare bus passes (Help the Aged, 2005).
Therefore all pensioners in Great Britain had some form of concessionary bus scheme
available in 2002, compared with 95 per cent in 1991/1993 (DfT, 2004b: 41).

Another reason for higher bus use among those aged 70 or over may be due to fewer older
people currently being in possession of a driving licence (DfT, 2004b: 13); however, this is
set to change. Older people do not want to relinquish their established lifestyle as they age,
and the use of the car is seen as pivotal to maintaining their independence (OECD, 2001).
Fewer older women have access to cars compared with men of the same age. In 2001, 88%
of men and 85% of women aged 50 to 59 had access to at least one car or van in their
household. Among those aged 75 and over these proportions were far lower at 58% and
33% respectively (Help the Aged, 2005).

Current driving patterns suggest that the proportion of those over 65 that drive will increase
rapidly in the future (DETR, 2001). There has been a large increase in the number of older

30
women holding licences. In 1991/1993, less than two in five women aged 60-69 held a
licence; by 2002, the figure was nearly 3 in 5. Over the same period, the proportion of
women aged 70 or over holding licences increased from one in six, to more than one in four.
Licence holding will continue to increase among these age groups, as those currently in the
younger age groups keep their licence as they grow older (DfT, 2004b: 13).

A study by Crime Concern (2002) reported that older men and, to a much higher degree,
older women said they felt ‘very unsafe’ when walking alone in their area after dark. Older
people are more likely to fear becoming the victim of crime, principally because they feel
physically weaker and because the implications of an attack would be more severe for those
who are frail. This affects the number of trips that they make in the evening, with most
looking to complete their journeys during daytime or restrict their evening travel to locations
they are familiar with. The British Crime Surveys reveal that older people are more likely to
feel anxieties about being the victim of crime and anti-social behaviour, although they are
less likely than younger people to be the victim of an incident.

3.4 Black and Minority Ethnic People

The UK 2001 Census revealed that the BME population had grown to 4.6 million and now
constitutes 7.8 percent of the population (Office of National Statistics, 2001). The largest
BME group is the Indian population, which numbers over a million people, followed by the
Pakistani, Black Caribbean, Black African, Bangladeshi and Chinese populations, in that
order. Much diversity exists within these base classifications; for example the Indian
population contains people of various religions including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and
speakers of various languages including Gujarati, Punjabi and Urdu.

Whilst a lot of attention is given to the ‘established’ BME groups, it is also important to
consider the smaller minority groups, many of whom are relatively recent immigrants and
tend to be much less familiar with the English language, such as Albanians, Iraqis and
Somalis. It is also necessary to consider the religious diversity of the UK’s populace, as this
is another important component of an individual’s identity. In the 2001 Census, 33 million
people identified themselves as Christian with a further 1.5 million Muslims, 0.7 million
Hindus, 0.3 million Sikhs, 0.3 million Jews and 0.2 million Buddhists in the country (Office of
National Statistics, 2001).

The recent Focus on Travel Report (DfT, 2005) showed that in 2001, a fifth of households of
Indian origin did not have access to a car, compared with a quarter of households of white
ethnic origin and almost half of black origin. In 2003, 72 per cent of people of white ethnic
origin travelled to work by car compared with about 60 per cent of Indian, Pakistani or
Bangladeshi origin and 46 per cent of black origin. These differences may partly reflect
geographical variations in areas of residence and workplace.

The 2001 Census data suggests a greater desire for car ownership amongst the Asian
populations. The status symbol of owning a car was cited by Asian men as one of the
reasons for not reducing the use of their car for travel (Ahmed and Holder, 2000). Male
Asian car owners acknowledge that for them public transport will never be able to equal the
comfort and convenience of the car and they would not be interested in using public
transport regardless of how effective it became (Ahmed and Holder, 2000). High car
ownership amongst Asian groups is also partly a response to the need for a safe
environment, especially for women, to travel in. Muslim women are particularly reluctant to
use public transport and are dependent on male relatives or car drivers in their family
network. This aligned with a strong sense of community and extended family support

31
ensures that the women, who are not able to drive, are able to travel further a field than
many other ethnic groups (DETR, 2000a; Lucas et al, 2001).

A study by Crime Concern (2002) reported that Asian respondents, and Pakistani and
Bangladeshi respondents in particular, were more likely than white and black respondents to
say their neighbourhood was ‘very unsafe’ after dark. As with all respondents, women and
older people across all minority ethnic groups were much more likely to feel unsafe when
travelling at night.

More generally, the study found that minority ethnic residents are more likely to feel unsafe
walking alone in their neighbourhood than their white counterparts. More than a third of all
black and minority ethnic respondents said they avoided certain streets or areas because of
racially motivated crime or harassment and a similar proportion did not go out alone at night.
Women were twice more likely than men to not go out alone after dark.

Respondents from black and minority ethnic groups were more likely to express anxiety
about specific crimes than white respondents. Significantly, higher percentages of Pakistani
and Bangladeshi, Indian and black respondents said they were ‘very worried’ about being
the victim of burglary, a street robbery or mugging and rape. Minority ethnic respondents
were more likely to worry about racial attack than white respondents, Asian respondents
expressed more worry than black respondents and women were more worried than men.
Fear of racist abuse or assault can significantly heighten concerns for personal security in
any public place. It makes the walk to and from the stop or station and the time waiting
potentially dangerous, irrespective of whether it is during the day or after dark.

Qualitative research conducted by Crime Concern (2002: 27) with black and minority ethnic
residents in Birmingham revealed that men and women across all age ranges felt unsafe
walking to or from the bus stop or whilst waiting for a bus. For many, their concern was such
that this deterred them from making journeys by public transport. For some participants, the
journey by bus after dark was also perceived as unsafe. Others did travel but still felt uneasy
or took precautions by choosing to sit near the driver or avoiding certain routes or stops.

This perception of a lack of safety, alongside a lack of knowledge about the availability of
transport information in community languages, a lack of awareness about different ticketing
options (therefore paying more than necessary) and cultural differences (e.g. Asian women
feel embarrassed talking to bus drivers because a large majority of them are men) (DfT,
2003b) means that the BME community often restrict their travel to areas and modes they
are familiar with. In all BME groups, the importance of walking as a method of travel is
accentuated and travel is often localised to within the community, notably in the poorer
ethnic groups.

The concentration of individual BME populations in certain locations and the strong sense of
community within these groups, as well as the ability for community related goods and
services to be supplied locally, means that many of their retail, social and religious needs
can be met very close by. For example, Yemini women in Liverpool shopped locally because
many shopkeepers were from the same community and spoke Arabic (Lucas et al, 2001). In
some cases the small distances required mean the majority of journeys can be completed on
foot (Ahmed and Holder, 2000; PRIAE, 2003; DETR, 2000a). Asian women in particular
seem to restrict their to activities to within their local area (DETR, 2000a; Lucas et al, 2001).

A further reason for the smaller activity spaces within which BME communities appear to live
lies in the ‘racialisation’ of areas (Green, 1998). Green found that perceptions about how the
community would be treated in an area determined the areas in which they felt they were
able to travel. For example, members of the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets
stated that they considered the Isle of Dogs to be ‘a no-go area’ because of their ethnic

32
group (Green, 1998). Similar results were found in a study on the Black Caribbean
community in the Chapeltown area of Leeds. They stated that they avoided going into the
city centre as they felt they did not belong there, despite living only a ten-minute bus ride
away and would rather remain in familiar areas where they felt safer (PRIAE, 2003; Crime
Concern, 1999). Amongst the lower income BME communities, many of the areas in which
they were not prepared to travel were modern, wealthy areas with a small BME population.

3.5 Disabled People

In 2001 there were 9.5 million people (18.2% of the population of England and Wales) who
said that they have a long-term illness, health problem or disability that limits their daily
activities or the work they could do (Office of National Statistics, 2001). It is estimated that
20% of the adult population of Great Britain (11.7 million) are categorised as disabled under
the definitions of ‘disability’ in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DRC, 2000). Disability
is predominantly an experience of old age; the prevalence and severity of disability
increases with age. Over half of all persons with serious disability are aged over 65 years
(UoW et al, 2003). The recent Focus on Travel report (DfT, 2005) showed that 48 per cent of
people aged 70 and above reported some difficulty, compared with 6 per cent of those aged
less than 50. Of those with a mobility difficulty, 10 per cent did not record any trips in their
travel week, increasing to 15 per cent for those aged 70 and above. However, disability is by
no means limited to the older segment of the population. In the region of 5% of persons aged
25-34 years have some form of disability. This proportion nearly trebles among persons
aged 45-54 (14%) (UoW et al, 2003).

The range of impairments experienced by disabled people have been classified into three
broad categories: mobility, sensory and mental health including learning disabilities. Mobility
relates to impairments that limit an individual’s physical functioning. Sensory relates to
impairments that affect their senses. No data exists on the number of people with disabilities
within each of these categories. Limited data exists on the specific nature of people's
disabilities; 72% of disabled people reported a disability of locomotion. The other common
disabilities are in the areas of dexterity, personal care, hearing or behaviour. Around a third
of disabled people reported these disabilities (Tyler, 2002). The other common disabilities
are in the areas of dexterity, personal care or behaviour (Tyler, 2002).

Transport is the most highly reported problem facing disabled people, despite many existing
initiatives (DPTAC, 2002). People with impairments (such as deafness, spinal injury, learning
difficulties, autism) become disabled through barriers such as discrimination, an inaccessible
built environment and exclusionary policies. Fears of crime and intimidation increase the
likelihood of disabled people re-evaluating what constitutes an essential trip, which results in
shrinking journey prisms and increased social isolation. Inability to travel freely can seriously
restrict the ability of disabled people to carry out activities; for example 25% of disabled
people (and 50% without a car) report that inaccessible transport restricts their leisure
pursuits (Lucas et al, 2001). Similarly, the Disability Rights Commission (2001) stated that
‘disabled people do not generally travel through choice’.

A study for the DfT (2002a) reported that disabled people travel a third less than the general
population. In its response to the Cabinet Office Consultation on Transport and Social
Exclusion, the Disability Rights Commission (2000) highlighted the following as
characteristics of disabled people and transport issues:

• The vast majority of disabled people experience significant levels of social exclusion,
because the design and operation of Britain’s transport system has failed to deliver
an appropriate and accessible service;

33
 • Transport costs are usually higher for disabled people, because of a high
dependence on expensive modes such as taxis;
• Most disabled people have had poor experiences of public transport, with exposure
to disproportionate levels of risk, much of which has led to personal injury. This has
caused a dramatic reduction in their confidence in using public transport again.

For those individuals with mobility impairments, the principle limitation is their physical
inability to access the public transport network due to barriers in the street environment that
inhibit their movement; the design of public transport vehicles; and attitudes of drivers and
other passengers when boarding or alighting vehicles. It has been found that, for mobility
disabled people, bus use reduces sharply if the distance to the stop is over 200 metres. This
distance should be reduced by 10 metres for every 1 metre rise or fall along the journey.

To address the concerns of those individuals with mental health problems, greater
awareness among transport operators is needed of the information presentation needs of
people with mental health problems and learning disabilities, to ensure that they feel able to
pick-up information and adapt to unexpected changes on their route. People who have a
mental health illness often limit their travel to areas they are familiar with. The disorientating
effects of these disabilities means they are unwilling to risk the possibility of ‘an episode’
occurring. When undertaking an unfamiliar journey for the first time, such people often prefer
to be accompanied, which can mean that their activity independence is restricted beyond the
well-known local environment. If they have recently had a negative experience travelling,
then their confidence takes a long time to rebuild and their travel patterns are likely to be
further restricted.

Other people, particularly those with learning disabilities, feel unable to complete
spontaneous journeys that will require obtaining information on route. They feel that if the
information is not presented clearly they will not be able to understand it and they may have
to ask for assistance, which they find demeaning (Disability Rights Commission, 2000).
Others who have difficulty speaking clearly often feel that they will not be able to make
themselves understood to drivers (DETR, 2000a). Confidence in their own ability is the
biggest factor that determines the travel horizons of people with a mental health disability.

As with older people, whether a disabled person can successfully complete a journey will
rely as much on the accessibility of the street and bus stop infrastructure as on the
accessibility of the bus. The 2004 National Travel Survey showed that in 2002, 16 per cent
said they found it difficult to walk and half of these also found it difficult to travel by bus. 70
per cent of those who had problems using buses found it difficult to get on and off buses,
about 60 per cent found it difficult to get to the bus stop, and 55 per cent found it difficult
standing waiting at the bus stop. In many cases, the absence of a safe road crossing the bus
stop will provide a sufficient deterrent.

A study by Crime Concern (2002) reported that those respondents with a limiting disability
and/or illness feel they are likely to be a victim of car crime, street robbery or mugging and
an attack by a stranger. Those with a limiting disability and/or illness are also more worried
about crime and are more likely than other respondents to feel ‘very unsafe’ when out alone
in their neighbourhood after dark (24% felt ‘very unsafe’ compared to 10% with no disability
or illness).

A separate study by Crime Concern (1997) found that people with learning difficulties stated
that they would not go out in the evening on their own, only as a group. This was largely
because they had experiences where they had been victimised or verbally abused during the
day and fear that it would be worse at night. People with learning difficulties who have
concerns about their safety when using public transport or in public often limited their solo
activities.

34
Households containing disabled people aspire to car ownership, because the vehicles can
be adapted relatively easy and this can ensure much easier access to activities than when
using public transport. Access is made easier as most facilities have allotted car park spaces
close to the entrance, which only disabled people are entitled to use (Disability Rights
Commission, 2000).

3.6 Parents with Young Children (under 11)

The 2001 Census showed that around 30% of households contain dependent children; one
in nine have children under the age of five and 18 percent contain children aged between 5
and 11. The data also showed that approximately 25% of dependent children live in lone-
parent families, of which over 90% are living with the mother.

Hillman et al (1976) found that, for parents with young children, the age of the children
determined which part of the street environment provided the biggest barrier. For parents
travelling with children young enough to be in a buggy or a pram the biggest problem was
negotiating past the street furniture and the effort involved in pushing the child up hills or
over uneven paving. Even travelling along a good, flat pavement was found to cause
tiredness and reduced the distance they were able to walk.

It has been found that having dependent children under 18 has a significant negative impact
on travel-to-work time, particularly if the parents are dependent on public transport as there
remain concerns over it's reliability. The frequency and reliability of public transport is
particularly important to parents of young children, as they are more likely to trip-chain
(combine journeys to work, school, childcare and shopping). The trip chains that are
undertaken by parents are not consistent but vary daily, so routine journeys are not
performed. Anecdotal evidence has shown that the public transport network lacks the
flexibility and regularity to meet the requirements of their personal schedules.

It is becoming increasingly common for parents to escort their children on trips to a variety of
locations. Between 1970 and 1990 the percentage of children's trips which are escorted has
increased by a factor of three and a half. For primary aged children, the proportion of school
trips by car increased from 30 to 40 per cent between 1992/94 and 2002/03, with a
corresponding reduction of trips on foot from 61 to 52 per cent. The main reasons given for
accompanying primary school children (aged 7-10) to school were traffic danger (58 per
cent), fear of assault or molestation (45 per cent) (DfT, 2005). Adult women were much more
likely to make escort education trips, which accounted for 15 per cent of all trips for women
aged 30-39, compared with only 3 per cent for men in this age group (DfT, 2004b).

Almost three-fifths of children aged 5-16 said they walked for 20 minutes or more at least
once a week, but one fifth said they had not walked that far in the last year (DfT, 2005). The
2005 Focus on Travel report (DfT, 2005) showed that in urban areas in 2002/03, cars taking
children to school accounted for 13 per cent of car trips in the morning rush hour (8-9am)
and 21 per cent of trips at 08.50am, the peak time for school run traffic. Many women in
Edinburgh said that they would either drive their child to reach their activities or not let them
go at all (Pain, 1997 in Gaffron et al, 2001). The three principle reasons that parents of
young children prioritise travelling by car are:

- They complete many trip chains;

- Travelling on public transport with children is expensive, and
- They feel they are better able to protect their children if they travel with them in a car.

35
The principal concern of parents when travelling is the well being of their children. In addition
to ensuring their safety (discussed above) public transport often fails to provide an
environment compatible to the needs of young children. Children are very active and those
under seven find having to stay in one place for a long period quite difficult (Hillman et al,
1976). Children can therefore be difficult to control on buses and trains, especially on long
journeys (DETR, 2000b). The absence of restraints on seats means that it is hard to stop
children moving around and impress on them the need to sit in their seat for safety reasons.
As there is usually no area set aside on long distance transport where it is considered
appropriate for children to 'play', other passengers often display intolerance towards the
children's behaviour and hostility towards the parents (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). This makes
parents trips with young children on public transport both tiring and uncomfortable (DETR,
2000b).

Parents have also expressed their frustration at the way in which ‘no smoking’ bans are not
enforced on buses and at transport nodes, and the negative impact that this can have on
their child's health (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

3.7 Unemployed
The Labour Force Survey revealed that there were 1.49 million unemployed people in Britain
in April 2003 (at 5%). This is a lower figure than is historically normal (Labour Force Survey,
April 2003). At the time of the last Census, 30 per cent of those who were unemployed, were
long-term unemployed (Census, 2001). The Labour Force Survey shows that short-term
unemployment is the most prevalent. Of those unemployed in April 2003, 65 per cent had
been so for up to six months and only 10 per cent for over two years.

As the trip to work constitutes a large amount of the travel carried out by an employed
person, its absence means that unemployed people have a lot less travel experience. In
addition, their low-income level means that they have a reduced financial ability to travel long
distances, and this continued pattern of limited travel over time reduces the travel horizons
of the unemployed. Green (1998) analysed the travel patterns of people in Hackney and
Islington, where she recorded the existence of two distinct communities. One with a very
local focus in terms of employment, residence, training and other local services. The second
with much wider job horizons and less commitment to staying in the area. The first group
contained an over-representation of ethnic minorities, the unemployed and those in low
skilled jobs.

Much research has been undertaken to map the acceptable work trip travel time and
distance limits of unemployed people (Lindsay et al, 2003; McQuaid and Lindsay, 2002;
McQuaid et al, 2001; Monk et al, 1999; METRO, 2002). It has been shown that unemployed
people have a tendency to look for work in areas familiar to them, have a distrust of the
ability of public transport to deliver them to the desired location on schedule, and view the
need to interchange on route as a significant barrier (DETR, 2000a; Social Exclusion Unit,
2003; METRO, 2002). The extent to which they localise their job search and display
‘psychological insularity’ depends on the population density of the area of residence (Lindsay
et al, 2003), the level of demand in the local labour market (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2002),
education level, length of unemployment, skill base and the pattern of provision of public
transport (McQuaid et al, 2001).

Around a third of unemployed respondents in rural Scotland limited the area of their job
search to within 10 miles of their home, and around 60 per cent would not consider
opportunities more than 25 miles away, which in affect was the immediate surrounding area
only (The Scottish Office, 1999). The potential travel-to-work distances can be further

36
reduced by the need to interchange if travelling on public transport. It has however, been
found that the primary factors affecting an unemployed persons potential travel-to-work time
are socio-economic rather than spatial, and that the individuals skill level and educational
attainment have the greatest affect.

Many jobseekers experience difficulties accessing interviews and travelling to their jobs for
various reasons. For example, public transport costs can limit unemployed people's ability to
find and accept a job. In addition, they are hard to manage immediately after people gain
employment, as there is usually a delay between the last benefit payment and the first pay
cheque. It can be difficult for recently employed people to buy money-saving season tickets,
as they do not have the financial resources available to them and employer-loans are often
not available.

Jobcentre Plus (an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions) encourages
the use of a wide range of flexible and workable approaches and initiatives to help to resolve
these difficulties (DWP, 2003). Such approaches include the Adviser Discretion Fund (ADF),
which aims to give certain jobseekers financial assistance to purchase appropriate goods or
services which will help to overcome barriers to work; and the ‘Travel to Interview Scheme’,
which helps unemployed people by paying the cost of travelling to a job interview which is
beyond daily travelling distance of their home. Jobcentre Plus also works with its partners
(e.g. the Association of Train Operating Companies and Transport for London) to resolve
work accessibility issues, for example through the ATOC Agreement (provides New Deal
participants in England and Wales with a 50% reduction on the cost of rail travel), ‘Access to
Work’ scheme for people with disabilities, provision of travel information and journey
planning in Jobcentre Plus offices, and financial help for people living in rural areas with
inadequate transport facilities for young people starting in employment and training (New
Deal for Young People), and for those returning to work through schemes such as Job Grant
(New Deal for people aged 25 and over) (DWP, 2003).

Of all the study groups examined in this report, car ownership is lowest amongst
unemployed people. Notwithstanding this, car ownership is seen as a major facilitator of
gaining employment (METRO, 2000). It is also seen as a measure through which the limited
travel horizons of many unemployed people could be expanded (Lindsay et al, 2003).

3.8 Shift workers

In recent years there has been a proliferation of shift workers, particularly in the retail sector
with more shops opening later and on a Sunday. Whereas shift working was once mainly a
feature of essential services which needed to operate around the clock, such as health,
transport and communications, the growth of the ‘24/7’ economy has resulted in increasing
expectations of people being able to access services at times that are convenient for them;
this means that workers in a growing number of sectors and occupations are working shifts.
For example, people working in the "personal services" employee group, such as care
assistants, home carers or nursing auxiliaries and assistants are most likely to work shifts.

In Spring 2002 almost four million people, around 16 per cent of those in employment, were
employed in shift work (Labour Market Trends, 2002). Shift workers face constraints on their
ability to participate in other activities, due to the nature of their working hours (Baker et al,
2003) and may experience mobility problems relating to the need to travel during off-peak
times when public transport services are less frequent (Lucas et al, 2003). A further problem
is that those starting or finishing work early in the morning have to pay the peak travel fare,
even though they travel before the network is busy.

37
The nature of shift work means that employees often have to travel on public transport late in
the evening when fear is crime is greatest. Personal safety whilst waiting for public transport
was a greater concern for shift workers than safety on public transport (METRO, 2000).

A high level of car use has been recorded amongst shift workers for the trip to work, and
there is anecdotal evidence that car ownership is one of the first things pursued when
becoming a shift worker (Lucas et al, 2001). This is in response to both concerns about
personal safety, particularly when the shift finishes after dark, and the need to trip chain on
the way to or from work. A report by Crime Concern (2002) mentioned that women’s security
travelling to and from work was seen as a key issue; especially with women working shift
patterns involving early morning starts and late night finishes. The location of some
workplaces in otherwise deserted areas (for example, at the peripheral of industrial estates)
also underlined the importance of this issue.

38
4 THE TRAVEL PATTERNS OF SOCIALLY EXCLUDED GROUPS
As shown in the previous section, the study groups share a number of transport concerns.
Using the lowest income quintile classification as a proxy for the study groups, it is possible
to use the latest Focus on Personal Travel report (DfT, 2005) to portray their travel
experience in more detail.

This chapter will initially examine the amount of travel per person, before looking at the type
of mode used for different trip lengths and times. Expenditure on travel modes is presented
next, followed by an analysis of travel to particular types of destination, specifically work,
education and shopping. This analysis looks both at travel among those in the lowest income
quintile group, and across age groups. Finally, the impact of car ownership on the nature of
trips made by people in the lowest income quintile will be discussed.

4.1 Number of Trips

4.1.1 Trips by Income Quintile

There is a strong relationship between income level and the number of trips per person per
year. In 2002/03 (see Figure 3), people in the highest income band on average made 35 per
cent more trips than those in the lowest income band (1,113 compared with 824). People
within the lowest income quintile made the least number of trips, completing 174 fewer trips
a year than the national average and those in the highest quintile made 115 more trips than
the average.

Figure 3 also shows that the number of trips made has fallen in all income groups except the
lowest real income quintile between 1989/91 and 2002/03. The overall average number of
reported trips made per person each year has fallen by 9 per cent from 1,100 to 1,000.

Figure 3: Average number of trips made, by household income group: 1989/91 and 2002/03

1,400 1,284
1,205
Trips per person per year

1,200 1,130 1,094 1,113 1,091

1,024 998
960 914
1,000
813 824
800
600
400
200
-
Lowest Second Third quintile Fourth Highest All incomes
quintile quintile quintile quintile

1989/91 2002/03

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

Note: Individuals income quintile is defined by the income quintile of the household they live in.

39
 4.1.2 Trips by Age and Gender

Figure 4 shows the average number of trips made, by age and gender in 2002/03. On
average, people made 1,000 trips a year, with only a slight difference between men and
women overall. The number of trips made increases with age until people reach their fifties,
when it starts to fall. In 2002/03 people aged 16 or less made 900 trips a year, on average.
This increased to about 1,200 for people in their thirties and forties, and then decreased with
age to under 700 amongst people aged 70 or more. Up to the age of 49, women make more
trips than their male counterparts, but from the age of 50 men make more trips than women.

Figure 4: Average number of trips made, by age and gender: 2002/03

1,400
1,256 1,245
1,166 1,190
1,200 1,130 1,132
1,078 1,063 1,088 1,061
Trips per person per year

1,021 1,045
978 985 9941,003998
1,000 936 957
915 898 890 914
881
803
800
684
594
600

400

200

0
<17 17-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ All ages

Males Females All

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

4.1.3 Trips by Age and Mode

The proportion of trips made using each mode of transport by different age groups is shown
in Figure 5. As the results indicate, the mix of modes of transport used varies with age; as
people grow older (until their fifties) the proportion of trips made on foot decreases and the
proportion of trips made as a car driver or passenger increases. For example, people aged
16 or less made 33 per cent of their trips on foot and 54 per cent of their journeys were by
car, compared to those people in their forties where 18 per cent of their trips were made on
foot and 73 per cent by car.

The results also show that the proportion of trips made by foot increases, and car use
decreases, in the post 50 age groups. The proportion of bus and coach trips is small for
most age groups, apart from those aged 17-20 and over 70, who made 16 per cent and 11
per cent of their trips by bus or coach in 2002/03 respectively.

40
Figure 5: Main mode of trips made, by age: 2002/03

70
61
60 58 57
54
Percentage of trips

50 47
43
41
40 35
33
27 28
30 26 25 26 24
23
21 20 20 21
18 18
20 16 15 14
12 11 11
7 8 78
10 6 6
4 45 34 43 3 4 4
2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
0
0
<17 17-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ All ages

Walk Bicycle Car driver Car passenger Bus and coach Other

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

4.2 Distance Travelled by Income Quintile

As would be expected, considering the smaller number of trips made annually, and the
localised travel patterns of the lowest income quintile, they travelled the shortest annual
distances least far. Figure 6 shows that in 2002/03, people in the highest income quintile
travelled, on average, nearly three times as far as people in the lowest income quintile, at
11,000 miles a year compared with 3,800.

When comparing the number of trips with the distance travelled per income quintile, the
results show that, at one point in time, average trip distance increases far more with income
than the number of trips made. However, while the average annual distance travelled has
increased in all income groups over time, the greatest growth between 1989/91 and 2002/03
has been in the lowest income quintile (34.5%), compared to only a slight increase in the
highest income quintile (0.3%).

The average trip length went up from 5.9 miles in 1989/91 to 6.9 miles in 2002/03. The
average length of trip by people in the highest income group is more than double that of
those in the lowest income group at 9.7 and 4.6 miles respectively in 2002/03. Howver, it is
among low income people that the growth in average trip length has been highest, so that
there is now less difference in average trip length between the income groups in 2002/03
than in 1989/91.

41
Figure 6: Average distance travelled, by real income quintile: 1989/91 and 2002/03.

12,000
10,80910,850

10,000
Miles per person per year

7,883 8,167
8,000
6,855
6,402 6,475
5,861
6,000
4,798
4,369
3,831
4,000
2,848

2,000

-
Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest All incom es
quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile

1989/91 2002/03

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

Note: Individuals income quintile is defined by the income quintile of the household they live in.

4.3 Variations in Distance Travelled by Location

As would be expected, those in the lowest income quintile in rural areas travelled longer
distances than those in the comparable group in urban areas. The disparity between the
distance travelled by the lowest income quintile and both the average and the highest
income quintile is greater the more urbanised the location gets. This is probably explained by
the fact that there is less choice in the destination of many services in more rural locations,
meaning that people are likely to travel to the same location for some activities.

4.3.1 The Average Length of Journeys Completed on Each Transport Mode

To the extent that they try to use cheaper forms of travel, it might be expected that those in
the lowest income quintile would have longer average travel times than those in the higher
income quintiles. However, figure 7 shows that there is no clear pattern linking income level
with average trip time for any mode. Overall, average trip times increase with income. As
those in the lowest income quintile are more likely to use slower modes, it can be inferred
that they have much smaller travel horizons, as confirmed by the lower annual distances
travelled in Figure 6.

42
Figure 7: Average trip time by income quintile

80

71 70 69
70
66
63

60

50
Minutes

42
39 38
40 36 37 36 35
35
32 33
30 30 31 30 31
30
23 22 24
22 22 21 22
21 20 21 20 20 20 20
18 18 18 18 18
20 18
16 16
15 16 15

10

-
L o w e s t re a l S e c o n d le v e l T h ird le v e l F o u rth le v e l H ig h e s t re a l
in c o m e in c o m e
W a lk B ic y c le C a r/v a n d riv e r
C a r/v a n p a s s e n g e r O th e r p riv a te S ta g e b u s
R a il O th e r p u b lic A ll m o d e s

Source: National Travel Survey (DfT, 2001b)

4.3.2 Travel to Work by Mode and Income Quintile

Figure 8 shows that the biggest difference between the quintiles is in the proportion who
travel to work as a car or van driver. Those in the highest income quintile are twice as likely
to drive to work than those in the lowest income group. Furthermore those in the lowest
income were most likely to travel to work by stage bus or on foot.

This information, alongside the average trip time data, suggests that those in the lowest
income quintile work relatively locally. Surprisingly, those in the lowest income were not the
least likely to go to work mainly by rail. This may be due to their lower levels of car
ownership, plus the higher numbers of people in the lowest income quintile that live in
London and other metropolitan areas, where the rail infrastructure is better than in the rest of
the country.

43
Figure 8: Commuting trips by income quintile

100%
3 2 3 4
10 6 12
90% 9
1
17 2 2 4
12 1
80%
2 13 8
17
70% 14

60%

50%
32 45 61
55
64
40%

30%
5

20% 5

25 4 4
10%
17 2
12 11
7
0%
L o w e s t r e a l in c o m e S e c o n d le v e l T h ir d le v e l F o u r t h le v e l H ig h e s t r e a l
in c o m e

W a lk B ic y c le C a r / v a n d r iv e r C a r/v a n p a s s e n g e r O t h e r p r iv a t e S ta g e b u s R a il O t h e r p u b lic

Source: National Travel Survey (DfT, 2001b)

4.3.3 Shopping Travel by Mode and Income Quintile

Figures 9 and 10 show that, for both food shopping and non-food shopping, those in the
lowest income quintile are most likely to travel to the shop on foot or by stage bus. They are
least likely to go by car.

This has significant implications for the food shopping trip in particular, with most stores
being designed to cater for those buying a large amount at once and carrying it home in their
car. Those without use of a car for the trip to the food shop are thus at a disadvantage.

44
Figure 9: Food shopping trips by income quintile

100% 4 4 2 2 2
3 2
6
90% 15 11
19
22
80% 24
19 22
70%

60%
20
50% 30 50 56
42
40%

30%

20% 43
33
26 23
10% 21

0%
Lowest real Second level Third level Fourth level Highest real
income income

Walk Car/van driver Car/van passenger Stage bus Other

Source: National Travel Survey (DfT, 2001b)

Figure 10: Non-food shopping trips by income quintile

100% 4 4 3 3 4
7 5 3
90% 11
18
80% 26 24
27
25
70%
22
60%

50%
20 31 37 44 49
40%

30%

20% 36
30 26
10% 22 20

0%
Lowest real Second level Third level Fourth level Highest real
income income

Walk Car/van driver Car/van passenger Stage bus Other

Source: National Travel Survey (DfT, 2001b)

45
4.4 Transport Expenditure by Mode
Figure 11 shows that those in the lowest income quintile spend the largest proportion of their
non-car travel expenditure on bus and coach fares and the smallest on taxi, air and other
travel. As incomes increase, the smallest area of growth is in bus and coach fares, just
doubling in absolute expenditure between the lowest and highest quintiles. Conversely, the
largest growth is in ‘taxis, air and other travel’, with a thirteen-fold increase across the
quintiles.

Figure 11: Spending on non-motoring transport costs per quintile

24

22
2
20

18

16
Average £s per week

14 13

12

10
1
8
1
5 2
6
0 4
4
0 3 6
2
2 1 2
1 1 2
1 1
0 0
L o w e s t q u in t ile S e c o n d q u in t ile T h ir d q u in t ile F o u r t h q u in t ile H ig h e s t q u in t ile
R a il a n d tu b e fa r e s B u s a n d c o a c h fa re s T a x is , a ir a n d o th e r tr a v e l O th e r

Source: Family Spending Survey 2000-01 (DfT, 2001a)

Looking next at expenditure on motoring, here there are data from two sources: the National
Travel Survey and the Family Expenditure Survey (Figure 12). However, there is a
discrepancy between the two surveys regarding how much money households spend, on
average, on motoring costs: the NTS records higher figures for low income households, and
the FES higher figures for high income households. However, the general trend is the same,
namely that the amount spent on motoring costs increases as incomes increase – though
this is much more marked in the case of the Family Expenditure Survey.

46
Figure 12: Weekly Household Expenditure on Car-Related Travel Costs
120

100
Average £s per week

80
FES
60 NTS

40

20

0
Lowest quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Highest quintile

Source: Family Spending Survey 2000-01 & Focus on personal travel: 2001 Edition (DfT, 2001a).

47
5 COMMON BARRIERS TO TRAVEL BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT

5.1 Identifying the Barriers

As many of the barriers are common to more than one of the groups covered in this project
(Hine & Mitchell, 2001b), the following sections discuss each of the barriers in turn, focusing
on the groups that are most affected by them. However, it is important to bear in mind that
inability to travel not only affects individuals but also society as a whole. On the individual
level, as well as allowing for greater social inclusion, an ability to travel means that the
individual is independent and can more fully participate in society. The opportunity for social
interaction encourages social inclusion in it’s own right (DETR, 2001; Kenyon et al, 2002).

Barry (2002) goes further than this, to contend that it is specifically the widespread use of
public transport that acts as a facilitator of social solidarity, because it is based on a shared
experience. He argues that the use of the private car isolates people and puts them in
competition with other road users (including pedestrians), especially in congested areas,
thus reducing civility between them. Kenyon et al (2002) also refer to the way in which car
travel can curtail social interaction, inferring that this can be seen as evidence of exclusion,
although Barry (2002) would say it was deliberate.

This section will outline the barriers that have been identified in the literature as preventing,
restricting or discouraging socially excluded people from travelling on public transport. There
are many component tasks to be completed in the undertaking of a journey from the original
location to the final destination, and they are usually all equally important. These
components include finding out about the location of the desired activity and how to make
the journey, getting to the transport node, waiting for public transport, boarding, paying for
the journey, alighting and walking to the destination.

The literature review has identified that the main barriers to travel are:

• The availability and location of activities in a given area;

• Public transport availability: in terms of network coverage, proximity to services,
service operating times and the frequency and reliability of services;
• Physical accessibility of the transport system: in terms of access to timetable and
other service information, the external and internal environment when waiting for
services and vehicle design;
• The cost of public transport;
• Psychological barriers: such as fear of crime, racial and sexual harassment and low
travel horizons;
• Other issues of compatibility: such as the poor image of public transport.

It only takes problems with one of these components to prevent an individual from making a
trip. For example, a report by Crime Concern (2002) showed that people identify the wait at
the bus stop or train station as the point of the journey where they feel most unsafe,
especially after dark, and in places where environmental quality is poor (e.g. presence of
graffiti, litter, broken glass, fly-posting and other signs of disorder, reflecting poor
management and a lack of formal surveillance).

This was followed by the journey between home and the stop or station. Wherever possible,
public transport users and pedestrians avoid quiet poorly lit back streets and will take a
longer detour to enhance their security through busier well lit public spaces. However, it
must be noted that busy public spaces are not always felt to be safe and can be the focus of
drunken or rowdy people, especially in the late evenings.

48
A study funded through the European Union programme looked more closely at pedestrian
journeys and examined inter-modality (European Commission, 2003). PROMPT (PROMote
Pedestrian Traffic in cities) examined a range of issues affecting pedestrian journeys across
six European countries. Through interviews with pedestrians, the research identified and
measured those features that contributed to the pedestrian’s journey, including safety,
accessibility, attractiveness and inter-modality. The project showed that the quality of a
pedestrian’s journey is dependent on the surroundings, the situation and the individual. In all
six countries, the feeling of safety and security was regarded as the most important factor for
all the respondents.

5.2 Access to Services

The SEU Report ‘Making the Connections’ (SEU, 2003) examined the link between social
exclusion, transport and the location of services. As stated in the DfT Guidance on
Accessibility Planning (2004a) accessibility is about whether people can get to key services
at a reasonable cost, time and ease. It asks local authorities and their partners to question
whether transport links exist between people and the services they wish to access, whether
people are aware of the local transport services available to them as well as being able to
afford to use them. In other words, accessibility problems are not just caused by poor
transport planning and co-ordination of services, but are also related to the location and
delivery of key activities and the ways that people reach them.

The DfT Guidance (2004a) identified five key barriers to accessing services:
1. Public transport is not always available or is not physically accessible;
2. Some people find the costs of personal or public transport are very high or
unaffordable;
3. Services and activities are often located in inaccessible places.
Developments including housing, hospitals, business and retail are often
located in areas not easily accessible to people without a car. Between 1986
and 1997, the number of out-of-town shopping centres increased four-fold;
4. Some people are unwilling to use public transport for safety and security
reasons;
5. Some people are unwilling to travel long journey times or distances, or may
not know about or trust transport services.

There are specific barriers to accessing different services/activities and each of these will
now be addressed.

5.2.1 Access to Education & Training

The Government is committed to an inclusive education system that provides all young
people with the opportunity to meet their full potential. The ability to access educational
facilities is central to the aim of ensuring that students are able to participate and remain in
education and they should not be prevented from accessing education services because of a
lack of availability of transport services or their ability to afford them. However, there are at
least three factors that may prevent this:
1. Travel costs may cause financial difficulties for pupils from families on low
incomes who are not entitled to free transport (i.e. within 3 miles from their
nearest suitable school) and where it is not possible to walk or cycle safely;
2. Parents exercising their right to send their children to their preferred school,
which may not be their nearest school, reduces the choice for those from low-
income families.

49
 3. After school activities and vocational options for 14-19 students at locations
other than their usual school results is some students needing appropriate
travel provision during the day as well as at either end of the day.

The DfT’s Guidance (2004a) highlights that accessibility planning for education and training
should:
• Lead to a greater understanding of students’ travel needs;
• Deliver real and sustainable outcomes for students;
• Facilitate the efficient and effective use of resources; and
• Aid progress towards the achievement of national and local objectives and targets for
all partners.

5.2.2 Access to Healthcare

The Government is committed to providing health services that are of consistently high
quality and responsive to the needs of the patient and ensuring that people can access
those services when they need them is crucial to good health. However, there are at least
three factors that may prevent this:
1. Lack of available and affordable public transport services presents a barrier to
accessing health services and contributes to further health inequalities;
2. During the course of a year 1.4 million people (or 3%) will miss, turn down or
not even seek hospital appointments because of problems with transport (this
figure rises to 7% of people without access to a car). Also, 31% of people
without a car have difficulties travelling to their local hospital, compared to
17% with a car (SEU, 2003);
3. Specialist treatment centres may not be located in accessible areas. For
example, in rural areas, access to hospital services can involve very lengthy
trips (more than 7.5 miles).

The DfT’s Guidance (2004a) highlights that accessibility planning for healthcare should:
• Focus on the development of primary care services, particularly in disadvantaged
areas, the provision of more local treatment and the use of information technology
such as NHS Direct;
• Provide professionals with a greater knowledge of how the various transport systems
can support patients;
• Maximise attendance at health services e.g. timing appointments to link with public
transport, providing patients with individual journey plans, providing travel passes;
• Tackle the underlying causes of poor health through improved access to training and
work opportunities.

5.2.3 Access to Employment

The Government is committed to tackling poverty and help unemployed and economically
inactive people to move closer to the labour market and compete effectively for work while
providing appropriate help and support for those without work (DfT, 2004a). However, there
are at least four factors that may prevent this:
1. 40% of jobseekers say transport is a barrier to them accessing employment or
training opportunities, leading to some job seekers only applying for jobs within a
narrow geographical area, finding it harder to gain employment and remaining on
benefits for longer (SEU, 2003);
2. Some people find the costs of personal or public transport are very high or
unaffordable;
3. Limited travel horizons, which includes lack of knowledge about and trust in the
available travel options;
4. Many of the new jobs created in recent years have been in out-of-town or
suburban locations, which can be hard to reach without a car. More jobs also
50
 require evening and weekend work, when public transport services are poor (DfT,
2004a).

The DfT’s Guidance (2004a) highlights that accessibility planning for welfare to work should
support the delivery of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) strategic objectives
which are underpinned by the following Public Service Agreements, including:
• To reduce the number of children in relative low-income households;
• To increase the employment rates of disadvantaged groups;
• Significantly reduce the difference between the employment rates of disadvantaged
groups and the overall rate;
• Further improve the rights of disabled people and remove barriers to their
participation in society, working with other government departments, including
through increasing awareness of the rights of disabled people; and
• Increase the employment rate of disabled people, taking account of economic cycle.

5.2.4 Access to Cultural and Leisure Services

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has identified the ways in which
accessibility planning can help cultural and leisure services reach target groups and increase
participation. For example, DCMS have recognised the benefits of accessibility planning,
namely that that more people will be able to access museums, libraries, leisure centres,
sports tracks, historic places and arts venues, thereby increasing participation and making
services more cost-effective. However, there are at least two factors that may prevent this
(DfT, 2004a):
1. For many disabled people lack of accessible transport and distances from means
of transport to cultural venues represent sizeable if not unsurmountable barriers;
and
2. Transport is a key barrier amongst hard-to-reach communities.

The DfT’s Guidance (2004a) highlights the ways in which accessibility planning can increase
participation of cultural and leisure services, including:
• Recognising the diversity of transport barriers a number of groups of people face,
and wherever possible aim at removing them;
• Better transport provision to cultural and leisure services;
• Better planning of the location of leisure and cultural services and the way that these
are delivered to excluded or isolated groups in communities.

5.3 Location of Activities

Although there is little data collected on the proximity of particular leisure services to
people’s homes, the National Travel Survey looks at the time it takes for households to walk
to key services. The results of the 1991/01 survey data (DfT, 2001a) are presented in figure
13 and show that 18 per cent of households can walk to their GP surgery within 6 minutes of
their home, but for 32 per cent of households this journey can take them more than 26
minutes. Almost three-quarters of households live within 13 minutes of a post office and 60
per cent spend the same time walking to a chemist. There is a food store within a 13 minutes
walk of four out of five households, making it the facility that people are most likely to live
closest to.

General hospitals and shopping centres are the least accessible on foot, with 70 per cent of
households reporting that their nearest general hospital is more than a 44 minutes walk from
their home and 45 per cent are over 26 minutes away from a shopping centre. The average
travelling time required to access each of these services has increased since 1989/1991
(see Table 4), with the biggest changes occurring in the proximity of food shops, with a 10
per cent reduction in the proportion of households living within a 6-minute walk of this facility.
51
Table 4: Time taken to walk to local facilities: 1989/1991 and 1999/2001 or 20021
Percentage of households/number
General Shopping
Doctor Chemist Food Store Post Office
Hospital centre
1999
1989 / 1989 / 1989 / 1989 / 1989 / 1999 / 1989 /
2002 2002 2002 2002 /
1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 2001 1991
2001
6 min or
19 16 2 2 35 31 68 56 47 42 11 10
less
7-13 min
21 20 3 4 27 28 21 25 31 31 16 14
14-26 min
29 31 11 13 23 26 8 13 17 21 30 31
27-43 min
14 14 14 14 6 7 2 3 3 4 17 18
44 min or
17 18 70 66 9 9 1 3 2 2 26 27
more
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1
Questions not asked for some facilities in 2002 so 1999/2001 data shown. Questions not asked
between 1992 and 1998
Source: National Travel Survey 2002 (DfT 2004c)

Figure 13: Time taken to travel to local facilities

100% 2 3
4 8 3
90% 18
6 13 27
21
80%
14
25
70% 24
18 70
60%
31
30
50%
28
40% 31

30% 58
20
13
20% 42
32 14

10% 11
18
10 3
0% 2
D o c to r P o s t O f f ic e C h e m is t F o o d S to re S h o p p in g G e n e ra l
C e n tre H o s p it a l

6 m in u t e s o r le s s 7 t o 1 3 m in u t e s 1 4 - 2 6 m in u t e s 2 7 - 4 3 m in u t e s 4 4 m in u t e s o r m o r e

Source: National Travel Survey 1999/2001 Update (DfT, 2001a)

Note: these figures are based on the total population, rather than income quintile groups.

Research on service availability in 20 unpopular local authority estates (Power & Tunstall,
1994, in Church & Frost, 1999) has shown that the provision of services is typically worse in
socially excluded neighbourhoods. The research found that none of these areas had a
supermarket or a range of shops and only a quarter of the areas had a Post Office,
launderette, chemist or clinic. Furthermore, it has been found that 49 per cent of all rural
parishes have no youth activities (Countryside Agency, 2001).

It should be noted, however, that the unavailability of services might not always have a
negative impact. Research in Athens showed that spatial isolation led to the formation of

52
strong informal networks within small local communities (Vrychea & Golemis, 1998 quoted in
Church & Frost, 1999).

A household survey was conducted for the Office of National Statistics in November 2001
that asked respondents if they have any difficulty in accessing a number of different places
(DfT, 2004b). Figure 14 shows that one third (34 per cent) of the respondents said they had
difficulty getting to one or more of the places listed. Access to hospital was mentioned by 15
per cent of people; this was followed by difficulty in visiting 'friends and family' (11 per cent),
access to work (9 per cent), a bank (7 per cent), a leisure centre (6 per cent), a GP surgery
(6 per cent), a supermarket (6 per cent) and a dentist surgery (5 per cent).

Figure 14: Places people have difficulty getting to: November 2001

40
34

30
Percentage

20 15
13
11
9
10 6 6 6 7
5

e
y
t

tre

l
ily

er
k
t

ita
ke
is

er

ov
n

ac

th
m
t

Ba
n

p
ar

rg
en

ab
l
ce

O
fa

os
kp
rm

su
D

H
d

e
or
re
pe

an

th
's

W
u
r
Su

is

of
to

s
Le

nd
oc

y
An
ie
D

Fr

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

Note: these figures are based on the total population, rather than income quintile groups.

Evidence from the Survey of English Housing (see Figure 15) suggests that the proportion of
people experiencing difficulty getting to places has increased over the four-year (1997/98-
2001/02) period, particularly for access to a hospital. As the figure suggests, there have
been increases in the proportion of people both with and without access to a car
experiencing difficulty getting to various places. Those respondents without access to a car
were much more likely to report a difficulty than those with access.

53
Figure 15: Places people with and without access to a car have difficulty getting to: 1997/98
and 2001/02

60
Percentage having difficulty

48
50
38
40
27
30
22 22
18 17
20 16
13 14
9 10
10 5 5 5 6 5
3 3 3

0
1997/98 2001/02 1997/98 2001/02

With Access to a Car Without Access to a Car

Corner Shop Post Office Doctor Hospital Supermarket

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c).

Note: these figures are based on the total population, rather than income quintile groups.

5.4 Public Transport Availability

Even if an activity is located relatively close to a person’s home, it can still be inaccessible
for those dependent on public transport. The accessibility of activities by public transport is
partly a subjective judgment. For example, some activities may be physically served by the
public transport network but still generally perceived to be inaccessible – perhaps because
they involve more than one interchange, which may be viewed as unacceptable to certain
groups of people or in certain circumstances. Individuals set their own thresholds as to how
long they are willing to travel on public transport to get to any given activity, depending on a
variety of such factors. In addition, public transport services are not evenly distributed across
the country and the level of service provision is usually related to the density of the local
population.

No national data is currently available on the absence of public transport services to popular
destinations (though this will change as a consequence of the national accessibility
indicators now being developed). Several local level case studies suggest that the
availability of public transport is poor in certain parts of the UK. For example, the
Countryside Agency (2001) found that half of those without a car in a particular market town
were unable to access a dentist because public transport provision did not exist. Similarly,
people living in North Yorkshire were unable to go to the North Yorkshire Moors because no
service was available (Countryside Agency, 2001). In other studies, young people have
reported not being able to access their local swimming pool because public transport
services did not serve that particular location (DETR, 2000a). Parents of young children in
rural areas have commented on their inability to access hospital, clinics and other medical
facilities, as have older people (DETR, 2000a). Transport related problems has been
reported by 12 per cent of job seekers, who claim that a lack of available transport services
has stopped them from attending interviews (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003).

54
5.4.1 Availability in Rural Areas

Rural areas were particularly badly affected by reduced public transport services following
the deregulation of the bus industry. In addition, the closure of many train stations in small
towns and villages in the 50s and 60s, as a result of the Beeching Report, has meant that
many rural areas have for a long time been characterised by a poverty of transport options.
Since then there has been a gradual reduction of services in face of increased car ownership
(Lucas et al, 2001). This has created a distinct division in the travel experiences of those
with access to a car and those without (Gray, 2001). Cloke et al (1997) suggest that car
ownership is now an essential part of rural living, regardless of the economic position of the
household.

The impact of these cutbacks has been accentuated by a reduction in the provision of local
services, with fewer community facilities surviving, resulting in the need to travel to more
densely-populated areas. This has resulted in fewer services within walking distance (Gray,
2001) and consequently the importance of public transport increasing (Gaffron et al, 2001).
A recent report found that almost 20 per cent of rural villages and towns with a population
under 2,000 had a transport service 'below subsistence' level (Gray, 2001).

The Countryside Agency (2001) found that transport is the single most important concern of
people living in rural areas. For example, 40 per cent of long-term unemployed men resident
in rural areas cite accessing jobs as a barrier to work (Social Exclusion Unit 2003). The
problem for public transport authorities is that it needs to provide for a dispersed population
that want access to a range of distant locations, many of whom have access to a car (Nutley,
2003). It must be noted that Government policies are currently supporting the growth of bus
provision in rural areas and encouraging the growth of train services on rural lines (Gray,
2001). Targets have been set to ensure improved public transport provision for those in rural
areas.

5.4.2 Availability in Urban Areas

Poor public transport availability is not exclusive to rural areas. There is evidence that
pockets of low network coverage exist within large urban areas. Kenyon et al (2002) note
that these areas also have low car ownership and display many of the other symptoms
associated with social exclusion, such as high unemployment.

Data from a Bradford study that was conducted by Friends of the Earth (2001) indicates a
correlation between the areas where people have to walk more than 200m to a bus stop and
areas with low car ownership. Public transport often bypasses these areas as they are not
profitable or result in vandalism to the vehicles or abuse to the staff (SEU, 2003). Murray
(1998) describes these areas as 'no go' and 'no exit' communities. In other words, public
transport services in urban areas are often the most inaccessible for those who have the
greatest need for such services.

5.5 Proximity to Transport Networks

Data from the National travel Survey shows the proximity of households to both bus stops
and train stations for different density residential areas. Whilst the sample size is too small to
disaggregate the data by specific geographical location, it clearly indicates the general
paucity of public transport provision in rural locations.

55
5.5.1 Distance to Bus Stops

Table 5 compares the proximity of British households to the closest bus stop, in minutes, by
area type in 1991/93 and 2002. It shows that the average time taken to walk to the nearest
bus stop increases as density decreases. In other words, the length of walk to the bus stop
increases the more rural the location gets. For example, whilst only 2 per cent of households
in settlements containing over 25,000 people have to walk for over 13 minutes to get to a
bus stop in 2002, this is true of 15 per cent of rural households. Conditions have deteriorated
slightly over the last decade: with 85 per cent of households reportedly living within a 6-
minutes walk of a bus stop in 2002 compared to 88 per cent in 1991/1993.

Table 5: Time taken for households to walk to nearest bus stop (percentage)

Percentage of households / number

Time in minutes 1991/1993 Time in minutes 2002
Area type 6 or less 7 to 13 14 or more 6 or less 7 to 13 14 or more
London Boroughs 88 11 1 86 12 2
Met. Built-up areas 92 7 1 89 10 2
Large urban over 250k 92 7 1 90 8 2
Medium urban 25k to 250k 91 7 1 89 9 2
Small urban 3k to 25k 85 11 4 83 12 5
Rural 77 12 11 72 13 15
Source: National Travel Survey 2002 (DfT, 2004a)
Note: these figures are based on the total population, rather than income quintile groups.

Figure 16 shows the percentage of households without access to an hourly or better bus
service within a 13-minute walk of a bus stop. In 2002 at least 95 per cent of households in
medium-sized or larger urban areas (i.e. those with a total population of more than 25,000)
are able to access such a service; this falls to 86 per cent of households in small urban
areas (3,000-25,000) and 52 per cent of households in rural areas. There has been little
change in this overall figure since 1989/91; however, in small urban areas and particularly in
rural areas, the proportion of such households rose from 81 to 86 per cent, and from 37 to
52 per cent, respectively, over this period. This would seem to reflect the increased
resources that national government has provided for rural services, through its Rural
Challenge bids.

The target in the 10 Year Plan is to achieve a one-third increase in the proportion of
households in rural areas in England within about 10 minutes walk of an hourly or better bus
service by 2010. This represents an increase from the 1996 / 1998 baseline figure of 35 per
cent in the Bus Service Availability Indicator to 47 per cent. The level for 2002 was 48 per
cent (DfT, 2004b).

Other examples of distance/time thresholds that have been identified within the Help the
Aged Report (2005) include: a healthy adult walking at 3 miles per hour or 5km per hour will
cover a distance of a quarter of a mile or 400 metres in less than 5 minutes. Friends of the
Earth, in their Bradford study, employed a limit of 200 metres from the nearest bus stop. Half
a mile (approximately three quarters of a kilometre) is likewise often employed as thresholds
for the population as a whole. Or a ten minute walk is also deemed acceptable, as well as a
15-minute walk or 600 metres. In other words, these thresholds are rarely universally
accepted.

56
Witten et al (2003) have undertaken a study to develop a comprehensive methodology to
measure accessibility (distance thresholds) to a range of facilities, based on a hierarchical
order, including:
• Bus stop = 500 metres;
• Park = 750 metres;
• GP Surgery and Church = 1,000 metres;
• Bank = 1,500 metres;
• Fruit and vegetable shops and supermarkets = 2,000 metres;
• Community centres and social services = 3,000 metres;
• Hospitals and accident and emergency clinics = 5,000 metres.

The latest census demonstrates that disabled people and older people are more likely than
BME people to walk further to access an hourly or better bus service, because they are more
likely to live in rural areas than BME people (Census, 2001).

Figure 16: Households within a 13 minute walk of an hourly or better bus service: 1989/91
and 2002/03

120
Percentage of households

99 98 99 98 97 97 97 95
100
86
81
80

60 52

37
40

20

0
Metropolitan London Large urban Medium Small urban Rural
urban

1989/91 2002/03

Source: Transport Trends: 2004 Edition (DfT, 2004c)

Note: these figures are based on the total population, rather than income quintile groups.

5.5.2 Distance to Railway Stations

Figure 17 shows the proximity of British households, in minutes, to the closest train station,
by area type. Overall, relatively few households had easy access to a rail station with 56 per
cent of British households living more than a 27-minute walk from the nearest station. The
reason that London has markedly better access to train stations is largely because of the
prevalence of London Underground stations. As with bus stop access, people living in less-
densely populated areas are more likely to have to walk further to get to a train station: 86
per cent of rural households were beyond a 27-minute walk to a train station compared to 56
per cent of those in metropolitan areas.

57
Figure 17: Time taken in minutes for households to walk to the nearest train station (%)

R u ra l 3 4 7 86

V e ry s m a ll u rb a n 3 k to
6 7 12 75
10k

S m a ll u rb a n 1 0 k to 2 5 k 7 10 26 57

M e d iu m u rb a n 2 5 k to
6 10 29 55
250k

L a rg e u rb a n o v e r 2 5 0 k 6 10 25 59

M e t. B u ilt-u p a re a s 7 11 26 56

L o n d o n B o ro u g h s 24 36 30 10

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

6 o r le s s 7 to 1 3 1 4 to 2 6 2 7 o r m o re

Source: National Travel Survey 1999/2001 Update (DfT, 2001b)

Note: these figures are based on the total population, rather than income quintile groups.

5.5.3 Effect of Distance on Use of Public Transport

Research for the DfT (2002c) has found that, for disabled people, bus use reduces sharply if
the distance to the stop is over 200 metres. This acceptable distance is reduced if the
journey involves a gradient. They suggest that for places used regularly by disabled people,
such as residential care homes and day centres, bus stops should be sited as close as
possible. The DfT (2002c) suggest that the maximum recommended walk distance to a bus
stop (i.e. 400 metres) should be reduced by 10 metres for every 1 metre rise or fall.

The research also found that, for able-bodied people, bus use dropped severely if they were
required to walk more than 250 metres from their home (DfT, 2002c). It is important to note
that the proximity of a bus stop in relation to the home applies to both directions of travel.
One elderly gentleman reported that although the bus stop for his journey to town was
outside his house, the one that he got off of on the way home required a considerable walk
(Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

It is important to note that distance is a relative concept (Gaffron et al, 2001), what is
considered an acceptable distance to walk is subjective, depending on the particular
circumstances of the individual. For example, a report for the DETR (2000a) showed that
people travelling with young children in a pram or a buggy were less likely to make bus
journeys than those travelling with young children who could walk independently. Likewise
the distance required to walk will appear longer if an individual is encumbered with a heavy
load or travelling through an area they consider unsafe at night (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

The results of a study by Crime Concern (2002) showed that women are almost twice as
likely as men, irrespective of their ethnic group, to feel unsafe when walking to or from the
bus stop or train station after dark. Over a third of participants within each of the ethnic

58
groups stated that they feel unsafe walking after dark from the bus stop or train station to a
final destination: 44% of Asian, 43% of white and 37% of black respondents.

5.6 Waiting for Public Transport Services

Whilst there is frustration at the indirectness of bus services (DETR, 1999), people are more
likely to criticise the uncertain waiting times they experience whilst travelling on public
transport. The length of these waiting times is dependent on both the service frequency and
the service reliability (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). The lack of co-ordination between transport
providers means that time spent waiting at an interchange is often unnecessarily long (Hine
& Mitchell, 2001a). The impact of waiting can be even worse if the environment in which a
person has to wait is unsuitable, for example in an area with high crime rates or where there
is a lack of shelter, which people believe leads to them catching a cold (DETR, 2000a).

The study also found that only a small minority of men and women said that they feel
insecure whilst waiting at a bus stop during daylight and that these percentages are
generally similar, regardless of ethnic group. However, Asian respondents are more likely
than black respondents to identify locations or transport modes as unsafe during daylight.
The study also showed that those waiting at a train station, during daylight, were more likely
to express a concern than those waiting for a bus.

Not surprisingly, the Crime Concern study findings show that there was an increase in the
number of respondents who reported feeling unsafe after dark, most markedly for women
and children under 16. Between 1996 and 2002, the percentages of women feeling rather or
very unsafe whilst waiting at transport modes has increased, especially while waiting at an
underground station (Crime Concern, 2002: 23). In 2002, the percentages of women feel
unsafe waiting at a bus stop were 49 per cent, at a train station 60 per cent and on an
underground station 61 per cent. The study also showed that concerns about personal
safety amongst Asian and black respondents increased significantly for all locations after
dark. Over 50 per cent of Asian and more than 40 per cent of black respondents identified
waiting on an underground or metro platform as the location that they perceived to be most
unsafe. Safety concerns about waiting at their local bus stop were also reported by these
groups: 44 per cent of Asian respondents say they feel rather or very unsafe compared to 30
per cent of black and 35 per cent of white respondents.

5.7 Travelling by Public Transport

The same study by Crime Concern (2002) also reported that men and women tend to feel
safe travelling by bus or train during the daytime, with few changes in the level of anxiety
between 1996 and 2002. In addition, both men and women across all ethnic groups and
ages express higher levels of anxiety in using the underground during the daytime, and this
has increased slightly for women between 1996 and 2002. In 2002, nearly 20 per cent of
women respondents say they feel unsafe travelling by underground during the daytime.

When travelling after dark by public transport, the same Crime Concern (2002) study
showed that women were far more likely to express a concern than men. For both genders,
the percentage feeling has increased slightly between 1996 and 2002. The greatest levels of
concern for both men and women are when using the underground after dark. In 2002, 60
per cent of women and 32 per cent of men say they feel unsafe using the underground.
Travelling on an underground or metro train is identified as rather or very unsafe by 50% of
all Asian and about 40% of black respondents. In addition, 50 per cent of women
respondents feeling unsafe travelling by train after dark.

59
However, it must be noted that the study showed that travelling on public transport vehicles
is generally perceived as a safer activity than waiting for public transport or walking to or
from the bus stop or station.

5.8 Frequency and Reliability of Services

5.8.1 Service Frequency and Reliability

Detailed information is not available on the actual frequency of bus service provision in the
different areas of Britain. The 2002 National Travel Survey (DfT, 2004b) asked households
to rate the reliability and frequency of their local buses and trains. Those who did not use
buses or trains had no local service or no opinion were excluded. Four fifths of the
respondents reported that their public transport mode was reliable or frequent. Over a fifth
said it was very reliable or very frequent, whereas less than a tenth said it was very
unreliable or very infrequent.

Research has shown that more trips are made by people when bus services are more
frequent (SEU, 2003). The SEU study found that people within 3 minutes walk of an at least
quarter hourly bus service made 4 times as many trips as those the same distance away
from an hourly service. The pattern was even stronger for people over a 13-minute walk
away from the bus stop.

5.8.2 The Effect of Infrequent Services

Gaffron et al (2001) found that, in locations where the frequency of the bus service was
halved, it caused inconvenience to many passengers and forced them to adopt alternative
travel behaviours, principally greater car use. A report for the Scottish Executive Central
Research Unit (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a) showed that a cinema in a rural area of Scotland
was considered almost inaccessible because it involved waiting for an hourly bus service to
travel 40 minutes each way and the cost of a taxi to make the trip was £30. Even in areas
with frequent public transport services, there can be major differences in service frequency
through the week.

The severely reduced service offered outside the working day can have a dramatic impact
on the capability of an individual to complete activities. In some areas where services stop
operating in the early evening (e.g. after 6pm), many people are unable to go out at night,
unless they take a taxi or some other alternative means of travel. Research carried out for
the DETR (2000a) found that disabled people living in one area of the UK were unable to
attend a special-needs group because it finished at 9 o’clock, by which time the last bus had
left. Similarly, a study for METRO showed that shift workers, who often travel during off-peak
times, could be prevented from accessing employment (METRO, 2002). Likewise Hine &
Mitchell (2001a) found that shift workers in rural Scotland often avoid working on Sundays, if
possible, due to the infrequency of buses making the journey to and from work a lot more
difficult. Research by Lucas et al found that older people are unable to make desired
recreational trips on a Sunday, because of the infrequency – or, in some, cases the total
absence - of bus services (Lucas et al, 2001).

The seasonality of transport provision in some parts of the country also affects people’s
travel patterns. In rural Scotland, the reduction of bus services in the winter forced one
parent of a young child to give up her part-time job (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a).

60
5.8.3 The Effect of Unreliable Services

The findings of a study by Crime Concern (2002) showed that women are more likely than
men to rate the reliability of public transport as ‘poor’. Respondents in 2002 (29 per cent)
were more likely to rate reliability as ‘rather’ or ‘very poor’ compared to those respondents in
a previous survey in 1996 (16 per cent). Correspondingly, a lower percentage of adult
respondents in 2002 compared to 1996 rate the reliability of public transport as ‘very good’.
The study also showed that about 50 per cent of Asian and black respondents rated the
reliability of public transport as quite or very good. White (30 per cent) and black (30 per
cent) people were more likely to rate the reliability as rather or very poor than Asian
respondents (20 per cent). Asian and black women were more likely than men from these
ethnic groups to rate reliability as poor. The rating varied considerably between sample
points, with respondents in major cities and regular bus users more likely to assess reliability
as poor.

A history of poor reliability of public transport services has led many people to change their
preferred travel behaviour to accommodate this unpredictable element of their journey,
resulting in people budgeting their time differently (Gaffron et al, 2001). In their study of the
role of transport in social exclusion in urban Scotland, Hine and Mitchell (2001a) found the
irregularity of services force people to begin their journey a lot earlier than should be
necessary to ensure they arrive on time. The study also showed that, even during peak
times when services are frequent, buses are unreliable and regularly arrive together (Hine
and Mitchell (2001a). The authors also reported that punctual buses could support disabled
people in their ability to access public transport services; anecdotal evidence from a partially-
sighted women highlighted that if she could rely on the bus service being punctual she would
know she was getting on the right bus, but because of the service’s unreliability she requires
assistance from a friend (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

Unreliable services have been found to be a barrier to unemployed people accessing

employment opportunities, particularly if the journey involves two different services, both
perceived as unreliable (METRO, 2002). Other instances have been recorded where people
are no longer in employment due to the inconsistency of public transport, that made them
repeatedly late for work (Gaffron et al, 2001).

5.8.4 Impacts of Unreliability on Trip Chains

The frequency and reliability of public transport is particularly important to parents of young
children as they are more likely to trip-chain, by combining journeys to work, school,
childcare and shopping (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003). In her international study, Rosenbloom
(1989) found that employed women’s activity patterns were more complicated than men’s,
principally because of the additional major domestic responsibilities they had often centred
around the care of their children. Whilst the last 25 years have witnessed a rapid growth in
both the number and proportion of women in employment, many of these women retain the
responsibility for the domestic duties of a household (DETR, 2000b). Further research by
Pas and Koppelman (1987), in Rosenbloom, (1989) suggest that the trip chains that are
undertaken by women are not repetitive but vary daily, so routine journeys are not
performed.

The results of a study by Turner and Greico (1998) showed that many of the trip chains
carried out by parents of young children could not be completed by public transport because
of a discrepancy between personal and transport schedules. Rosenbloom (1989) concludes
that conventional fixed route transit services are not responsive to the demands of modern
working parents. As has been showed by Joshi & MacLean (1995), the age at which children
are no longer accompanied to school has risen considerably from the 1970s. This means

61
that the impact that children have on their parents’ travel patterns and their need to trip-chain
is extended until they reach the age of 9-11 years old.

There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that shift workers and people in rural areas are more
likely to trip-chain, if they have access to a car (Kenyon et al, 2001; Lucas et al, 2001).

5.9 Design Barriers

5.9.1 Design of the Street Environment

The physical and spatial configuration of much of the built environment suggests that urban
design practices in the past have been inattentive to the needs of disabled people (Imrie,
2000). People with visual impairments consider the journey to the bus stop to be more
problematic than actually travelling by bus. Hine and Mitchell (2001b) suggest that the
problems disabled people encounter in the street environment often results in these
individuals limiting their travel to areas they are familiar with. However, It is not just people
with disabilities who are limited in their travel because of barriers in the street environment.
Other groups affected are those with restricted mobility, principally older people and parents
of young children. For example, 14 per cent of adults have a physical disability or long-
standing health problem that makes it difficult for them to go out on foot or use public
transport and this becomes more prevalent with age (DETR, 2001).

It is now generally accepted in most developed countries that the responsibility for dealing
with the effects of a disability does not lie with the person with the impairment, but is due to a
poorly designed built environment which determines what a person is capable of doing
(Davies, 1999 in Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). It is the built environment that creates what Tyler
(2002) identifies as ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ zones, which define the areas that can be
accessed by disabled people.

It is also evident that removing the barriers that affect this group can also bring benefits to
other groups of people. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee estimated that
up to 30 per cent of the population would benefit from an accessible transport system and
built environment at any one time (DfT, 2002c).

5.9.2 General Pavement Problems and Hazards

As noted in a report for the DETR (2001a), one of the largest barriers to mobility is the
physical difficulty associated with walking in the local environment. Hillman (1976) notes that
the most common problems associated with the street environment for pensioners are
related to pavement conditions and with changes of level, such as hills, steps or
misalignment of paving stones. The most common complaint with the pavement was it being
uneven. The problems that this caused for people with mobility difficulties were accentuated
during icy conditions, when the threat posed by a slippery pavement made many people
reconsider their journeys, resulting in them becoming trapped in their houses (European
Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2001).

Non-segregated cycle routes on pavements and lighting that is embedded in the pavement
can also be hazardous for pedestrians (Disability Rights Commission, 2001, Hine & Mitchell,
2001b). In addition, cobbled roads are problematic for people in wheelchairs, those
accompanied by young children in pushchairs, or for those who struggle to maintain their
balance (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). In more rural areas not all roads have pavement areas set
aside for pedestrians, so that they feel more vulnerable from road transport (ECMT, 2001).

62
Pollution is more likely to be detrimental to people who move slowly through the environment
because of the extra exposure they receive. The problem is particularly acute amongst
people who have breathing difficulties (Disability Rights Commission, 2000). The
implementation of low speed residential zones has been beneficial for people who wish to
walk, as the introduction of speed reduction measures - alongside the beautification of the
street environment - has made these areas safer and more attractive for pedestrians
(OECD, 2001).

5.9.3 Street Furniture

Many older people have limits as to how far they are able to walk without the need to rest.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has produced a set of recommended
threshold distances that people with specific impairments can travel without a rest (DfT,
2002c). These are as follows:

Wheelchair users 150m

Visually impaired 150m
Stick users 50m
Ambulatory without walking aid 100m

The regular provision of seats is therefore desirable (DETR, 2001). However street furniture,
if not sited appropriately, can provide an obstacle for people with slow or limited mobility,
parents with pushchairs and - unless it is clearly marked - to people with visibility
impairments. Street furniture includes advertisements to shops, parked cars, street art, post
boxes and streetlights (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). Furthermore, vegetation that overhangs onto
the pavement reduces its width (OECD, 2001).

5.9.4 Road Crossings

Inadequate road crossing facilities, both in terms of frequency (the distance between safe
crossing points) and design (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b) can hinder a person’s accessibility.
Older people are relatively slower at crossing roads; therefore they require crossings with a
safe refuge in the middle of major roads to allow them to cross in two stages. A decline in
visual ability, often associated with age, can mean that older people are less well able to
determine the distance and speed of vehicles. The deterioration of speed of movement and
reaction time associated with age means that non-signalised crossings should be located in
the middle of a long straight of road where the pedestrian can see a long way (OECD, 2001).

People with sensory impairments use pelican crossings where possible because they
usually have tactile paving to indicate their location and an audible signal or flashing light to
indicate when it is safe to cross (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). The Disability Rights Commission
(2000) notes that the noise produced by a reversing lorry sounds similar to that used by a
pelican crossing and so this may cause confusion.

Where signalised crossing facilities are not available, people with visual impairments have
greater difficulty crossing the road and there is evidence to suggest that they modify their
choice of route to avoid crossing unprotected roads, including adjusting where they make
transport interchanges (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

A general accessibility problem can arise at some crossings points, where there are not
dropped kerbs at either side (Disability Rights Commission, 2000); also where cars are
parked alongside the crossings, which reduces visibility (Hillman, 1976). Furthermore, in
some areas authorities have laid rustic paving slabs for aesthetic reasons, which are
unsuitable for wheelchair users (Lucas et al, 2001).
63
Hillman (1976) found that for parents walking with young children, the age of the child
determined which part of the street environment provided the biggest barrier. For parents
travelling with children young enough to be in a buggy or a pram, the biggest problem was
negotiating past the street furniture and the effort involved in pushing the child up hills or
over uneven paving. Even travelling along a good, flat pavement was found to cause
tiredness and reduced the distance they were able to walk. For travel with children over 5,
whom were likely to be walking without restraints, there was little impediment to walking on
the pavement. The problem arose when it came to crossing roads and the parents were
concerned about the safety of their unsecured children, particularly as the short crossing
times often required them and their children to rush across the road.

5.9.5 Design of Bus Stops

The Disability Rights Commission (2000) reports that the provision of basic facilities at bus
stops, such as a shelter and seat, within the UK is generally poor. The absence of a shelter
and the consequence that people have to wait unprotected against inclement weather
means discomfort for all, but disabled people are more likely to experience prohibitive levels
of discomfort (Disability Rights Commission, 2000). Similarly, parents of young children are
concerned about the effect that exposure to the elements may have on their child’s health
(Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). The high levels of vandalism in some residential areas means that
where shelters have been installed, the glass sides are regularly smashed providing no
shelter to those inside (Save the Children, 2000).

Many older people find standing for long periods without resting very difficult making it is
necessary for bus stops to have some form of seating. This resting place does not
necessarily have to be a standard seat, as some people find large vertical movements
difficult and prefer the perch type seating (DETR, 2001). It is necessary to ensure that these
resting places do not retain water but drain effectively, so the seats are not damp after
rainfall and passengers are able to sit on them comfortably. The importance of a shelter and
seating is increased on routes with infrequent and unreliable services, when passengers are
likely to have to wait for longer. Many people will postpone or cancel activities, if the journey
requires waiting for a bus for an undetermined length of time in bad weather. Older people
are more likely to suffer badly from waiting around in cold weather (OECD, 2001; Hine &
Mitchell, 2001b).

It is important to ensure that bus stops and shelters are viewed as a safe environment.
Studies by the DETR (1999) and Beuret et al (2000) found that young people and BME
people prefer to wait at stops with a shelter that is clear on all sides rather than standing in a
shelter that it is not possible to see out of, as they feel trapped. Bus stops should also be
well lit and away from thick vegetation, so that people to feel comfortable waiting in the dark.
Many bus stops are considered to be unsafe, with passengers feeling as if they are ‘a sitting
duck’ because of both the lighting of both the stop and the presence of dark alcoves nearby
(Hine & Mitchell, 2001b; OECD, 2001). In addition, vandalised and littered bus shelters
provide an unpleasant environment and reduce older people’s sense of safety and security
(ECMT, 2001).

Bus shelters must be wide enough to allow people with buggies or prams and people in
wheelchairs to move inside easily. Many shelters currently force parents with buggies to wait
outside, as the buggy cannot fit under the shelter comfortably with other people (Pickup,
1989). The height of timetables at bus stops was also considered a problem for partially
sighted people.

64
5.9.6 Train & Bus Stations

People who struggle to walk long distances avoid making train changes where there is a
long distance between the platforms (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). In the absence of lifts at train
stations, people are forced to access the platforms via the stairs, which is very difficult for
people with mobility difficulties or people travelling with children (DETR, 2000a; DETR,
2001). Where there are slopes to the platforms, they are often steep and can be dangerous
for people in wheelchairs or for older people when they are icy or slippery (OECD, 2001).

The Department for Transport (2002c) has provided information on the layout and design of
stations to match the needs of people with disabilities. They recommend that mainline
stations should have a clear logical layout, with obvious horizontal and vertical circulation
routes free of obstacles, as people with a visual impairment have found that navigating
through stations is difficult and potentially dangerous. The placing of signs should be close
to, but not impeding, passenger circulation areas. The signs should also inform people how
far facilities are, so people with mobility limitations can determine whether they are within
their capability of reaching them.

As well as providing access to trains, stations must also ensure that all people are able to
perform other associated functions. At least one telephone, enquiry and ticket desk should
be positioned lower to the ground, so that wheelchair users can access them. (DfT, 2002c).
In areas where long queues are likely, such as the ticket office or information desk, handrails
should be placed next to the queues to so people who find it hard to stand for a long period
of time can manage (DfT, 2002c). Likewise, there should be a large amount of seating
available for people waiting to board a train (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

The glass through which passengers often have to speak to receive information can muffle
voices, so provision should be made for those hard of hearing. Moreover, these screens
often catch reflections, which impair people reliant on lip reading what station staff are
saying (DfT, 2002c). Similarly, the ticket office and information desk should be located in a
quiet area away from the main concourse (DRC, 2000). People with manual dexterity
problems can find completing functions requiring intricate hand movements difficult, so ticket
machines should be constructed so that these needs are considered (DfT, 2002c).

People that suffer with continence problems, the likelihood of which increases with age,
avoid travelling to stations where they are uncertain if toilet facilities exist (Tyler, 2002).
Older people are generally dissatisfied with the standard of cleanliness in the toilets at
transport hubs and feel more should be done to maintain them in a clean condition
throughout the day (ECMT, 2001).

The signal to indicate the need to evacuate stations should be visible as well as audible, to
ensure deaf and hard of hearing people are alerted (DfT, 2002c).

Low staffing levels can also cause a barrier. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lack of
luggage porters or trolleys at main line stations can be a major barrier for older people. At
small train stations, where there is only one member of staff at night, they are reluctant to go
to the platform to offer assistance, as they fear getting mugged (Lucas et al, 2001). Disabled
people in the Disability and Great Britain Survey cited improved staff assistance as being a
greater facilitator of more travel than improved design (Disability Rights Commission, 2000).
Older people and parents of young children have also expressed their belief that greater
staff assistance would offer greater mobility (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

Small train stations and bus stations are often badly lit and women and young people have
reported feeling unsafe waiting at them in the evening, particularly as there are few other
passengers around (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

65
5.10 Public Transport Vehicles
The Disability and Discrimination Act (1995) requires new trains and buses to meet minimum
accessibility standards, with the aim that the public transport network should be fully
accessible by 2050. However, currently only 10 per cent of trains and 29 per cent of buses
meet these standards (Disability Rights Commission, 2000). The availability of accessible
transport often determines an individual’s travel patterns. For example, a disabled person
with mobility difficulties reported that he was able to visit the doctor’s surgery, as this was on
a route with an accessible bus, whereas he could not get to his local supermarket as this
was not (DETR, 2000a).

5.10.1 Boarding and Alighting Public Transport

Traditional buses require the ability to move upwards from the pavement to board the bus
and then to climb the stairs to the lower deck. This means that they are unsuitable for people
in wheelchairs, those using walking frames, or parents with buggies or prams - unless they
are able to collapse them (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a). In addition, the entrances to these buses
often do not have a handrail, creating difficulties for people who are very short, those with
arthritis or rheumatism, and others who find it difficult to access older buses (DETR, 2001;
DETR, 2000a). In contrast, accessible buses can be lowered when parked at bus stops, to
ensure that they are at the same level as the pavement, and passengers do not have to
‘step-up/down’ very far to get on/off them. In addition these ‘low-floor’ buses have been
designed without stairs on the lower deck, so that people can get to their seats more easily
(Tyler, 2000).

However, problems do exist in accessing low-floor buses. Their enhanced accessibility is

dependent on the ability of the bus to park next to the bus stop; if there are obstacles, such
as illegally parked cars, the driver is unable to do so. There are also incidences where the
ramps on buses are broken, as they are not properly maintained, forcing anyone requiring
wheeled access to wait for next bus (Lucas et al, 2001).

Modern designs of buggies are quite bulky when collapsed, so it is often very difficult to
board a bus with a collapsed buggy and a young child or children (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a).
In the absence of staff assistance, parents have reported relying on strangers to help them
get on and off the bus with their buggy, children and goods (Hillman, 1976).

As with old bus stock, inaccessible trains require climbing up at least one large step and
forwards at the same time. People with the inability to complete these functions and who
require assistance boarding and alighting have to book the help of station staff in advance.
This means that they are unable to undertake journeys spontaneously and the train journeys
they do complete are dependent on other people. There is significant dissatisfaction
amongst disabled people who rely on staff assistance, as they often feel that they are being
treated unequally and that transport providers should have the capacity to be flexible enough
to deal with these situations when they arise. Lucas et al (2001) report that some individuals
who require assistance often refuse to give the required two days notice to use the trains, as
they considered it illegal and immoral.

When people do go through the correct channels to organise their train journey, several
instances have been recorded where the service has failed to be delivered as mis-
communications have meant that staff have not been in right place to meet the disabled
person (Lucas et al, 2001). Likewise, disabled people have been let down when their
services have been late or have been rerouted and have taken them to a different
destination, as this information is not relayed to the relevant staff (Disability Rights
Commission, 2000).
66
5.10.2 Design of the Interior of Vehicles

A study for the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (2002) showed that frail
people do not feel comfortable getting up from their seat whilst the bus is moving, so they
avoid using bus services which do not have bells placed at regular intervals. They also
require a clear corridor from the door, with frequent poles, so they are able to steady
themselves if they lose their balance. The lack of seats with extra legroom has been found to
be a problem for people with impairments that require them to be able to stretch their leg out
(Tyler, 2000).

Low-floor accessible buses make provision for parents with young children to park buggies
or prams near the front of the bus and allow them to sit next to them. This space is also
suitable for wheelchair users. This is absent from older vehicles (Hillman, 1976).

Hine and Mitchell (2001a) found that most buses are considered unsuitable for travelling with
luggage or a large amount of shopping, as they do not have sufficient storage space and
that which is provided is often not well-contained, so that open bags may fall and their
contents spill out. Overall, travelling with luggage or shopping is considered exhausting and
stressful. The tendency for people to buy a large amount of produce at one shop means that
alternative modes are usually sought for travel home from the ‘main food shop’, particularly
by parents of young children whom have to look after their children as well (Hine & Mitchell,
2001b). Other people have reported being forced to change their shopping patterns,
because of their inability to carry larger loads (e.g. frequent visits to the shops to purchase a
few items) (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a).

5.10.3 Comfort and Safety

Older people, parents with younger children and disabled people are dissatisfied with the
way that bus drivers fail to wait for individuals to be seated or stationary before they pull off,
as this can cause injury (Lucas et al, 2001; Hine & Mitchell, 2001b; DETR, 2000a).
Passengers also feel under pressure to get off the bus as quickly as possible once it has
stopped; frail older people are particularly concerned about this.

Older people report that trains, particularly underground trains where there is no guarantee
of a seat, accelerate and decelerate too quickly, increasing the likelihood of them falling and
sustaining an injury (DETR, 2001)

5.10.4 Overcrowding

Older people, disabled people and parents of young children report that they avoid travelling
on busy public transport services, where they are not guaranteed a seat. The overcrowding
associated with travel during peak times means that they are often unable to travel in
comfort. Although seats are marked as being reserved for people with mobility impairments
they are often not relinquished, particularly if the impairment is not obvious to others
(Disability Rights Commission, 2000). Parents have experienced hostility from other
passengers when they travel at this time of day, because of their buggy taking up a lot of
space and there have been instances where bus drivers have refused to stop for parents
with buggies waiting at bus stops if their bus is crowded (Pickup, 1989).

Crowding is particularly prevalent on low-floor single-decker buses, which are designed with
these groups in mind, because of their smaller capacity. The problem is even more acute for

67
people whom suffer from claustrophobia (DETR, 2000a); the problems associated with
crowding limits the times at day in which they feel able to travel (Pickup, 1989).

5.11 Access To Information

5.11.1 Poor Signing

To ensure that people with sensory disabilities can use public transport, the destination of
the service should be clearly displayed on the front of the vehicle, at the bus stop or on the
platform, and this information should be available audibly. Any information on the current
location of the vehicle should also be displayed visually and audibly.

Poor access to travel information can deter potential public transport users, while poor
quality publicity material or reliance on a single medium for communication can exclude
certain market segments. Lack of awareness, particularly awareness of community
transport, can mean that those with the greatest need fail to benefit from services designed
for them (DETR, 2001). Information should be available to people when they are planning
their journey, at the transport nodes and on the public transport vehicles themselves. This
way people are assured that their journey is going according to plan. There is also a need to
advise people who maybe performing routine journeys of any changes in services. This
failure is one of the most common complaints of public transport users (Hine & Mitchell,
2001b).

When people try to undertake a journey on a route they are not familiar with, the poor
availability of information about the public transport options often acts as a barrier to its
completion. For older people, in particular, the planning of a new journey may require
considerable effort (European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2001). They feel that
the computerised information systems available on most telephone numbers are hard to use
and do not necessarily provide the advice that they require. They would prefer to speak in
person to an operator, so they are certain the information they have been given is up-to-date
and correct (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b).

5.11.2 Language Problems

A recent report for the DfT (2003b) found there is an inadequate understanding amongst
transport providers of the service needs of Asian and other ethnic groups. For example, the
study concluded that:

- The Chinese community does not understand how bus timetables are set out;
- Due to language barriers, people do not understand the information about various
tickets types and end up paying more than necessary; and
- Asian women feel embarrassed talking to bus drivers, because a large majority of
them are men.

The report suggested a number of solutions to these problems, including:

• London Underground staff to wear badges which have the languages they can speak
clearly indicated;
• Timetables and talking signs in a range of languages;
• Local authorities to provide welcome packs to asylum seekers, which contain
transport information in their own language;
• On-board electronic information available for hearing impaired travellers and;
• Monitor how concessionary fares are utilised by different faith groups, offer special
fares/vouchers for special/cultural events.
68
Language barriers exist for BME people who are unable to understand English or are not
confident in their ability to be able to. Public transport providers have improved in their
provision of information, especially bus timetables, in minority languages (Social Exclusion
Unit, 2003). However, progress is inconsistent and there remain many people who feel
language is the barrier that limits where they are able to travel (Lucas et al, 2001).

People who are uncomfortable reading and communicating in English will not begin a
journey unless they are sure that they can complete it without having to obtain information
beyond their capability to do so. Thus it is easier if they have all the required information in
advance and are clear what their journey entails. Multilingual literature is required not only
for standard information on transport services (such as routes, fares and timetables) but also
for occasional information (such as route changes and emergency procedures) and
information on how to use the transport system (such as where to get tickets and how to use
ticket machines) (DETR, 2000; Ahmed & Holder, 2000). It is important to note that there are
some members of the BME community, usually those over 60, who are illiterate in their first
language and require other methods of communication, such as audio.

The BME communities have identified that multilingual transport information would best be
distributed through community organisations, as this familiar environment would be used by
more people and would reach people who currently do not use the system (Ahmed & Holder,
2000).

In addition to providing written material, it is necessary to ensure that verbal communication

does not provide an obstruction. BME people have reported that public transport staff can
have a patronising or belligerent attitude when dealing with someone who does not speak
English well (Ahmed & Holder, 2000; Social Exclusion Unit, 2003). This issue affects bus
travel more because of the need for interaction with the driver. English speakers from BME
groups have also said that they have had problems understanding and being understood by
the driver, because of their pronunciation (DETR, 2000). Better training of staff to the needs
and sensitivities of the BME groups in the area is required.

5.11.3 Sensory Disabilities

The Disability and Discrimination Act has made it unlawful to deny access to information by
not making it available in formats accessible to disabled people. Substantial progress has
been made towards that end since 1990, but irregular information such as notices on route
changes, delays and emergency procedures have not always managed to achieve this. As
disabled people often spend a longer time planning their journeys, the absence of this
information often has a greater impact (Disability Rights Commission, 2001).

Information provision must take account of the needs of visually impaired and hard of
hearing people; these needs do not apply just to people registered as having a sensory
disability, but also to people with less extreme visual and audio impairments. Information
should be presented so that the size of letters is related to the distance from which the
information will usually be read, the ‘sans script’ type face should be used as it provides
most clarity, the contrast between the text and the background should be stark and variable
message signs should scroll at a relatively slow rate (DfT, 2002c).

To meet the needs of those whose sight is severely limited, authorities should provide tactile
information, principally embossed typed information rather than Braille because it is easier to
read (DfT, 2002c). Audio information should also be available. It is essential that there is a
significant difference between the level of background noise (ambient noise) and the level of
the signal or announcement. In environments that are noisy, any spoken information should
be repeated at least once (DfT, 2002).

69
The provision of visual and audible information is increasing on public transport services.
Information in these formats helps people with sensory impairments feel comfortable
travelling independently as they are able to orientate themselves with ease (Disabled
Persons Transport Advisory Committee, 2002b)

5.11.4 Mental and Cognitive Difficulties

Whilst the Disability Rights Commission (2001) acknowledges the improvements that have
taken place in information provision for those with sensory impairments, it states that there is
a need for greater awareness of the information presentation needs of people with mental
health problems and learning disabilities. For most people, taking public transport to an
unknown destination requires confidence and forward planning. For the less than totally
assured it can be very difficult, with the transport maps and timetables usually available often
beyond their comprehension (DETR, 2000a).

People who lack confidence in their ability to undertake cognitive tasks, such as those who
have anxiety attacks or a learning disability, need to feel confident that they are able to read
information and understand procedures. Where there is a language challenge, which may be
as common as dyslexia, then there can be problems reading numbers correctly or following
signage. Bus and train stations can be particularly difficult to negotiate (Hine & Mitchell,
2001b). All information needs to be presented in a clear and logical way. This includes
making fare structures easy to understand (Disability Rights Commission, 2001; DfT, 2002c).

5.12 The Cost Of Transport

As noted in previous chapters, all of the disadvantaged groups examined in this study have
a higher than average prevalence to be located in the lowest income quintile. Therefore, the
issue of cost is relevant to all of the study groups. The impact will be discussed generally
and the affect on individual groups highlighted.

5.12.1 Cost of Bus Fares

Research in Merseyside found that the bus fare increases that accompanied deregulation
were the single major cause of reduced bus use by low-income families in the area. This
resulted in reduced mobility, with walking replacing bus travel for essential journeys and
social and recreational trips not being taken (Gaffron et al, 2001). Low-income families were
found to require cheap fares and discounted season tickets and travel-cards to enable their
full participation (Gaffron et al, 2001).

A survey on attitudes towards public transport involving over 1,500 households across
England revealed that 30 per cent of households reported cost as being the element of
public transport use most likely to be considered poor or very poor (Crime Concern, 1997).
Travel cost is a particularly acute barrier for unemployed people in their attempt to find work;
14 per cent of unemployed lone-parents say that they cannot afford the cost of transport to
access work (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003). Furthermore, McQuaid and Lindsay (2002) found
that 84 per cent of the unemployed people they surveyed did not have access to a car and
believed that travelling for over 30 minutes to work would involve considerable cost.
Likewise, METRO (2000) found that potential travel costs was one of the factors that limited
the areas within which unemployed people would consider working.

As well as affecting their ability to get to employment vacancies, costs affect the ability of the
unemployed to secure employment. It was found that nearly 30 per cent of people who
70
received the all-encompassing Job Finders Grant used the grant to pay for the travel costs
for interviews. Moreover, 25 per cent of job seekers say their job search has been limited by
the cost of travel to interviews (McKay, 1999 in Social Exclusion Unit, 2003). It was felt that
there should be a reduced fare for unemployed people when they were job seeking (Hine &
Mitchell, 2001b).

Transport costs are also hard to manage immediately after people gain employment, as
there is usually a delay between the last benefit payment and the first pay cheque (METRO,
2002). It can be difficult for recently employed people to buy money-saving season tickets as
they do not have the financial resources available to them and employer-loans are often not
available when they start work.

Similar problems are experienced by young people in further education or people attending
classes to improve their employability, as they often have to travel considerable distances to
access these specific courses. They particularly cited the high cost of public transport for
relatively short journeys (DETR, 1999). In a study by the Social Exclusion Unit (2003),
almost half of 16-18 year old students say they find transport costs hard to meet, and over
20 per cent have considered dropping out because of financial difficulties, principally
transport costs. In addition, 6 per cent of college students have missed classes because
they could not afford the transport costs to get there (DETR, 2000a). Hine & Mitchell (2001b)
reported an incident where an individual was unable to attend a college course on accessing
employment because the grant that he was due to receive to cover his travel expenses did
not arrive until the course had started.

A study by Crime Concern (2002) found that a lower percentage of adult respondents in
2002 compared to 1996 rated the cost of public transport as ‘very good’, although a higher
percentage of respondents rate it as ‘good’. A higher percentage of respondents in 2002 (23
per cent) assess the cost of public transport as ‘rather poor’. Overall, men are more likely
than women to rate the cost of public transport as ‘poor’; however, asian and black women
were more likely than men from these ethnic groups to rate cost as poor.

Cars are perceived as the cheapest mode of transport, despite the high fixed costs involved.
For those without cars, buses are the dominant transport mode, as trains and taxis are
considered too expensive (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a). Affordability is documented as the main
barrier to train use for older people and unemployed people (METRO, 2000) as well as lone
parents of young children (Pickup, 1989).

The discount train fares available to family groups have been highlighted as being too
inflexible for some groups of people. They are usually based on a ‘family of four’ model
(usually two parents and two children), so they are not appropriate for lone parents and
some BME groups, particularly the Asian populations for whom large family sizes are typical
in their communities (Beuret et al, 2000).

5.12.2 Fare Uncertainties and Inconsistencies

Many groups cited the uncertainty and inconsistency in the price of public transport fares as
being a barrier to travel. People on low incomes often were unable to attend appointments
before 10:00am, as it involved travelling during peak time when the fares were at their most
expensive. This included unemployed people attending the job centre (McQuaid and
Lindsay, 2002), older people attending the doctors (DETR, 2001) and younger people
attending college (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). A study by Hine and Mitchell (2001a) showed
that some ticket types (e.g. return fares) are unavailable to parents escorting their children to
school because they are travelling before 09.30am. In this study, people recorded their
frustration with the disparity in the fare prices between local authorities, particularly those
living in rural areas that have to travel further for services. In a separate study, Lucas et al

71
(2001) found that some people are unable to make trips across local authority boundaries,
as the cost is prohibitive.

Young people have spoken of their confusion over the high variance in the price of long-
journey train tickets, depending on when the person intends to travel and when the person
books it. The limited number of cheap tickets available means they are unable to visit friends
in other cities at short notice (Hine & Mitchell, 2001a).

5.12.3 Concessionary Fares

Targeted subsidies exist in the form of concessionary fares or budget passes and may be
granted to registered disabled people, young people in education and unemployed people,
depending on the policy of the local transport provider (Gaffron et al, 2001). They are
nationally available to older people because of the introduction of a statutory minimum bus
concession for the elderly.

These concessionary passes often have strict times at which they can be used or fully used,
limiting the travel patterns of those with them. They are often not able to travel before the
morning rush hour is over, at 9:30, restricting their ability both to complete activities early in
the day and to undertake day-long activities. In some instances, restrictions also apply in the
evening rush hour, consequently considerably constraining the travel day for the person with
the subsidy (METRO, 2002) – particularly as many people feel unsafe travelling after the
evening peak. Concessionary travel is limited to within local authorities boundaries and this
is not appropriate for all journeys. There is a lack of clarity on the availability of
concessionary passes, particularly amongst disabled people (Disability rights Commission
2000) and older people from BME groups (Beuret et al, 2000), which has resulted in a lower
take up amongst such people.

Research has shown that those with concessions travel further or more often than equivalent
people without concessions (O'Reilly, 1989), and therefore experience reduced exclusion
(DETR, 2000a). The eligibility criteria, particularly within groups that are less clearly defined
such as the unemployed and disabled, can therefore impact significantly on people's ability
to travel and more generally participate within society.

5.13 Physical and Psychological Barriers

5.13.1 Availability and Acceptability of Community Transport

Community transport is offered as a solution to the problems of transporting people with

mobility limitations (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). This offers a door-to-door service for these
people in specially designed, easy-access vehicles (Disability Rights Commission, 2000).
The existence of this service provides an alternative to public transport travel for mobility-
impaired people.

Dial-a-ride or handicabs are the two main services provided to meet people’s general travel
needs. In addition, a Shopmobility service has been introduced in many locations specifically
to provide mobility-impaired people equality of access to shopping facilities and `barrier-free'
movement within town centres, in response to the spread of pedestrianisation to smaller
shopping centres (Gant, 2002).

Whilst community transport provides a valuable service for those with more severe mobility
impairments, it has its own limitations. It is restricted to destinations within the local area, it is
often incapable of serving people in areas a long way from the depot (Disability Rights
Commission, 2000), and it has limited operating hours (DfT, 2002c). The eligibility criteria
72
are restrictive, so some people whom would benefit from being able to use it are unable to
do so (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b). There is also inconsistent provision of these services
between local authorities, and due to the nature of the way it is funded journeys across local
authority boundaries are not possible (Disability Rights Commission, 2000).

Arguably the biggest problem is that it requires advanced booking, meaning that such
services cannot be used for spontaneous trips, or on occasions when they are already fully
booked. Likewise, ensuring availability for the return trip can limit its effectiveness,
particularly when a person is uncertain how long they will require at their destination (e.g.
when attending a hospital appointment) (DfT (2002c). In instances where the community
transport does not arrive or is not available, and the individual still wants to complete the
journey, they usually have to travel by taxi. This is expensive and usually not designed for
use by people with impairments, meaning that the journey is uncomfortable and getting in to
and out of the taxi can be embarrassing (Disability Rights Commission, 2000). This
inflexibility means that it is usually inferior to using mainstream public transport (Hine &
Mitchell, 2001b).

Some groups are concerned that the provision of these ‘specialist’ services can lead to
segregation, and so result in disabled people becoming excluded and considered peripheral,
unequal members of society (Hine & Mitchell, 2001b; Disability Rights Commission, 2000).

5.13.2 Fear of Crime in the Local Environment

There is evidence that fear of crime influence a person’s decision to travel and, in particular,
their use of public transport. The fear of crime pervades every aspect of the journey and can
affect people’s attitude to walking to the transport node, waiting at the transport node and
travelling on public transport (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003). People living in the most
deprived areas are around five times as likely to say that they feel concerned with levels of
crime in the area and safety at the bus stop, than those in the least deprived areas (Dft,
2002). The impact that this has is demonstrated by the fact that almost 20 percent of people
say that personal security would have to improve before they would consider travelling on
buses more often (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003). In addition, Pain (1997 in Gaffron et al,
2001) found that fear of sexual attack leads four out of five women to avoid certain modes of
transport for particular trips.

The 1994 British Crime Survey (Crime Concern, 1997) showed that over a third of people
feel unsafe if they are out alone after dark. This proportion increased to over half of those
living in inner cities. Physical vulnerability is an important cause of an individual feeling
unsafe, particularly from the threat of violent crime; this affects both those who are frail and
those with social vulnerability. People worry more about crime if the consequences of it are
more severe for them; a report for DETR (2001) showed that people feel progressively less
safe with age and that, as they become physically more vulnerable, they worry more about
becoming victims. As those who are socially or physically vulnerable disproportionately use
public transport, this finding has important implications.

The media has an important role in influencing people’s perceptions of the level of crime.
Violent crime constitutes less than 5 per cent of reported offences, but comprises up to 46
per cent of the coverage of crime in the popular press (Garde, 1989; Crime Concern, 1997).
This clearly indicates the ability of the media to distort people's views of reality. The report
finds that people’s perceptions, based on indirect experience and the media, over
exaggerate the actual situation. However, it is perceptions that determine travel decisions
(DETR, 2001).

The travel patterns of parents of young children are a good illustration of this. In examining
the reason why parents chose to accompany their child on their journey to school, Joshi &

73
MacLean (1995) found that the threat of crime - particularly the child being approached by a
stranger - was cited most frequently. Over half of parents accompanied their child to school
partly because of the threat of the child being a victim of a criminal activity. Furthermore,
Gaffron et al (2001) found that if parents were unable to drive their children to certain
activities they would not let them go at all. This resulted in reduced opportunities for children
whose parents did not have access to a car.

5.13.3 Fear of Crime on Public Transport

Research by Crime Concern (1997) asked over 1,500 households about their opinions of
public transport safety. Compared to the ratings given by the survey respondents to cost,
reliability, usefulness and the ease with which public transport can be embarked or
disembarked, personal safety was the least likely to be viewed as poor or very poor. Less
than 10 per cent of respondents considered it poor or very poor, whereas over 60 per cent
though it was good or very good. There was no great difference between the opinions of
men and women, or between households in different socio-economic groups.

These results show that most people feel safe when travelling on public transport. However,
these responses do not include people’s opinions about their safety when walking to or
waiting at the transport node. Also most of the trips that people were commenting on occur
during the daytime hours, rather than late at night when it has been shown that people feel
most insecure. It was found that the proportion of people who used a taxi or minicab for a
social trip during the evening was 22 per cent compared to 3 per cent of people making a
social trip during the day. Others stated that they would not travel at night at all. Sixty seven
per cent of the trips made by taxi or minicab were for evening social trips, whilst the figure
was just 13 per cent for buses (Crime Concern, 1997). Other statistics that were highlighted
in the DfT’s Accessibility Planning Guidance (2004a) include:

• 53% of women and 23% of men feel unsafe waiting on a train platform;
• 44% of women and 19% of men feel unsafe waiting at a bus stop;
• 47% of women and 21% of men feel unsafe walking from the bus stop/station;
• 46% of women and 24% of men feel unsafe walking in a multi-storey car park

The survey recorded little difference in the perception of safety on public transport between
different age groups, though there were marked gender differences. More of the BME
population recorded feeling unsafe on public transport than the white population, for both
genders:16 per cent of white men and 38 per cent of white women stated that they use
public transport but have some fears, whilst the equivalent figures for the BME population
were 28 per cent and 45 per cent, respectively.

When asked about the type of crime or anti-social behaviour that they had experienced or
witnessed whilst using public transport, the respondents reported incidents of being
deliberately pushed or jostled and being stared at in a hostile way. Women were more likely
to experience sexual harassment, exposure and assault. It was found that those who had
directly experienced or observed crime on public transport were more likely to consider their
personal safety at risk and travel with fear on public transport, particularly those who had
experienced more violent crime. Men were more likely to be concerned about groups of
young men and women were more concerned about men on their own. All people were
concerned about the presence of people who were under the influence of alcohol,
particularly late at night (Crime Concern, 1997).

The tendency of groups of young people to congregate at bus and train stations during off-
peak times made people consider them dangerous (Ahmed & Holder, 2000). The over-
reporting of young people as the perpetrators of crime combined with little positive coverage
of this age group in the media, accentuates the anxiety that people fear in the presence of
74
younger people (Crime Concern, 1997). Older people in particular frequently express their
unease being in the presence of younger people (Lucas et al, 2001).

The Crime Concern (1997) survey found that there was not one single factor that caused
fear of crime, but rather the accumulation of several. Factors that increased the fear of crime
included a lack of uniformed staff, isolated location, the absence of CCTV cameras, poor
lighting, overgrown vegetation, an unpleasant environment, stations without clear
boundaries, the presence of drunks, a large number of station entrances, a lack of clear
journey information and the absence of other travellers.

Insufficient lighting is one of the most commonly cited reasons for making the street
environment unsafe at night (Crime Concern, 1997; Ahmed & Holder, 2000; DETR, 2001). In
some instances people revise their route, so that they stay as much as possible on the main
roads.

The fact that the driver on buses and coaches is visible to and in communication with the
passengers makes them feel safer than on trains, where they are in a different compartment.
On buses, they can be easily contacted and people sit close to the driver if they felt unsafe.
Single-decker buses’ are considered safer as people usually misbehave on the top deck. It
was felt that the people who travel on trains are wealthier and are less likely to cause trouble
than people that travel by bus (Crime Concern, 1999).

As a result of consultations between the Government’s Mobility and Inclusion Unit (MIU), the
Home Office and local transport groups the Crime Reduction Delivery Team in the Home
Office is working to issue an order under the Crime and Disorder Act so as to enable
Passenger Transport Executives and Passenger Transport Authorities to participate in Crime
and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP). The Government hopes that this will help to
raise the profile of transport within CDRPs and encourage the development of strategies to
reduce crime and fear of crime in and around public transport (DfT, 2004a).

5.13.4 Racial Harassment

Individuals who have experienced racial abuse or feel that they are treated differently
because of their race, generally have a negative attitude towards their journey. The fear that
a similar incident may occur again can dramatically affect a person’s travel patterns.

The British Crime Survey showed that in 1999 the risk of being the victim of a racially
motivated incident was considerably higher for members of BME groups than for white
people (Crime Concern, 2002). BME victims of crime perceived the motivation for the
incident to be racial in 12 per cent of all the crime experienced by BME people, compared to
0.3 per cent for white people. Similarly, 4.2 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi people
had experienced racially motivated crime in 1999, compared to 3.6 per cent of Indian people
and 2.2 per cent of Black people. The numbers of instances and proportion of racially
motivated crime has gone down since 1995, when 8 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi
people reported having experienced racially motivated crime, but the impact of this greater
prevalence in the past is still likely to impact on some people’s approach to travelling today
(Clancy et al, 2001).

Clancy et al (2001) found that emotional reactions to racially motivated incidents were
generally more severe than for non-racially motivated incidents. In 1999, victims of racially
motivated crime were twice as likely to say that they had been 'very much affected' by the
incident, than victims of other sorts of crime: 55 per cent of Black victims reported being
'very much affected', compared with 41 per cent for both Asian and White victims. Despite
improved recording methods used by police forces, it is likely that these statistics represent
an underestimate of people’s experience of racial abuse and racially motivated crime, as

75
many people believe that there is little point reporting such instances to the authorities
(Clancy et al, 2001).

Specifically regarding transport, Crime Concern (1997) found that BME people were more
likely to experience racial harassment on transport than other forms of crime. Other reports
of racism experienced on public transport refer to instances where they feel they have been
singled out because of their ethnic background by public transport staff, notably bus drivers.
Examples include the driver purposely ignoring an individual at a stop, or being deliberately
difficult when it comes to buying tickets or showing passes (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003).

The experience and threat of racism contribute towards the general feeling of a lack of
safety, which has been established as a major consideration for BME people, especially the
Asian groups, when choosing their mode of transport (Ahmed & Holder, 2000).

5.13.5 Fear of Injury when on Public Transport or in the Local Environment

Sudden unexpected changes in vehicle motion result in certain groups becoming fearful of
the prospect of injury on public transport, particularly if they are moving around the vehicle.

Older people worry more about their safety, because they are likely to be more severely
injured, take longer to recover and suffer greater psychological impact than a younger
person in a similar incident. They commonly cite the inconsiderate behaviour of bus drivers
as a reason for their injury. More older people are injured in buses as a result of a fall than
because of the bus being involved in a collision and for people whom have fallen, the
possibility of the experience being repeated is enough of a disincentive to prohibit future bus
use (DETR, 2001a).

Parents of young children and disabled people have also recorded their particular
dissatisfaction with drivers accelerating away before they have reached their seat (Disability
Rights Commission, 2000). Disabled people are exposed to unequal chances of risk, which
has led to higher levels of personal injury on public transport and reduced their confidence to
use public transport again (Disability Rights Commission, 2000). Wheelchair users often roll
uncontrollably around the vehicle if it starts moving before they have reached their station
and been able to put brake on (Lucas et al, 2001). Parents with buggies often have similar
problems. Children who are unaware of the need to hold on when the bus accelerates are
also prone to falling.

The fear of personal injury from an accident also affects people making journeys on foot. For
example, Joshi & MacLean (1990) found that concerns over their child’s ability to deal with
road traffic was the second greatest reason for accompanying their child to school. Hillman
et al. (1990) found that traffic danger was the greatest concern of parents whom
accompanied their children to school.

5.14 Suitability
Suitability has not previously been identified in the literature as a specific barrier to public
transport use, but there are two issues that come under this broad heading and relate to
concerns of socially excluded groups.

5.14.1 Poor Image

The influence of peer group pressure means that many young people are very conscious of
the image they emit to their contemporaries. The transport they use forms part of this
76
portrait, and it has been noted that the use of certain forms of public transport - normally
certain buses - is regarded as being incompatible with their image. Research for the DETR
(1999) found that people aged 14 - 16 were reluctant to use cheaper bus operators because
it was bad for their image, whilst some avoided using all buses. Pilling et al (1998) found that
over 40 per cent of 13 to 22 years olds felt that bus travel would ‘not make you look good’. In
contrast, trains and trams did not produce particularly negative images.

This problem is accentuated by the fact that many young people feel unwelcome on public
transport, particularly buses. They feel 'picked on' by adult passengers and members of staff
who are suspicious of their behaviour (DETR, 1999).

5.14.2 Cultural Issues

Where public transport fails to provide for, or is insensitive to the cultural practices of, an
individual or group it affects their views and use of the transport system. Many of these
needs are based on religious practices. There is evidence that trains do not always offer
appropriate food for the BME population. Not just food that meets their religious
requirements, but a variety of food that meets their culinary tastes; for example, some older
Indian women have shown that they will only eat South Asian style meals (Polak et al, 2002;
Beuret et al, 2000). In some religions, such as Hindi, it is traditional to pray before embarking
on a long journey, however not all mainline stations have facilities to do this (Polak et al,
2002).

The photos that accompany travelcards require that the individual be photographed without
obstructions in front of their face. When Muslim women wearing their veil then show their
photograph to transport staff they are often requested to remove their veil so that the photo
can be verified. This practice can cause offence, particularly if the request is aggressive. The
Muslim community would prefer more sensitive treatment of their cultural practices (Polak et
al, 2002; Beuret et al, 2000).

Unfamiliarity with the structure of the transport system can act as a barrier to BME people.
Older Asian women have said that they are unaware of how to travel on public transport,
how to request information or how to provide feedback. The lack of clarity on the procedures
available to provide comments on the transport service was common to all BME groups
(DETR, 2000a).

5.15 Remote Access

Although not a direct focus of this study, it is important to recognise that in some instances
travel can been replaced by remote access to services, and in many situations this is a
growing trend. Kenyon et al (2002) term the ability to undertake activities remotely as ‘virtual
mobility’. They define the concept as:

' A shorthand term for the process of accessing activities that

traditionally require physical mobility, but which can now be undertaken
without recourse to physical travel by the individual undertaking the
activity' (Kenyon et al, 2002).

It includes using the telephone to access social networks, using the internet to order
shopping, access financial markets or complete learning online, or using a mobile telephone
to participate in the political process. The advances in information-communication
technologies, particularly in the late 1990s, mean that it is now possible to do many more
activities without the need to travel anywhere. Kenyon et al (2002) highlights the potential

77
that this has for allowing people for whom mobility is a barrier, either because of transport or
the environment, to access domains of normal activity that they are unable to do currently.

As many of these opportunities are functions of having access to the Internet and knowing
how to get the best out of it, many aspects of virtual mobility are dependent on both a certain
level of wealth, access to information technology and usually computer experience. There is
evidence that those who are socially excluded are also more likely to be excluded from the
Internet, and therefore the Internet only reinforces exclusion. Recent statistics suggest that
only 7 per cent of households in the lowest income decile have access to the Internet, in
comparison to over 70 per cent of households in the highest income decile (Kenyon et al,
2002). Often, obtaining the skills training required to gain knowledge and confidence in using
the Internet requires travel to a library or educational centre.

Concerns also exist about the impact that greater remote access could have on the way that
a community functions. It implies a decline in direct human relations and a reduction in
experiences shared in person, which Barry (2002) identifies as being crucial for social
cohesion. Others (Wellman, 1999 in Kenyon et al, 2002) contend that the relationships that
can be formed online are more important in providing social interaction, as the person feels
more relaxed in the comfort of their own home and are able to take place over great
distances, permitting in the formation of new communities.

78
6 CONCLUSIONS
The review has demonstrated that, whilst a link between poor transport, accessibility and
social exclusion had been widely discussed in the academic and policy literature, until
recently there was a paucity of data on its precise nature. Since 1999, a variety of
predominantly qualitative studies have identified the accessibility and transport needs of
different social groups, with growing emphasis on those groups that may also be socially
disadvantaged in other respects. In 2003, the Social Exclusion Unit found clear evidence
linking poor transport provision and social exclusion. It is now well established that social
exclusion has a mobility dimension and that participation, the ultimate goal of inclusion, is to
a large extent dependent on people's ability to travel.

One of the goals identified in the Transport White Paper (DETR, 1998) was to create a 'fair'
transport system. This literature review has established that currently the distribution of
transport delivery in the UK is not fair, in that the barriers to access, as identified within this
report, result in socially excluded groups being unable to take up desired opportunities or to
participate fully in society.

It has been established that a wide variety of people in considerable numbers are affected
by a lack of access to basic services, and that the different activities they are unable to
access are diverse, ranging from the labour market to social networks and from political
processes to healthcare. These patterns are not only a result of the current transport
network, but of people's past experiences and attitudes. A negative experience or perception
now can lead to important journeys being sacrificed in the future.

There remains concern as to how the diversity of travel experiences and the details of the
exclusionary processes can be measured in any assessment of transport policy. It is
increasingly acknowledged that there is a need to develop appropriate methods in transport
planning to address successfully the transport needs of excluded groups and communities.
What local authorities require is a tool that helps them to understand and codify the needs of
different social groups (e.g. type of activity, by time of day), and to establish how easily
people can reach suitable locations where they can carry out these activities, taking into
account local transport provision in ways that reflect user perceptions. In other words, to
develop accessibility measures and models that capture the ways in which different social
groups perceive and use their local environment. This requires a detailed mapping of
objective transport provision (bus services, local street conditions, etc.), alongside the
incorporation of wider concerns (e.g. street crime) and an awareness of the relative
importance that different groups place on attributes of a particular type of journey (in-vehicle
travel times, walking times/distances, costs, etc.).

This review suggests that improvements to public transport services can have an important
role to play in the facilitation of better access to ‘normal’ activities and that accessible
transport systems are essential for equality of opportunity. It is clear, however, that they are
only part of a package of measures that need to be considered and the specifics of the
individual experience need to be considered in any set of policy solutions. The challenge is
to see how the accessibility models used in transport planning can be adapted from their
strategic, more generalised representations of conditions, to better reflect individual needs.

It is recommended that this project move towards this goal by attempting to establish basic
thresholds for socially excluded groups, in areas such as travel times and travel costs, and
to look in detail at issues affecting walk access to bus and rail services.

Drawing on the literature review, Figure 18 provides a framework for identifying the different
components of accessibility that will be examined within this project.

79
 Figure 18: Components of Accessibility

REQUIRED ACTIVITY

Resources e.g. IN-HOME NON-HOME BASED Resources e.g.

• Home ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY • Local
7 computer facilities
• Peripatetic • Tele-services • Goods • Public
services • Home visits • Services transport
• Meal-on- • Home deliveries • Amenities density

LANDUSE / SERVICE PROVISION/ TRANSPORT CHARACTERISTICS

wheels

Home Non-Home
Location Destinations
PERSONAL NEEDS / CIRCUMSTANCES

Activity Land Use

requirements Patterns
SPATIAL
Available ACCESSIBILITY Transport
modes Services

Physical
Physical PHYSICAL Design aspects
capabilities and
escort duties ACCESSIBILITY

Service opening
and transport
Timing of TEMPORAL operating times
activities ACCESSIBILITY

Costs of
Income levels/ Transport and
Budget
FINANCIAL Activities
constraints ACCESSIBILTY
Quality, Safety,
Comfort,
Perceptions and ENVIRONMENTAL Cleanliness, etc
Attitudes
ACCESSIBILITY
Wider social
Personal factors e.g.
Knowledge / crime levels
language skills INFORMATION
ACCESSIBILITY Information
Provision

SOCIAL ACCESSIBILTY PROFILE

SOCIAL ACCESSIBILITY MODELS

80
Bibliography
Ahmed, S. & Holder, T., (2000) The Travelling Needs of Asian People in the West Yorkshire
Area. Istikhara Research limited.

Atkinson, A. B. & Hills, J. (eds), (1998) Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity. London:
London School of Economics and Political Science, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Baker, A., Ferguson, S. & Dawson, D., (2003) 'The perceived value of time: controls versus
shiftworkers' Time and Society Vol. 12, 1, pp 27-39.

Barry, B., (2002) 'Social exclusion, Social Isolation and the Distribution of Income' in Hills, J.
Le grand, J. & Piachaud, D. (Ed) (2002) Understanding Social Exclusion. Oxford University
Press. Oxford.

Beuret, K., Aslam, H., Gross, S., Osman, A. & Khan, F., (2000) Ethnic Minorities and visible
religious minorities their transport requirements and the provision of public transport. Paper
presented to the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions.

Bhalla, A. & Lapeyre, F. (1997) Social exclusion: towards an analytical and operational
framework Development and Change Vol. 28 pp 413-433.

Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J. & Piachaud, D., (1999) 'Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995'
Social policy & Administration, Vol 33, (3) pp 227-244.

Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J. & Piachaud, D., (2002) 'Introduction' in Hills, J. Le grand, J. &
Piachaud, D. (Ed) (2002) Understanding Social Exclusion. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Byrne, D. (1999) Social Exclusion Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion (2002) Social Exclusion [online] www.cesi.org.uk

Church, A. & Frost, M., (1999) Transport and Social Exclusion in London - report Summary
London: London Transport Planning.

Church, A., Frost, M. & Sullivan, K., (unpublished) Transport and Social Exclusion in London
- Report Summary London: London Transport Planning.

Clancy, A., Hough, M., Aust, R. and Kershaw, C. (2001). Crime, Policing and Justice: the
experience of ethnic minorities: Findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey, Home Office
Research Study 223.

Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., & Thomas, C., (1997) Living life in different ways? Deprivation,
marginialization and changing lifestyles in rural England Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, Vol 22 (2) pp 210-230.

Countryside Agency (2001 Rural Services Survey [online]

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/RandE/state_of_the_countryside_reports/rur
alservicessurveyintro.asp

Crime Concern & Transport and Travel Research, (1997) Perceptions of Safety from Crime
on Public Transport. Department of Transport, HMSO, London.

Crime Concern (2002) People’s Perceptions of Personal Security and their Concerns about
Crime on Public Transport, Department for Transport, HMSO, London.

81
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2004) Transport, Young
People and Rural Areas [online] www.defra.gov.uk

Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, (DETR) (1998) A New Deal for
Transport: better for Everyone. The Government White Paper on the Future of Transport.
HMSO London.

DETR (1999) Young People and Crime on Public Transport. HMSO London.

DETR (2000a) Social Exclusion and the provision of public transport – Main Report. HMSO
London.

DETR (2000b) Public Transport Gender Audit. HMSO London.

DETR (2001a) Older People: Their Transport Needs and requirements HMSO London.

Department for Transport (DfT) (2001a) Focus on Personal Travel: 2001 Edition, HMSO,
London.

DfT (2001b) National Travel Survey HMSO, London.

DfT (2002a) Accessibility of local services and facilities. HMSO London.

DfT (2002b) Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report, HMSO, London.

DfT (2002c) Inclusive Mobility: A guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and
transport infrastructure [online]
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/doc.uments/contentservertemplate/dft_index

DfT (2003a) Transport and Accessibility [on-line]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_023939.h
csp

DfT (2003b) Public Transport Needs of Minority Ethnic and Faith Communities, HMSO,
London.

DfT (2004a) Accessibility Planning Guidance [on-line]

http://www.accessibilityplanning.gov.uk

DfT (2004b) Transport Statistics Bulletin: National Travel Survey 2002 [on-line]
http://www.dft.gov.uk

DfT (2004c) Transport Trends: 2004 Edition [online]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.
hcst?n=9381&l=3

DfT (2005) Focus On Personal Travel [online]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_
037493.pdf

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2001) Households Below Average Income
2000/01 Survey HMSO, London.

DWP (2003) Welfare to Work and Accessibility Guidance: JobCentre Plus Guidance [on-line]

82
Disability Rights Commission, (2000) DRC Response to the Cabinet Office Consultation on
Transport and Social Exclusion [online] www.drc-gb.org/InformationAndLegislation

Disability Rights Commission, (2001) Policy Statement on Transport and Travel [online]
www.drc-gb.org/InformationAndLegislation/.

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (2002a) Access for all [online]
www.dptac.gov.uk/access.htm.

DPTAC (2002b) Attitudes of Disabled People to Public Transport [online’]

www.dptac.gov.uk/access.htm

Duffy, K., (1998) Combating social exclusion and promoting social integration in the
European Union: in Oppenheim, C. (Ed) An Inclusive Society? Strategies for Tackling
Poverty IPPR, London.

Eisenstadt, N. & Witcher, S., (1998) 'Social Exclusion and Poverty in Outlook' National
Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations Issue 1, Autumn pp 6-7.

European Commission, (2003) PROMPT: Promote Pedestrian Traffic in Cities [on-line]

http:prompt.vtt.fi

European Conference of Ministers of Transport, (2002) Transport and Ageing of the

Population. ECMT, Paris.

Foley, K., (1999) Getting the Measure of Social Exclusion, London Research Centre,
London.

Gaffron, P., Hine, J. P. & Mitchell, F., (2001) The Role of Transport on Social Exclusion in
urban Scotland. Literature Review. Central Research Unit, Scottish Executive.

Gant R., (2002) Shopmobility at the millennium: `Enabling' access in town centres, Journal
of Transport Geography, June 2002, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 123-133 (11).

Garde, M., (1989) Report of the Home Office Working Party on fear of Crime.

Genevieve, G. (2003) 'Travel, location and race/ethnicity.' Transportation Research Part A:

Policy and Practice, Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 351-372.

Gordon, D., Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Patsois, D., Payne, J., Townsend, P., Adelman, C.
Ashworth, K., Middleton, S., Bradshaw, J. & Williams, W., (2000) Poverty and Social
Exclusion in Britain Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Gray, D., (2001) Rural Transport: An Overview of key Issues. Prepared for the Commission
for Intergrated Transport.

Green, A. E., (1998) Social Exclusion, the Journey to Work and Ethnic Minorities.
Presentation for a workshop on Social Exclusion & Transport at the University of Manchester
on 26th November 1998. University of Warwick.

Greico, M., Turner, J. & Jine, J., (2000) Transport employment and social exclusion:
changing the contours through information technology [online]
www.geocities.com/transport_and_society/newvision.html.

83
Hay, A. and Trinder, E. (1991) 'Concepts of equity, fairness and justice expressed by local
transport policymakers' Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. Vol. 9 pp 435
– 465.

Help the Aged (2005), In The Right Place: Accessibility, Local Services and Older People,
Help the Aged, London.

Hillman, M., Henderson, I. & Whalley, A., (1976) Transport Realities and Planning Policy.
Political and Economic Planning, London.

Hine, J. & Mitchell, F., (2001a) The role of Transport in Social Exclusion in Urban Scotland.
Central Research Unit, Scottish Executive.

Hine, J. & Mitchell, F., (2001b) 'Better for Everyone? Travel Experiences and Transport
Exclusion.' Urban Studies Vol. 38, No.2, pp 319-322.

Hodgson, M. J., (1981) The location of public facilities intermediate to the journey to work,,
European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 6, Issue 2, February 1981, Pages 199-
204.

Hoefer W. R., McKenzie T. L., Sallis J. F., Marshall S. J. & Conway, T. L., (2001) 'Parental
provision of transportation for adolescent physical activity.' American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, July 2001, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 48-51 (4).

Hough, M., (1996) Anxiety about Crime: findings from the 1994 British Crime Survey. Home
Office Research Study 147.

Imrie R., (2000) 'Responding to the Design Needs of Disabled People', Journal of Urban
Design, Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 199-219.

Joshi M.S. & MacLean M., (1995) Parental attitudes to children's journeys to school, World
Transport Policy and Practice, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 29-36 (8).

Kenyon, S., Lyons, G. & Rafferty, J., (2002) 'Transport and Social Exclusion: Investigating
the Possibility of promoting Inclusion through Virtual Mobility'. Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 10, pp 207-209.

Klöckner, D. (1998) 'An analysis of the escorting of children and its consequences'
Recherche - Transports - Sécurité, Vol. 59, April-June 1998, pp 17-32.

Labour Force Survey, (2003) Office of National Statistics, HMSO, London.

Labour Market Trends, (2002) Labour Market Spotlight. Office of National Statistics HMSO,
London.

Lee, P. & Murie, A., (1999) Literature review of social exclusion Edinburgh: Central
Research Unit.

Levitas, R., (1998) The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour. MacMillan
Press Ltd, Hampshire.

Lindsay, C., McCracken, M. & McQuaid, R. W., (2003) 'Unemployment duration and
employability in remote rural labour markets' Journal of Rural Studies, Vol 19, Issue 2, April
2003, Pages 187-200.

84
Littlewood, P. & Herkhammer, S., (1999) 'Identifying Social Exclusion. Some Problems of
Meaning' in Littlewood, P. Social Exclusion in Europe: Problems and Paradigms. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

London Research Centre, The Travel Behaviour of Different Ethnic Groups in London.

Lucas, K., Grosvenor, T. & Simpson, R., (2001) Transport, the Environment and Social
Exclusion. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Lupton, R. & Power, A., (2002) 'Social Exclusion and Neighbourhoods' in Hills, J. Le grand,
J. & Piachaud, D. (Ed) (2002) Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

Luxton, M., (2002) Feminist Perspectives on Social Inclusion and Children's Well Being
Laidlaw Foundation, Canada.

McQuaid R. M., Greig, M., & Adams, J., (2001) 'Unemployed job seeker attitudes towards
potential travel-to-work times', Growth and Change Vol. 32, 1, pp 1-14.

McQuaid, R. M. & Lindsay, C. (2002) The ‘employability gap’: long-term unemployment and
barriers to work in buoyant labour markets, Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, Vol. 20, 613 – 628.

METRO (2000) Public Transport and Access to Work in the Outlying Estates of North
Kirklees.

METRO, (2002) Metro's Access to Work project January 2000 - December 2001 EDRF
Objective 2 Priority 5. Final Report.

Monk, S., Dunn, J., Fitzgerald, M. & Hodge, I., (1999) Finding Work in Rural Areas: Barriers
and Bridges. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Murray, S., (1998) Social Exclusion and Integrated Transport. Paper to be presented to the
Transport Seminar Series held on 2 December 1998 at the University of Manchester.

Noble, B., (2000) Travel Characteristics of Older People, Transport Trends 2000,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, The stationary office, London

Nutley, S., (2003) 'Indicators of transport and accessibility problems in rural Australia'
Journal of Transport Geography Vol. 11 pp 55-71.

O' Reilly, D. M. (1989) Concessionary Fares and Children's Travel Patterns: An Analysis
based on the 1978/1979 National Travel Survey London: Department of Transport
(Research Report, 203).

OECD, (2001) Ageing and Transport: Mobility Needs and Safety Issues OECD, France.

Office of National Statistics (2001), Census, HMSO, London.

Pearce, N., (2001) A critical analysis of the way that social exclusion is defined in theory and
practice. Working paper, Lancaster University.

Pennycook, F., Barrington-Craggs, R., Smith, D., Bullock, S., (2001) Environmental Justice.
Mapping Transport and social exclusion in Bradford, Friends of the Earth, London.

85
Philo, C., (2000) 'Social Exclusion' in Johnston, R. et al The Dictionary of Human
Geography. Blackwell, Oxford.

Pickup, L., (1989) Women's travel requirements: employment with domestic constraints in
Greico, M., Pickup, L. and Whipp, R. (1989) Gender, Transport and Employment, Avebury,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Pierson, J. (2002) Tackling Social Exclusion, Routledge, London.

Pilling, A., Holloway, B. & Turner, J., (1998) Catching them young - young people’s travel
and the scope for influencing their travel behaviour. University of Manchester.

Polak, J.W., Noland, R.B., Glaister, S., Morton, B., Hodgson, F. & MacDonald, M., (2002)
Factsheet on the Problems with Transport for Ethnic Minorities. Part of the modelling social
exclusion in transport research study. Imperial College, London.

Preston, J., Raje, F., Hine, J. & Grieco, M., (2003) The Social Exclusion Impacts of Traffic
Restrain Policies, Paper presented at UTSG Annual Conference, Loughborough, January.

PRIAE, (2003) Black and Minority Ethnic Community in Leeds - The experience of
education and unemployment. Leeds City Council, Leeds.

Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2004) Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People:
Analytical Report, Cabinet Office, London [online] www.strategy.gov.uk

Rosenbloom, S., (1989) Trip chaining behaviour: a comparitve and cross cultural analysis of
the travel patterns of working mothers in Greico, M., Pickup, L. and Whipp, R. (1989)
Gender, Transport and Employment, Avebury, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Save the Children, (2000) Going my way. What children and young people say about
transport, Edinburgh.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, (1998) Widening Participation in Higher
Education: report of National Conference at Glasgow Caledonian University, The Scottish
Office.

Scottish Social Inclusion Strategy Action Team, (1999) Inclusive Communities Scottish
Executive: Scottish Inclusion Division.

Silver, H., (1995) 'Reconceptualising Social Disadvantage: Three Paradigms of Social

Exclusion.' In Rogers, G., Gore, C. & Figueiredo, J.B. (eds.) Social Exclusion: Rhetoric,
reality Responses. Geneva: ILO.

Simpson, R. & Lucas, K., (2000) Transport and Accessibility: The Perspectives of
Disadvantaged Communities. Draft Working Paper No.2 .

Smith, (2002) Transport corridors, local environment and social exclusion; an exploration of
possibilities. Proceedings from the European Transport Conference, 9-11 September 2002,
Homerton College, Cambridge.

Social Exclusion Unit, (2001) Preventing Social Exclusion. HMSO London.

Social Exclusion Unit, (2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on transport and Social
Exclusion. HMSO London.

86
Spicker, P. (1998) Housing and social exclusion: a discussion paper Edinburgh: Shelter
Scotland.

Turner, J. & Grieco, M. (1998) Gender, transport and the New deal: the social policy
implications of gendered time, transport and travel (Presented at the Social Policy
Association conference, Lincoln, July, 1998) [online].
www.art.man.ac.uk/transres/spconf2.htm

Tyler, N., 2002, Accessibility and the bus system: Concepts to practice Avebury, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne.

United Nations (1998) Human Development Report: Changing today's consumption patterns
- for tomorrow's human development United Nations Development Programme.

University of Westminster, University College London, London School of Hygiene and

Tropical Medicine (2003) Evaluating Measures to Enhance the Mobility of Older and
Disabled Persons. Phase 1 Summary Report’, produced for the DfT, December 2003.

Whitelegg, J., (1997) Critical Mass Pluto Press, London.

Witten, K et al (2003) The Quality of Urban Environments: Mapping Variation in Access to

Community Resources, Urban Studies, Vol.40, No.1, pp. 161-178

87