ECOMM, San Sebastian, 13-15 May 2009

Evaluating increases in accessibility for people who are socially excluded

Roger Mackett, Kamal Achuthan and Helena TitheridgeCentre for Transport Studies

University College London

Evaluating increases in accessibility for groups in the community

This involves bringing together information on• The mobility capabilities of the members of the

group• Their movement patterns or potential movement

patterns • Potential improvements to the environment to

increase accessibility• The cost of implementing the improvements• The numbers benefiting from the improvements

These are brought together in AMELIA

The policy analysis tool

A

M

E

L

I

A

The policy analysis tool

A

Methodology for

Enhancing

Life by

Increasing

Accessibility

AUNT SUE

• Funded by EPSRC under the SUE programme;• Focus is on increasing social inclusion through

improving accessibility etc;• Involves UCL, London Metropolitan University and

Loughborough University;• Main elements:

– Design of a policy analysis tool - AMELIA;– Development of improved transport designs and

operations;– Evaluation in the testbed areas.

The elements of the policy analysis tool, AMELIA

Analysis ofthe impact

of the actions

Changes in the number of sociallyexcluded people

meeting the benchmarks

BenchmarksPolicy objective

Policy actions to achieve the

objective

Data on thelocal area (transport

networks, opportunities,etc)

Data on thepopulation in a

socially-excludedgroup

The procedureSet the policy objective

Identify the relevant characteristics

Select a policy action

Set the values for the policy action

Set up the data for testing the policy action

Examine the results

Guidance on values

Run AMELIA Set the benchmark

Costs

AMELIA information system

Guidance

Guidance is provided on:

• Best practice in design

• Personal characteristics that define why the person is excluded

Characteristics of the policy actions

• To date, 57 policy actions have been identified which can be examined using AMELIA

• They have the following characteristics:

– 10 types of social exclusion

– 6 modes of travel

– 14 types of policy action

– 13 types of barriers that can be overcome

The study area – St Albans, Herts

St Albans

The study area: St Albans

The study area: St Albans

Barriers to movement in St Albans

Lack of dropped kerbs Narrow pavements

The case study

• Objective: to improve access within the city centre• The socially excluded group being considered:

the population aged 65+ based on the Census of Population, 2001 (19231 people), disaggregated into categories according to walking ability using data from the Disability Survey of Great Britain.

• The policy actions:– Providing dropped kerbs at existing crossings;– Providing crossings every 100 m;– Providing wider pavements;– Providing benches every 100 m.

The costs of the policy actions

Dropped kerbs - €1075 each side or €2150 per crossing

Pedestrian crossings - €26 940 each

Benches - €540 each Pavement - €70 per square metre

The existing layout of benches, crossingsand footways in the centre of St Albans.

The proposed layout of the new crossings, existing crossings with new dropped kerbs and the widened pavements.

The number of residents of St Albans aged 65 or over with various walking capabilities

Group Cannot walk up one step

Can walk up one step

Total

Cannot walk at all or can walk less than 46m

2500 0 2500

Can walk 46m but not 183m

77 1077 1154

Can walk 183m but not 402m

77 692 769

Can walk 402m 0 14,808 14,808

Total 2654 16,577 19,231

Implementation of the case studyAssumptions:• Those living within 800 metres of the city centre

walk there (or travel by wheelchair);• The rest arrive by bus or car, split into their

relative use by people aged 65+ nationally;• Bus users are allocated to the bus stop within

400m of the city centre most appropriate for where they live; they are then assumed to walk or use a wheelchair;

• Car users allocated to car parks within 400m of city centre in proportion to their capacity; they are then assumed to walk or use a wheelchair.

Numbers of people arriving in the city centre and at the Old Town Hall by each mode

Walk or wheelchair all the way

Bus then walk or

wheelchair

Car then walk or

wheelchair

Total

Total numbers using each mode to arrive in the city centre

485 2793 15,953 19,231

Total numbers able to reach the Old Town Hall

161 2151 10,838 13,674

% able to reach the Old Town Hall

33 77 70 71

Increases in the numbers of people who can reach the Old Town Hall by each mode

Walk or wheelchair all the way

Bus then walk or

wheelchair

Car then walk or

wheelchair

Total

Providing dropped kerbs at existing crossings

0 0 24 24

Providing crossings every 100m

0 0 0 0

Providing wider pavements

0 0 13 13

Providing benches every 100m

7 56 461 524

Cost of implementing the policy actions

Unit cost Number of units

installed

Total cost Cost/

head

Providing dropped kerbs at existing crossings

€2150 each

23 €49,450 €2060

Providing crossings every 100m

€26,940 each

11 €296,340 -

Providing wider pavements

€70 per m2

3689 m2 €258,230 €19,864

Providing benches every 100m

€540 each

314 €169,560 €324

Phase 2 - ConSEPT

Consulting Socially Excluded People about Transport

Objectives:• To check that the assumptions in AMELIA are valid• To help develop AMELIA as a consultation tool

Procedure• Identify four suitable types of socially excluded people• Set up a series of discussions with groups of them around AMELIA• Refine AMELIA

Conclusions

• It has been shown that AMELIA can calculate the mean cost per head of policy actions.

• In this case, providing benches every 100 m seems to be the most cost effective policy action.

• But, many assumptions have been made.• The largest difficulty is establishing ‘capabilities’.• Still lots of work to be done.

Further information

Contact Professor Roger Mackett• E-mail: rlm@transport.ucl.ac.uk

• AUNT-SUE website: http://www.aunt-sue.info/.