1

The Social Dimension of Sustainable Mobility

Prof Graham ParkhurstCentre for Transport & Society

University of the West of England, Bristolgraham.parkhurst@uwe.ac.uk

2Why Should We Be Concerned About the Social Dimension?

• Professional ethics• improved quality of life

for all

• Changing socio-cultural context• influences both

problems and solutions • Perceived and actual

social justice influence the acceptability of controversial transport policies

Zone ofSynergy

Economic Growth

Environment

Social Justice

Degradation

Inequality

Sta

gnat

ion

3Overview of Topics

• 1) Inequalities– Travel Poverty

• 2) Changing social context– Ageing EU Population

• 3) Consequence of Mobility policy– Who shares the costs and who shares the

benefits– Public acceptability

41. Inequalities: EU Citizens mainly fall into Two Groups

• The majority– Have access to private cars– Find public transport/taxis affordable– Create problems of ‘hypermobility’

• The minority– No car access– Public transport expensive, taxis an occasional necessity – Lack of access to opportunity reduces social sustainability of

policy

5As a result there is a…

• Risk that transport policy focuses on:– The ‘average’ or highest profile traveller e.g. the middle-

income car owner/user

• Need for policy analyses to recognise that some citizens:– contribute little to the problems of congestion and pollution– may have limited influence over policy which can be

dominated by specific economic and political interests and influential, vocal social groups

6Relationship between Income and Mobility

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest AllIncome quintile

mile

s/ye

ar

1985/861999/01

UK Department for Transport - Transport Trends: Trend 4.1b Average distance travelled in UK, by income quintile

7Importance of Taxi Travel for Poorest UK Households

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 AllHousehold income quintile

%

Share of all trips made by taxi

Share of all distance travelled by taxi

UK DfT (2004) National Travel Survey

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Low est 2nd 3rd 4th Highest

Household Incom e Quintile

Per

Cen

t w

ith

a c

ar

>250k pop >25k >3k Rural

1997-99

UK Households Car Ownership by Income and Size of Settlement of Residence

Unpublished analysis of UK DfT National Travel Survey 1997-9

9Importance of ‘Non-discretionary’ Car Ownership

• UK households with cars on average spend 15% of budget on cars– Poorest quartile with cars spend 24% on motoring!

• Although household income is the main factor in the level of car ownership, other factors such as rurality are a secondary factor

• Higher level in poor rural households compared with poor urban households may be due to the necessity of cars rather than the choice to have a car

• Poor urban shift-workers may also be obliged to own cars

10UK Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Effects of ‘Travel Poverty’

• 2/5 jobseekers – lack of transport = barrier to work • 1/2 of 16–18 yrs in education - transport costs hard

to meet• 1.4 million people/year do not take advantage of

medical services because of transport problems• 16% of people without cars have difficulty accessing

supermarkets (6% of car owners) • 18% of non-car owners find seeing friends & family

difficult because of transport problems (8% of car owners)

• Children from most deprived socio-economic group 5 times more likely to die in road accidents than those from highest

112 Sociodemographic Changes

• EU27 Population Change (2008-2060) based on “convergence scenario” in which socio-economic and cultural differences between Member States reduce– Migration: positive net immigration (although falling

trend)– Birth rate: gentle decline– Ageing population: longer life expectancy (although

rising death rate due to ‘bulge’ in population structure)– Median Age will rise from 40.4 (2008) to 47.9 (2060)

12EU27 Population Pyramids 2008 & 2060

13Falling EU27 Population Predicted(Cushioned only by Immigration)

14EU27 Population Projection (Index 2008 = 100)

15Rising Old Age Dependency Ratioby 2060 less than 2 adults in ‘economically active’ 15-64 age group for each person aged 65+

16Projected total population change 2008-2060 for EU, Norway and Switzerland

17Implications… Transport as a Derived Demand

• Greater demands on public services, particularly health and social care services

• Change in types of demand for residential property

• Changes in patterns of participation in work, voluntary activities, society in general?

18Modal Split for Trips Made by Age Group

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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

Other

Bicycle

Walk

Bus and coach

Car passenger

Car driver

UK DfT (2005) Transport Trends 4.4d

19UK Licence-holding by Gender & Age Group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

17-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+

%MaleFemale

DfT (2006) Transport Statistics GB 2005 Edn Table 9.16

20Implications for Mobility Policy and Transport Providers

• Increased number of citizens with reduced mobility?– Different design specifications?

• Changing temporal and spatial patterns of demand on transport networks?– By time of day etc.– Different proportions of journey purposes?– Different modes?

• Changing emphasis of public transport priorities– vehicle accessibility, flexibility, penetration of residential

areas rather than speed and reliability?

213 Social Distributional Impacts

• Occur when transport schemes create winners and losers– And systematic effects can be identified so that

particular social or spatial groups can be identified as winners or losers as a group

– Can be positive or negative

• Many kinds are physical (pollution, barriers)• Some related to ability to pay (e.g. road tolls)• Of particular concern where affected groups are

those which are often poorly represented in public consultation

22Evidence for Environmental SDIs: Noise

• Watkiss et al, (2000): regular exposure to environmental noise leads to– detrimental changes in blood pressure and stress hormone

levels in children – Poorer learning ability

• Poorer, less vocal communities more likely to be sited by noisy transport infrastructure

• Appleyard (1981): key factor in reducing community interaction

23

Hart (2008): Replicated

Appleyard’s findings on

three Bristol Streets

24Evidence for Environmental SDIs: Air Quality

• A ‘social gradient’ exists in air pollution exposure– Brainard, Jones, Bateman & Lovett (2002)

• Poor and ethnic minorities more exposed in Birmingham

– Kingham, Pearce & Zawar-Reza, 2007• Similar findings in Christ Church, New Zealand• Note that not only do poor and ethnic minorities suffer

more from cost of car domination, but also benefit less!

25Economic SDIs: Winners & Losers from Land Value Changes

• Robinson and Stokes (1987): houses within 200 metres of Metro stations in Newcastle rose in value by 1.7% more than those 1.5-3 km from stations over the period two months before and two months after opening– benefited landlords and house owners but could

have generated negative impacts on tenants through higher rents

• Lane et al., (2004); Riley (2001): London Jubilee Line cost £3.5 billion of public money but increased land values by £13 billion for land owners

26Accessibility-related SDIs

• Colin Buchanan & Partners (2003): London Croydon Tramlink resulted in 9% faster reduction in unemployment in neighbourhoods it served 2000-2

• Lane et al., (2004) London Jubilee Line little effect on accessibility for established residents due to– mismatch between the skills of local residents and

jobs created– accessibility increased competition for new jobs from

residents living elsewhere

27Severence-related SDIs

• Egan et al. (2003), a new road identified with 14% reduction in ‘neighbourhood traversal’ – However some evidence of community adaptation through a

process of expanding the boundaries of what was perceived to be its neighbourhood

28Road Pricing & Social Inclusion

• Disadvantaged citizens less likely to own cars, so less likely to be directly negatively affected by RP

• However:– Some disadvantaged citizens are arguably non-discretionary

car owners and may have to pay RP charges– RP may affect disadvantaged citizens indirectly, if the prices

of goods/services rises

29Different Types of RP Schemes May Create Different Spatial Distributional Effects

• Area-based charge– rescheduling and rerouting may redistribute negative

consequences of traffic?– Often clear ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ groups depending on specific

location

• Route-based charges (US High Occupancy Toll Lanes)– possibilities of avoidance using parallel route?– How realistic is the ‘choice’ to use the tolled option?

• Congestion charging– Poorer households suffer most from need to rescheduling trips to

less busy times?– Poorer households priced out altogether?

30Area Charges: Spatial Boundary Effects

• Trondheim cordon – ‘one-hour’ rule to mitigate unfairness

to ‘school run’ parents (Langmyhr, 1997)

• London Congestion Charge– 43 per cent of respondents believed

family and friends were finding it more difficult to visit them (Mori, 2004)

31

Hot spot

Open Space

Relocate Queues

May be Possible to Use Charges To Relocate Congestion and Pollution Away from Deprived Neighbourhoods

Ross (2004) Simulation case-study of Leeds

32Route Charges: Social Equity Evidence

• Most RP schemes target peak periods– New York toll road users more

affluent, male and middle-aged (Holguin-Veras et al., 2005)

• Car pooling predominantly a middle class phenomenon (Appiah, 2004)

33Age, Gender & Ethnicity Effects

• Age a secondary factor influencing use of HOT/V roads (Appiah, 2004; Evans et al., 2003)– Behaviour of older and younger drivers more likely to be

influenced by variable pricing– Willingness or ability to pay?

• US studies suggest women more likely than men to choose the toll road (Sullivan, 1998; Brownstone & Small, 2005)– Worth paying to ease complex travel patterns?

• Rajé (2003)– Bristol travel diary study indicated British Asian women

more reliant on car trips as passengers– elderly women in sample unfamiliar with bus use– so potentially more vulnerable to effects of pricing

34Perceptions of Equity also Important (Gaunt, 2005)

Bus (χ2 = 19.006; df = 6; p < 0.01.)

020406080

100

Daily Weekly Occasionally Never

Frequency of use

Per

cen

tag

e o

f re

spo

nd

ents Didn't vote

Against

For

Even daily bus users voted against!

• Twin cordon• weekdays only• once-a-day charge £2 for

crossing one OR both inbound• outer 0700-1000• inner 0700-1830• Only discount for those

Edinburgh residents living outside outer cordon for travel between cordons only

• Proposal defeated 3:1 in referendum

35Conclusion 1: Sometimes We Need to Provide for More Mechanised Personal Mobility for a Minority of Travellers Even if Contrary to Climate Change Objectives

• ‘Wheels to Work’/‘Wheels to Learning’– loan of a moped (most common measure)– Cost of providing mopeds €1300-1400 per intervention– a minor grant towards vehicle repairs to enable a vehicle

to be put back on the road – Subsidised driving lessons

• Assistance to encourage car use seems bad for the environment but may be sustainable overall – Very cost effective if difference between someone

working or claiming state social benefits!

36Conclusion 2: Considerable Research and Policy Development Effort Required to Understand the Ageing Population

• A wide range of possible implications for transport planning– Some transport problems naturally become less

important (speeding motorists, peak hour congestion)– others become more severe, particularly social exclusion

• Major research challenge is that future older cohorts unlikely to behave like current cohorts

37Conclusion 3: Only Partial Understanding Exists of Distributional Effects of Transport Infrastructure Schemes - Road Pricing Much Less Well Understood and Raises Complex Issues

• Some poor motorists may decide it is worth paying to use discretionary road pricing

• Hard to include distributional effects in rational evidence-driven decision-making processes or economic models

• Whether road pricing increases or reduces social equality depends on scheme detail e.g. relocation of pollution, hypothecation of revenues– Importance of public perceptions of equity on overall

scheme acceptability