The Social Dimension of Sustainable Mobility Prof Graham Parkhurst Centre for Transport & Society University of the West of England, Bristol firstname.lastname@example.org
Environment Zone of Synergy Stagnation Inequality Degradation Economic Growth Social Justice Why 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
Overview 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
1. 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
As 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
Relationship between Income and Mobility UK Department for Transport - Transport Trends: Trend 4.1b Average distance travelled in UK, by income quintile
Importance of Taxi Travel for Poorest UK Households UK DfT (2004) National Travel Survey
1997-99 UK Households Car Ownership by Income and Size of Settlement of Residence Unpublished analysis of UK DfT National Travel Survey 1997-9
Importance 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
UK 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
2 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)
Falling EU27 Population Predicted(Cushioned only by Immigration)
Rising Old Age Dependency Ratioby 2060 less than 2 adults in ‘economically active’ 15-64 age group for each person aged 65+
Projected total population change 2008-2060 for EU, Norway and Switzerland
Implications… 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?
Modal Split for Trips Made by Age Group UK DfT (2005) Transport Trends 4.4d
UK Licence-holding by Gender & Age Group DfT (2006) Transport Statistics GB 2005 Edn Table 9.16
Implications 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?
3 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
Evidence 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
Hart (2008): Replicated Appleyard’s findings on three Bristol Streets
Evidence 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!
Economic 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
Accessibility-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
Severence-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
Road 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
Different 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?
Area 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)
May be Possible to Use Charges To Relocate Congestion and Pollution Away from Deprived Neighbourhoods Relocate Queues Open Space Hot spot Ross (2004) Simulation case-study of Leeds
Route 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)
Age, 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
Perceptions of Equity also Important (Gaunt, 2005) • 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 Even daily bus users voted against!
Conclusion 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!
Conclusion 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
Conclusion 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