Environment Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Roger Mackett, Professor of Transport Studies, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, and Helena Titheridge, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London
1. Our response to the questions asked is based on our extensive research into the accessibility needs of groups in the community and ways of addressing these issues through policy measures, in particular through the AUNTSUE project (Accessibility and User Needs in Transport for Sustainable Urban Environments) (http://www.aunt-sue.info/).
How are the Government’s current transport policies affecting the accessibility of public services (ie whether people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time and with reasonable ease)?
2. There is very little direct evidence on the influence of current transport policies on accessibility to public services. Evidence from the National Travel Survey (NTS) shows that travel to public services by disadvantaged groups such as the elderly is not increasing despite the number of accessibility policies that have been implemented.1,2 However, the policy of offering concessionary bus travel for older people is generating extra bus trips, although the extension of the scheme nationwide led to some reductions in local concessions.3
Are other policies (such as planning, education, health, welfare and work etc) adversely affecting the accessibility of public services and the environment? Do decisions on the location of public services adequately reflect available public transport infrastructure and the environmental footprint of the transport needed to access them? How significant are any adverse impacts for accessibility and the environment?
3. Policies on the closure of facilities in the light of public expenditure cuts are having an adverse effect. We carried out analysis of the impact of the Post Office closure programme in Hertfordshire and found that the provision was well below the required standard of 90% of the population being within one mile of their nearest Post Office branch (the average for Hertfordshire was 85%, a decrease from the 89% before the implementation of the closure programme).4 The problem with the methodology that was used was that it was an average for the UK. Because those living in London and other large cities have many Post Offices nearby even after the closure programme, the averaging process means than those in lower density areas fall well below the standard. Similarly, we have examined the impact of the library closure programme in Hertfordshire and found a decrease from 56% to 45% in the number of people in St Albans living within one mile of their nearest public library.
Is the Government’s current approach of requiring the accessibility of public services to be reflected in local transport plans working? How effective is the Department for Transport in furthering the accessibility agenda?
4. Whilst improving access is a key element of most Local Transport Plans (LTPs), and has been for a number of years, it is not usually linked explicitly to access to public services. For example, LTPs state that the local authority will improve street lighting or improve bus stops by building shelters or making them wheelchair accessible, but this is not linked explicitly to access to specific public services. The “localism agenda” means that the Department for Transport has less control over the way that the accessibility agenda is implemented, but may mean that, in some areas, local needs are being met better because the local authority has more knowledge about accessibility needs in their area.
How should the transport-related accessibility of public services be measured? How can decision-making in government better reflect “social” and accessibility impacts, alongside environmental and other considerations? Do social and accessibility concerns conflict with environmental considerations? Would a measure of the transport accessibility of key public services, in a similar manner as “fuel poverty”, be useful for policy-making (and if so, how should it be defined?)
5. There is a major difficulty with the way that the Department for Transport measures accessibility. The accessibility indicators either measure the average minimum time to reach key services or the percentage of people that can reach various public services within a given. There are a number of flaws with the use of travel time: firstly, our research has shown that travel time is not of major significance for many groups, such as the elderly, who are more concerned about public transport reliability and confidence about their ability to make the trip.5,6,7 Secondly, as far we are aware, the Department for Transport has not carried out any research to establish what a “reasonable” travel time is. Instead, it has used data from NTS to look at what people do, on average, and assumed that this is “reasonable”. Furthermore what is regarded as a “reasonable” travel time varies considerably across the population.8
6. Access to public services for some people may be influenced by issues related to their specific needs and capabilities. For example, in our research on St Albans, we found that ease of access to the local hospital for those in wheelchairs could be increased significantly by installing the one missing dropped kerb between the city centre and the hospital.
7. A measure of transport accessibility to key public services would be useful, but would need to be at the household level, take into account car availability, quality and cost of using local bus services, personal capabilities, and income.
The impact of broadband networks and the Internet in mitigating the need for transport infrastructure to access public services
8. Whilst broadband networks and the internet can mitigate the need for transport infrastructure to access public services for some people, many of those with the poorest accessibility such as elderly and disabled people have lower access to such facilities and do not find that their specific needs are addressed.
References
1 Titheridge, H, Mackett, R L and Achuthan, K (2012). Developing better measures of accessibility for older people. Paper presented at the International Conference on Ageing and Mobility (AMQoL), 24–26 June 2012, University of Michigan, USA,
2 Titheridge, H, Mackett, R L Oviedo Hernandez, D and Achuthan, K (2013). Making accessibility better for older people. Paper to be presented at the World Conference on Transport Research, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 15–18 July 2013
3 Mackett R L (2012). The impacts of concessionary travel passes for older and disabled people—a review of the evidence. Paper written for the CILT Concessionary Travel Group; available from the author.
4 Mackett R L, Achuthan K and Titheridge H (2010). The impact on equity of changes to access to local facilities, Selected proceedings of the World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–15 July 2010, edited by José Manuel Viegas and Rosário Macáro, ISBN 978-989-96986-1-1, available from http://www.wctr2010.info/WCTR_Selected/documents/02524.pdf.
5 Titheridge, H, Solomon, J (2007). Benchmarking Accessibility for Elderly Persons. 11th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons, Montreal, Canada, 18–21 June, , CD-Rom
6 Titheridge H, Mackett RL, Achuthan K (2010). A comparison of accessibility as measured by planners and accessibility as experienced by older people and those with disabilities. The 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED 2010), Hong Kong, 2 June 2010–4 Jun 2010
7 Mackett R L, Titheridge H and Achuthan K (2011). Improving Access in St Albans—Report on a Consultation Exercise, Report produced in the Centre for Transport Studies at University College London as part of the research programme of the AUNT-SUE Consortium, available from http://www.aunt-sue.info/toolkit/amelia/consultation.html.
8 Titheridge, H, Solomon, J (2008). Social exclusion, accessibility and lone parents. Paper presented at The UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference 2008, Belfast, 18-20 March.
11 September 2012