Institute for Transport StudiesFACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT

Is low mobility an important factor in the persistence of ‘enclave’ low-income communities in the UK? A case study of Merseyside in the United Kingdom.

Dr Karen Lucas,

Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, UK

LIVING IN ENCLAVE CITIESUtrecht University21-22 March, 2014

More than 15 years researching transport poverty….

• 1998-2000 – Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) study

• 2002 – 2003 – Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) and DfT pilots

• 2003 -2005 – G7 nations comparison study

• 2003- 2004 – UK/US comparison study

• 2005 – 2007 – More UK case studies for JRF

• 2007 – 2008 – South African study

• 2008 – 2010 – Australian study

• 2009 -2011 – Brazilian study

• 2011 – 2014 – UK/Belgium/Chile comparison study

• 2011 – 2014 – UK/Merseyside modelling study

Key research questions

• What are the social consequences of low mobility and motility?

• Does transport poverty play a role in social exclusion?

• If so, how, when, where and why?

• What happens when people’s travel options are improved?

• Is it a problem of structure or agency?

UK mobility by income

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Lowest 2nd 3rd 4th Highest

% a

bove

or

belo

w a

vera

ge fo

r al

l pe

ople

Trips per person Time spent travelling Distance travelled

Source: National Travel Survey 2008

Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2001

Main concerns:• Lack of employment and

local services

• Unwillingness to travel outside local area

• Personal safety issues

Transport concerns:

• Affordability of transit fares

• Timing and frequency of services

• Lack of information

• Disabled accessibilty

‘You got to have a car, man, if you want a job - one that pays. There ain’t no decent work round here. I’m going to get me a car and then I’m off to London to look for a proper job’

Lack of local employment

‘If you’ve got to go and sign on you have to make sure you’ve got the money and the petrol to get there…

No local services

‘The buses go all round the world and takes too long when you’re waiting and on most of the bus stops it doesn’t tell you what time the bus is going to come so you are waiting for ages.’

Inadequate transit services

UK Social Exclusion Unit 2003

• 40% of jobseekers say transport is a problem getting to jobs

• 1/2 of 16-18 year olds in education find their transport costs hard to meet

• 1.4 million people either miss or turn down hospital appointments because of problems with transport

• People without cars find it more difficult to access healthy affordable food

• Child are 5 times more likely to be in traffic accidents in low income households

DfT Accessibility Planning 2004-2011

Strategic assessment

Local assessment

Option Appraisal

Monitoring

Plan preparation

New study to model the relationship between Transport Poverty & Social Disadvantage

• ESRC funded mid-career fellowship with Merseytravel ITA

• 5 key stages of research

1. Use evidence from previous studies to develop a conceptual framework

2. Develop appropriate indicators for quantitative analysis

3. Develop national level models of travel behaviours using NTS

4. Local level analysis with bespoke survey and context-specific transport and land use data

5. Micro-simulation of new policy options

Stage 4: case study aims

1. To develop a local Merseyside model that can disaggregate the travel behaviours of low income and vulnerable population groups, in order to:

1. Understand the travel behaviours and revealed and potential accessibility and destinations choices of these groups in the context of existing land uses and public transport supply

2. To model the effects of different transport future policy scenarios on these individuals

3. To advise on the best direction for transport policy to alleviate their transport poverty

Conceptual framework for TP and SD

Indicator framework

Indicators of social disadvantage

•Average annual income (the official UN poverty is 50% of national average earnings)

•Gender

•Age

•SEG

•Household composition

•Economic activity/employment status

•Level of educational attainment

•Housing security (tenure)

•Physical and cognitive abilities

•Health and wellbeing

•Level of personal activities (proportion of in house and out of house activities)

Indicators of transport poverty

•Level of personal access to a private vehicle

•In possession of a driving licence

•Number of trips by mode by purpose

•Journey distance by mode by purpose

•Journey times by mode by purpose

•Weekly expenditure on travel as proportion of weekly income (more than 10%)

•Levels of journey times accessibility (door to door) to key activities by mode and time of day

•Perceptions of local environment – safety, crime, pollution, etc. – day & night.

Case study locations

Merseyside (within UK) 2 study areas

Leasowe

Anfield

Economic profile of case study areas

Source: 2011 Census

Car ownership and use

Source: 2011 Census

Sampling frame

• 700 economically active (age16-64): 350 in each study area.

• Average personal income = £13,100 or less per capita

– At least 30% working full or part time but can be in receipt of supplementary welfare benefits

– At least 30% economically inactive – i.e. not in education, training or work employment for more than 6 months

• 10% can be registered mentally or physically disabled or in receipt of long term sickness benefit

– At least 30% should be in households with dependant children (of which at least 10% are lone parents)

– At least 30% should have regular household access to one or more private vehicles

Achieved sample

• 502 people successfully completed the survey across the two case study areas

• 230 Anfield Liverpool area - 272 from Leasow, Wirral

• 241 were men (106 Liverpool and 135 Wirral) and 261 were women (124 Liverpool and 137 Wirral).

  16-18 years

19-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-59 years

60-64 years

Anfield, Liverpool

23 29 47 43 42 20 26

Leasowe, Wirral

21 43 52 56 61 23 16

Total 44 72 99 99 103 43 42

Age profile of the sample by study area

Travel diary data

 Walk Cycle Car driver

Car passenger

Train Bus Taxi

Anfield177 34.4 22 4.3 88 29.7 69 13.4 120 23.3 6 1.2 8 1.6

Leasowe221 28.8 21 2.7 266 34.6 125 16.3 72 9.4 3 0.4 41 5.3

Total308 24.0 43 3.3 354 27.5 194 15.1 192 14.9 9 0.7 49 3.8

Number and percentage of trips by mode and study area

• 488 valid dairies • 1286 weekday trips • 525 trips - Anfield, Liverpool (inner city) • 871 trips – Leasowe, Wirral (city periphery)

National level results: trip frequency and distance

• Presence of children in household

– 2 extra trip per week and 1.2 less miles per trip

• Non-white population

– 2 trips less per week but with no distance effect

• Mobility difficulties

– 2 trips less per week and 0.6 less miles per trip

• Single parents

– 1 trip more per week and 0.9 miles less per trip

Income effects: journey purposes (frequency)

Income effects: journey purposes (distance)

Some conclusions on the social consequences of unequal mobility & motility

• There is evidence of a link between lack of transport and other aspects of social disadvantage

• But not all socially disadvantaged people also experience transport disadvantage

• Lack of motility and low travel horizons can be equally as important

• People living in ‘enclave’ communities are often less willing to be mobile

• Multi-levelled and multi-methods analysis is complex and time-consuming

• But necessary to set some basic standards for understanding transport poverty.

Acknowledgements

• Gordon Stokes, John Bates, Jose Moore and Dr Juan Carrasco for help with NTS analysis

• Dr Ann Jopson and Gavin Thompson for help with GIS maps

• Merseytravel ITA for funding the Merseyside Transport Poverty Survey

• Mott MacDonalds for survey data collection

• Economic and Social Research Council for funding the project

And thanks to you for listening

K.Lucas@leeds.ac.uk

@drkarenlucas

http:/www.leeds.ac.uk/people/k.lucas