Social disadvantage and transport in the UK:
a trip-based approach
José Moore
Dept of Civil Engineering, Universidad de Concepción.
Dr Karen Lucas and John Bates
Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford.
Working Paper N° 1063
April 2013
Transport Studies Unit
School of Geography and the Environment
http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 2
Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach
José Moore, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidad de Concepción
with
Dr Karen Lucas and John Bates, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford
April 2013
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 3
Acknowledgements
The main study for this research is funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council Mid-
Career Fellowship Programme for Dr Karen Lucas (project reference ES/J00023X/1). The National
Travel Survey data for the project is provided through an agreement with the National Centre for
Research (NatCen) and is for academic use only. José Moore’s contribution to the research was
funded by the EU Marie Curie International Researcher Exchange Scheme (IRSES) as part of the
project Transport and Social Exclusion: New Directions and National Comparisons project
(TranSENDaNC) and forms part of the research for his Master’s dissertation in Transport Engineering
that is being undertaken under the supervision of Dr Juan Antonio Carrasco.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 4
ABSTRACT
This TSU Working Paper is the product of a three-month internship visit to the Transport Studies Unitby José Moore, which is funded under the auspices of the EU Marie Curie International ResearcherScientific Exchange Scheme (IRSES)
1between the University of Oxford, Universidad de Concepción,
Chile and the University in Ghent, Belgium. The research it presents is also contributing to an ESRCfunded mid-career fellowship programme to develop new models of the travel behaviour of low incomeand social disadvantaged population groups in the UK, which is being undertaken by Dr Karen Lucasunder the mentorship of John Bates
2.
The purpose of this paper is to firstly report on a literature review that was undertaken to identify theempirical studies that have been undertaken to model transport and social exclusion in differentnational contexts. Secondly, it reports on research to model the travel behaviours of sociallydisadvantaged members of the British population using the UK’s main travel survey, the NationalTravel Survey (waves 2002-2010). Two approaches have been developed within the paper: (1)introducing extra variables of social disadvantaged into the baseline UK National Trip End Model(NTEM); and (2) more refined purpose-based analysis, which considers four different purposes (i.e.work, social, visiting friends and relatives, and services).
The results from this analysis indicate that there are important differences in travel behavioursaccording to household income, possession of a driver’s licence and the presence of children within ahousehold, as well as by dummy indicators for vulnerable population segments (e.g. single parents,economically inactive and unemployed people, non-whites, etc.). Disaggregation by journey purposeidentifies that income has a particularly significant effect on visiting friends and relatives and social tripfrequency and travelled distance. Both findings could have important implications in terms ofmaintaining family bonds and generating social capital.
Vulnerable segments such as non-whites and people with mobility difficulties also have different travelpatterns than the baseline: although both are involved in less trip-making for all the purposesanalysed, non-whites travel further for VFR while people with disabilities tend to perform morelocalised VFR trips. Single parents do not show significant differences for trip-making (only a slightincrease) but their activity patterns proved to be more localised for both VFR and overall trips. Socio-economic variables also proved to have higher fit for mandatory activities which imply that otherfactors (e.g. contextual, psychological, etc.) are affecting social and visiting trips.
There are also important interactions between the three independent variables for travel behaviour(i.e. number of trips, trip length and trip duration) which will require further analysis as well as furtherindicators of transport and social disadvantage that have not been included within the modelsdeveloped for reasons of lack of data and appropriateness at the national spatial scale, which cannotallow for geographical factors.
Key words: travel behaviour, transport disadvantage, social exclusion, income effects, transport
modelling
1TranSCENDaNC: Transport and Social Exclusion: new Directions and National Comparisons
http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/TranSENDaNC/2
Modelling the Relationships between Transport Poverty and Social Disadvantagehttp://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/mrtpsd/
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 5
1. INTRODUCTION
This TSU Working Paper is the product of a three-month internship visit to the Transport Studies Unit
by José Moore, which is funded under the auspices of the EU Marie Curie International Researcher
Scientific Exchange Scheme (IRSES) between the University of Oxford, Universidad de Concepción,
Chile and the University in Ghent, Belgium. The research it presents is also contributing to an ESRC
funded mid-career fellowship programme to develop new models of the travel behaviour of low income
and social disadvantaged population groups in the UK, which is being undertaken by Dr Karen Lucas
under the mentorship of John Bates.
Both projects have been developed in response to growing academic and policy recognition that
inequities in the provision and use of transport services are a major issue in the context of the
continued growth urban mobility and accompanying upgrades in different transport modes, particularly
private motor vehicles. However, studies of the links between travel behaviour and social
disadvantage are still in their infancy in most countries and the mathematical models of travel
behaviour that dominate all levels of transport decision-making rarely include social evaluation criteria
(Van de Voorde and Vanelslander, 2010). It is reasonable to suggest from an overview of the literature
that interdisciplinary socio-theoretical and mathematical explanations have yet to be developed,
although progress has been made in some respects in more recent years (e.g. socio-technical
transition models).
The objective of this paper is to models different trip-based indices of travel behaviour such as trip
generation, distance and duration considering variables in combination with indices of social
disadvantage. The overarching aim of the study is to develop model that can predict the effects of
different transport policies and scenarios on different sub-groups of the population, with a particular
focus on those groups that are already recognised as economically or socially vulnerable. This paper
is divided into seven sections. The next section provides the theoretical fundamentals and recent
empirical evidence related to the analysis of social disadvantage and travel behaviour focusing on
quantitative approaches. Section 3 explains the data and methods used in this study while sections 4,
5 and 6 presents our analytical results from the different models we applied: section 4 provides an
analysis of the NTEM and the inclusion of new variables related to social disadvantage and
socioeconomic and contextual characteristics and section 5 and 6 analyse how these results vary
when considering different trip purposes. Finally, section 7 provides our conclusions and next steps for
the study.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Social scientific studies of the transport and concerns of income deprived and socially disadvantaged
individuals, households and communities have been prolific over the past ten or more years. The
literature confirms that there is considerable interest in this topic from academics and policy makers in
the UK (e.g. Farrington, 2007; Preston 2009), as well as from across Europe (e.g. Ohnmacht et al,
2009) and more widely internationally (e.g. Currie et al, 2007; Páez, et al, 2009). Early UK studies
identified multiple relationships between transport disadvantage and income poverty (e.g. Church and
Frost, 1999; TRaC, 2000; Lucas et al, 2001). This has helped to stimulate the interest of policy makers
within central government, and in 2003 the UK Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) published its seminal
report on this subject. The SEU report led to new transport policy for local authorities in England to
deliver accessibility planning in order to reduce transport-related exclusion as part of the local planning
process (Department for Transport, 2006a). Problems such as the poor conceptualisation of social
issues within transport studies, the lack of adequate quantitative data for robust analysis and
commonly perceived difficulties associated with adopting a social equity approach to transport have
nevertheless persisted within UK transport planning authorities (Grieco, 2006). This suggests that the
need for new tools and approaches are needed which are capable of overcoming the current socio-
technical divides that prevails within the transport studies so that we can develop collective
understandings of the interactions between people’s travel behaviours and their economic and social
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 6
wellbeing. Our study aims to identify some of the associated conceptual, methodological and
analytical challenges of adopting this hybrid approach.
Theoretical framings
A number of publications have sought to enhance the conceptual understanding of the links between
transport and social disadvantage through the framings of social exclusion, which has dominated the
European policy discourse over the past ten years (e.g. Church and Frost, 2001; Social Exclusion Unit,
2003; Lucas, 2012). They identify that social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process
and that transport disadvantage is only one part of the overall dynamics that create this phenomenon.
Levitas et al. (2007: 9) provide a useful definition of social exclusion in these terms:
“[social exclusion is] a complex and multidimensional process that involves the lack or denial
of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal
relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in
economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and
the equity and cohesion of society as a whole”.
Their definition suggests that the primary concern is with individuals who do not have the same level
of access to goods and services and participation in activities enjoyed by the majority of people in the
societies in which they live. It is primarily this focus on access and participation which has attracted
transport researchers to this field of study, although clearly there are many other factors that may play
a role in determining people’s ability to fully participate in society, including income poverty, low
educational attainment, ill health, language barriers, racism, sexism and classism (Litman, 2003).
Considering these multiple criteria, different segments of the population can be defined as particularly
vulnerable or excluded in transport-related social exclusion (see Table 1).
Table 1 Vulnerable segments
Socially disadvantaged Transport disadvantaged Other
Low Income No car Women Unemployed Rural population Students Unskilled People w/disabilities Children Single parents Poor access Ethnic minorities Elderly
Other factors such as psychological characteristics, time availability, social capital and transport
provision can be crucial in defining whether a person is socially excluded or not. Building on Levitas et
al’s theoretical definition above, Lucas (2012: 107) has provided a conceptual framework for
understanding the contributing factors and interactions between transport and social disadvantage to
create a framework for transport poverty, inaccessibility and social exclusion (see Figure 1).
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 7
Figure 1: Relationship between Transport disadvantage, social disadvantage and social exclusion
(Lucas, 2012)
Recent empirical studies
Different efforts have been made internationally to analyse the travel behaviours of disadvantaged
segments of the population. European experience has been well developed during the latest years. In
the UK, transport related social exclusion has been analysed among the elderly (Titheridge et al, 2009;
Su and Bell, 2012), low-income groups (Lucas et al, 2009), rural population (Huby et al, 2007) and its
role regarding access to higher education (Kenyon, 2011). In the northern Irish context, activity spaces
had been used to identify transport disadvantage in rural population (Ahern and Hine, 2012;
Kamrruzzaman and Hine, 2010) and students (Kamrruzzaman and Hine, 2011). In the case of
Mainland Europe, GIS-based analysis of the labour market in Barcelona (Spain) by Cebollada (2009)
concluded that individuals without a car had less job prospects. In Germany, Scheiner (2010) used
structural equation modelling (SEM) to assess the links between trip distance and lifestyle variables
and the importance of access and quality of the transport supply. His findings indicated that trip
distances are most significantly affected by residential location.
In the Canadian context, access to health, food services and jobs had been analysed in Páez et al
(2009) based on vulnerable segments such as the elderly, low-income and single parents respectively.
Their analyses identified the presence of food desserts in the suburbs (i.e. zones with no food services
in a walkable distance) even with vehicle availability in lower-income households. In the case of health
services and the elderly, access was very low throughout the city with the exception of the City Centre,
with no significantly positive effects for vehicle ownership. In a later study, Páez and Farber (2010)
modelled the travel behaviours of people with disabilities using traditional econometric modelling
techniques such as discrete choice models and regression analysis. In the USA, there has been a
focus on car-pooling and car-sharing behaviours of immigrant populations (e.g. Lovejoy and Handy,
2010; Blumenberg, 2008).
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 8
Currie et al (2011) offers a comprehensive overview of transport-related social exclusion research in
the Australian context considering methodological frameworks, empirical analysis and international
comparisons. Some of the research included considers equity in public transport (Delbosc and Currie,
2011a; Currie, 2010a), transport and wellbeing (Currie et al, 2009, 2010b), the psychological impacts
of transport poverty (Currie and Delbosc, 2010) and the relationship between transport and social
capital (Currie and Stanley, 2008). The link between social exclusion and transport had also been
analysed in New Zealand, by Rose (2009) using qualitative approaches and Mavoa et al (2012) using
a GIS-based approach to analyse public transport accessibility.
Less research has been conducted in the context of developing countries. In the Latin-American case,
most of the experience is concentrated in Colombia where transport provision has been the most
analysed variable (Cahill Delmelle and Casas, 2012; Jaramillo et al, 2012). In Chile, research has
been undertaken to assess the role of public transport in social disadvantage of individuals (Ureta,
2008) and for the development of indicators of social exclusion at the transit zone level (Jara, 2009). In
the African context, research has been undertaken in South Africa (Lucas, 2011), Kenya (Salon and
Gulyani, 2010) and Nigeria (Ipingbemi, 2010). While in Asia the main studies have been on university
students in Thailand (Limanond et al, 2011) and women in Japan (Zhang et al, 2012; Chikaraishi et al,
2012).
Methodological approaches and quantitative analytical techniques
Figure 2 provides a basic overview of the different methodological approaches to transport and social
disadvantaged research that have been identified through our literature review. It is noted that much of
the early research tended to be qualitative offering case studies, ethnographies and other descriptions
of the problems experienced by different affected population groups and/or areas, as well as
considering and evaluating potential solutions. As these studies have already been reviewed and
synthesised elsewhere (see Lucas, 2012 for an overview), the focus of this paper is on describing the
development of quantitative approaches that have been more prevalent within the literatures in recent
years.
Our review has identified that a significant proportion of the remaining methodological experience is
GIS-based, with a focus either on analysis of accessibility the transport system and/or key economic
and social activities and/or facilities. The rapid development of computational devices and specialized
software in recent years has popularised the use of GIS-based methodologies across transport
studies. The most common way on which GIS-based analysis is used correspond to accessibility
measures which can be helpful when analysing spatial mismatch or the spatial distribution of access
to certain facilities or services (Casas et al, 2009). GIS tools such as AMELIA (e.g. Mackett et al, 2010)
and LUPTAI (Pitot et al, 2006) have also been developed as micro-level decision aids for
policymakers to evaluate the effect of different transport policy options and the use of cluster analysis
to differentiate the transport disadvantaged within integrated models (Duvarci and Yigitcanlar, 2012).
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 9
Figure 2 Methods and techniques for social exclusion analysis
Advanced statistical analyses, econometric and other mathematical modelling approaches have been
less prevalent within the literatures, although they have gathered momentum in recent years and a few
studies have also sought to bring together qualitative, spatial and statistical techniques. Here again
there can be a focus on either modelling supply or demand. Some studies have developed hybrid
methods that use may use qualitative and/or GIS as a first step to derive input variables for further
statistical models. The use of Gini Coefficients or Indexes, to indicate how equitable the provision of
transport services and other infrastructures are among the population is an increasing common
approach in this respect (e.g. Delbosc and Currie, 2011; Neutens et al, 2012; Lopez-Suarez, 2008).
It is also clear from these past studies that many different measures of travel behaviour can be used to
quantify the interactions between transport use and social disadvantage. Past studies can be broadly
divided according their unit of analysis and whether they take a transport demand or supply-side focus
(see Figure3).Demand-based studies have considered measures such as trip generation (Roorda et al,
2010), destinations (Scott and He, 2012), mode choice (Mercado et al, 2012; Schmöcker et al, 2008)
and distance travelled (Morency et al, 2011; Mercado and Páez, 2009). Activity-based studies have
included include investigation of trip purpose (Páez et al, 2009: Johnson et al, 2011), participation and
propensity to perform activities (Páez and Farber, 2012), activity duration or time-use (Limanond et al,
2011; Farber et al, 2011, Spinney, 2009) and activity spaces (Schönfelder and Axhausen, 2003). As
our own study focus takes on a statistical modelling, we now describe some of these methodologies
and findings from their application in more detail focusing in particular on their findings in relation to
trip generation, trip purpose and trip duration among socially disadvantaged populations.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 10
Figure 3 Quantitative approaches to social exclusion
Trip generation
Trip generation is usually considered to be the first step of the traditional transport modelling (i.e. 4-
stage model). By implication it equates accessibility with the number trips an individual or household
makes during a certain period of time. This has been used to measure the transport disadvantage of
certain population groups in some past studies. Different results have been obtained within different
contexts and techniques, which have included ordinal probit models (Schmöcker et al, 2005; Roorda
et al, 2008) and negative binomial regressions (Van den Berg et al, 2011).
Schmöcker et al. (2005) analysed shopping trip generation of elderly and disabled people in London,
UK. Their results demonstrated that increased age and walking difficulties resulted in fewer trips; and
variables such as household structure, ethnicity, income, car access and taxi or public transport cards
also had an effect on trip generation. In Canada, Roorda et al (2008) modelled the trip generation of
certain vulnerable groups (low income, elderly, and single parents). Some of their findings were that
the effect of age is cancelled by auto ownership (contrasting with the elderly having the lowest trip
making frequency), and that only minor differences were found for single parent households. Positive
correlations with trip generation included owning a driving licence, being employed, being a student,
having free parking at work, and living in a single-person household. Van den Berg et al (2011)
examined social trips of the elderly in the Netherlands using 2-days travel diaries. Results indicated
that high education and involvement in clubs resulted in higher social trip rates while full time work had
the opposite effect.
Trip distance
Trip distance can be use as measure of an individual’s or household’s overall mobility as well as an
implicit measure of their accessibility to services and thus activity-spaces. Log-linear regressions have
usually been used to analyse this variable (Schmöcker et al., 2005; Farber and Paez, 2010; Morency
et al., 2011; Van den Berg et al., 2011; Maoh and Tang, 2012).However, alternative techniques such
as multilevel analysis (Mercado and Páez, 2009; Loo and Lam, 2012) and structural equation
modelling (SEM) (Scheiner, 2010; Manaugh et al., 2010) have also been used to model trip distances
at the individual level.
When analysing travel distances of senior citizens in London (UK) in the study mentioned above,
Schmöcker et al. (2005) demonstrated that trip distances decreased with age even though
recreational trip distances increased until the age of 80 years. Their findings also included positive
correlations with income, driver`s license and car ownership, whereas urban density, walking
difficulties and trip frequency had negative influence on trip distances.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 11
In the Canadian context, Farber and Páez (2010) have analysed the commute distances of people
with disabilities. Their results demonstrated that requiring attendants to use transportation tools and
the use of “active transport” (i.e. non-motorized modes) implies shorter commuting distances.
Availability of public transportation seemed to not be significant for commuting distance. Morency et al.
(2011) demonstrated that significant spatial variations between different vulnerable groups (low
income, elderly and single parents). Single parents and the elderly had the smallest activity spaces
(trip distances); vehicle ownership effects were non-significant for seniors and transit effects were
ambiguous, small and localized. Maoh and Tang (2012) explained the travelled distances of normal
and extreme commuters in Windsor, Canada. Their findings indicated that socioeconomic and land
use was significant in both normal and extreme commuter distance. Variables such as gender, age,
occupation type, transportation mode, migration status, employment status, mixed land uses and job
concentration near the individual’s residence explained commute distance. However, socioeconomic
factors were significant in normal commute distance while land use factors were more important for
explaining extreme commuting distance. In the case of multilevel modelling, Mercado and Páez (2009)
studied the effect of ageing for different transport modes. Their results indicated that distance as a car
driver decreased with age and variables such as gender, working status, household size, income, land
use, license and car ownership had significant effects on trip distance. Also in Canada, Manaugh et al
(2010) analysed commuting distances as a joint variable with home-work location with positive
correlations (for commute distance) with variables such as full time work, income, vehicle ownership
and being a male. Age and trip frequency had negative influence on trip distance.
In the European context, Van den Berg (2011) used a random effects model to analyse trip distance in
Eindhoven. Her results demonstrated that younger full time workers undertook longer trip distances in
urban as well as rural areas. Visits and joint activities were also related to longer trip distances and
though age has significant effects on travelled distance when controlling for other characteristics,
senior citizens (over 65 years) were found to be as mobile as the younger (working) people. Scheiner
(2010) analysed working, maintenance and leisure trip distances in Cologne, Germany using SEM and
introducing subjective elements including attitudes, lifestyles and location preferences. His results
indicated that neither lifestyles nor location preferences had a strong impact on trip distances with the
exception of leisure trips where lifestyle had the strongest impact of all variables studied.
Loo and Lam (2012) analysed activity spaces of working couples in Hong Kong. Their findings showed
that gender plays an important role in individual mobility. Women with children, low-income level and
living in the suburbs had lower activity spaces than their male counterparts.
Trip duration / travel time
Usually the study of travel times has been modelled using transport network approaches, as travel
times most often depend on network characteristics, transport mode and levels of network use (e.g.
congestion). In the UK, McQuaid and Chen (2012) used a binary multiple logistic regression model by
gender, age and working status to analyse their influence on commuting times and to assess factors
such as presence of children and working hours. Their obtained results indicated that worker’s age,
having children, youngest child`s age, occupation, weekly pay, and public transport ridership were
significant for trip lengths. However, their results suggested the need to disaggregate the effects of
gender, working hours and childcare responsibility when modelling or developing policy.
However, across these literatures the direction of the relationship between social disadvantage and
travel behaviour is not always clear, i.e. do more or longer trips indicate greater affordability and thus
more social advantage or do they indicate less accessibility and therefore greater social disadvantage.
In order to unpack the complexity of the relationship it is important to recognised the significant
interactions between the three output variables, as well as factors such as mode choice, journey
purpose and destination location.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 12
3. DATA AND METHODS
Having explored the literature pertaining to the focus of our study, we now discuss in more detail the
dataset that we have used to develop our modelled analyses and the methods we employed, before
presenting our initial results and finally describing our plans for further research.
Data
The data for our study is the National Travel Survey (NTS) years 2002-2010. This is a household
survey that has run continuously since 1988 and collects information on how, why, when and where
people travel as well as factors which affect personal travel, such as car availability, driving licence
holding and access to key services. Approximately 20,000 individuals of different age, ethnicity and
economic background living in 8,000 households across the UK participate in the NTS each year (DfT,
2010). However, this is cross-sectional survey, which means that the respondents are unlikely to be
the same across different survey years.
Data is collected via face-to-face interviews and a 7-day travel diary to collect information on
households, individual members within the household and all the vehicles to which they have access.
Each household member is then asked to record details of all their trips over a seven day period in a
travel diary, allowing travel patterns to be linked with individual characteristics. Adult members of the
household are in charge of recording the 7-day travel diary in the case of younger children and others
unable to complete the travel diary on their own. This approach can be represented by a hierarchical
structure considering different levels as the variables get more disaggregate and represent with higher
detail the characteristics of the respondent’s travel behaviour.
Figure 4 Levels within the NTS Database (Source: National Travel Survey)
A number of weights are also considered by the NTS in order to improve the accuracy and
representativeness of the data and to adjust for non-response bias. This weighting strategy also
adjusts for the drop-off in the number of trips recorded by respondents during the course of the travel
week (DfT, 2010). The 7-day diary is a particularly important data source as the whole travel week is
recorded. This allows analysis of differences in travel behaviour during labour days and weekends or
holidays.
However, though the NTS is a very complete and detailed database there are still limitations that
prevent some socially relevant disaggregate analysis. For example, there is no information about skills
or education levels other than for Household Reference Person (HRPs), also, household income and
personal income although collected as a continuous variable is only released in income bands, which
may lead to model biases. Weekly car travel expenditure is also not collected and although it would be
possible to construct this variable from the vehicle and public transport fares data, it is a lengthy and
not wholly reliable process.
More fundamentally, no geographical referencing is released below the general regional level (e.g.
London and other Metropolitan regions), which means that it is not possible to model the effects of
local land use and service supply on travel behaviours, which can be important when considering the
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 13
issue of social disadvantage. Nevertheless, the NTS provides the best source of data on travel
behaviour in the UK at the present time outside of much smaller bespoke surveys.
Methodology
We used multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis for our study, which relies on describing linear (or
first order) relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Different assumptions are
considered for the formulation of multiple regression models, such as continuity, linearity,
independently and randomly sampled observations, homoscedastic observations, uncorrelated
independent variables and disturbances, and normally distributed disturbances (Washington et al,
2003). This family of models are usually estimated using either least square estimation (OLS) or
maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). As we are dealing with continuous variables, 90% confidence
interval OLS estimation is used. Independent variables considered in the modelling process
represented the different levels of the NTS and the original variables from the National Trip End Model
(NTEM), as already described above. Variables such as person and area type, urban context,
household and individual characteristics were considered (see Annex Table 1).
Dependent variables include trip generation (trips per week), distance (miles per trip) and duration
(minutes per trip). The first is related to travel demand and activity participation (when analysed by
purpose). Trip distance, on the other side, can be used as a measure of people’s activity spaces
(Schönfelder and Axhausen. 2003), indicating the average distance covered by an individual per trip.
A smaller activity space does not necessarily mean a lower level of activity however, because this will
also depend on the quantity and quality of the land uses within this travel area. Finally, trip duration
can be used as an indicator of quality of the travel experience service, i.e. considering the “burden
nature of travel” and the fact that most trips are performed as a derived demand rather than a valued
activity.
Vulnerable segments
Variables for gender, household income and employment status were included in the model to as for
the NTEM, as important for determining differences in people’s overall travel behaviours. A further
seven vulnerable population segments were also identified for inclusion within the model: i) single
parents (family structure), ii) non-whites (ethnicity), iii) elderly (age), iv) rural population (public
transport access), v) persons in households with unskilled HRPs (skills and education), vi)
economically inactive and vii) unemployed (employment). Most of these categories are not
independent and it is possible for an individual to be represented in more than one segment. The
economically inactive are independent from the unemployed, however, because the vi) non-
economically active category includes home-workers and people unable to work due to health issues
while the vii) unemployed category only includes 18-64 year old that are registered unemployed and
actively seeking work.
As seen in table 2, the largest vulnerable groups are the elderly and rural population. This shows that
both age and location-related disadvantages are the most common among the population of the UK
but not necessarily the most transport disadvantaged. Income distribution shows that both single
parents and the elderly are the population segments with the largest population in the lowest income
band and non-whites and people living in rural areas are the ones with largest representation at
highest income, although this is below the national average. However, the effect of family size is not
considered which means that though household income might be high, income per capita could be
small. If we analyse employment status, single parents, non-whites and unskilled HRPs are the ones
with the most unemployed individuals. While for gender distribution even though most segments have
a fair share between males and females, there is an absolute majority for single parents being women.
In the case of car ownership, it is interesting to see how near half of single parents have no cars while
the economically inactive, elderly and non-whites have low car rates when compared to the whole
sample. However, most single parents do have a driving licence and probably higher access to cars
not belonging to their while most non-whites do not.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 14
Table 2 Socio-economic characteristics of vulnerable segments
Singleparents
Non-White
Elderly RuralUn-
skilledHRP
Un-employed
Econ.inactive
WholeSample
Age (years)
Mean 35.2 28.6 74.3 42.1 43.9 33.1 40.2 39.3
Age distribution (%)
0-16 years 0 31.2 0 19.0 0 4.1 0 20.7
17-64 years 99.6 62.3 0 59.2 95.8 95.3 89.0 60.0
65+ years 0.4 6.5 100 21.8 4.2 0.6 11.0 19.3
Household income level (in £ ,000)
Less than 25K 88.6 52.1 79.5 39.0 60.6 70.7 68.5 46.0
25-50K 10.1 29.5 16.0 35.2 31.1 20.6 22.1 33.3
50K or more 1.3 18.4 4.5 25.8 8.3 8.7 9.4 20.7
Employment Status (%)
Full time 25.5 42.8 2.4 44.4 68.0 0 0 44.0
Part time 25.5 12.7 4.6 16.1 24.4 0 0 14.5
Student 3.4 11.6 0 2.7 0 0 0 4.0
Econ. inactive 41.0 25.2 3.4 8.6 7.6 100.0 100.0 10.4
Retired 4.8 7.7 89.5 28.3 0 0 0 27.1
Car ownership
No car (%) 47.6 28.6 33.4 6.4 28.5 38.9 32.0 18.5
No licence (%) 25.1 52.3 41.2 29.4 20.4 34.7 35.5 38.6
Cars per HH 0.54 0.95 0.77 1.53 1.01 1.05 0.94 1.13
Gender (%)
Female 93.0 51.6 54.9 50.7 39.0 39.9 75.0 51.7
N
% of sample 2.0 9.7 16.6 14.9 4.2 1.9 8.2 100.0
No. of cases 3,992 18,925 32,341 29,095 8,205 3,726 16,083 195,018(Source: National Travel Survey)
The model demonstrates that the average British person undertakes 16 trips per week, travels 8 miles
per trip and takes 25 minutes per trip to arrive at their destination. Most of these trips are made by car
(mainly as a driver) and their trips are usually to work, shopping facilities or for social purposes. The
results from our analysis demonstrate significant variations in travel behaviours of the seven
vulnerable population groups we identified.
As table 3 identifies, single parents make the most trips, an important part of these being for escort
purposes, by car and within a relatively local area, as shown in Table 3. Non-whites make the least
number and shortest trips in terms of journey distance but the longest trips in terms of trip duration.
This is a modal effect as nearly a third of their trips are either by public transport (bus) or non-
motorized modes. Non-motorized modes are mostly used by the unemployed (and economically
inactive) and single parents; walking being the main mode in both cases. In the case of cycling,
unskilled HRPs and the unemployed have the biggest shares, doubling the sample mean. In the case
of weekly trip frequency, single parents and rural population are the ones making the most trips.
However, there is an income bias in the case of rural population caused by the fact that they are
relatively the richest vulnerable segment and only 6.4% have no car. On the other hand, for trip
distance and duration single parents, unskilled HRPs and the unemployed are the ones with the
shorter trip distances and hence have the shortest trip durations.
Table 3 Travel behaviour measures of vulnerable segments
Singleparents
Non-White
Elderly RuralUn-
skilledHRP
Un-employed
Econ.Inactive
WholeSample
Trip Frequency (trips per week)
Mean 19.0 13.7 13.3 17.2 17.9 14.8 15.4 16.5
Trip Distance (miles per trip)
Mean(Median)
5.7(2.5)
6.6(4.3)
7.0(3.0)
10.8(8.6)
7.2(3.0)
6.5(3.0)
6.2(4.5)
8.1(3.0)
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 15
Travel time (minutes per trip)
Mean 23.3 28.8 24.8 25.4 23.8 27.4 24.7 25.1
Modal Split (% of trips)
Walk 15.8 13.1 11.0 7.1 11.4 17.9 20.9 11.3
Cycle 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 3.0 1.4 3.0 1.7
Car Driver 58.3 33.0 48.4 57.1 60.1 44.1 39.1 47.9
Car Passenger 10.0 26.9 24.0 27.6 12.0 22.3 17.2 26.6
Bus 10.6 17.4 11.2 3.2 8.5 10.2 14.1 7.3
Rail 1.0 3.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 1.7
Taxi 2.3 1.2 1.5 0.6 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.2
Other 0.8 4.3 2.0 2.1 2.5 1.3 2.3 2.4
Trip Purpose (% of trips)
HB Work 10.7 18.5 2.4 14.7 32.8 4.1 1.8 16.3
HB Business 1.2 1.8 0.7 2.9 3.3 0.9 0.4 2.2
HB Education 0.7 11.4 0.0 5.0 0.4 2.1 0.8 5.4
HB Shopping 16.5 13.3 31.6 15.3 15.3 20.2 23.6 16.0
HB PB 5.7 9.1 16.2 8.4 5.6 12.3 10.2 7.9
HB Social 9.6 10.2 20.8 16.6 10.6 17.4 15.1 15.3
HB VFR 10.4 9.7 10.5 8.4 8.1 14.6 12.8 9.5
HB Holiday 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
HB Escort 26.0 14.5 6.1 11.8 11.3 16.0 21.8 12.2
NHB EB 1.4 1.1 0.3 2.3 2.2 0.3 0.2 1.7
NHB Other 17.6 10.1 11.0 14.1 9.9 11.7 12.9 13.0
Stages
Stages per trip 1.03 1.08 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.03 1.04
Sample
Total Trips 64,750 198,435 373,371 438,093 124,338 45,427 205,844 2,737,087Obs: The three most frequent modes and purposes are in bold. (PB: Personal business: VFR: Visiting friends and relatives; EB:
Employer’s Business). (Source: National Travel Survey)
Modal split analysis shows that although most vulnerable segments travel by car, a high percentage
use local buses, being particularly high in the case of the non-white population, which is doubles the
population average. In the case of trip purpose, single parents and the unemployed have a higher
percentage of home based (HB) escort journeys, which is as expected in the case of single parents as
the presence of children in the household generally leads to an increase in escort trips. On the other
hand, HB social trips are very low amongst both single parents and non-whites, which may suggest a
time poverty factor for single parents and language barriers for recent non-white immigrants.
HB social trips are higher than for the average population average for the elderly and rural dwellers. In
the case of working and education trips, it is interesting to see how non-whites and the unskilled HRPs
are above the mean in both categories. Another interesting fact is the case of shopping trips where the
elderly and the unemployed are way above the average being this one of the main trip purposes
considered by single parents. The problem is that it is not defined what kind of shopping this is (i.e.
groceries or non-primary products). Finally it is important to notice that most non-home-based trips
(NHB) are performed by single parents.
4. MODEL RESULTS
In this section we outline the main results from our three modelling approaches, namely i) the NTEM
baseline model, ii) the extended NTEM model and iii) the purpose-based analysis.
i) NTEM baseline model
The UK Department for Transport (DfT) has commissioned two major investigations in order to
forecast trip generation at the national level. The first one made use of the NTS data from 1988 to
1996 (WSP, 2000) while the second used data from 1995 to 2006 (WSP, 2009).Results from the first
study were included in the National Trip End Model. The NTEM models trip rates considering 8 home-
based (HB) and 7 non-home-based (NHB) trip purposes. It considers variables such as gender,
person type, household structure, car ownership and area type. However, not all the categories
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 16
generate statistically different trip rates for each purpose, although the general level of explanation is
high and consistent.
We recreated the NTEM model as a first step of our analysis in order to further analyse the effect of
additional variables on travel behaviour. The analysis of categorical data presents certain difficulties in
exposition. For reasons of ‘identifiability’ in estimation, it is not possible to obtain a coefficient for each
category. If there is only one categorical variable, then there are two possibilities for model
specification, either (i) to include a regression constant and, after defining a base for the
categorical variable, include all the other levels as dummies, or (ii) to drop the constant, and include
all the levels as dummies. In the first case, the coefficients are the increments to the base, and in the
second they are the absolute values for each level. When there is more than one category variable
then the choice between methods (i) and (ii) remains for one of the category variables (which can be
arbitrarily selected) but for each of the remaining variables we have to select a base level and drop the
associated dummy from the list of the regression variables. Our approach has been use method (ii)
and to select the person-type variables (represented by αperson-type in the Equation given earlier) as
the category for which the absolute values will be estimated for all levels. For all other categories, the
base level will be explicitly stated. It should be noted that these are arbitrary conventions, which do not
affect the results (model fit) but have some relevance for the interpretation. We next present the output
tables from the models and discuss key findings from our interpretation of them.
Table 4 Baseline NTEM model
Trip generation(trips per week)
Trip distance(miles per trip)
Trip duration(minutes per trip)
Variable Coeff. t-ratio Coeff. t-ratio Coeff. t-ratio
Area type
London -1.25 -16.4 0.63 5.5 7.46 42.2Metropolitan Ref. Ref. Ref.Urban big 0.18 2.3 0.76 6.4 0.88 4.8Urban large 0.17 2.0 0.59 4.8 -0.63 -3.3Urban medium 0.23 3.0 0.99 8.5 -0.74 -4.1Urban small -0.11 -1.5 2.29 20.1 0.98 5.6Rural -0.39 -4.8 4.03 33.6 2.94 15.9Person type
Child 12.07 147.7 5.21 42.4 24.09 127.2Full time 16.59 211.3 9.67 81.8 30.65 168.5Part time 18.07 179.7 6.74 44.5 26.70 114.6Student 13.57 99.5 8.22 40.0 32.96 104.3Non-working 14.10 159.4 6.54 49.1 26.64 130.0Retired 12.14 147.5 6.17 49.8 25.77 135.1Gender (female) 0.20 4.6 -1.43 -21.8 -1.87 -18.5N of adults per HH -1.39 -37.4 -0.90 -16.1 0.49 5.6N of cars per HH 2.47 92.6 1.42 35.4 -1.54 -25.0Model fit and ANOVA
Sum of squares
Residual 9,672,475 9,690,154 42,811,474Total 47,206,873 14,943,903 124,303,082DoF 15 15 15F-Ratio 43.034 6.013 21.109Adjusted R
20,80 0,35 0,66
No. of Obs. 142,807 142,807 142,807Obs: Dark cells indicate non-significance at the 90% confidence level.
The area constants show some variation, with London having the lowest frequency and the
highest average trip duration, and rural areas having the greatest average trip length. Overall, the
differences are perhaps less than one might expect, but of course they hide the modal
variation. More interesting are the person type effects; children, students, non-working and
retired persons make the least trips, while part time and full time workers make the most.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 17
These absolute estimates by person type must be interpreted as applying to male persons in
one-adult households with no car in a Metropolitan area.
There is a small gender effect although this is not highly significant, with females making on average
0.2 trips per week more. Trip frequency per person reduces by 1.4 trips per week for each extra
adult in the household (because of the possibility of “sharing” travel, especially shopping) and
increases by about 2.5 trips for each additional car. The positive influence of certain variables
appear to be consistent with previous research in the case of distance travelled by full time
workers (Manaugh et al., 2010), females (Manaugh et al., 2010; Mercado and Paez, 2009). For
average trip length, the directions of the effects are similar except for part time workers and non-
workers who have trip lengths lower than those of full time workers and students. These
results carry over to the average trip duration model, with three exceptions: students spend
longer on travel despite having shorter trip distances compared to full time workers, and the
increasing number of cars within a household reduces the average duration despite longer
journey distances. These are both probably modal effects showing the higher speed for the car. The
third exception is that the travel time increases slightly with the number of adults despite the reduced
distance effect: the reasons for this are not immediately clear.
ii) Extended NTEM model
Additional variables were included in the model for households (i.e. income, presence of children),
individuals (e.g. licence owning, belonging to vulnerable segments) and spatial characteristics (e.g.
density, index of deprivation) in order to capture social effects not previously considered in the NTEM3.
As seen in Tables 5, the vast majority of the additional coefficients are highly significant. and there is
a slight improvement in the adjusted R2
values. In particular, it is clear that there are important
effects on travel behaviour indicators due to household income, the presence of children, and personal
attributes such as being non-white and having a mobility difficulty. The interactions between variables
are probably significant as well (e.g. licence holding and number of cars or being a single parent,
non-white and in low income groups) but as yet these have not been fully explored. There is also a
raised significance in the gender effect for trip frequency with these additional variables.
Table 5 NTEM extended model
Trip generation(trips per week)
Trip distance(miles per trip)
Trip duration(minutes per trip)
Variable Coeff. t-ratio Coeff. t-ratio Coeff. t-ratio
Are
aty
pe
London -1,41 -17,7 0,05 0,5 6,38 33,9
Metropolitan Ref. Ref. Ref.
Urban big -0,17 -2,1 0,52 4,3 0,94 4,9
Urban large -0,15 -1,9 0,41 3,3 -0,37 -1,9
Urban medium -0,31 -3,7 0,50 4,0 -0,24 -1,2
Urban small -0,93 -10,1 1,67 12,1 1,99 9,1
Rural -1,11 -10,3 2,56 15,9 3,34 13,1
Pe
rso
nty
pe
Child 9,94 27,5 8,06 14,9 28,88 33,9
Full time 11,66 32,3 10,68 19,8 35,16 41,3
Part time 13,26 36,2 8,44 15,4 32,07 37,1
Student 10,61 28,4 10,30 18,5 37,56 42,6
Non-working 10,76 29,8 8,68 16,1 31,96 37,5
3This meant that the overall sample that was available for analysis dropped by 14%, to 142,807
individuals, primarily because of the inclusion of the household income variable, which many peoplerefuse to complete within the NTS. These changes in sample size meant there was a related changethe total sum of squares, which makes direct comparison of the NTEM and extended NTEMmodels problematic. In addition, the interpretation of the area type coefficients changes,because the added variables affect the implicit base. In addition to the previous definition, theynow reflect: household income of £1000 p.a., no children in the household, no driving licence,white, no mobility difficulties, not single parent, density of 1 person/acre, and lowest level of Index ofDeprivation (most deprived).
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 18
Retired 9,86 27,3 7,93 14,7 30,46 35,7N
TE
MGender (female) 0,49 10,7 -1,43 -20,7 -2,12 -19,5
N of adults per HH -1,06 -25,0 -1,16 -18,3 -0,13 -1,3
N of cars per HH 1,36 42,4 0,69 14,5 -1,76 -23,3
Ho
use
ho
ldin
co
me
per
ann
um
Less than £1,000 Ref. Ref. Ref.
£1,000- £1,999 1,09 2,4 -0,22 -0,3 -0,49 -0,5
£2,000- £2,999 0,41 1,0 -0,70 -1,1 -1,28 -1,3
£3,000- £3,999 -0,03 -0,1 -0,87 -1,4 -1,48 -1,5
£4,000- £4,999 -0,04 -0,1 -0,98 -1,7 -1,99 -2,2
£5,000- £5,999 0,05 0,1 -1,37 -2,5 -2,85 -3,3
£6,000- £6,999 -0,19 -0,5 -0,99 -1,8 -2,25 -2,7
£7,000- £7,999 0,07 0,2 -1,06 -1,9 -2,76 -3,2
£8,000- £8,999 0,66 1,8 -0,92 -1,7 -2,30 -2,7
£9,000- £9,999 0,36 1,0 -0,50 -0,9 -2,45 -2,9
£10,000- £12,499 0,65 1,9 -0,95 -1,8 -3,25 -4,0
£12,500- £14,999 1,16 3,4 -0,61 -1,2 -2,93 -3,6
£15,000- £17,499 1,23 3,6 -0,64 -1,2 -3,05 -3,7
£17,500- £19,999 1,18 3,4 -0,27 -0,5 -2,81 -3,4
£20,000- £24,999 1,71 5,0 -0,13 -0,2 -2,55 -3,2
£25,000- £29,999 1,71 5,0 0,15 0,3 -2,47 -3,1
£30,000- £34,999 1,68 4,9 0,24 0,5 -2,21 -2,7
£35,000- £39,999 1,96 5,7 0,42 0,8 -2,00 -2,5
£40,000- £49,999 1,89 5,5 1,14 2,2 -0,94 -1,2
£50,000- £59,999 1,93 5,6 1,63 3,2 -0,13 -0,2
£60,000- £69,999 1,70 4,8 2,40 4,6 1,07 1,3
£70,000- £74,999 2,14 5,8 2,28 4,2 1,46 1,7
£75,000 or more 1,62 4,7 3,41 6,6 2,77 3,4
Exte
nde
dN
TE
M
Presence of children 2,08 36,0 -1,19 -13,8 -3,19 -23,4
Driving licence 4,51 65,8 0,85 8,3 -2,06 -12,8
Non-white -1,71 -22,1 0,30 2,6 2,23 12,2
Mobility difficulties -1,95 -24,0 -0,61 -5,0 -2,53 -13,1
Single parent 0,96 5,5 -0,88 -3,3 -0,61 -1,5
Log-density -0,08 -2,6 -0,32 -6,9 0,20 2,7
Index of Deprivation 0,13 14,9 0,11 8,8 -0,02 -1,1
Sum of squares
Residual 7.946.527 8.126.825 36.478.293
Total 41.470.027 12.915.028 109.442.258
DoF 44 44 44
F-Ratio 13.688 1.912 6.490
Adjusted R2 0,81 0,37 0,67
No. of Obs. 142.807 142.807 142.807Obs: Dark cells indicate non-significance at the 90% confidence level.
Area type
Results indicate that even though achieving its lowest level for those living in London, trip generation
decreases along with area-type. Living in a less populated area has a direct positive effect on mean
distance due to the more disperse origins and destinations, as expected. These results show some
variation when trip durations are analysed: although they have the lowest mean distance, those living
in London have the highest mean trip duration spending 6.4 additional minutes per trip than those
living in the baseline area (Metropolitan). We can assume that this is an effect of higher levels of
congestion and higher use of slower modes such as bus or walking. Also, additional time spent
travelling may have an effect on trip frequency as an outcome of constrained time budgets.
Variables such as Log-density and index of deprivation were included because we anticipated there
was likely to be an area-based effect based on density and deprivation. The index of deprivation
variable is based on a 1-10 scale with 1 denoting the most deprived and 10 the least deprived areas,
which would suggest it would represent a good indication of whether people living in these areas are
also transport disadvantaged. The results on area-type differ from those for log-density as denser
areas refer to less, more localised and longer trips (e.g. London).
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 19
However, trip frequency increased, and mean distance decreased as area-types grew bigger for other
area-types. This negative effect on mean distance is expected to occur because denser zones imply a
higher supply of goods and services within smaller areas which leads to lower average trip distances.
Index of Deprivation has a positive effect on all indicators. This effect is weak considering that the
difference from being the most deprived or the least deprived turns out to be 1 trip per week and 1
mile per trip. As neither variable appears to have had a significant effect on travel outcomes
we will probably drop them from our future models.
Household and individual characteristics
Income was treated both as a semi-continuous (defined as the base 10 logarithm of the mean of each
income band) and as a set of dummy variables (1 if belonging to a particular income band, 0 if not).
However, although the log-linear form for income has a better fit than a linear form, it does
not in fact capture the income effect on trip frequency very well, as demonstrated in the graph in
Figure 5In this case, some income bands lose their statistical significance due to their very low shares
(especially in the lower income bands).
Figure 5 Effect on income on trip frequency
The solid green line indicates the income effect on trip frequency for the fitted model
assuming a functional form relating to log10(income). In this form, it is implied that there will be
an equivalent rise in trip making for a given proportional increase in household income. It can be
seen that relative to the base (< £1000 p.a.), a person from a household with £25,000 p.a. is implied to
make 1.7 more trips per week, while a person with income > £75,000 makes 2.5 additional trips.
Compared with this, we have plotted the 95% confidence intervals (upper and lower bounds) for the
coefficient for each band (since the sample size for each band is relatively low). It can be seen that
there is a tendency for trip rates to fall as we move from the lowest income up to the £6000-7000 p.a.
band. However, it is reasonable to treat these lowest bands as anomalous, since they are well below
the poverty line, and are probably households who have little or no regular income, but nonetheless
have access to other sources of finance.
If we therefore ignore these lowest bands, then a very consistent pattern emerges. It is evident that
there is a steep and more or less linear rise in the number of trips between £6,000 per
annum (which equates with a single person household on welfare benefits) and £25,000
(which is the average household income level), with the increase over this range being about 1.9 trips,
suggesting approximately an additional 0.1 trips per additional £1000 p.a.. There appears to be
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 20
no significant increase in trip making after this. In the diagram we have represented this by a
piece-wise linear dashed function. It is clear that the shape is rather different from the
logarithmic form, which is probably dominated by the pattern in the range £6,000-25,000 and thereby
gives a misleading impression of how the trip rate increases for the higher incomes. This
suggests that another model is needed to more adequately capture the effect of income on trip-
making, which is an important finding for guiding our future research.
Presence of children and licence owning were also defined by dummy variables indicating whether the
household had 1 or more children and if the individual had a valid driving licence. In the case of
presence of children within the household, the variable is highly significant for all variables indicating
that those living in households with children were involved in more (extra 2.1 trips per week) but
shorter (1.2 miles and 3.2 minutes less than living with no children) trips during the sampled week.
This suggests a more localised travel pattern for those having children within the household and an
increase in travel demand due to the fact of children being escorted to most of their out-of-home
activities. There is some interaction with the number of cars variable which leads to an increase of 1.4
trips per week, while owning a driving licence implies additional 4.5 trips per week indicating that a
licence owner with 1 car will be making nearly 6 more trips on average in a week than one who has
neither car nor licence. In terms of journey distance, results are similar to the ones for car ownership
with 0.9 extra miles and duration falling by 2.1 minutes. However, these are values per trip: the weekly
consequence of owning a driving licence will be 3.5 extra miles per week and a saving of nearly 15
minutes (plus the additional effect of owning one or more cars). This difference of magnitude related to
car ownership and licence owning on both trip making and distance is consistent with previous studies
in Canada (Morency et al., 2011; Roorda et al., 2010).
Vulnerable segments
In the case of belonging to certain vulnerable segments (e.g. non-whites, people with mobility
difficulties and single parents), a dummy variable was used indicating whether the individual belonged
or not to the mentioned segments. The criteria on which the individuals were identified is based on the
questions available in the National Travel Survey on both the household (single parents) and
individual levels (non-whites, mobility difficulties).
For those identified as non-whites, no significant effect was found for average distance (a 0.3 mile
reduction per trip), trips per week were reduced by 1.7 and average duration increased by 2.3
minutes. These results indicate more localised activity patterns, lower activity frequency and slower
trips, generated by the fact of non-whites being the segment with the highest bus use. People with
mobility difficulties had significant negative effects for all three dependent variables: making on
average 2 fewer trips per week, the average distance was 0.6 miles shorter, and the average
duration 2.4 minutes less. This decrease in trip frequency and travel distance is consistent with
other similar studies conducted in the UK (Schmöcker et al., 2005) and in Canada (Farber and Páez,
2010).
Finally, coefficients related to being a single parent (one-adult households with one or more children)
indicated that on average such persons make an additional 1.0 trips per week, with a lower
average trip length (by 0.9 miles) and lower trip duration of 0.3 minutes. However, the
significance levels of these differences are quite low in all three models and this suggests that
single parents have very similar trip making patterns to single-person households. These
findings are consistent with previous studies for single parents in Canada for both trip-making (Roorda
et al, 2010) and travelled distance (Morency et al., 2011). As previously noted this does not take into
account the interaction effects, which means that belonging to certain vulnerable segments might have
additional effects on travel behaviour when being considered as an interaction with variables such as
gender, income, licence owning, etc.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 21
5. TRIP PURPOSE ANALYSIS
Multiple linear regressions were estimated for the analysis of trip purposes, considering a 90%
confidence level and only the main effects of the same variables used previously (Annex tables 3, 4
and 5). Four trip purposes were considered as most important for this particular analysis: i) commuting
(Home-Based Work), ii) social (Home-Based Social), iii) VFR (Home-Based Visiting Friends or
Relatives) and iv) services (Home-Based Shopping and Personal Business). Commuting is considered
to be an obligatory purpose and it represents the production of goods (in this case money). The
second and third variables represent social travel (a growing proportion of people’s overall travel in
recent years). Social trips represent leisure trips which probably incur additional costs at the
destination, whereas VFR represents trips probably do not incur an additional cost. Service trips
represent the main consumption activities of a household, defined as shopping and personal business
(e.g. going to the doctor or the dentist). Both essential food and secondary-need shopping trips are
included for the sake of simplicity but it is recognised that some purposes may be essential while
others may not.
i) Trip generation (Annex table 4)
In general terms, all models obtained a model fit (Adjusted R2) between 0.6 and 0.8. Overall trips (0.81)
and commuting trips (0.84) were the ones with the highest R2
value and social (0.63) and VFR (0.66)
the ones with the lowest one. This tendency shows that there is a higher fit for mandatory activities as
socioeconomic variables do not perform as well as expected when analysing non-mandatory trips
(Páez and Farber, 2012; Farber and Páez, 2010). Results per variable type are further analysed as it
follows.
Area type
Mixed results are obtained as the difference between the categories and the reference (Metropolitan
built-up urban areas such as Merseyside or Newcastle) seem to be too small to be relevant as trip
frequency is defined on a weekly basis. Area-type variables are mostly non-significant for commuting
trips making them not directly affected by the urban context. However, living in more populated urban
areas shows higher trip frequencies for all the analysed purposes except for social trips. The case of
social trips is interesting as living in zones with higher population could imply higher levels of
interaction with other individuals which does not seem to be the case. Living in London implies less
frequent VFR and Services trips and is also the area-type with the highest negative effect (-1.4 trips
per week) along with living in rural areas (-1.1 trips per week). Other area-based variables such as
log-density and the index of deprivation did not have much effect on trip making as log-density
seemed to be non-significant and the index of deprivation irrelevant for all the purposes analysed.
Household and individual characteristics
It can be noted that coefficients related to NTEM original variables such as the number of adults and
cars keep their sign but reduce their value. The number of adults per household shows a positive
effect on commuting trip rates but negative values for the other purposes while the number of cars per
household has a positive effect on all purposes.
Income effects are significant among households with higher income levels. This relationship is
positive for social trips indicating a higher propensity to perform social activities for those in the highest
income bands. These results are consistent with previous experience regarding social trips (Van den
Berg et al., 2011). Also, the fact of social trips probably incurring in additional costs make them less
preferable for those in lower income bands and might be more satisfactory than activities on the
relative’s/friend’s household.
The presence of children in the household has a negative effect on all the trip purposes analysed with
commuting (-0.59) and social (-0.49) being the most negative. This show how there is a reduction on
out-of-home joint activities and a slight, yet statistically significant, effect on commuting.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 22
As for individual characteristics, full-time workers seem to have lower trip frequencies in the case of
social and VFR trips. However, they have the highest frequencies in terms of commuting trips while
part-time workers make the most overall trips. Non-workers and retirees have the highest social and
services trip rates indicating that non-mandatory trip rates rise when temporal restrictions are relaxed
(Van den Berg, 2011; Carrasco, 2008) a tendency that is also demonstrated by the fact that students
and non-workers are the segments with the highest VFR trip rates. In the case of gender, females
generate slightly less commuting (-0.6) and social (-0.3) trips than their male counterparts but still
prove to have higher overall trip frequency, and the difference in both commuting and social trips is
irrelevant on a weekly time scope. Licence owners also prove to have slightly higher trip rates in the
analysed purposes even though the overall effect of licence owning is much bigger than the effect per
purpose.
Vulnerable segments
Turning to the vulnerable segments, in common with the findings of Páez and Farber (2012), the non-
white sample in our models demonstrated higher commuting frequencies but lower social, VFR and
Services frequency. However, the effect of being non-white on services and VFR and Services effect
is very low. The effect on commuting and joint activities (social and VFR) can be considered either as
a trade-off between production and leisure activities, the existence of a smaller supply of leisure
facilities (and services) in the vicinity, or as an effect of recent immigration implying a smaller social
network (e.g. less contacts) and cultural issues implying a higher propensity of performing in-home
social activities.
In the case of people with mobility difficulties, there was no effect on commute frequency and a
negative effect in social (Schmöcker et al., 2005), VFR and services trips. This negative effect is
expected considering the overall decrease in trip frequency previously noted in this paper. However,
the magnitude of the coefficient for social trips is high when compared to the rest and reflects a
tendency to either being involved in less social activities or having most of the social activities based
on the individual´s household.
Although being non-statistically significant for VFR trips, being a single parent implies negative effects
on trip frequency for all the analysed purposes. In the case of commuting, the effect can be explained
by single parent’s employment status (Table 2), indicating a smaller full-time work and a higher
economically inactive share. As for social and services trips, there may be an effect of both financial
(e.g. due to lower income levels) and time constraints (e.g. due to the presence of children and the
fact of being a single adult household). Also, and as noticed in Table 3, there is a trade-off between
trips involving the analysed purposes and others (e.g. escort trips).
ii) Trip distance and duration (Annex Tables 5 and 6)
In this case, results indicated that though consistent, the model fit was clearly low (between 0.2 and
0.4). This tendency indicates that the relationship among the variables might not be linear and that the
use of another model specification such as a log-linear model will allow us to achieve better fit and
hence, more robust results. In the case of trip duration, results are related to those for trip distance
with slight differences among the magnitude of certain coefficients as an outcome of mode choice (i.e.
faster modes). Also, the overall model fit of these family of models seem to be higher than in the trip
distance case (R-squared between 0.4 and 0.7) but still, the use of non-linear model specifications
might show to be a more robust method. Comparing these results with previous studies shows
similarities to results obtained for social trip distance (Van den Berg et al., 2011), and commuting
distance (Maoh and Tang, 2012; Farber and Páez, 2010) and duration (McQuaid and Chen, 2012).
Area type
As expected, higher values are obtained for the coefficients related to less populated areas. This
becomes much higher in the case of VFR and trips to services with 7.9 and 2.5 extra miles per trip,
respectively, when compared to the Metropolitan reference category. Log-density shows a negative
effect on all purposes while the index of deprivation proves to be positive for all purposes. In the case
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 23
of mean trip duration, results indicated that those living in London and Rural areas have the highest
durations. However, there is a major difference in the cause of this phenomenon as Londoners are
affected by congestion and the lower speed of public transport while bigger distance between origins
and destinations is the reason for those living in rural areas. Log-density has a positive effect on
duration for all purposes except “services” while the index of deprivation has a negative effect on all
but VFR.
Household and individual characteristics
The number of adults per household implies a decrease on distance travelled especially in VFR trips.
On the other side, the number of cars per household implies higher trip distances for all purposes
except for VFR. Household income shows a positive effect on distance for all purposes. However, this
effect is only statistically significant for VFR and overall trips in case of living in households with higher
income levels. The effect is most noted for VFR with 12.2 extra miles when generating over £75,000
p.a. while those in the £40,000-£49,999 p.a. band have 4.0 extra miles. This phenomenon is
interesting to take into consideration due to its consistency with previous experience in Canada
(Carrasco et al., 2008) as people with lower income had spatially more distributed social contacts but
at the same time more localised face-to-face interactions than their higher income counterparts. The
presence of children implies more localised activity patterns, especially for VFR purposes (-3.1 miles
per trip). Attributes such as number of adults have a positive effect on trip duration (except for VFR)
while the number of cars has a negative effect on all purposes as an effect higher speeds due to car
use/availability. Household income, on the other hand, proves to show mixed results as higher
durations are related to higher income level (as well as trip distance). The presence of children has a
negative effect on all the analysed purposes.
Full-time workers and students have the highest travelled distance per trip. This higher trip distance for
full time workers participating in social activities was also identified in previous experience (Van den
berg et al, 2011). In the case of gender, females also have more localised activity patterns in the case
of commuting trips with a 1.9 miles decrease (Maoh and Tang, 2012) and hence, shorter commute
duration (McQuaid and Chen, 2012). This finding might be relevant for further analysis as “women´s
job choice set” might be clearly constrained by the “distance effect”. Driving licence owners show
higher trip distances, as expected, though driving licence ownership seems not having an effect on
commuting trips (when only full and part-time workers are considered). As for trip duration, individual
characteristics show consistency with the results obtained for trip distance. However, modal or speed
effects can be identified when ranking the segments with highest trip distances or durations. For
example, students show to have slower trips than full-time workers in all categories.
Vulnerable segments
Different tendencies were identified in the case of vulnerable segments. Non-whites show higher trip
distances for all purposes (especially for VFR trips with an increase of 1.6 miles per trip) while people
with mobility difficulties and single parents did not have significant variations except for VFR with a
decrease of 2.1 miles per trip. In the case of trip duration, non-whites show higher trip durations
generated by higher bus use while the mobility difficult prove to have smaller durations as an effect of
smaller activity spaces. Being a single parent shows no effect on any of the trip duration of the
analysed purposes. Vulnerable segments were consistent with prior experience in the case of non-
white commuting distance (Maoh and Tang, 2012).
6. CONCLUSIONS
Our paper has identified a number of studies that have analysed potential exclusion processes from
the travel behaviours of socially disadvantaged and vulnerable population groups. In particular, we
have shown that some traditional statistical modelling techniques can be applied to offer new insights
in this respect but that there are also certain vulnerable segments that need to be studied further due
to their lack of attention within the literature to date, especially low-income, the elderly, ethnic
minorities and single parents.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 24
We developed a baseline model based on the UK’s National Trip End Model (NTEM) to compare the
generation, distance and duration level with the NTEM’s original variables and then proposed an
extended model that included more socio-economic characteristics and belonging to different
vulnerable population segments. Our results indicated that the improvement in the model fit is of
nearly 1 or 2% of the variance (though not considering the constant) which in relative terms is not
much. However, the inclusion of additional variables represented the effects of important variables in
terms of theoretical consistency. Income effects proved to be particularly important as trip-making
seems to maintain a steep and more or less linear rise in the number of trips between £6,000
and £25,000 p.a. but there appears to be no significant increase in trip making after this.
Presence of children within the household and household size (number of adults) are highly significant
for all three dependent variables implying more localised travel patterns in both cases and higher trip
frequencies for those having children while additional adults implied lower trip rates as an outcome of
task assignment. Vulnerable segment analysis indicated that people with mobility difficulties and single
parents have more localised activity patterns (also single parents) and lower trip rates (also non-
whites).
In the case of purpose analysis, this shows that there is a higher fit for mandatory activities while
socioeconomic variables do not perform as well as expected when analysing non-mandatory trips.
Area-type categorization captured most of the spatial effect per purpose. These findings indicated that
those living in London and Rural areas had the lowest trip-making rates while trip distance was
negatively related to area-type size especially for VFR trips. Person type was crucial as social trips
rise in segments with fewer temporal constraints (i.e. children, retired and non-working),
demonstrating that non-obligatory trips (i.e. social and services) rise when temporal restrictions are
relaxed. Students travel the farthest (and longest) for visiting friends and relatives, but in the case of
social trips, full time workers travel the furthest. Income effects are especially significant in VFR trip
distances, indicating that family bonds, in terms of face-to-face interactions, might be restricted by
income. This effect also proved to be negative for VFR trip-making while being positive for social trips,
indicating that a trade-off between face-to-face interactions and expenditures is occurring when higher
budgets are available (VFR trips are supposed not to involve expenses while social trips do). In the
case of vulnerable segments, people with mobility difficulties and single parents have more localised
activity patterns while ethnic minorities tend to travel further specially for VFR purposes.
These preliminary results demonstrate that income effects and other indices of social disadvantage
have a significant influence on travel behaviours (or this may be vice versa but is not demonstrated
here). It is clear from our analysis that there are difficulties of interpretation in this respect: at the
simplest, people may travel more because they want to (as evidenced by the income effect) or
because they are obliged to (as evidenced by the presence of children in a household). Hence, the
number of trips per week is not an unambiguous indicator. Similar remarks relate to average distance
and average duration. The ratio of these two is related to average speed, and may be treated as an
index of transport service quality. However, once again, people may elect to travel further (e.g. to
access better quality destinations) or may be obliged to, because of a lack of nearby services. Spatial
analysis poses some problems for surveys such as NTS, where the information about the locality
tends to be restricted. Nonetheless, there are some proxy variables that can be used, for example
ward density, public transport availability and frequencies, as well as the perceived accessibility of
essential services (doctors, post office etc.).
The cost of travel is another important effect on the supply of transport which is difficult to fully capture
using NTS data. Although there is data collected within the travel diary on the cost of public transport
fares, the cost of car trips is not recorded and must be calculated based on the vehicle mileage
data. This requires considerable additional analytical effort and is also not necessarily reliable. There
are other contextual factors such the timing and availability of transport services and perceptions of
personal safety which have also been identified within the literature as affecting an individual’s
willingness to travel to different destinations. Although it could be possible to extract further proxy
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 25
measures from the NTS to represent these additional factors this is unlikely to be very useful for
policymakers without a spatial understanding of where these problems are occurring.
There are other indicators such as mode choice and time use that will help us to further analyse travel-
activity behaviour of the social and transport disadvantaged. Our study is still in its preliminary stages
and there are plans to further refine our national level analysis to consider interactions between
different independent variables and as well as mode-based analysis. We also want to re-analyse the
NTS data at the regional level to understand the differences in travel behaviours of low income and
vulnerable groups living in certain parts of the country that are well-known for their low levels of
employment and high intensities of income poverty.
Finally, we will be undertaking a bespoke survey of 700 households in one of these low-income
regions of the travel behaviours of low-income households in order to collect more detailed data on
their travel expenditures, attitudes and perceptions of the transport system. This data will be used to
develop local area models of transport and social disadvantage, which will be used to predict the
effects of different local policy options on socially disadvantaged households and will be reported in
subsequent project reports and working papers.
References
Carrasco, J.A., E.J. Miller, and B. Wellman (2008). How far and with whom do people socialize?
Empirical evidence about distance between social network members. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2076 pp.114-122.
Casas, I., Horner, M., and Weber, J. (2009). A Comparison of Three Methods for Identifying
Transport-Based Exclusion: A Case Study of Children's Access to Urban Opportunities in Erie and
Niagara Counties, New York. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 3 (4) pp.227-245
Cebollada, A. (2009). Mobility and labour market exclusion in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region.
Journal of Transport Geography 17 (3) pp.226-233
Church, A., Frost, M. and Sullivan, K. (1999) ‘Transport and social exclusion in London’ Proceeding of
the European Transport Conference www.etcproceedings.org/paper/download/2528
Currie, G. (2010). Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. Journal of
Transport Geography 18 (1) pp.31–41
Currie, G. (2011), New perspectives and methods in transport and social exclusion research. Emerald.
Currie, G., and Delbosc, A. (2010), Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport
disadvantage. Transportation.
Currie, G., and Stanley, J. (2008). Investigating Links between Social Capital and Public Transport.
Urban Policy and Research 28 (4) pp.529-547
Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., Stanley, J., Morris, J.,
Kinnear, R., Stanley, J., (2010), Investigating the links between transport disadvantage, social
exclusion and well-being in Melbourne – Updated results. Research in transport economics 29.
Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., Stanley, J., Morris, J.,
Kinnear, R., and Stanley, J.(2009). Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social
exclusion and well-being in Melbourne-Preliminary results. Transport Policy 16 (3) pp.97-105
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 26
Dargay, J. M. (2001). The effect of income on car ownership: evidence of asymmetry. Transportation
Research Part A 35pp.807-821
Delbosc, A., Currie, G. (2011).Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport equity. Journal of
Transport Geography 19.
Department for Transport (2006a). Full Guidance on Accessibility Planning
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/ltp/accessibility/guidance/gap/nicalguidanceonaccessibi3641.pdf
Department for Transport (2006b) Social Inclusion: Transport Aspects. Final Report. Department for
Transportation, UK. Centre of Transport Studies at Imperial College, Mott Mac Donald and Institute for
Transport Studies at University of Leeds.
Department for Transport (2011). National Travel Survey: 2010. Statistical release.
Duvarci, Y. and Yigitcanlar, T. (2007). Integrated Modelling Approach for the Transportation
Disadvantaged. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 133 (3) pp.188-200
Farber, S., Paez, A., Mercado, R., Roorda, M., and Morency, C. (2011). A time-use investigation of
shopping participation in three Canadian cities: is there evidence of social exclusion? Transportation
38 (1) pp.17-44
Farrington, J. (2007) ‘The new narrative of accessibility: its potential contribution to discourses in
(transport geography)’ Journal of Transport Geography 15pp.319-330
Grieco, M. (2006) ‘Accessibility, Mobility and Connectivity: The Changing Frontiers of Everyday
Routine’ European Spatial Research and Policy (Special Issue) 78 (6)pp.1360-80
Hurni, A. (2006) Transport and Social Exclusion in Western Sydney University of Western Sydney and
Western Sydney Community Forum, Australia
Jara, M. (2009). Indicadores de exclusión social, accesibilidad y movilidad en el contexto urbano
chileno: un análisis desde la perspectiva del comportamiento de transporte. Civil Engineering
undergraduate thesis. Universidad de Concepción, Chile. [In Spanish]
Johnson, V., Currie, G., and Stanley, J. (2011).Exploring transport to arts and cultural activities as a
facilitator of social inclusion. Transport Policy 18 (1) pp.68-75
Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E. y Patsios, D. (2007) The Multidimensional
Analysis of Social Exclusion. Cabinet Office. UK.
Limanond, T., Jomnonkwao, S., Watthanaklang, D., Ratanavaraha, V., and Siridhar, S. (2011). How
vehicle ownership affect time utilization on study, leisure, social activities, and academic performance
of university students? A case study of engineering freshmen in a rural university in Thailand.
Transport Policy 18 (5) pp.719–726
Litman, T. (2003). Social inclusion as a transport planning issue in Canada. Paper presented at the
Transport and Social Exclusion G7 Comparison Seminar. London, April 2003.
Loo, B.P.Y., and Lam, W.W.Y.(2012). A multilevel investigation of differential individual mobility of
working couples with children: a case study of Hong Kong. Transportmetrica.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 27
Lopez, A., Gutierrez, J., and Gomez, G. (2008). Measuring Regional Cohesion Effects of Large-scale
Transport Infrastructure Investments: An Accessibility Approach. European Planning Studies 16 (2) pp.
277-301
Lovejoy, K., and Handy, S. (2011). Social networks as a source of private-vehicle transportation: The
practice of getting rides and borrowing vehicles among Mexican immigrants in California.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45 (4) pp.248-257
Lucas, K. (2012), Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy 20.
Lucas, K., Grosvenor T. and Simpson R. (2001) Transport, the Environment and Social Exclusion
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/ York Publishing Ltd.
Lucas, K., Tyler, S. and Christodoulou, G. (2009). Assessing the ‘value’ of new transport initiatives in
deprived neighbourhoods in the UK. Transport Policy 16 (3) pp.115-122
McQuaid, R., and Chen, T. (2012). Commuting times - The role of gender, children and part- time
work. Research in Transportation Economics 34 pp.66-73
Mackett, R., Achuthan, K. and Titheridge, H. (2008) ‘AMELIA: A tool to make transport policies more
socially inclusive’ Transport Policy 15: 372-378
Manaugh, K., Miranda-Moreno, L., and El-Geneidy, A. (2010). The effect of neighbourhood
characteristics, accessibility, home-work location, and demographics on commuting distances.
Transportation 37 pp.627-646.
Maoh, H., and Tang, Z. (2012). Determinants of normal and extreme commute distance in a sprawled
midsize Canadian city: evidence from Windsor, Canada. Journal of Transport Geography 25 pp.50-57
Mercado, R., and Páez, A. (2009). Determinants of distance travelled with a focus on the elderly: a
multilevel analysis in the Hamilton CMA, Canada. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (1) pp.65–76
Mercado, R., Paez, A., Farber, S., Roorda M., and Morency, C. (2012). Explaining transport mode use
of low-income persons for journey to work in urban areas: a case study of Ontario and Quebec.
Transportmetrica 8 (3) pp.157-179
Morency, C., Paez, A., Roorda, M., Mercado, R., and Farber, S. (2011). Distance travelled in three
Canadian cities: Spatial analysis from the perspective of vulnerable population segments Journal of
Transport Geography 19 (1) pp.39-50
Neutens, T., Delafontaine, M., Scott, D., De Maeyer, P., (2012), A GIS-based method to identify
spatiotemporal gaps in public service delivery. Applied Geography 32.
Ohnmacht, T., Maksim, H. and Bergman, M.M. (2009) Mobilities and Inequalities Surrey, United
Kingdom: Ashgate
Páez, A. and Farber, S. (2010). Understanding the transportation situation of Canadian adults with
disabilities. Human Resources and Skills. Canada.
Páez, A., and Farber, S. (2012). Participation and desire: leisure activities among Canadian adults
with disabilities. Transportation
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 28
Páez, A., Mercado, R., Farber, S., Morency, C., and Roorda, M. (2009). “Mobility and Social Exclusion
in Canadian Communities: An Empirical Investigation of Opportunity Access and Deprivation from the
Perspective of Vulnerable Groups. Human Resources and Social Development. Canada.
Pitot, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Sipe, N., and Evans, R. (2006). "Land Use and Public Transport Accessibility
Index (LUPTAI) tool: the development and pilot application of LUPTAI for the Gold Coast" (2006).
Social Research in Transport (SORT) Clearinghouse. Paper 123.
Preston, J. (2009) ‘Editorial’ in Transport Policy Special Issue 16: 3: 140-142 (Guest editors Lucas, K.
and Stanley, J.)
Roorda, M., Paez, A., Morency, C., Mercado, R., and Farber, S. (2010). Trip generation of vulnerable
populations in three Canadian cities: a spatial ordered probit approach. Transportation 37 pp.525-548.
Scheiner, J. (2010). Social inequalities in travel behaviour: trip distances in the context of residential
self-selection and lifestyles. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (6) pp.679–690
Scheiner, J., and Holz-Rau, C. (2012). Gendered travel mode choice: a focus on car deficient
households. Journal of Transport Geography 24 pp.250-261
Schmöcker, J., Quddus, M., Noland, R., and Bell, M. (2008). Mode choice of older and disabled
people: a case study of shopping trips in London. Journal of Transport Geography 16 (4) pp.257-267
Schmöcker, J., Quddus, M., Noland, R., and Bell, M. (2005). Estimating trip generation of the elderly
and disabled people: An analysis of London data. Transportation Research Record1924 pp.9–18.
Schönfelder, S., and Axhausen, K. (2003). Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion? Transport
Policy 10 (4) pp.273-286
Scott, D., and He, S. (2012). Modelling constrained destination choice for shopping: a GIS-based,
time-geographic approach. Journal of Transport Geography 23 pp.60-71
Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2006) ‘The new mobilities paradigm’ Environmental Planning A38: 207-226
Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion,
Office of The Deputy Prime Minister.Social Exclusion Unit. UK.
Spinney, J., Scott, D., and Newbold, B. (2009).Transport mobility benefits and quality of life: A time-
use perspective of elderly Canadians. Transport Policy 16 (1) pp.1-11
TRaC (2000) Social Exclusion and the Provision of Public Transport London: Department of
Environment Transport and the Regions
Urry, J. (2000). Sociologies beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. New York:
Routledge.
Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press
WSP (2000), Land-Use Indicators and Trip end Models, Final Report for HETA Division of the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, January 2000
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 29
WSP (2009), Research into Changing Trip Rates over Time and Implications for the National Trip End
Model: Draft Final Report for Department for Transport. May 2009
Van den Berg, P., Arentze, T., and Timmermans, H. (2011). Estimating travel demand of senior
citizens in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2) pp.323-331.
Van de Voorde, E. and Vanelslander, T. (2010) (eds.) Applied Transport Economics: a management
and policy perspective Antwerp, Belgium: Uitgerverji De Boeck
Zhang, J., Xu,L., and Fujiwara, A. (2012). Developing an integrated scobit-based activity participation
and time allocation model to explore influence of childcare on women’s time use behaviour.
Transportation 39 (1) pp.125-149
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 30
Annex Table 1 Variable description
Variable name Type Description
Person type
Child Dummy 1 if under 16yrs
Full time Dummy 1 if Full time employed and aged 17-64yrs
Part time Dummy 1 if Part time employed and aged 17-64yrs
Student Dummy 1 if Student and aged 17-64yrs
Non-working Dummy 1 if non-working and aged 17-64yrs
Retired Dummy 1 if over 65yrs
Area type
London Dummy 1 if living in London
Metropolitan Dummy 1 if living in built-up area (e.g. Merseyside)
Urban big Dummy 1 if living in urban areas w/ population over 250K
Urban large Dummy 1 if living in urban areas w/ population 100–250K
Urban medium Dummy 1 if living in urban areas w/ population 25–100K
Urban small Dummy 1 if living in urban areas w/ population 3–25K
Rural Dummy 1 if living in rural areas
Urban context
Log-density Continuous Logarithm (base 10) of PSU density (persons per hectare)
Index of deprivation Continuous Based on accessibility, 1 the most deprived 10 the least
Household characteristics
N of adults per HH Ordinal N of adults per HH (0, 1, 2, 3+)
N of cars per HH Continuous N of cars per HH (0-5 cars)
HH income perannum
Dummy 1 if belonging to income band
Children in HH Dummy 1 if there are children in the household
Individual characteristics
Gender Dummy 1 if female
Driving licence Dummy 1 if individual owns a driving license
Social disadvantages
Non-white Dummy 1 if non-white
Mobility difficulties Dummy 1 if individual has mobility difficulties
Single parent Dummy 1 if Single parent
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 31
Annex Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the exogenous variables
Variable Share (%) Mean* Min* Max* P75* P50* P25*No. ofcases
Person type
Child 20.7 40,365
Full time 34.5 67,275
Part time 10.7 20,865
Student 3.2 6,240
Non-working 14.3 27,885
Retired 16.6 32,370
Area type
London 15.0 29,250
Metropolitan 14.4 28,080
Urban big 12.5 24,375
Urban large 11.7 22,815
Urban medium 14.8 28,860
Urban small 16.7 32,565
Rural 14.9 29,055
Gender
Female 51.7 100,872
N of adults in HH
1 adult 17.1 33,345
2 adults 57.7 112,515
2+ adults 25.2 49,140
Index of deprivation
1 (Most) 14.4 28,080
2 14.0 27,300
3 10.5 20,475
4 9.9 19,305
5 10.0 19,500
6 8.8 17,160
7 8.2 15,990
8 7.2 14,040
9 4.9 9,555
10 (Least) 12.3 23,985
Personal attributes (as a % of total sample)
Children in HH 45.1 87,945
Driving license 61.4 119,730
Non-white 9.7 18,915
Mobility diff. 11.3 22,035
Unskilled HRP 4.0 7,800
Single parent 2.0 3,900
Continuous variables
Log-density - 1.16 0.18 1.96 1.59 1.27 0.54 195,000
N of cars in HH - 1.3 0 5 2 1 1 195,000
Income (£ ,000) - 35.4 0.8 125 45.0 27.5 13.8 195,000*Only for continuous variables
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 32
Annex Table 3 Trip frequency per purpose
Commute SocialVisiting Friendsand Relatives
Services All
B t B t B t B t B tChild - 3.89 19.2 3.49 24.3 3.51 20.9 9.94 27.5Full-time Worker 8.40 21.2 2.99 14.8 2.96 20.6 3.30 19.8 11.66 32.3Part-time Worker 6.35 16.0 3.62 17.7 3.15 21.6 4.23 25.0 13.26 36.2Student - 3.72 17.9 3.37 22.7 3.29 18.8 10.61 28.4Non-worker - 4.25 21.0 3.66 25.5 5.56 33.4 10.76 29.8Retired - 4.25 21.0 3.15 21.8 6.21 37.3 9.86 27.3London 0.04 0.8 -0.11 -2.4 -0.31 -9.9 -0.38 -10.1 -1.41 -17.7Metropolitan (Ref.) Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.Urban (over 250K) 0.00 -0.1 0.11 2.6 -0.07 -2.2 -0.08 -2.1 -0.17 -2.1Urban (100-250K) 0.05 0.9 0.06 1.3 -0.14 -4.3 -0.04 -1.1 -0.15 -1.9Urban (25-100K) 0.12 2.2 0.12 2.7 -0.05 -1.5 -0.13 -3.2 -0.31 -3.7Urban (3-25K) 0.09 1.4 0.17 3.6 -0.08 -2.2 -0.22 -5.2 -0.93 -10.1Rural (Ref.) 0.05 0.7 0.05 0.9 -0.28 -6.9 -0.30 -6.1 -1.11 -10.3Female -0.63 -19.6 -0.33 -13.8 -0.03 -1.7 -0.03 -1.5 0.49 10.7N of adults in HH 0.45 16.1 -0.19 -8.2 -0.10 -5.9 0.03 1.4 -1.06 -25.0N of cars in HH 0.06 2.9 0.21 12.5 0.19 15.0 0.22 14.4 1.36 42.4HH income p.a.Less than £1,000 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.£1,000- £1,999 -0.16 -0.3 0.29 1.1 0.13 0.7 -0.14 -0.7 1.09 2.4£2,000- £2,999 0.23 0.5 0.47 1.9 0.26 1.5 -0.14 -0.7 0.41 1.0£3,000- £3,999 -0.29 -0.6 0.26 1.1 0.22 1.4 -0.32 -1.7 -0.03 -0.1£4,000- £4,999 0.04 0.1 0.44 2.1 0.22 1.5 -0.41 -2.3 -0.04 -0.1£5,000- £5,999 -0.11 -0.2 0.23 1.1 0.21 1.5 -0.27 -1.6 0.05 0.1£6,000- £6,999 -0.20 -0.5 0.20 1.0 0.08 0.6 -0.17 -1.0 -0.19 -0.5£7,000- £7,999 -0.35 -0.8 0.13 0.6 0.03 0.2 -0.21 -1.3 0.07 0.2£8,000- £8,999 -0.14 -0.3 0.07 0.3 0.20 1.4 0.05 0.3 0.66 1.8£9,000- £9,999 -0.30 -0.7 0.25 1.2 0.12 0.9 -0.09 -0.5 0.36 1.0£10,000- £12,499 -0.04 -0.1 0.29 1.5 0.06 0.4 0.08 0.5 0.65 1.9£12,500- £14,999 -0.08 -0.2 0.29 1.5 0.01 0.1 0.17 1.1 1.16 3.4£15,000- £17,499 -0.34 -0.9 0.29 1.5 0.02 0.1 0.07 0.4 1.23 3.6£17,500- £19,999 -0.07 -0.2 0.28 1.4 0.05 0.4 -0.03 -0.2 1.18 3.4£20,000- £24,999 -0.24 -0.6 0.41 2.1 -0.02 -0.2 0.07 0.4 1.71 5.0£25,000- £29,999 -0.32 -0.8 0.41 2.1 -0.06 -0.4 -0.02 -0.2 1.71 5.0£30,000- £34,999 -0.51 -1.3 0.51 2.6 -0.17 -1.2 -0.11 -0.7 1.68 4.9£35,000- £39,999 -0.59 -1.5 0.60 3.1 -0.21 -1.5 -0.13 -0.8 1.96 5.7£40,000- £49,999 -0.74 -1.9 0.55 2.9 -0.22 -1.6 -0.09 -0.6 1.89 5.5£50,000- £59,999 -0.92 -2.4 0.59 3.0 -0.25 -1.8 -0.14 -0.8 1.93 5.6£60,000- £69,999 -1.05 -2.7 0.62 3.2 -0.42 -3.0 -0.25 -1.5 1.70 4.8£70,000- £74,999 -0.94 -2.4 0.70 3.4 -0.31 -2.1 -0.14 -0.8 2.14 5.8£75,000 or more -1.28 -3.3 0.74 3.8 -0.57 -4.1 -0.28 -1.7 1.62 4.7Presence of children -0.51 -15.8 -0.49 -16.2 -0.09 -4.0 -0.12 -4.5 2.08 36.0Car License own. -0.12 -2.3 0.62 16.0 0.21 7.6 0.94 29.9 4.51 65.8Non-white 0.33 6.2 -0.45 -9.7 -0.11 -3.5 -0.11 -3.0 -1.71 -22.1Mobility difficulties -0.02 -0.3 -0.74 -16.0 -0.12 -3.6 -0.20 -5.6 -1.95 -24.0Single Parent -0.38 -3.2 -0.15 -1.5 -0.05 -0.8 -0.21 -2.7 0.96 5.5Log-Density 0.01 0.7 -0.03 -2.0 0.00 0.1 -0.01 -0.5 -0.08 -2.6Index of Deprivation -0.04 -6.3 0.03 7.8 -0.03 -7.8 0.02 5.0 0.13 14.9Sum of squaresResidual 497,802 583,522 239,247 879,605 7,946,527Total 3,027,536 1,557,000 709,867 2,965,228 41,470,027DoF 40 44 44 44 44F-Ratio 6.363 3.191 3.171 5.900 13.688Adjusted R
20.84 0,63 0,66 0,70 0,81
No. of Obs. 50,123 84,192 70,970 109,538 142,807Obs: *statistically non-significant at the 95% level. Dark cells indicate non-significance at the 90% confidence level. Boldcoefficients represent those of major interest.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 33
Annex Table 4 Trip distance per purpose
Commute SocialVisiting Friendsand Relatives
Services All
B t B t B t B t B tChild - 6.97 6.7 10.81 5.2 6.24 14.9 8.06 14.9Full-time Worker 5.50 7.2 9.19 8.9 11.03 5.3 6.83 16.4 10.68 19.8Part-time Worker 3.49 4.5 7.75 7.4 10.42 4.9 6.41 15.1 8.44 15.4Student - 7.75 7.3 13.57 6.3 6.98 16.0 10.30 18.5Non-worker - 7.48 7.2 10.35 4.9 6.23 14.9 8.68 16.1Retired - 7.44 7.2 10.05 4.8 5.74 13.8 7.93 14.7London 0.65 6.2 -0.73 -3.3 0.43 0.9 0.06 0.7 0.05 0.5Metropolitan 0
a0
b0
b0
bRef.
Urban (over 250K) 0.53 5.0 0.62 2.8 0.90 2.0 0.11 1.1 0.52 4.3Urban (100-250K) 0.63 5.8 0.55 2.4 1.86 4.1 0.06 0.7 0.41 3.3Urban (25-100K) 0.91 8.3 0.57 2.5 0.70 1.5 0.17 1.7 0.50 4.0Urban (3-25K) 1.07 8.8 1.11 4.5 3.01 5.9 1.39 13.0 1.67 12.1Rural (Ref.) 1.60 11.4 1.74 6.1 7.93 13.2 2.48 19.8 2.56 15.9Female -1.89 -30.5 -0.65 -5.3 -1.00 -3.9 -0.14 -2.6 -1.43 -20.7N of adults in HH -0.55 -10.3 -0.43 -3.6 -2.26 -9.3 -0.06 -1.2 -1.16 -18.3N of cars in HH 0.28 7.2 0.67 7.7 -0.69 -3.7 0.42 10.9 0.69 14.5HH income p.a.Less than £1,000 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.£1,000- £1,999 -0.71 -0.7 0.04 0.0 1.13 0.4 -1.05 -2.0 -0.22 -0.3£2,000- £2,999 -0.23 -0.2 1.35 1.1 0.57 0.2 -0.92 -1.8 -0.70 -1.1£3,000- £3,999 0.51 0.6 -0.95 -0.8 -0.58 -0.2 -0.52 -1.1 -0.87 -1.4£4,000- £4,999 -0.31 -0.4 -0.30 -0.3 -0.28 -0.1 -0.43 -1.0 -0.98 -1.7£5,000- £5,999 -1.14 -1.3 0.44 0.4 -3.78 -1.8 -0.80 -1.9 -1.37 -2.5£6,000- £6,999 -0.82 -1.0 0.15 0.1 -2.62 -1.3 -0.58 -1.4 -0.99 -1.8£7,000- £7,999 -0.75 -0.9 0.60 0.6 -1.93 -0.9 -0.55 -1.3 -1.06 -1.9£8,000- £8,999 -0.79 -1.0 1.06 1.0 -2.81 -1.3 -0.77 -1.9 -0.92 -1.7£9,000- £9,999 -1.24 -1.5 0.64 0.6 -1.72 -0.8 -0.46 -1.1 -0.50 -0.9£10,000- £12,499 -1.62 -2.1 0.45 0.5 -2.02 -1.0 -0.66 -1.7 -0.95 -1.8£12,500- £14,999 -1.43 -1.9 0.56 0.6 -0.18 -0.1 -0.49 -1.2 -0.61 -1.2£15,000- £17,499 -1.19 -1.6 0.78 0.8 -0.69 -0.3 -0.59 -1.5 -0.64 -1.2£17,500- £19,999 -1.16 -1.5 0.56 0.6 0.22 0.1 -0.46 -1.1 -0.27 -0.5£20,000- £24,999 -0.95 -1.3 1.01 1.0 1.48 0.7 -0.31 -0.8 -0.13 -0.2£25,000- £29,999 -0.87 -1.2 1.38 1.4 0.15 0.1 -0.43 -1.1 0.15 0.3£30,000- £34,999 -0.75 -1.0 1.55 1.6 2.99 1.5 -0.35 -0.9 0.24 0.5£35,000- £39,999 -0.54 -0.7 0.85 0.9 2.77 1.4 -0.39 -1.0 0.42 0.8£40,000- £49,999 -0.21 -0.3 1.83 1.8 3.95 2.0 -0.24 -0.6 1.14 2.2£50,000- £59,999 0.14 0.2 1.55 1.6 7.20 3.6 -0.20 -0.5 1.63 3.2£60,000- £69,999 0.09 0.1 1.52 1.5 7.32 3.6 -0.20 -0.5 2.40 4.6£70,000- £74,999 0.09 0.1 1.24 1.2 9.45 4.4 0.12 0.3 2.28 4.2£75,000 or more 0.70 0.9 2.46 2.5 12.21 6.1 0.25 0.6 3.41 6.6Presence of children -0.25 -4.0 -0.79 -5.0 -3.05 -9.2 -0.40 -6.1 -1.19 -13.8Car License own. -0.12 -1.2 0.30 1.5 3.77 9.3 0.19 2.4 0.85 8.3Non-white 0.85 8.2 0.62 2.6 1.40 3.1 0.49 5.2 0.30 2.6Mobility difficulties -0.10 -0.6 0.30 1.2 -2.10 -4.4 -0.17 -2.0 -0.61 -5.0Single Parent -0.43 -1.8 -0.34 -0.7 -2.07 -2.3 -0.16 -0.8 -0.88 -3.3Log-Density -0.04 -0.9 -0.34 -4.2 0.37 2.2 -0.60 -16.7 -0.32 -6.9Index of Deprivation 0.02 1.9 0.05 2.2 0.48 10.1 0.00 -0.4 0.11 8.8Sum of squaresResidual 741,443 5,741,234 15,058,438 2,429,481 8,126,825Total 1,113,123 7,493,832 18,753,481 3,523,850 12,915,028DoF 40 44 44 44 44F-Ratio 628 584 396 1.121 1,912Adjusted R
20.33 0.23 0.20 0.31 0.37
No. of Obs. 50,123 84,192 70,970 109,538 142,807Obs: *statistically non-significant at the 95% level. Dark cells indicate non-significance at the 90% confidence level. Boldcoefficients represent those of major interest.
Moore, J. “Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip-based approach”
Working Papers Series - Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford 34
Annex Table 5 Trip duration per purpose
Commute SocialVisiting Friendsand Relatives
Services All
B t B t B t B t B tChild - 27.60 17.0 31.49 11.5 25.82 34.1 28.88 33.9Full-time Worker 19.68 12.6 32.91 20.3 34.70 12.7 27.95 37.2 35.16 41.3Part-time Worker 14.31 9.1 32.09 19.5 34.90 12.6 27.93 36.6 32.07 37.1Student - 33.28 20.0 40.67 14.4 30.70 39.0 37.56 42.6Non-worker - 32.45 20.0 35.41 12.9 28.07 37.3 31.96 37.5Retired - 31.73 19.5 34.77 12.7 26.94 35.9 30.46 35.7London 6.73 31.4 4.64 13.4 8.11 13.7 4.08 24.0 6.38 33.9Metropolitan Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.Urban (over 250K) 0.24 1.1 1.37 4.0 1.70 2.9 0.33 1.9 0.94 4.9Urban (100-250K) -0.23 -1.0 0.61 1.7 1.60 2.7 -0.53 -3.1 -0.37 -1.9Urban (25-100K) 0.38 1.7 0.80 2.3 0.33 0.5 -0.60 -3.4 -0.24 -1.2Urban (3-25K) 0.82 3.3 2.24 5.8 3.59 5.4 1.62 8.4 1.99 9.1Rural 1.84 6.4 3.26 7.3 10.38 13.2 3.13 13.9 3.34 13.1Female -2.88 -22.7 -1.36 -7.0 -1.47 -4.3 -0.11 -1.1 -2.12 -19.5N of adults in HH 0.59 5.4 0.20 1.1 -1.35 -4.3 1.27 14.1 -0.13 -1.3N of cars in HH -1.32 -16.4 -1.45 -10.7 -3.92 -16.2 -1.65 -24.0 -1.76 -23.3HH income p.a.Less than £1,000 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.£1,000- £1,999 -1.23 -0.6 -1.70 -0.8 3.13 0.9 -2.80 -3.0 -0.49 -0.5£2,000- £2,999 0.84 0.4 1.75 0.9 1.49 0.5 -2.93 -3.3 -1.28 -1.3£3,000- £3,999 -1.23 -0.7 -0.87 -0.5 1.84 0.6 -1.83 -2.2 -1.48 -1.5£4,000- £4,999 -0.07 0.0 -0.31 -0.2 0.79 0.3 -2.11 -2.7 -1.99 -2.2£5,000- £5,999 -3.34 -1.9 0.38 0.2 -5.03 -1.8 -2.70 -3.6 -2.85 -3.3£6,000- £6,999 -0.76 -0.5 -0.04 0.0 -4.19 -1.5 -2.92 -3.9 -2.25 -2.7£7,000- £7,999 -1.70 -1.0 1.15 0.7 -3.62 -1.3 -3.00 -4.0 -2.76 -3.2£8,000- £8,999 -1.52 -0.9 1.12 0.7 -3.52 -1.3 -3.47 -4.6 -2.30 -2.7£9,000- £9,999 -3.63 -2.2 0.94 0.6 -4.56 -1.7 -3.33 -4.4 -2.45 -2.9£10,000- £12,499 -2.79 -1.8 0.11 0.1 -4.95 -1.9 -3.83 -5.3 -3.25 -4.0£12,500- £14,999 -2.57 -1.7 -0.71 -0.5 -3.00 -1.1 -3.87 -5.4 -2.93 -3.6£15,000- £17,499 -2.36 -1.5 -0.60 -0.4 -3.98 -1.5 -4.01 -5.6 -3.05 -3.7£17,500- £19,999 -2.38 -1.5 -0.87 -0.6 -2.81 -1.1 -4.06 -5.6 -2.81 -3.4£20,000- £24,999 -2.48 -1.6 -0.68 -0.4 -1.47 -0.6 -3.90 -5.5 -2.55 -3.2£25,000- £29,999 -2.27 -1.5 -0.26 -0.2 -3.24 -1.2 -4.38 -6.1 -2.47 -3.1£30,000- £34,999 -2.37 -1.6 -0.41 -0.3 0.04 0.0 -4.27 -6.0 -2.21 -2.7£35,000- £39,999 -1.73 -1.1 -1.28 -0.8 -0.09 0.0 -4.44 -6.2 -2.00 -2.5£40,000- £49,999 -1.29 -0.8 0.03 0.0 1.34 0.5 -3.96 -5.6 -0.94 -1.2£50,000- £59,999 -0.57 -0.4 -0.25 -0.2 4.95 1.9 -3.88 -5.4 -0.13 -0.2£60,000- £69,999 -0.57 -0.4 0.18 0.1 5.70 2.1 -4.17 -5.7 1.07 1.3£70,000- £74,999 -0.08 0.0 -0.14 -0.1 8.20 2.9 -3.58 -4.7 1.46 1.7£75,000 or more 0.70 0.5 0.78 0.5 11.34 4.3 -3.18 -4.4 2.77 3.4Presence of children -1.50 -11.9 -2.03 -8.3 -5.48 -12.6 -1.32 -11.1 -3.19 -23.4Car License own. -4.18 -20.3 -2.33 -7.5 0.45 0.8 -2.76 -19.5 -2.06 -12.8Non-white 4.10 19.4 2.40 6.4 3.34 5.6 2.75 16.3 2.23 12.2Mobility difficulties -0.11 -0.3 -1.54 -4.2 -4.26 -6.8 -1.21 -7.7 -2.53 -13.1Single Parent -0.76 -1.6 -0.92 -1.2 -1.51 -1.3 0.61 1.8 -0.61 -1.5Log-Density 0.50 6.1 0.15 1.1 1.06 4.7 -0.37 -5.7 0.20 2.7Index of Deprivation -0.09 -4.2 -0.16 -4.5 0.37 5.9 -0.18 -10.0 -0.02 -1.1Sum of squaresResidual 5,033,072 31,775,283 49,404,205 16,318,618 36,478,293Total 11,033,698 67,579,438 79,364,956 45,575,927 109,442,258DoF 40 44 44 44 44F-Ratio 1,493 2,155 978 4,462 6,490Adjusted R
20.54 0.53 0.38 0,.4 0.7
No. of Obs. 50,123 84,192 70,970 109,538 142,807Obs: *statistically non-significant at the 95% level. Dark cells indicate non-significance at the 90% confidence level. Boldcoefficients represent those of major interest.