This paper describes how transport impacts on social exclusion in terms of the main activities likely to be undertaken by individuals and how this varies by the circumstances of the individuals and the characteristics of several study areas. The improvements that could be made to transport provision to overcome the problems in each of the areas are analysed, and the broader social costs identified in the appraisal. The urban areas studied were in Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham and London; the rural areas were in Devon and North Tyneside. The study used a variety of techniques to review how some of the most socially excluded people in society use transport, mostly buses, to pursue everyday activities. Journey audits were undertaken to verify some of the key journeys described in the residents' interviews and, to determine how difficult it could be to access regeneration areas by public transport compared with cars. Averaged over all study areas, residents ranked concerns about poor public transport and fear of crime above all other factors, such as lack of jobs or poor schools. The interviews and discussions with local residents revealed that a significant proportion was very reliant on buses and that they had difficulties getting to job opportunities, healthcare and quality of life destinations. There were also some misconceptions about bus services - the journey audits revealed that some journeys regarded as impossible or very expensive were indeed possible and at a cheaper fare. In other cases the journey audits did reinforce residents' views. People in work appeared to be better disposed towards bus services than other groups - most of this group felt it was of a reasonable, or good, standard. By contrast, those people looking for work felt that a lack of transport prevented them accessing the new work opportunities. This was confirmed by journey audits, which found that journey times could be an hour or more to new development areas. This, and the fact that many, but not all, job seekers tend to set 30 minutes as a journey time threshold, means that they are excluded from job opportunities. Where there were direct bus services, not involving a change of service, access to local health facilities were found to be reasonable, providing that the outpatients were asked to attend local hospitals, which was not always the case. In four of the areas, respondents said that they had missed hospital appointments because of transport problems. Young people's access to colleges of further education could involve them in long journeys by public transport, but generally could be achieved within 60 minutes journey time. About a third of respondents said that there were a number of places they were unable to visit because of the limitations of the transport network. Part of the problem is the geographical location of the residential areas. Four of the areas are on the periphery of the metropolitan areas. Although there are reasonably frequent bus services on radial routes to the city centre, bus services to local destinations are less frequent. Furthermore, non-radial bus journeys to new job opportunities tend to be very difficult. For the covering abstract see ITRD E126595.
Abstract