Roger Mackett, Kamal Achuthan and Helena Titheridge ECOMM, San Sebastian, 13-15 May 2009 Evaluating increases in accessibility for people who are socially excluded Roger Mackett, Kamal Achuthan and Helena Titheridge Centre for Transport Studies University College London

Evaluating increases in accessibility for groups in the community This involves bringing together information on The mobility capabilities of the members of the group Their movement patterns or potential movement patterns Potential improvements to the environment to increase accessibility The cost of implementing the improvements The numbers benefiting from the improvements These are brought together in AMELIA

The policy analysis tool M E L I

The policy analysis tool Methodology for Enhancing Life by Increasing Accessibility

AUNT SUE Funded by EPSRC under the SUE programme; Focus is on increasing social inclusion through improving accessibility etc; Involves UCL, London Metropolitan University and Loughborough University; Main elements: Design of a policy analysis tool - AMELIA; Development of improved transport designs and operations; Evaluation in the testbed areas.

The elements of the policy analysis tool, AMELIA Policy objective Benchmarks Changes in the number of socially excluded people meeting the benchmarks Policy actions to achieve the objective Analysis of the impact of the actions Data on the population in a socially-excluded group Data on the local area (transport networks, opportunities, etc)

The procedure Set the policy objective Identify the relevant characteristics AMELIA information system Select a policy action Guidance on values Set the values for the policy action Costs Set up the data for testing the policy action Run AMELIA Set the benchmark Examine the results

Guidance Guidance is provided on: Best practice in design Personal characteristics that define why the person is excluded

Characteristics of the policy actions To date, 57 policy actions have been identified which can be examined using AMELIA They have the following characteristics: 10 types of social exclusion 6 modes of travel 14 types of policy action 13 types of barriers that can be overcome

The study area – St Albans, Herts

The study area: St Albans

The study area: St Albans

Barriers to movement in St Albans Lack of dropped kerbs Narrow pavements

The case study Objective: to improve access within the city centre The socially excluded group being considered: the population aged 65+ based on the Census of Population, 2001 (19231 people), disaggregated into categories according to walking ability using data from the Disability Survey of Great Britain. The policy actions: Providing dropped kerbs at existing crossings; Providing crossings every 100 m; Providing wider pavements; Providing benches every 100 m.

The costs of the policy actions Dropped kerbs - €1075 each side or €2150 per crossing Pedestrian crossings - €26 940 each Pavement - €70 per square metre Benches - €540 each

The existing layout of benches, crossings and footways in the centre of St Albans.

The proposed layout of the new crossings, existing crossings with new dropped kerbs and the widened pavements.

The number of residents of St Albans aged 65 or over with various walking capabilities Group Cannot walk up one step Can walk up one step Total Cannot walk at all or can walk less than 46m 2500 Can walk 46m but not 183m 77 1077 1154 Can walk 183m but not 402m 692 769 Can walk 402m 14,808 2654 16,577 19,231

Implementation of the case study Assumptions: Those living within 800 metres of the city centre walk there (or travel by wheelchair); The rest arrive by bus or car, split into their relative use by people aged 65+ nationally; Bus users are allocated to the bus stop within 400m of the city centre most appropriate for where they live; they are then assumed to walk or use a wheelchair; Car users allocated to car parks within 400m of city centre in proportion to their capacity; they are then assumed to walk or use a wheelchair.

Numbers of people arriving in the city centre and at the Old Town Hall by each mode Walk or wheelchair all the way Bus then walk or wheelchair Car then walk or wheelchair Total Total numbers using each mode to arrive in the city centre 485 2793 15,953 19,231 Total numbers able to reach the Old Town Hall 161 2151 10,838 13,674 % able to reach the Old Town Hall 33 77 70 71

Increases in the numbers of people who can reach the Old Town Hall by each mode Walk or wheelchair all the way Bus then walk or wheelchair Car then walk or wheelchair Total Providing dropped kerbs at existing crossings 24 Providing crossings every 100m Providing wider pavements 13 Providing benches every 100m 7 56 461 524

Cost of implementing the policy actions Unit cost Number of units installed Total cost Cost/ head Providing dropped kerbs at existing crossings €2150 each 23 €49,450 €2060 Providing crossings every 100m €26,940 each 11 €296,340 - Providing wider pavements €70 per m2 3689 m2 €258,230 €19,864 Providing benches every 100m €540 each 314 €169,560 €324

Phase 2 - ConSEPT Consulting Socially Excluded People about Transport Objectives: To check that the assumptions in AMELIA are valid To help develop AMELIA as a consultation tool Procedure Identify four suitable types of socially excluded people Set up a series of discussions with groups of them around AMELIA Refine AMELIA

Conclusions It has been shown that AMELIA can calculate the mean cost per head of policy actions. In this case, providing benches every 100 m seems to be the most cost effective policy action. But, many assumptions have been made. The largest difficulty is establishing ‘capabilities’. Still lots of work to be done.

Further information Contact Professor Roger Mackett E-mail: rlm@transport.ucl.ac.uk AUNT-SUE website: http://www.aunt-sue.info/.