David Connolly & Lucy Barker MVA TRPG and SHS Topic Report Long Distance Commuting

Background Transport Research Planning Group (TRPG) & SHS Topic Report on long distance commuting in Scotland The Scottish Executive has long term objectives to reduce traffic volumes decrease number of casualties reduce traffic congestion promote rail & bus travel Influencing the behaviour of LDC will help achieve these aims Research uses SHS (household and travel diary) Census data (1991 and 2001) and transport modelling techniques (TMfS)

Overview of Presentation Definition of long distance commuting and distance calculations Current geographic pattern of LDC Impacts of LDC on the Scottish transport network Trends in LDC Understanding the long distance commuter (SHS analysis and focus group research) Next steps

Definition of ‘Long Distance’ ‘crow-flies’ under-estimates distance Ignores curves/bends in roads Ignores detours due to geographic features (eg estuarial crossings) ‘actual road-based estimates’ - calculate shortest route between origins & destinations (using OS road networks) road based estimates were attached to SHS and census travel to work data long distance >15km SHS % long distance ‘crow-flies’ 18% ‘road-based’ 24% actual road based estimates OS roads and DZ in Edinburgh & West Lothian

Geographic Pattern of LDC (Census 2001) % LDC = number of working people commuting out from their DZ area of residence / total number of employed people living in the DZ Proportion LDC higher outside main urban areas (eg Aberdeenshire)

Geographic Pattern of LDC (Census 2001) 15+km20+km25+km30+km

SHS Travel Diary am to 10am 13% long distance commuting 4pm to 7pm 8% long distance commuting

Impacts of LDC on Scottish Transport Network Transport modelling techniques (TMfS) used to estimate LDC contribution to traffic volumes, vehicle emissions, vehicle speeds and PT revenue Inter-urban routes have significant percentages (often exceeding 50%) of AM Peak traffic made up of LDC. Proportions LDC lower in main urban areas The highest volumes of LDC on key trunk road routes (eg M8, M9/A9, Forth Road Bridge, M77/A77, M80) % of AM peak traffic (TMfS)AM peak absolute numbers LDC (TMfS)

Trends Over Time (SHS 1999 to 2005) SHS no significant growth in LDC (as % of all commuting trips) over time NTS (Scotland) average commute distance increased from 5.4 miles (1980s) to 8 miles (2000)

Understanding the Long Distance Commuter SHS personal variables age - commuting distance first increases and then decreases with age female - females have an shorter average commute than men employment status - full time workers commute further than part time workers social class grouping - professional/ managerial & technical occupations commuter furthest SHS household variables household income - commuting distance increases as household income rises household structure - two parent household generate longer average commuting distances than single adult and single parent households urban/rural classification - commuting distance varies significantly by urban/rural/remoteness classification of home address (less so by classification of employment location) SHS transport variables mode - train commuters travel further than car and bus commuters household car availability - commuting distance increases with car ownership good public transport – those who rate their neighbourhood as having good PT commute shorter distances – this may be urban/rural affect again

Factors influencing LDC ANOVA – Inter-relationships between variables. Interaction between pairing of gender and other variables significant Classification Tree – detect differences between LDC & SDC

Gender and Age females commutes less than males across age groups males commute furthest (15km) for females, those aged 25 to 29 travel furthest (11km)

Gender and Income general trend is longer distance amongst higher earners females commute shorter average distance than males for all income bands males with incomes >40K travel furthest (21km) for females, incomes >40k travel furthest (13km)

Gender and Urban/Rural Classification females commute shorter distance than males for each urban/rural category males from accessible towns (17km) and accessible rural areas (17km) travel furthest for females, those from accessible rural areas commute the furthest (13km)

Gender and Social Class Groupings females commute shorter distance than males for each social class grouping males from managerial and technical occupations travelled the furthest (16km) for females, those from professional occupations travelled the furthest (13km)

Gender and Household Structure males from families with children commute the furthest (15km) no significant difference between commuting distance of male and female single parents

HH Income and Household Structure Average commuting distance tends to increases with HH income (with the exception of households with children + very low incomes) this ‘kink’ is probably due to the influence of house prices

Car user –reasons for not using PT 37% LDC car commuters stated they had a ‘PT option’ (compared to 49% of SDC car commuters) LDC ‘takes too long’ 54% (compared to SDC 37%) LDC ‘no direct route’ 31% (compared to SDC 20%) LDC ‘cost (14%) (compared to SDC 8%)

Mode Share (SHS)

Mode Change changed mode over the previous year 8% SDC (N=7,373) 9% LDC (N=2,854 ) SDC (N=612) 11% switched to car, 2% switched to train 9% switched from bus LDC (N=209) 19% switched to car, 11% switched to train 2% switched from bus

Reason for mode change Most frequent reasons were ‘changed job’ or ‘moved home’ No significant difference between long and short distance commuters

Travel to Education (SHS) Classification Tree 3% of children travel further than 15km to school a higher percentage of children from rural areas travel more than 15km compared to children from towns or urban areas

Focus Group Research SHS was used to identify/select potential participants took part in the SHS survey between 2003 to 2005 at the time of SHS traveled 15+km to work agreed to take part in follow up work workplace location in Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Dundee Focus groups covered +ve and -ve aspects to LDC changes over time factors affecting residential location work and workplace choices alternatives (diff mode, working from home, car sharing)

Work/Home location many factors involved in why people live/work where they do: near family important at diff life stages, partners requirements, looking after elderly parents rural location nice scenery, less stressful than city house prices important in initial decision & prevents from moving, get more for money further from work schools not major factor, but discourages relocating if child is settled in a school commute not major factor, but some participants considered the commute when purchasing a new home eg ‘drove the route’ to work at peak times or looked for houses within close proximity to a rail station little/no choice available financial constraints, lived in area whole life, commitments to extended family

Next Steps complete comparison of 1991 & 2001 census policy implications LDC postal/telephone survey

Questions and Discussion “I wouldn’t say I enjoy the commute. I would rather not do the commute. I would rather it was just five minutes away where I wouldn’t have to spend an hour a day or two hours a day actually travelling.” (female train commuter, Glasgow) “I don’t like to live on top of my work. I have always lived 15 or 20 miles away from where I work. I do like to feel as if I’ve got a sense of getting out of there you know, away from it”. (male train commuter, Edinburgh)