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

2. 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

3. The policy analysis toolM E L I

4. The policy analysis tool
Methodology for
Enhancing
Life by
Increasing
Accessibility

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. The study area – St Albans, Herts

11. The study area: St Albans

12. The study area: St Albans

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

14. 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.

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

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

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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. Further information Contact Professor Roger Mackett
AUNT-SUE website: