1. 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

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 tool AMELIAAMELIA

4. A 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 Analysis of the impact of the actions Changes in the number of socially excluded people meeting the benchmarks BenchmarksPolicy objective Policy actions to achieve the objective Data on the local area (transport networks, opportunities, etc) Data on the population in a socially-excluded group

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

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 St Albans

11. The study area: St Albans

13. 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.

14. The cost of the policy actions Policy actionCost per unit New or replacement dropped kerbs €2150 per crossing (€1075 for each side of the road) New pedestrian crossing€26,940 each New pavement€65 per square metre New benches€ 500 each Source of cost data: London Borough of Camden

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

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

17. The number of residents of St Albans aged 65 or over with various walking capabilities GroupCannot walk up one step Can walk up one step Total Cannot walk at all or can walk less than 46m 25000 Can walk 46m but not 183m 7710771154 Can walk 183m but not 402m 77692769 Can walk 402m014,808 Total265416,57719,231

18. 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.

19. 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 485279315,95319,231 Total numbers able to reach the Old Town Hall 161215110,83813,674 % able to reach the Old Town Hall 33777071

20. 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 0024 Providing crossings every 100m 0000 Providing wider pavements 0013 Providing benches every 100m 756461524

21. Cost of implementing the policy actions Unit costNumber of units installed Total costCost/ 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 m 2 3689 m 2 €258,230€19,864 Providing benches every 100m €540 each 314€169,560€324

22. 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

23. 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.

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