Evidence Base Review on Mobility - Choices and Barriers for Different Social Groups
Final Report
CRSP 554
Noel Smith
Jacqueline Beckhelling
Antonia Ivaldi
Karen Kellard
Adriana Sandu
and Carolyn Tarrant
Centre for Research in Social Policy
September 2006
The Department for Transport (DfT) aims to provide transport which works for everyone. In order to achieve this aim, it is crucial to have a comprehensive picture of the mobility of different social groups and of how transport provision and policy impacts upon their choices. Individual pieces of social research have previously analysed and reported these differences, but there is a need to review and draw together this evidence.
Work has already begun on understanding the needs of the most vulnerable groups. Notably, transport disadvantage and social exclusion was explored in the Social Exclusion Unit report 'Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion' (SEU, 2003), which highlighted the importance of an effective transport system as a gateway to accessing jobs, education, health services, food shopping and social activities. 'Making the connections' highlighted how poor transport or access to services impacts on individuals' opportunities and quality of life, community cohesion, and affluence and commerce. Problems with transport and accessibility mean that
Important government objectives relating to welfare to work, educational attainment and participation, health inequalities and uptake of key social and cultural services by target groups may be undermined. Poor transport as a barrier to work may contribute to higher benefit payments, and reduced tax contributions. Resources are wasted through missed health appointments, delays in patient discharge from hospital, and course drop-outs in education.
(SEU, 2003, p.20)
In light of this, the Department for Transport - and local authorities and other agencies - have responsibilities for accessibility planning, responsibilities for ensuring that people can access key services, jobs and other activities. Accessibility planning depends on the systematic assessment of people's mobility, and the access problems they encounter. This report informs this assessment. That is, in order to achieve an overarching understanding of the mobility choices and barriers for different social groups, the Department for Transport commissioned an extensive literature survey of recent research (2000-2005). This evidence base review used specified search techniques to ensure the systematic collection of references, and a number of screening criteria were used to check the quality of the research included in the review. More details about the review methodology are offered in the appendices.
The review explores how transport affects the lives of different social, geographical and community groups. Reflecting the foci in the literature, this report reviews findings for the following groups:
For each of these groups the review focused on five themes:
Questions associated with these themes are listed in Box 1 below.
This report, then, seeks to build on the 'Making the Connections' report by exploring 'mobility' as a whole, including people's desire, need and ability to travel, and how these differ between different social groups.
|
Box 1 Focusing on mobility: Five themes 1 Travel behaviour:
2 Travel choices:
3 Attitudes to travel:
4 Barriers to mobility:
5 What helps, or would help, different groups to overcome barriers to accessing key facilities? |
Accessibility planning aims to 'promote social inclusion by helping people from disadvantaged groups or areas access jobs and essential services' (DfT, 2003). The 'Making the Connections' report identifies four priority areas for accessibility planning: access to work, access to learning, access to healthcare and access to food shops (for fresh fruit and vegetables). The relationship between social inclusion and employment, education and healthcare are self-evident. The significance of access to food shops is that lack of choice of food can result in poor dietary habits, which in turn is associated with increased risk of developing coronary heart disease, type two diabetes, obesity or cancer (SEU, 2003, p.16). 'Making the Connections' also refers to the importance of access to other social activities: 'participation in social, cultural and leisure activities is very important to people's quality of life and can play a major part in meeting policy goals like improving health, reducing crime and building cohesive communities' (SEU, 2003, p.16).
Accessibility planning calls for a multi-agency response, co-ordinated though Local Transport Plans. Accessibility is not just about transport but can be influenced by decisions on the location, design and delivery of other services and by people's perceptions of personal safety (DfT, 2003).
This review should help to inform accessibility planning in a number of ways. It demonstrates how mobility needs and experiences change over the life-course. It highlights how different social groups have distinct needs and encounter particular obstacles. Through a comparison of the findings about the different social groups, and in relation to the needs of current accessibility policy, the review identifies 'knowledge gaps' in the literature.
The review calls for a two-part summary. This first part offers a 'narrative account' of people's changing transport needs and experiences across the life-course and in relation to key social characteristics. The review highlights that people's relationship with transport is dynamic, and as people make transitions through childhood, youth and old age their changing lifestyles trigger new travel needs and experiences of transport. Cross-cutting this, the review also demonstrates a rich diversity in travel needs and experiences among people at similar life stages, but differentiated on the basis of income, locality, ethnicity, gender and disability.
From childhood, people have distinct mobility needs and experiences. For primary school children, travel to school is an important focus and characteristically involves being escorted by parents or other adults. Young children's independent mobility is limited by parents concerns for their safety. They are most likely to get to school by walking (escorted) or by car. Parents' use of cars reflects, among other things, the time pressures they experience in completing the 'school run' before getting to work on time.
Increasingly with age, older primary school children and secondary school children become independently mobile, using a wider range of travel modes. Independent use of public transport use - most commonly buses - is seen as positive, exciting and adventurous among younger children. However, by their teens - as their travel experiences and transport needs develop - they are likely to become more dissatisfied with the quality and provision of services, and begin to think of public transport use as an unavoidable necessity of life. This marks a significant shift in perceptions towards public transport: some of the keenest users become some of the sharpest critics.
When young people reach the late teens (16 years and over) their mobility needs expand to encompass travel to work, training, further education, leisure and other services. Their needs become more complex, they are likely to travel further distances, and to travel at night as well as during the day. By their late teens, the range of travel modes increases to include driving, which is seen predominantly as the optimum form of travel.
The transition into adulthood brings about a transition in mobility needs. In addition to trips for leisure, these needs can be understood to derive largely from the responsibilities acquired in adulthood: the need to travel to employment, the need to escort children to childcare services and school, the need to shop for the household and undertake household business.
However, adults are hardly a homogenous group. Age, again, is a variable. For example, younger adults (aged in their 20s to 50s) are, with age, increasingly less likely to visit friends and more likely to use a car, while older adults (aged 50+) are more likely to visit friends and less likely to use a car. But more acute, perhaps, are the contrasting experiences associated with different key social characteristics cross-cutting adulthood.
Adults on low income are less likely to have access to private vehicles and more likely to be dependent on - and vulnerable to problems with - local public transport. The costs of public transport can be a particular difficulty for people on low income, though lack of available, adequate services are a greater obstacle.
Gender constitutes another critical dimension of the diversity of travel needs and experiences among adults. Men are more likely to travel for work purposes than women, while women are more likely to take social and personal business journeys (including escorting children to school). Women are less likely to have access to a car, and more likely to travel by bus, foot or taxi than are men, arguably reflecting
men's use of the car to travel to work. Women are more likely than men to be responsible for childcare. As such they face specific difficulties associated co-ordinating these responsibilities with work (for example, escorting children to school and travelling to work), and with travelling with children on public transport, including problems boarding and alighting, and experiencing unreliable services. Bus routes often do not meet women's needs to travel off-peak, and on non-radial routes. Additionally, women are more likely than men to have fears about personal security.
Issues of access and mobility are particularly distinct for disabled people. People with disabilities are less likely to drive and more likely to be dependant on public or community transport, or lifts from family and friends. Disabled people often find public transport inaccessible. They can also experience a lack of flexibility in their travel choices: often travelling involves planning ahead (for example, booking assistance for rail travel, or booking community transport 48 hours in advance), making it difficult to be spontaneous. Even then there may be uncertainty about whether services will be provided as expected. Where disabled people lack confidence that they can complete a journey safely - that all stages of the journey will be safe and accessible, including the street environment - they may be unwilling to 'risk' travelling. Disabled people who drive experience fewer problems, although the distance of parking spaces from services, and the misuse of disabled parking spaces can cause difficulties.
People's needs for and experience of transport change again in later life. Travel needs are likely to become focused on shopping, personal business (notably healthcare) or to visit friends. Older people become less likely to drive and more likely to use public transport. Maintaining independence and accessing essential services and social opportunities underpin older people's quality of life. A lack of transport can mean difficulty accessing essential services and facilities, such as pension services and medical services, and can lead to social isolation and loneliness.
Needs and experiences continue to change throughout later life. For example, declining physical mobility with age can mean giving up driving, can cause problems using public transport, and lead to more dependence on others for transport. Vulnerability to social exclusion among older people increases with age and impairment, and the proportion of people who have severe difficulties in accessing essential services (shops, post office and doctor) increases with age.
The second part of this two-part summary presents selected key findings from the substantive chapters. Please note that throughout this report that the symbol †, attached to a reference refers to a caveat or reservation about the study in question; details are provided in the main reference table, Chapter 8.
|
Children and young people: selected findings
|
|
Working-age adults: selected general findings
|
|
Adults on low income: selected findings
|
|
Adults from black and minority ethnic groups: selected findings
|
|
Adults from rural areas: selected findings
|
|
Gender: selected findings
|
|
Disabled adults: selected findings
|
|
Older people: selected findings
|
Chapter 2 reviews research on children, young people and mobility. It considers both literature specifically about children's and young people's mobility, as well as general transport research which refers to children and young people: subsequent chapters share the same treatment of group-specific and general literature. The review of research on working-age adults begins in Chapter 3 with a discussion of adults' mobility generally, followed by consideration of the distinct mobility issues encountered by people on low income, people from black and minority ethnic groups and people from rural areas. The review of research on working-age adults continues in Chapter 4, focusing on the gender dynamics of mobility, and Chapter 5 focuses on the transport needs and experiences of disabled people. Chapter 6 addresses older people's mobility. Each of these substantive chapters covers the following areas:
The concluding chapter discusses the findings and identifies 'knowledge gaps' in the literature in terms of both the particular service areas prioritised in accessibility planning (work, learning, healthcare, shopping, and social participation), and the five 'key barriers' to mobility as identified by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU, 2003).
The review vividly highlights how mobility needs and experiences change over the life-course, and this is most defined in the literature on children and young people. The literature suggests three phases of developing mobility needs and behaviour for primary school age children (relating to children aged from around five to ten years old), secondary school age children (around 11 to 16 years old), and young people over 16 years old and into their early twenties. Most of the research regarding school age children focuses on travel to and from school. Primary school age children are most likely to be escorted on journeys by parents or other adults. The main transport barrier children encounter is their parents' concern for their safety, which limits their opportunities to travel independently. Increasingly with age, older primary and secondary school children become independently mobile, using a wider range of travel modes and are more likely to travel further distances to get to secondary school.
Independent use of public transport - most commonly buses - is seen as positive, exciting and adventurous among younger children but, by their teens, they are more likely to think of public transport as an unavoidable necessity of life. This marks a significant shift in perceptions towards public transport: some of the keenest users become some of the sharpest critics.
It is not until young people reach their late teens (16 years and over) that the focus of the literature widens to encompass travel to work, training, further education, leisure and other services. Young people's mobility needs become more complex, they are likely to travel further distances, and to travel at night as well as during the day. By their late teens, the range of travel modes used by young people expands to include driving, which is seen predominantly as the optimum form of travel.
There seems to be relatively little empirical information on the travel needs of children and young people in the literature captured by this review. Department for Transport (2005b) reported that between the ages of five and 15, education was the single most frequent trip purpose, accounting for 35 to 40 per cent of trips in 2004. Results from the 2004 National Travel Survey showed that around a third of trips made by people under the age of 17 were for education, around 20 per cent were escort trips (i.e. accompanying someone else), around 20 per cent were trips to visit friends and around ten per cent were trips for sport or entertainment (DfT, 2005b). Martin et al., (2004†) found that most frequently reported non-school trips were for leisure (for example, music lessons, dance lessons, sports, cinema, parties) or, to a lesser extent, to visit families and friends or to go shopping.
The purposes of travel become more varied as children get older, and a survey by the Department for Transport (2004b†) found that although the most common trip purpose was school or college, young people also made trips for shopping and leisure activities.
Most of the research focuses on the mode choice for travel to school. Walking is the most common mode, followed by car use, although bus-travel increases at secondary school age, reflecting increased distances travelled to secondary as compared to primary schools. Car use is increasing, particularly for travel to primary school. This may be due both to an increase in the extent to which parents escort children on journeys, and increasing distances travelled to primary school.
While children of secondary school age were infrequent users of taxis and trains, use of taxis increased among 14 to 16 year olds, with 31 per cent of young women and 18 per cent of young men using a taxi at least once a month (DfT, 2004b†). Cycling also increases in this age group, particularly in the case of boys, although the number of trips made by bike remains relatively low (DfT, 2005a).
There is an increase in independent travel as children get older. Under the age of 16, mode choice is largely determined by parents' choices about transport, parents' resources (for example, access to a car) and their concerns about children's safety. Post-16, choices reflect extended travel needs. Over the age of 16, rail and taxi use increases, and car use also increases as some young people learn to drive (DfT, 2005a). Young people between the ages of 17 and 20 made more use of public transport than any other age group, including adults, and were more likely to walk for longer (20 minutes or more without stopping). Young men aged 17 to 20 years old are also the peak group for bicycle use, but even in this group, only four per cent of trips were by bicycle (DfT, 2005b). Although people in this age group have the option to learn to drive, the proportion of young people holding driving licences has declined in recent years, from 48 per cent in 1992-1994 to 26 per cent in 2004 (DfT, 2004a). Young people were most likely to point to the cost of learning to drive as a deterrent (DfT, 2005d†).
The majority of primary school children walk to school, although an increasing number are driven. Data from the National Travel Survey in 2004 showed that 50 per cent of primary school children walked to school, 41 per cent travelled by car, three per cent by bus and one per cent cycled (DfT, 2005b) (see also Rowland, 2003; Black et al., 2001; Gilhooly and Low, 2005). The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT, 2002†) found that, of adults who escorted children to primary school, around 49 per cent did so on foot, 41 per cent did so by car and only three per cent by public transport.
As for primary school children, the most frequent travel mode for travel to secondary school is walking (44 per cent). However, bus use increases in secondary school children, where travel by bus is the second most frequent method (29 per cent). While car-travel is still prominent (only five per cent of young people rarely or never travelled by car), 56 per cent of girls aged 12 to 16 years and 42 per cent of boys reported using the bus at least three days a week (DfT, 2004b†). Secondary school children are less likely to travel to school by car than are primary school children, with 22 per cent of secondary school children travelling by car (see also AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, 2000†). Three per cent of secondary children cycle to school (DfT, 2005b), despite the fact that ownership of bicycles is high (Jones et al., 2000; Davies, 2001).
The change from primary to secondary school is often related to a change in travel mode for individual children: over half of children who were driven to primary school walked to secondary school. Of those who walked to primary school, 35 per cent went to secondary school by bus and 29 per cent were driven (DfT, 2005c).
Demographic factors have been found to be associated with the likelihood of being driven to school. Age is an important factor, with primary school children becoming more likely to walk to school as they get older. Gilhooly and Low (2005) found that journeys to school by car were more common in younger children (aged five to ten years), than 10 to 12 year olds, who were more likely to walk (see also Willits et al., 2005). Distance to school has an impact on travel mode: the children living closest to their primary school were found to be more likely to walk, with car use increasing with distance (Gilhooly and Low, 2005; Black et al., 2001). In rural areas travel by car is more likely, probably due to higher distances to schools (Martin et al., 2004†).
Car-ownership is associated with being driven to school, with children of primary school age being more likely to be driven to school in households with more than one car (58 per cent driven to school) than in households with one car (36 per cent driven to school), and with only five per cent of children in households without a car being driven to school (DfT, 2005b; see also AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, 2000†). Willits et al., (2005) found that children were more likely to be driven to school if they came from households where at least one parent was working 16 or more hours a week, and this may reflect higher levels of car-ownership in working families.
The proportion of journeys to school made by car is increasing. Between 1992-1994 and 2002-2004, trips to primary school by car increased by 11 per cent and by foot reduced by 11 per cent (DfT, 2005b). In the four Midlothian primary schools studied by Gilhooly and Low (2005), driving to school almost doubled between 1985 and 2001. There was less change for secondary school children, with the percentage of children walking remaining at around 44 per cent. The percentage travelling by car rose by six per cent, and bus use declined by three per cent over the past decade (DfT, 2004a).
The average length of the primary school trip increased from 1.2 to 1.7 miles between 1992-1994 and 2002-2004 (DfT, 2005b), and the authors suggest that this increase in distance reflected the switch from walking to being taken by car, and the large increase in average trip length for trips to school by car between 2003 and 2004.
Distances travelled may have increased for a number of reasons, for example, household disposable income has increased, contributing to rising rates of car-ownership. The Department for Transport (2005b) found that children in households with two or more cars tended to travel further to school than children in one car households who, in turn, travelled further than children in no car households. To an extent this reflects locality: households in rural areas were more likely to have two or more cars, while inner city households were more likely to have no cars, however, as noted above, families may buy a second car in order to have more choice of schools. In addition, more families have moved out of towns, and commute in on a daily basis; and parents have a greater choice of schools, so children are less likely to attend their local school (Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions 2000).
Increase in escort trips may also partly explain increase in travel by car to primary school. Primary school children were less likely to travel to school alone in 2004 than in 1992/1994 (nine per cent compared with 14 per cent). Sixteen per cent of car trips between 8 and 9am in 2004 were for 'escort education' (mainly taking children to school) compared with nine per cent in 1992/1994. At the peak time (8.45 am) 23 per cent of car trips, by residents of urban areas in term time, were school runs in 2004 compared with 17 per cent in 1992/1994 (DfT, 2005b). Escort trips are discussed further in the chapter on gender.
Possibly associated with this, it has been found that children are more likely to be driven to school in the morning than driven home from school. Children driven to but not from are most likely to walk or use the bus to get home (Gilhooly and Low, 2005; AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, 2000†).
Travel to further education/employment
After secondary school, it is likely that young people have to travel further for education, and the difficulties in accessing further education caused by lack of transport have been described above. There was little evidence found on the modes of transport used by students to access further education, with the exception of research carried out in the South East. Students in London were found to mainly use public transport to travel to FE (University of Brighton with Sirius Seven Software, 2004†; MVA Ltd, 2003†).
MVA Ltd (2003†) found that transport was not a dissuasive factor in London students' decisions to continue into Further Education (FE), nor was it the main determinant in young people's choice of FE institution (MVA Ltd, 2003†), even though less than a quarter of young people in full-time education in London lived within one mile of their place of study (Willits et al., 2005). In fact, the University of Brighton with Sirius Seven Software (2004†) found that some younger students (between 16 and 18 years old) did not consider journey time when choosing study places. As a result, some had to travel long distances to the FE institute of their choice without having considered the implications, particularly in terms of costs (see also Steer Davies Gleave 2002). Young people in rural areas, in contrast, are more likely to take transport into account when deciding about post-16 education (Storey and Brannen, 2000).
There is also very little information about travel modes used specifically for work for this age group. McWhannell and Braunholtz (2002) found that public transport was the primary mode for travelling to college or work in urban areas, while in rural areas young people tended to use cars.
There was little research on children's leisure travel, particularly in the younger age groups. The AA Foundation for Road Safety Research (2000†) found that most non-educational journeys were made by car, particularly in rural areas (Martin et al., 2004†). Although most young people relied on parents to ferry them about on evenings and weekends, they often did not like this reliance on parents (Martin et al., 2004†).
Young people over the age of 16 had broader aspirations for leisure travel, being more likely to want to travel further, for example, into cities, for their evening entertainment. McWhannel and Braunholtz (2002) found that many even with cars would elect to use public transport or taxis so that they could drink: alcohol consumption was instrumental in their travel mode decision.
Children's mode of travel, particularly school travel, is strongly influenced by their parents' resources, lifestyles and choices. Less than half of the primary school age children in the Barker study (2003†) were involved in deciding their school travel mode, and Davis (2001) found that parents had an influence on the travel modes of primary school children, as well as children aged 13-14. The Derek Halden Consultancy (2003a†) found, based on parents' reports, that the average age at which children made their own decisions about travel to school was 15½ years.
Parents are less willing to allow younger children to travel independently and are more likely to accompany them to school, often by driving them. Over time children become increasingly more likely to travel independently of their parents, with more independent walking and bus-travel. Seventy-nine per cent of children ages 7-10 were accompanied to school, compared to 29 per cent of those aged 11-13 years (DfT, 2005b). Martin et al., (2004†) found that two-thirds of secondary school pupils travelled to school with other children or young people, and nearly one-fifth travelled alone. Boys and young men were more likely to travel to school alone than girls and young women (see also Jones et al., 2000), and older children more likely than younger children. Type of area also influenced whether a child travelled alone: children in urban areas were more likely to travel to school alone than those in rural areas (probably reflecting increased dependency on car use for rural families).
Parents are more likely to have fears about traffic danger and personal safety in the case of younger children, and this fear underpins decisions to escort younger children to school. Parents of younger children (aged 7-10) were more likely than those of older children (aged 11-13) to cite traffic danger (58 per cent as opposed to 30 per cent) and fear of assault/molestation (45 per cent as opposed to 26 per cent) as reasons for escorting children to school. The main reason given for escorting older children was that the school was too far away (32 per cent). Forty-two per cent of 7-10 year olds were not allowed by their parents to cross the road alone, compared to only four per cent of those aged 11-13 (DfT, 2005a).
Generally, parents are more willing to allow their children to use public transport independently as they get older. The Department for Transport (2004b†) found that seventy-four per cent of young people aged 12-14 travelled independently (i.e. without an adult), this increased to 93 per cent for 14-16 year olds (see also Martin et al., 2004†). There was a gender difference, in that young men were more likely to travel independently than young women (DfT, 2004b†); Davis (2001) found that teenage girls were more likely to be restricted in their travel choices by parent's concerns about their safety and vulnerability to 'stranger danger' (see also Martin et al., 2004†). Jones et al.'s study (2000) shows how teenage children managed the risks associated with travel in their local areas (for example, by travelling in groups), and tried to protect their independence by making sure their parents did not know everything about their travel or about risky situations.
Car-travel tends to be viewed positively across age groups, although younger children are more concerned about the negative environmental aspects of car-travel. Young people aspire to be drivers when they are older as they feel cars give independence and flexibility. Primary school children are positive about walking, travel by bus, and cycling, although many are not able to cycle as much as they would like due to parental concerns about their safety. Secondary school children begin to travel more independently, and value this independence; buses are viewed positively as they allow independent travel. Cycling is seen as 'uncool'. Young people over the age of 16 have broader travel needs, wanting to travel further to work, education, or leisure (for example, McWhannell and Braunholtz, 2002). Public transport is often seen as not meeting these needs, taxis are more often used, and private transport (owning their own car or moped) is the ideal for many young people.
Children are concerned about traffic dangers, which make it unsafe for them to walk or cycle (Barnardo's, 2004†). Despite this, primary and secondary school children tend to prefer to travel by car if given the choice (Martin et al., 2004†), and aspire to be drivers when they get older (Kingham and Donohoe, 2002). The desire to drive was very widespread, particularly for young adults, and cars were seen as a necessity in rural areas (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†; Martin et al., 2004†). Primary school children appreciated the convenience, speed, and comfort of cars (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†), and children in the EPPI (2001†) study perceived the benefits of travelling to school by car as spending time with parents, listening to music, and learning about how to drive.
However, primary school children also recognised the negative aspects of car-travel: pollution, congestion, parking problems and costs (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†); car-travel was associated with laziness and the danger of traffic accidents (EPPI 2001†). Kingham and Donohoe (2002) found that older primary school children - 11 year olds - were better at identifying environmentally friendlier modes of travel, with boys and girls equally environmentally aware. Lucas et al., (2001†) observed that, despite younger children's desire for cars, they were enthusiastic about ideas to reduce traffic congestion and to encourage use of public transport and other environmentally friendly travel modes. In particular they wanted more trams, cycle and bus lanes, car sharing, and cheaper buses. Air quality was an issue for these children as many had asthma.
Secondary school children preferred cars because they were perceived as far more comfortable, faster, and offering more freedom than other transport modes (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†; Martin et al., 2004†). Davis (2001) found a more measured enthusiasm among older secondary school children (aged 13 and 14): while looking forward to being drivers, they were concerned about pollution, joy-riding and abandoned cars, and resigned to increasing levels of motor traffic. However, children aged 13-14 were less critical of car pollution than younger pupils and more positive about the benefits of car-ownership (Davis, 2001). Children tended to become more 'car focussed' with increasing age: 38 per cent of 15 year olds wanted to travel to school by car compared to 21 per cent of 13 year olds (Martin et al., 2004†). Martin et al., (2004†) noted an observation by some children that their generation were used to everything being instant: cars were the only mode of travel which could provide an instant gratification of travel needs, while everything else took too long.
Young adults, particularly those in rural areas, tended to see cars as the only mode of transport that matched their changing travel needs, and as essential in accessing higher education, employment and leisure opportunities (Cartmel and Furlong, 2000). Driving was regarded as expensive, however some thought they had no choice but to drive, especially if they lived in rural areas (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). Alsop et al., (2002) reported that older teenagers often felt guilty about demands they had to make on economically hard-pressed parents for lifts. Mackett (2001) found that parents supported their children in becoming car users as this relieved concerns about children's safety and meant they were not inconvenienced by having to escort and collect their teenage children.
Primary school children were positive about walking; Davis (2001) found walking to be the preferred choice for travelling around their local area for 9-14 year olds. Cycling came a close second for boys, while girls preferred cars and buses to cycling. Girls aged between 13 and 14 were the group who were most likely to prefer walking. Kingham and Donohoe (2002) found lower levels of preference for walking compared to cycling and car-travel (though this may represent urban-rural distinctions).
Walking was the second most preferred means of travel to school for secondary school children, after travel by school bus (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†; cf Martin et al., 2004†). Martin et al., (2004†) observed that 12 to 13 year olds were more likely to want to walk (27 per cent ) and use the bus (19 per cent ) to travel to school than older children; only 18 per cent of 14 to 15 year olds preferred to walk and ten per cent to use the bus.
Young people recognised walking as a healthy activity, and as a good form of exercise (Martin et al., 2004†; Lucas et al., 2001†). The Derek Halden Consultancy (2003a†) reported a generally favourable attitude to walking, with a good understanding of the health and environmental benefits. Girls in particular appreciated the opportunities to mix with friends provided by walking. Walking was also thought to raise children's awareness of their environment (EPPI, 2001†; Tolley et al., 2003†).
Negative perceptions about walking related to walking being seen as too slow, fear of traffic, stranger danger, fear of bullying, the weather, and embarrassment of walking with parents (Martin et al., 2004†; EPPI, 2001†). With regard to walking to school, Granville et al., (2002) found that children were not as worried about 'stranger danger' as were their parents. Children were more concerned about the dangers posed by traffic and could refer to incidents when as pedestrians they were nearly involved in accidents.
Farmer (2005) reported that nearly all children (aged eight to 15 years) felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods and about three-quarters went to the local shops or the park on their own. Children felt safer as they got older. Boys were more likely to say they felt safe than girls, and were more likely to walk to the shops or the park on their own. Asian children were least likely to visit local amenities on their own (67 per cent), compared with white children (77 per cent ) and black children (88 per cent). Although children were less likely to feel safe walking alone in the neighbourhoods with higher levels of deprivation, children in those neighbourhoods were nevertheless more likely to visit local amenities alone (78 per cent compared to 71 per cent in the least deprived areas). Young people in rural areas were more likely to feel safe walking around their areas compared to urban areas. Of those who felt unsafe, fears included abduction by strangers, bullying from other children or teenagers, and danger from traffic and dogs. Girls, in particular, were concerned about the risk of abduction (Farmer, 2005).
Although few children cycled to school, primary school children had positive attitudes to cycling (Kingham and Donohoe, 2002, Davis 2001). Boys had particularly positive attitudes to cycling around their local area, with 41 per cent of 9 to 11 year old boys and 30 per cent of girls aged 9 to11 saying they would like to cycle (Davis, 2001). Barnardo's (2004†) observed that children were angry that the dangers associated with heavy traffic prevented them from cycling more and that the provision of safe cycle routes was not prioritised (cf Lucas et al., 2001†).
Secondary school children tended to have less positive attitudes, although Derek Halden Consultancy (2003a†) found that a small percentage of secondary school children, particularly boys, wanted to cycle to school. In the case of secondary school children, cycling is increasingly seen as 'uncool' (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†). McWhannel and Braunholtz (2002) observed that 12 to 14 years old tended to cycle only for recreation, not for transport. Girls in this age group had more negative perceptions of cycling than boys, primarily due to peer pressure and embarrassment (Davis 2001; see also McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). Girls were unwilling to cycle because they did not see many people cycling locally, and in particular perceived that few girls of their age cycled - cycling was 'usually men on bikes' (Davis 2001; see also McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). Some young people in their older teens and early twenties who lived in urban areas said they would use bicycles more to get to work or college if they saw other people using them. A few said they would consider it if there were shower facilities at work (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). Derek Halden Consultancy (2003a†) observed that cycling was seen as slower and less convenient than other travel modes.
Primary school children had positive attitudes to buses. Secondary school children valued the opportunity for independent travel offered by buses, but were critical of actual bus provision. Young adults had broader travel needs and aspirations, and were less likely to feel that public transport met their needs.
Primary school children are generally enthusiastic about buses and public transport. Children in the Derek Halden Consultancy (2003a†) study described buses as fun and 'cool', albeit sometimes dirty and scruffy. Lucas et al., (2001†) found that younger children approved of buses because they were environmentally friendly, but also complained that they were often delayed, slow, unreliable, dirty and vandalised. There were also common concerns about safety and security on buses - specifically, regarding the potential threat of other passengers - and some felt that cars were safer, at least for passengers if not pedestrians.
Attitudes to buses were mixed in secondary school children (Martin et al., 2004†). Secondary school pupils were positive about the independence bus-travel provided.
Younger teenagers saw public transport as a social experience, where they could chat to their friends, have fun travelling and experience a degree of independence. McWhannel and Braunholtz (2002). Buses were perceived by secondary school children as easy to use (Martin et al., 2004†), and as reliable and cheap (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†). However, secondary school children tended to be critical of actual bus provision. Buses were seen as slow, uncomfortable, smelly, littered, overcrowded, and as having cramped seating (Martin et al., 2004†). Running times did not always suit the young people's needs (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†), buses did not always stop at convenient locations and bus drivers were sometimes perceived as unfriendly and unhelpful (Martin et al., 2004†).
School buses tended to be viewed more positively by children than public buses, as children had guaranteed seats, and were less likely to have problems getting to school on time (McWhannell and Braunholtz, 2002). Derek Halden Consultancy (2003a†) found that positive views of school buses included the fact that they were free, they were perceived as being more fun, children could travel with their friends, and children felt bored with cars. However, some children felt negative about the noise, vehicle quality and driver attitude on school buses, and school buses tended to be more uncomfortable than public buses.
McWhannel and Braunholtz (2002) observed that managers of bus services and local authorities were aware that older buses tended to be used for school transport because this was a non-profit making venture. School children were not a target group for bus services because they pay half-fare, yet, when travelling at peak times, take up valuable full-fare space. Services operators in this study perceived that secondary school children could be disruptive and vandalise property, and assumed that - rather then becoming long-term users of bus services - they would stop using buses as soon as they were able to drive. This could be seen as leading to a poor experience of public transport for secondary school children, which may have an impact on their attitudes towards public transport and their future transport choices.
Older teenagers and those in their early twenties tended to see public transport as simply a way of getting from A to B, with the journey being a practical necessity. Post-16, young people's travel horizons broadened, meaning they tended to travel further (for example, going further afield for employment or for nights out at the weekend). The options provided by bus-travel were seen as limited and young people often preferred faster, more convenient routes (such as taxis), irrespective of costs. Once young people were able to drive, public transport was valued less and its only attraction was seen to be cost (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002; Storey and Brannen, 2000).
Young adults perceived buses as slow and unreliable (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). The University of Brighton with Sirius Seven Software (2004†) found that half of the students in the study were dissatisfied with crowding on public transport, and the regularity and reliability of public transport was also seen as inadequate.
Trains were not widely used by children, although train use increased with age particularly post-16. Trains were generally favoured over buses by teenagers and young adults because they were seen as quicker, as saving overall journey time and as more reliable, although young people were unhappy about overcrowding on trains at peak times and felt that stations were unsafe at night (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002).
As discussed above, children's travel mode is strongly influenced by their parents' views and choices, and this is particularly the case with travel to school. Young children are unlikely to travel independently and have little influence over their mode of transport (for example, Barker 2003†). With increasing age children are more likely to travel independently of their parents. In recognition of the importance of parents' attitudes in determining mode choice for travel to school, and in particular for understanding why children are driven to school, there has been a significant amount of research into parents' attitudes and choices about how their children travel to school.
Derek Halden Consultancy (2003a†) found that parents of secondary school children thought punctuality was the most important concern when deciding how to send their child to school. The second most important concern was safety - specifically risks of 'stranger danger' - although parents seemed unsure how much of a problem this represented. There was a gender difference in parents' concerns: parents of girls rated 'stranger danger' and safety more highly than boys' parents. The Department for Transport (2002) presented similar findings and further noted that parents decisions about travel mode also included their concerns about the distance children had to travel to school.
Key factors in parents' decisions to drive their children to school were the need for 'trip chaining' (i.e. dropping children off at school before going on to work or elsewhere), speed and convenience, and beliefs that travel by car provided greater safety and security for children.
The National Travel Survey (DfT, 2005b) does not include specific questions about why parents choose to drive their children to school, but does show that 17 per cent of trips (by all modes) escorting children to school in the morning were followed by a trip to work or business. Mackett (2001) found in his study involving ten Hertfordshire schools, that only 28 per cent of trips by car were made exclusively to take children to school, 47 per cent of parents travelling by car dropped children to school on the way to work, 15 per cent reported dropping children to school on the way to taking other children on to another school or nursery, and seven per cent reported dropping children to school on the way to 'other' destinations (see also Black et al., 2001; AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, 2000†). Granville et al., (2002) found that parents cited cost as a benefit, in that they were dropping children at school on the way to other destinations rather than paying for a separate journey, and that some parents appreciated the drive to school as an opportunity to spend quality time with their children. This suggests that trip chaining is likely to be an important factor in parents' decisions to drive their children to school. As described above, parents of primary school children tend to want to escort their children to school, and driving children to school may be the most convenient option if the parent has other commitments such as going on to work or dropping a second child off at nursery. Black et al., (2001) found that parents who were full-time home-carers, or for whom parking near schools was difficult, were less likely to drive their children.
Security and safety was a key reason for driving children to school; driving children to school allayed parents' fears about traffic dangers and road safety, 'stranger danger', bullying, truancy and children mixing in 'undesirable' company, and allowed parents to protect children from bad weather (Gilhooly and Low 2005; Granville et al., 2002).
Speed was the most commonly cited reason given by parents of primary and secondary school children in the survey by the AA Foundation for Road Safety Research (2000†) for driving their children to school. Parents in Gilhooly and Low's study (2005) felt driving was quicker or more convenient and that children preferred being driven to school. Twenty per cent of respondents to the survey carried out by the AA Foundation for Road Safety Research (2000†) said that there was no other transport available to them (20 per cent). Distance to school was also cited as a reason for driving children to school (Gilhooly and Low, 2005).
Parents had mixed attitudes to children walking to school. Gilhooly and Low (2005) found that children who walked to school did so in many cases because parents did not have cars or because traffic congestion made driving impractical. Parents felt that there were benefits associated with walking: it was convenient for parents who did not need to escort their child, it encouraged children to be independent, it encouraged children to mix with friends, and it was healthy (although parents of boys rated the health benefits of walking as more important than parents of girls; DfT, 2002). Parents who escorted their children mentioned that walking provided them with a period of quality time together. Drawbacks to walking to school included the distance involved or the amount of school 'kit' that had to be carried. Parents also mentioned concerns about the danger of damage to school equipment, especially if carried by primary children. Granville et al., (2002) found that parents' safety concerns about allowing children to walk to school in some areas included a lack of street lighting on dark winter mornings, and narrow or congested pavements. The weather was also a problem because schools often did not have anywhere to store wet clothing. Some felt that the relative health benefits of walking were negligible because the children exercised in other, more beneficial, ways through programmed activity during and after school.
Gilhooly and Low (2005) found that parents felt that cycling was an inappropriate travel mode for primary school children because of traffic and 'stranger danger'. Similarly, Granville et al., (2002) found that many parents of primary and secondary school pupils did not consider it viable for their children to cycle to school despite recognising the benefits in terms of time, costs and developing children's independence and road sense. Cycling was often seen as untenable because of busy, congested roads, poorly maintained road surfaces, the lack of cycle lanes and, in the winter, bad weather and inadequate street lighting. These concerns were heightened by the belief that other road users do not show adequate consideration toward cyclists. Parents of the younger children had some concerns about personal safety, while parents felt that it would be difficult for older children to carry all of their school 'kit' on bicycles.
The Department for Transport (2002) reported that parents of primary school children were unlikely to allow their children to use a local bus because of cost implications if they accompanied them and security concerns if they did not (cf Granville et al., 2002). School buses were viewed more positively, especially if there was a regular driver or escort on board. Parents suggested they would be willing to allow their child to use a school bus if they were at least nine years old (compared to 12 years for a local bus).
Parents of primary and secondary school children identified several benefits of travelling to school by bus: it gave children more social contact with their friends, fostered independence, had cost benefits (and was often free), was better for the environment, and children were delivered directly to school. Parents felt buses were convenient (for parents) and relatively safe. Drivers were trusted, and thought to be less likely to 'leave a child behind' (Granville et al., 2002; Gilhooly and Low, 2005).
However, parents also felt that there was a limited availability of school buses (not all schools had a school bus service) or that collection points were too far away from children's homes. Parents were also concerned about school buses' reliability. Parents of primary school children did not want their children waiting unsupervised at bus stops. Other concerns included the length of journey times, the unruly conduct of other children on the bus and safety on buses which did not have seatbelts (Granville et al., 2002).
There is very little information about barriers to travel for primary school age children, with barriers mainly relating to parental concerns about safety. Evidence mainly concerns barriers to walking and cycling to school, as opposed to travelling by car. Older children have more freedom in their travel and are more likely to travel independently, but are restricted by parental, and own, concerns about safety, and by the cost and availability of public transport. Lack of access to private transport is a barrier to travel for children and young people in all age groups.
There is evidence that more children (particularly at primary school age) wanted to walk and cycle to school than were allowed to. Parents restricted primary school children's use of bicycles and unaccompanied walking on safety grounds, particularly concerns about traffic and 'stranger danger' (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002; Davis 2001; Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†). Children are offered cycle training at primary school with the aim of improving cycling proficiency and promoting safe cycling. However, Colwell and Culverwell (2002) examine the relationship between cycle training, attitudes to cycling and accident rates. The authors suggest cycle training may not be effective in promoting safe cycling, and that new training approaches are needed that focus on encouraging safe behaviour.
Congestion around the school was a barrier for parents allowing their children to walk or cycle to school (Granville et al., 2002). This led to a cyclical problem in which parents refused to allow their children to walk to and from school because of the dangers associated with local traffic congestion, but by driving to collect their children from school thereby caused traffic congestion (Gilhooly and Low, 2005).
Although children increasingly travelled independently once they reached secondary school age, parents, and the children themselves, expressed some concerns about the safety of independent walking, cycling and bus use. Parents tended to restrict and control the extent to which children were allowed to travel independently. This was particularly the case for girls (Martin et al., 2004†, Davis 2001). In inner city areas children perceived there was danger in travelling alone because of traffic and 'stranger danger'. As a result of 'stranger danger', they tended to walk in groups (Jones et al., 2000).
In its study of young people's experiences of public transport, the Department for Transport (2004b †) found that young people (aged 12-16) were less likely than adults to feel secure on public transport, and felt particularly vulnerable after dark. Thirty per cent had concerns for their personal security when using public transport. The majority of young people felt unsafe on buses and underground trains, and at bus stops and stations. Young people are more likely than older people to be victims of anti-social behaviour or crime on public transport. Twenty-three per cent of young people from black and minority ethnic groups experienced harassment due to their colour, race or religion, on public transport.
Young women in particular were nervous about waiting at a bus stop late at night, although young men also mentioned this. Young women also felt concerned about their safety travelling on buses alone, especially at night (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). School policies
School policies and codes could limit the extent to which children were able to walk or cycle to school. School 'no cycling' policies, or the absence of secure bicycle storage facilities could prevent the use of bicycles. (Derek Halden Consultancy, 2003a†; McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002; Davis, 2001; AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, 2000†). The AA Foundation for Road Safety Research (2000†) found that some school uniform codes (for example, requiring girls to wear skirts) could affect the secondary school pupils' willingness to cycle to school.
Granville et al., (2002) noted that sometimes parents would have considered allowing their children to walk home unescorted, but this was negated where school policy meant that pupils could only be released if collected by an appropriate adult.
Dibben (2003) found that teenagers and young adults were frustrated by the lack of public transport in the evenings in rural areas. Similarly, McWhannel and Braunholtz (2002) discovered that few young people used late night services, often because the last bus or train was too early in the evening. The infrequency of late night services meant that young people could be stranded if they missed a bus.
MVA Ltd (2003†) found that key transport problems for students in London included traffic congestion and unreliability and infrequency of - and over-crowding on - public transport services. Pavis et al., (2000) and Cartmel and Furlong (2000) documented that in rural Scotland poor transport infrastructure could cause problems accessing higher education and was a major barrier to getting work. In particular, public transport to employment was often not available when employees needed it. Steer Davies Gleave (2002) found that transport provision for students in further education with special needs was inflexible and did not reflect their school or college attendance pattern.
McWhannel and Braunholtz (2002) identified that speed and reliability were the main reasons for choosing one form of transport over another to get to work or college. Some young people, especially those in rural areas, complained that local public transport either did not run from their area or would not get them to work or college at the right time. The length of journey by public transport was also a problem, but most young people said they would use public transport if it was guaranteed to get them to work or college on time.
At secondary school age, pupils' parents generally paid bus fares for school travel. However, reflecting their increasing independence, young people usually paid bus fares for leisure travel themselves. Parents generally paid for trains or taxis (Martin et al., 2004†; McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). Young people over the age of 16 generally paid for all public transport fares themselves, including travel for educational purposes (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002).
Young teenagers, particularly those in urban areas, were very cost conscious about public transport and concerned about the cost when their journeys involved several stages (McWhannel and Braunholtz, 2002). Cartmel and Furlong (2000) identified that the cost of fares for public transport restricted young people's opportunities.
Young adults found travelling by public transport expensive, particularly once they were over the age of 16, and Young Persons Railcards were often judged unaffordable, especially as they did not cover buses in addition to trains (Lucas et al., 2001). Cost was also the most common barrier to learning to drive, particularly for young women (DfT, 2005d†).
Children's travel is influenced by parental resources and concerns, as well as locality issues (for example, distance to schools). Children in low income rural areas are at a particular disadvantage.
Children in low income families are less likely to have access to a car as a mode of travel. The Department for Transport's (2005b) National Travel Survey reported that 54 per cent of households in the lowest income quintile had no car compared with eight per cent in the highest. Over half of the households in the highest quintile had two or more cars. Similar findings were reiterated by Dibben (2003) and Barker (2003†). Lone parent families are less likely than couple families to be able to afford a car (Dibben, 2003; Barnes et al., 2005).
Lack of access to a car is a particular problem in rural areas where public transport services are sparse. Lack of access to a car can mean limited choice of schools (and for people over 16, limited access to further education), limited leisure opportunities, and restricted employment opportunities.
There is evidence that a lack of transport can act as a barrier to accessing employment for young people, although much of this work focuses on young people living in rural areas. Pavis et al., (2000) found that most young people living in rural areas, without tertiary qualifications reported that inadequate transport was a major barrier to employment, and Titheridge (2004) found that young women in rural areas, with low levels of educational attainment and who relied solely on buses for transport, had extremely disadvantaged job opportunities. Cartmel and Furlong (2000) also identified that transport problems were a significant barrier to employment for young people, with some employers stipulating that owning private transport was a requirement for a job. As a result, some young people described having to abandon career aspirations, even after starting formal training. Others, who were skilled, were forced into unskilled work, and some young people were unable to take up training opportunities.
Public transport in rural areas often did not meet young people's needs to travel to employment; young people often faced a lack of appropriate services, lengthy journeys or high costs if they were to travel to work. Young people who were unable to drive found that they were restricted by inflexible bus services, coupled with inflexible working hours which did not allow them to fit their work around bus times. Some young people had to rely on family and friends for lifts (Cartmel and Furlong, 2000). However, the cost of learning to drive and of owning a car was prohibitive when unemployed. Young people were often unable to afford a car without getting a job - making for a vicious circle of disadvantage (Storey and Brannen, 2000).
Other problems relating to employment in rural areas were that young people often needed to travel long distances to sign-on for benefits, which could be expensive (Pavis et al., 2000), and access to job-search facilities could be problematic (Titheridge, 2004).
Lack of transport can mean that some children are disadvantaged in their choice of schools. Current home-to-school travel entitlement rules mean that children are only entitled to free transport if they attend their nearest suitable school and live three miles or more away from it, or two miles away if aged under nine. The Social Exclusion Unit (2003) report suggests that children from low income families who are unable to afford travel costs may have a limited choice of schools, and may not be able to access schools offering alternative curricula or particular faith schools. Families on higher income may have more choice of schools as they are able to travel further; the Department for Transport (2005b) suggests that having a second car gives families a greater choice of schools for their children, and that some families may buy a second car so their children can attend a particular school that is not easily accessible in other ways.
Titheridge (2004) found that young people who lived in rural areas, and did not have access to a car, had very poor access to educational facilities. In more rural areas there was a greater distance to travel to educational facilities, coupled with lower levels of access to public transport; many young people in the study did not have access to a bus service to connect them with educational opportunities, even within an hour's walk of their home. Forty per cent of 15 to 16 year olds in rural areas said that transport arrangements had influenced their decisions about post-16 education (Storey and Brannen, 2000).
A survey by MVA Ltd (2003†) of students in further education in London found that transport impacted on attendance. Half of the students (51 per cent ) reported being often late for, or absent from classes, and nearly one-quarter (22 per cent ) were 'almost always' late or absent, due to transport problems. Those who used buses and trains (but not the tube) were particularly likely to report being late or absent. Service unreliability, congestion, service frequency, and service crowding were the most frequently-cited problems. Those attending institutions with the lowest average travelling distance, and where students reported the lowest levels of interchange on their journeys, were least likely to report problems, suggesting that lower journey distance and complexity may reduce the impact of transport on attendance.
Pavis et al., (2000) reported that in rural Scotland much of the accommodation available to young people (aged 18 to 25 years) was in rural areas where the nearest supermarkets could be a 20 to 30 mile round trip away. Similarly, Cartmel and Furlong (2000) observed that certain goods were not available in rural areas, or were very expensive unless people had transport to the nearest town. This meant that young people (aged 18-24 years) who were setting up independent households were generally dependent on their families for shopping trips.
Children and young people in low income rural households were less able to access leisure activities in nearby towns, or join after-school clubs, because they were less likely to have access to cars, and bus services were limited and infrequent (Dibben, 2003; Alsop et al., 2002; DfT, 2002; Cambridgeshire Rural Transport Partnership, 2005). Martin et al., (2004†), found that particular problems in rural areas included not being allowed by parents to walk unattended because of traffic risks on busy roads, parents being too busy to ferry children, and inadequate bus services (cf Farmer, 2005).
Low income, coupled with the lack of public transport in rural areas is the key problem - when family income is taken into account, young people from rural areas were slightly more likely to have participated in clubs or groups at school and out of school than those in urban areas (Farmer, 2005). Children who usually travelled by car were more likely to participate in clubs than those who did not. This difference was greatest for clubs outside of school: 71 per cent of children who usually travelled by car said they used such clubs compared to 39 per cent who did not usually travel by car. Dibben (2003) found that young people (17 to 25 years) from higher income families were particularly more likely to take part in leisure activities such as sports clubs than those from low income households. Storey and Brannen (2000) noted that around half of the young people in the study living in rural areas felt that owning a car was essential for access to leisure.
McWhannell and Braunholtz (2002) observed that children and young people found that the availability and cost of public transport services influenced when and how they participated in leisure activities, for example, restricted services on Sundays limited young people's opportunities to go into town or visit friends. Young people aged 16-24 were found to be more likely to cite lack of transport as a reason for not attending music and dance events than were people aged 25-74, with 25 per cent of young people citing transport as a barrier compared to less than ten per cent of people in other age groups under 75 (Fenn et al., 2004).
Most initiatives relating to children and young people focus on reducing car use for the journey to school. However there is also evidence of initiatives to reduce the social exclusion of young people through improving the availability of transport.
School travel plans have been advocated as a way for schools to assess travel to school, to identify safety concerns and to promote walking to school[1]. However, there is little evidence that this approach is successful in changing travel to school. A Department for Transport study (2000) found that the success of travel plans depended as much, if not more, on parental attitudes towards children travelling by means other than by car as they did on practical barriers. A later evaluation by the Department for Transport (2005e†) of the impact of school travel plans found that evidence was too inconclusive to determine whether they reduced travel by car in favour of increased walking, cycling and use of public transport.
Rowland et al., (2003) compared 11 schools which had received advice from school travel co-ordinators about developing and implementing school travel plans, with ten schools without travel co-ordinators. The study found that provision of school travel co-ordinators increased the production of school travel plans, but did not appear to change children's school travel patterns nor allay parents safety concerns. More broadly, it was reported that half of the schools approached to take part in the initiative refused to do so on the grounds that they were too busy or did not want to take on the extra responsibility of school travel. Rowland et al., also recognised that the solution to problems identified in many of the schools would involve urban planning measures beyond the control of the individual school.
Several initiatives have attempted to increase bus use for journeys to school. WS Atkins (2000†) describe best practice in increasing bus journeys to school, presenting case studies such as the provision of dedicated coach and bus services. There is some evidence that these initiatives have reduced car use, although the initiatives have not been systematically evaluated. Other case studies included reduced fares, and staggering of school start and finish times (which is common policy in Northern Ireland). Staggered school times were found to be efficient in transport terms, because one bus could serve more than one school. However, teachers, pupils and parents experienced difficulties with the scheme, including difficulties for working parents in co-ordinating work and childcare, and the inconvenience of very early start times and late finish times. The authors also point to the importance of the quality of the service, with the need for well-maintained vehicles, drivers with positive attitudes of drivers and discipline among the children.
Steer Davies Gleave (2003) evaluated the success of American 'Yellow Bus' schemes that have been piloted in seven schools, which aimed to improve the quality and image of travel by school bus. They found that although the initial reactions of students, schools and parents were broadly positive, particularly in relation to safety aspects, there were varied views about the affordability of the scheme and the need to pay in advance, and some negative perceptions of the vehicle size and lack of space inside the bus. Administrative costs for schools and local authorities were a concern. At two of the three schools that piloted the scheme, there was an initial shift from car to Yellow Bus use. However this was not sustained, and much of the new take-up of the Yellow Bus service represented a shift from walking or local bus use rather than from car. It was noted that careful routing may be needed to promote more effective modal shift from car to bus. Overall, the success of the schemes varied depending on local context.