Jean Taylor, Matt Barnard, Clarissa White and Jane Lewis
Prepared for Department for Transport
Final report: July 2007
P6156
This report presents the findings of a qualitative study exploring the travel needs, behaviour and aspirations of young people as they make the transition into adulthood. The study was commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) and is the second of three qualitative studies following up participants from the National Travel Survey with a view to providing a better understanding of the transport needs of particular groups within the population [1]. The study is intended to inform policies which reflect the Department’s commitment to ensure ‘transport that works for everyone’, as set out in the Future of Transport 2004 White Paper (DfT, 2004).
The transition into adulthood is generally associated with a number of key changes and events. Young people may leave school and enter work or higher education, leave the parental home to move into their own independent households, become involved in sexual relationships, and become parents themselves. These changes are accompanied by developments in young people’s social status. For example, they become adult consumers of goods and services, an important contemporary sign of adult status (Morrow and Richards, 1996).
However transitions to adulthood and independence may not necessarily occur at the same points as previously. As Jones (2002) notes, the period of dependent youth has been extended for many young people, because they remain in education and training for longer and delay entry into full time employment. Conversely, for other young people independence is accelerated, for example where they leave school early or become a parent at a relatively early age.
Nor will the various transitions associated with adulthood necessarily occur in parallel with each other or in a linear fashion. As Morrow and Richards (ibid) suggest ‘the boundaries between childhood and different aspects of adulthood are increasingly blurred’, due to a range of legal, political, financial and social factors. So young people may move into work, but still find it difficult to leave the parental home because of the cost of housing, for example. Individual young people will not all experience transitions in the same way. Young people’s experiences will vary not only in relation to the choices and opportunities available to them, but also because of any specific needs that they may have.
Despite the considerable variation in how young people currently make transitions, and the reduced prominence of traditional milestones, the term ‘adulthood’ still means something to young people. However, the focus has shifted from age markers or events to aspects of competence (Jones, 2005). Thompson et al (2004) describe two ways in which young people conceptualise adulthood: ‘individualised’ understanding which is associated with the development of competencies, increased choice and autonomy; and ‘relational’ understanding which is associated with caring and domestic responsibilities, and social relationships.
Transitions into adulthood are accompanied by some obvious changes in travel and transport use. Learning to drive, in particular, is widely perceived as being a key rite of passage for (and by) young people, and appears to have a significant impact on how they travel. However, relatively little is known about the broader impact that transitions into adulthood have on travel.
In ‘Making the Connections’ (SEU, 2003) the Social Exclusion Unit emphasised the important role of transport in helping people of all ages to access jobs, education, health services, leisure activities and good quality food shopping.
There are a wide range of factors which can deter people from using transport to access these facilities, thus reinforcing or creating social exclusion. Research has identified a number of personal, financial and structural barriers which appear to constrain young people’s travel in particular (McWhannel and Braunoltz, 2002; Stafford et al, 2004; Storey and Brannen, 2000; MVA 2003; Legard and Snape, 2002; Jones et al, 2000; SEU, 2003). The main barriers identified through this research were:
The significant role that transport can play in influencing young people’s choices and decisions is evident in a range of other studies. Availability of transport can be an influential factor in young people’s choice of education or training institution, the employment and leisure activities available to them and their access to key services including housing (Legard and Snape, 2000; Cartmel and Furlong, 2000; McWhannell and Braunholtz 2002; Storey & Brannen, 2000; Dibben, 2003). The choices and opportunities available to young people in rural areas are particularly constrained, with access to a car playing a critical role in opening up choices in relation to education, training, leisure and employment (Storey and Brannen, 2000; Titheridge, 2004).
There is also some evidence to suggest availability of transport can also play a role in influencing young people’s transition to independence. Storey and Brannen (2000), found for example that the housing stock available to young people in rural areas was often remotely situated or badly connected, making it difficult for them to leave the parental home. Young people in rural areas who leave home sometimes continue to be reliant on a parent for transport to key services (Cartmel and Furlong, 2000).
Finally, in terms of future travel and transport, car ownership features very prominently in young people’s future aspirations (DETR, 1999). However there has been relatively little other exploration of young people’s future travel and transport aspirations.
The role of transport in shaping young people’s choices and opportunities at key transition points is therefore diverse and depends on a range of factors including the type of area where they live and their specific needs. The impact of transport on young people’s lives - particularly in rural areas - is well documented. However, a broader map of the role of transport in young people’s lives is lacking. For transport policy to meet the needs of these users now and in the future, further research is required to map the full range of factors which influence young people’s decision making about travel, the role of transport in their transitions and their aspirations for future travel.
The overall objective of this study was therefore to examine travel in the lives of 16-25 year olds, their use of public and private transport, and the role transport plays in their lives during this period.
The key objectives were to explore:
A distinction is drawn throughout the report between travel (the journeys that young people make) and transport (the modes by which they travel and the options available to them).
The study was conducted using two qualitative approaches: focus groups and in- depth interviews. A combination of methods was used because it was felt that each would add different things to the data collection. The context provided by focus groups allows participants to present their own views and experiences, but allows them to hear, and reflect on, other people’s experiences. Individual responses become more refined in the course of discussion, and new ideas are generated. It was anticipated that the groups would be particularly helpful in exploring young people’s views and experiences of using transport, and also generating solutions for meeting the transport needs of this age group. In individual depth interviews, the exploratory and responsive nature of qualitative research allows the individual circumstances and experiences of participants to be explored in depth. This allowed exploration of individual transport behaviours and different roles of transport in individual transitions.
The purpose of qualitative research is to map the range of phenomena and processes (for example, attitudes, circumstances, decision-making processes etc.) found amongst the sample of participants and to provide an understanding of how different factors influence attitudes, choices and behaviours. Given rigorous purposive sampling, the mapping of phenomena and processes and the identification of factors underpinning choices and behaviours can be generalised to the wider population of young people. The study cannot provide findings concerning numerical prevalence. Qualitative research instead provides rich descriptive data about behaviours, views or outcomes, shows the circumstances under which they arise, and highlights the factors that influence them.
A total of twelve focus groups with young people aged 16 to 25 were undertaken as the first stage of this research. There were approximately 8 people per group. These groups were followed by 36 in-depth interviews with young people aged between 16 and 25.
In both elements, purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity of coverage across certain key variables. Rigorous purposive sampling is important in order to capture and explore the full range of phenomena and processes and to explore the factors underpinning attitudes, choices, behaviours and so on.
Focus group sampling and recruitment
The focus groups were undertaken in three types of geographical areas: inner city areas, urban areas, and rural areas [3]. The participants for these groups were approached at their homes by an external recruitment and fieldwork agency on behalf of NatCen. All participants were given a confirmation letter and a leaflet which explained the research and offered them a contact number should they want further information before attending the group.
Four groups were undertaken in each type of geographical area. Each group was composed of young people of the same broad age group and social grade. These are outlined in Table 1.1, below.
Table 1.1 Focus group composition per area
|
|
Age range | Parental/ individual social grade | Gender |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | 16-18 | ABC1 | Male and female |
| Group 2 | 16-18 | C2DE | Male and female |
| Group 3 | 19-25 | ABC1 | Male and female |
| Group 4 | 19-25 | C2DE | Male and female |
In agreement with the Department, quotas were set to prescribe the distribution of certain primary criteria across the sample:
Social grade: Given that many of the young people included in this sample were unlikely to be in paid employment, it would not have been appropriate to sample for income. It would be difficult to sample for parental income as the young people might not know parents’ or guardians’ incomes and it would not necessarily be appropriate to ask them this question. Instead young people were asked about their own occupation (if relevant) and the occupations of their parents or guardians. This was used to assign them to a social grade using the MRS Occupational Groupings [4], based on whichever was higher: their own or their parental social grade.
Living circumstances: Quotas were set for three types of living circumstances to ensure that inclusion of young people at different life stages: living in the parental home or with other family members; living alone or with friends; and living with partner and/or dependent children.
Economic activity: Quotas were set to ensure the sample included young people in a range of daytime activities including work, education or training, unemployment or other activities (including caring responsibilities).
Transport expenditure: Quotas were set across five levels of weekly transport expenditure (under £10; £10-20; £20-30; £30-40 and £40+) [5].
Regularity of public transport use: Quotas were set in relation to three different levels of transport use: using public transport two or more times a week; less than twice a week but more than twice a month; and rarely or never.
Driving status and access to a car: There were three groups here: young people who could drive and had current access to a car; young people with access to lifts; and those with no access to a car.
Ethnicity was also monitored: quotas were set so that in the inner city and urban locations there were at least two members of the largest black and minority ethnic sub-group in the local area [6].
Table 1.2 Profile of the focus group sample achieved
| 16-18 | 19-25 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 25 | 29 | 54 |
| Female | 22 | 22 | 44 |
| Activity | |||
| In work (including work-based learning) | 9 | 32 | 41 |
| In education or training | 30 | 12 | 42 |
| Other | 8 | 8 | 16 |
| Living Circumstances | |||
| Lives in parental home/ with other family members | 42 | 33 | 75 |
| Lives alone or with friends | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| Lives alone with partner and/or own dependent children | 1 | 10 | 11 |
| Driving | |||
| Current car driver with access | 5 | 15 | 20 |
| Not a driver but access to car | 28 | 15 | 43 |
| Not a driver and no access | 14 | 20 | 34 |
| Social grade | |||
| ABC1 | 24 | 27 | 51 |
| C2DE | 23 | 24 | 47 |
| Regularity of public transport use | |||
| Two or more times a week | 32 | 26 | 58 |
| Less than twice a week but more than twice a month | 6 | 17 | 23 |
| Rarely or never | 6 | 11 | 17 |
| Transport expenditure | |||
| Under £10 | 16 | 15 | 30 |
| £10-20 | 20 | 16 | 36 |
| £20-30 | 7 | 10 | 17 |
| £30-£40 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| £40+ | 2 | 6 | 6 |
Table 1.3 Ethnicity profile of focus group sample
| Monitoring Criteria | Achieved |
|
Ethnicity (from screening)
|
|
|---|---|
| White | 79 |
| Pakistani | 2 |
| Bangladeshi | 7 |
| Black African | 1 |
| Black Caribbean | 2 |
| Other Black Background | 4 |
| Other Mixed Background | 1 |
The participants for the in-depth interviews were drawn from people who had taken part in the 2006 National Travel Survey [7], and who had given their consent to be re-contacted about participating in future research. Again, interviews were undertaken across inner city, urban and rural areas of England in a range of locations with the aim of capturing diversity in terms of geographical area and local transport provision [8].
A letter and an information leaflet [9] were sent to a sample of participants in the 2006 National Travel Survey who fell into the 16 to 25 age range. These explained the nature and purpose of the study and gave recipients contact details for the research team in case they had any questions or wanted further information on the study. Those who met the sampling criteria were telephoned and asked if they would be interested in being interviewed as part of the study. If they were, a small number of screening questions were also asked to supplement the data available in their NTS records. A date and time was then agreed for the interview to take place, and a confirmation letter sent with these details and a contact name and telephone number should they have any queries prior to the interview.
The quotas set were:
Age: Respondents were recruited in three age groups: 16-18; 19-21; and 22-25.
Gender: Across each of the age groups, an equal balance of male and female respondents was sought.
Economic activity: As with the focus groups, quotas were set to ensure the sample included young people in a range of daytime activities including education or training, work or other activities (including caring responsibilities or unemployment).
Educational attainment: Quotas were set to ensure that the sample included young people with four different levels of NVQ equivalent educational attainment: NVQ level 1 or below; NVQ level 2; NVQ level 3; NVQ level 4 or above [10].
Living circumstances: As with the focus groups, quotas were set to ensure the inclusion of young people living in the family home; living alone or with friends; and living with partner and/or dependent children.
Driving status and access to a car: As with the focus groups, quotas were set for the number of young people who could drive and had current access to a car, young people with access to lifts and those with no access to a car.
Social grade: Using individuals’ or parents’ occupations as with the focus groups, quotas were set for three social grade ranges: A and B; C1 and C2; D and E.
Transport expenditure: Quotas were set for four levels of weekly expenditure on transport: under £10; £10-20; £20-30; and £30 or above.
The sample was also balanced so that there was a spread of these variables across the different types of geographical area being covered.
In addition to these primary sampling criteria, it was also agreed that the research team would monitor the composition of the sample in relation to ethnicity. Table 1.4 below illustrates the composition of the achieved sample in relation to the primary sampling criteria. Table 1.5 outlines the different ethnic groups included in the final sample.
Table 1.4 Profile of the interview sample achieved
|
|
16-18 | 19-21 | 22-25 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 6 | 6 | 7 | 19 |
| Female | 6 | 5 | 6 | 17 |
| Activity | ||||
| In work (including work-based learning) | 2 | 4 | 8 | 14 |
| In education or training | 9 | 4 | 5 | 18 |
| Other | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Educational attainment | ||||
| Highest qualification - NVQ L1 or below | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
| Highest qualification - NVQ L2 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 13 |
| Highest qualification - NVQ L3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 8 |
| Highest qualification - NVQ L4 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| Living Circumstances | ||||
| Lives in parental home/ with other family members | 13 | 7 | 2 | 22 |
| Lives alone or with friends | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Lives alone with partner and/or own dependent children | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| Driving | ||||
| Current car driver with access | 2 | 6 | 10 | 18 |
| Not a driver but access to car | 8 | 3 | 2 | 13 |
| Not a driver and no access | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Social grade | ||||
| A, B | 4 | 4 | 3 | 11 |
| C1, C2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 17 |
| D, E | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
| Transport expenditure | ||||
| Under £10 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 12 |
| £10-20 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 14 |
| £20-30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| £30+ | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
Table 1.5 Ethnicity profile of interview sample
| Monitoring Criteria | Achieved |
|---|---|
|
Ethnicity (from screening):
|
|
| White | 31 |
| Black Caribbean | 2 |
| Pakistani | 1 |
| Bangladeshi | 1 |
| Other (British Asian) | 1 |
Focus group fieldwork
The focus groups for this study were undertaken in July 2006. The groups generally lasted about an hour and a half, and were carried out in public locations (hotels or community centres) that would be easily accessible for the young people participating in them. Before the groups began, the group moderator explained the aims of the study, how the findings were reported, and how anonymity and confidentiality would be protected. Ground rules were also discussed for participation in the group, such as listening to each other and not talking over each other. Participants were given a £30 incentive payment before the start of the group to thank them for attending.
The groups were carried out using a topic guide developed in consultation with the Department [11]. The topic guide helped to ensure systematic coverage of key areas across interviews, but was used flexibly in order to allow issues of relevance raised in different groups. Local area maps were also used in the early stages of the group to help individual participants to think about the types of destinations they tended to travel to, and how they got there, and to generate discussion about local travel and transport between group participants. The discussions were digitally recorded.
In-depth interview fieldwork
The interviews for the study were carried out between September and December 2006. The interviews generally lasted between an hour and an hour and a half and were carried out at the respondent’s home. As in the groups, the researcher explained to the participant how the findings of the study would be reported and how anonymity and confidentiality would be protected, before commencing the interview. The voluntary nature of the research was also emphasised, and the interview only began once the participant had indicated that they were happy to proceed. Participants were given a £20 payment as thanks for taking part in the study.
As with the focus groups, the interviews were carried out using a topic guide [12] and were all digitally recorded.
The recordings from both the focus groups and the in-depth interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using ‘Framework’, a method developed by NatCen. It involves the systematic analysis of verbatim interview data within a thematic matrix. The key topics and issues emerging from the fieldwork were identified through familiarisation with transcripts as well as reference to the original objectives and the topic guides. A series of thematic charts were then drawn up, with a column for each thematic topic and rows for each case or group. The focus groups were charted using whole group analysis, which treats the data produced by the group as a whole rather than looking at individual contributions. Each in-depth interview was charted on an individual basis. This then allowed for the detailed analysis of the charted data, exploring the range of views and experiences in different themes and allowing comparison across cases or groups and sets of cases or groups.
Throughout the report, verbatim quotes are used from the interviews and group discussions to illustrate analytical points, and examples of individual circumstances are described. A brief description of the young person is given where quotations are used, indicating their gender, age and the type of geographical area they lived in.
[1] The first study concerned the needs, behaviour and aspirations of people as they made the transition into retirement and later life, and its findings are forthcoming. The third study will explore the role that car use plays for different income groups within the population. Findings from this study will be published in 2008.
[2] In response to these identified barriers, a range of pilot projects have been introduced in rural areas to promote accessible travel for children and young people. These are detailed in DEFRA’s good practice guide (2004) Transport, Young People and Rural Areas.
[3] The large inner city area was Manchester, the urban centre was Portsmouth and the rural areas were Suffolk and Norfolk.
[4] ‘Occupational Groupings: A Job Dictionary’ (6th Edition), The Market Research Society.
[5] Young people sometimes found it difficult to estimate their expenditure, but were usually able to choose an estimate category which they felt broadly reflected their expenditure. However, as we discuss in section 2.4.2, more detailed exploration of transport expenditure, particularly in the depth interviews, suggested that the process of estimating expenditure was not straightforward. It required young people to think about money received from different sources and different aspects of transport expenditure, with potential implications for the accuracy of these estimates.
[6] Based on ONS census profile data, 2001.
[7] The National Travel Survey is a continuous survey which collects information on who undertakes different types of travel, where people travel from and to, how often, distance, and trip purpose. It is funded by the Department for Transport.
[8] The large inner city areas were London, Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham, the urban areas were Bradford, Chesterfield and Barnsley and the rural areas were Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. There were also a number of addresses across Worcestershire, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey and County Durham.
[9] Copies of the letter and the leaflet are included in the appendices.
[10] NVQ Level 1 is equivalent to no qualifications/ fewer than 5 GCSEs A-C; NVQ Level 2 to 5 GCSEs A-C or more; NVQ Level 3 to two or more A-levels; and NVQ Level 4 to a Higher Education Qualification.
This chapter provides an overview of young people’s travel and mobility, and a context for later chapters. It draws on two datasets: quantitative data from the National Travel Survey (NTS) and qualitative data from the depth interviews and focus groups. Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 look at distances travelled, transport modes and journey purposes. The chapter then considers different aspects of young people’s overall mobility (section 2.4): the degree to which young people were able to travel autonomously or were reliant on others to get about, how far young people’s travel and transport was constrained by their personal finances, and the influences on the scope of journeys or ‘travel horizons’. Finally, in section 2.5 it considers young people’s overall satisfaction with their mobility.
Young people aged 16 to 25 make fewer trips than older age groups overall. They make fewer trips than people aged 26-54 for all purposes apart from trips to education, trips to friends at private homes or elsewhere, and for sports or entertainment.
Table 2.1 Trips per person per year by purpose and age
Source: NTS, 2005.* This table represents the average number of trips per journey purpose for someone in each age group.
For information, NTS defines ‘other escort journeys’ as journeys respondents undertake with the specific purpose of accompanying someone else. ‘Escort education’ refers to trips made with the specific purpose of escorting someone else to education.
Young people’s modal use differs from other age groups in a number of key ways. This age travels further by foot, buses, rail and taxi than other age groups. The distances travelled by bicycle by this age group are perhaps surprisingly low, with an average distance of 32 miles travelled using this mode compared to 241 by foot, for example, or 727 by bus.
Table 2.2 Distance per person per year by mode and age
Source: NTS, 2005.
As discussed in chapter 5, the qualitative data shows that young people are likely to travel further as they become older. This reflects the transition into further education and into employment; leaving the family home and setting up independent households with responsibilities such as household shopping with involve travel; and taking up new leisure activities. Increases in the distances travelled are also attributable to becoming a car driver and increased confidence in using public transport.
In terms of the proportion of journeys accounted for by different modes, as table 2.3 shows, the most common main mode [13] for young people was driving a car (30 per cent), walking (25 per cent) or being a car passenger (22 per cent). Young women were less likely to drive as their main mode than young men, and more likely to be car passengers.
Table 2.3 Proportion of trips by main mode and sex
Although cars are used for the majority of young people’s trips, the proportion of 17- 25 year olds who hold driving licences (48 per cent) is significantly lower than the proportion of 26- 54 year olds (82 per cent). Licence holding amongst young women of this age group is even lower than their male counterparts (44 per cent compared to 52 per cent). Section 4.2 discusses young people’s attitudes to learning to drive, including barriers to learning to drive which may help to explain these relatively low levels of licence holding.
Table 2.4 Proportion of people holding full car driving licence
Source: NTS, 2005.
Five broad types of modal use were evident in the qualitative sample. These were young people who used:
These groups are based on how young people do most of their travel, and particularly how they travel to their main daytime activity.
The first group of young people used cars, either as drivers or passengers, for most of their travel. Cars were used to travel to their main daytime activity - particularly for those who were travelling long distances for work, who were given lifts to school or who used cars to complete daytime errands or caring responsibilities. This group tended to have a strong rationale for using cars for these journeys, but they also had a strong attachment to car use in general. Cars were also used for other regular journeys. People said that they would sometimes walk for short journeys, for example a five minute trip to local shops, but that they would drive this distance on other occasions. Public transport was not regarded as being an option for regular trips. They used it infrequently, and sometimes had very limited recent experience of using it.
‘I don’t think I’ve used a train or a bus really since I was 17. Obviously I have done on, like, the odd occasion, but I haven’t used them to rely on getting around since I was … 17-ish ... since I had my own car.’ (Female, 23, urban area)
When this group did use public transport it was for irregular trips, for example going to football matches where cars would be inconvenient because of congestion or difficulties in parking. Trains were used for longer journeys, in particular to large cities, because of anticipated problems with parking and because the city’s public transport was perceived to be good.
Drivers in this group made mostly habitual journeys, with limited variation either because they had limited free time outside of education or work or because they had caring responsibilities for children or adults. Where people relied on lifts for the majority of their trips they were restricted by the availability of the person offering lifts.
They lived in areas with different levels of public transport provision. In rural areas, lack of public transport meant they were reliant on cars either as a driver or passenger. However, reliance on car use was also evident in areas with comparatively good public transport. People were sometimes unfamiliar with public transport in their area and reluctant to use it because of a lack of confidence or concerns about convenience, reliability or cost (see chapter 3).
A second group of young people also travelled by car (either as a driver or passenger) or by scooter for their main journeys, but were more varied in their use of other modes of transport, particularly in their leisure time. Like the first group, they tended to have a strong rationale for using cars for their main journeys. They (or their parents) had thought about whether it would be possible to use public transport, and concluded it would be difficult to do so for reasons including the price, reliability and availability. However, there was more variation in terms of the other modes used. Buses, trains, or taxis featured more prominently in this group’s travel than the previous group. These modes were used where lifts were not available or where using a car might be difficult, particularly for evening leisure trips where the young person wanted to drink alcohol. In their leisure time these young people used bicycles on weekends for exercise and enjoyment. This group tended to live in inner-city or urban areas where a range of transport options were available to them.
There were three reasons for drivers in their group being more flexible about using public transport as well as cars. They enjoyed the convenience afforded by car use and, like the first group, sometimes admitted using cars when it was not perhaps necessary, but they had a stronger orientation towards public transport, and were more confident in using it. Second, leisure trips featured more prominently and they also did more diverse and longer journeys than the previous group. Finally this group tended to have fewer time or practical constraints (like travelling with children).
A third group of young people were primarily reliant on buses or trains to undertake the majority of their regular journeys. Use of cars was limited to lifts or taxis for journeys like large domestic shopping trips or where young children were accompanying them so using public transport would be difficult. Young men also walked short distances or used bikes. This group tended to live in urban areas or on the outskirts of inner city areas with a range of transport modes available to them, but tended to use a narrow range of public transport.
Journeys made by this group tended to be limited to the young person’s home area, and did not vary significantly. This was related in part to the types of activity these young people were involved in. Work was less prominent for this group; those in employment worked part-time, alongside education. Some young people were solely in education. Others were unemployed or not working because of caring responsibilities. Because the financial resources available to this group were limited, transport costs restricted their choice of transport mode. This group’s travel was further characterised by a lack of confidence in using public transport. Their knowledge of local transport appeared to be limited to regular routes, and they expressed a reluctance to extend their travel beyond these.
A fourth group of young people used a wide range of public transport to make their regular journeys, switching between different modes depending on the purpose and destination of their journey. This group also drove or accessed lifts alongside their public transport. Drivers here chose not to use their cars for their main journeys because of problems associated with traffic, the congestion charge or the lack of affordable parking. Cars tended to be used for leisure purposes or trips with family. This group tended to live in large inner city or urban areas where there was a wide range of public transport. As well as making journeys in their local home area, they made regular trips outside their local area or city. Their travel was characterised by a high degree of confidence and knowledge about how to use public transport.
A final group of young people did most of their journeys by foot. Their main journeys were limited to a small local area. Walking met their travel needs and helped because they were financially constrained. One person for example walked to their job, their children’s school and to the nearest shops, and got lifts from their partner on the evenings and weekends. This group also included university students who walked for most of the journeys they made in the daytime, sometimes used taxis in the evening, and took trains for example to return to their home city.
Journey purposesAs table 2.5 shows, commuting journeys were the most common type of trip made by young people aged 16 to 25, accounting for 23 per cent of all journeys made. This was followed by visits to friends at private homes (16 per cent), shopping (15 per cent) and trips for education (11 per cent). A higher proportion of young people’s journeys are made up of education and visits to friends in private homes compared with older people, and a lower proportion made up of shopping and other escort visits.
Table 2.5 Proportion of trips per person per year by purpose
Source: NTS, 2005.
The qualitative data provides more detailed information about journey purposes and shows the diversity among young people:
The previous sections illustrate the high degree of diversity in young people’s modal use, distances travelled, journey purposes and travel patterns. This section considers other key aspects of young people’s mobility.
The first aspect of young people’s mobility was the degree of autonomy from (or reliance on) others, and the degree to which they were able to control when and how they travelled. Some young people reported being able to travel with a high degree of autonomy, making the journeys they wanted to when they wanted, and without having to rely on others or being constrained by the public transport infrastructure. Drivers featured prominently here: having access to a car was described as giving young people independence and control, and allowed them to make spontaneous decisions about their travel.
‘I just like doing me own thing and not having to rely on anyone else. But it’s like ... if I had a phone call tonight from a mate saying “Look can you come over?” I could just jump in my car and go. So that’s what I like about it.’ (Female, 21, rural area)
Drivers associated cars with more control than public transport, even when there were problems with their journeys.
‘You’re in a car, all being well, you’re able to control how and when you get somewhere, you know, depending on traffic here and there .... On public transport are sort of taken along with everybody else at the speed that everybody else is travelling at and it’s somebody else’s pace …. It can get quite frustrating.’ (Male, 23, urban area)
Some users of public transport also described having a lot of autonomy over their travel. Young people living in inner city areas in particular described having a range of transport options from which to choose.
‘We’ve got the [light rail service] five minutes away, we’ve got the bus five minutes away, we’ve got the train five minutes away. So in that sense it’s very good and I would say probably just using these three services you can pretty much go every - anywhere and everywhere.’ (Male, 20, urban area)
However, people also described circumstances under which they had felt frustrated by their reliance and lack of control, for example where their bus journey was delayed by traffic congestion, or when routes or services were limited.
Other young people had less autonomy in how and when they travelled and were reliant on lifts or on limited or unsatisfactory public transport. People relied on lifts to get to education or work, for shopping, and for leisure. They received lifts from family members (parents, siblings and grandparents), from friends, or from parents of friends. One young person and their sibling got lifts every day from a friend’s parent to the school they and the friend attended. Another got a lift to work from a friend every day. In addition, groups of friends took turns in driving on joint leisure trips.
There were three sets of circumstances where people relied on lifts:
Young people also sometimes accepted lifts on an opportunistic basis when they were available, but were not reliant on them because they could use public transport or walk to make the journey in question.
Lifts were offered as a favour or out of a sense of family obligation; as part of a reciprocal relationship; or in return for money for petrol or gifts in kind. The latter occurred where one member of a friendship group did most of the driving when they travelled together, or where a young person received a lift on a regular basis and needed it to get to work or college.
Lifts could thus play a critical role in travel for some people, and some people had no other options and could not make a journey if a lift was not available.
‘Cause if I’ve got no other way to get out then I’ll be like ok it’s a night in front of the T.V.’ (Female, 17, rural area)
Young people’s feelings about their reliance on others for travel varied. Younger age groups did not view relying on others as being a particular problem: their parents were giving lifts to destinations in the direction they were already travelling, did not mind offering lifts, or were flexible about when they could give lifts. They sometimes felt that parents were motivated to give them lifts because they were protective of them and viewed lifts as a safer travel alternative, and so were happy to accept. In rural areas with limited transport, young people felt there were few alternatives to lifts, and in some cases felt that their parents were obliged to give them lifts because they had chosen to live in a remote area.
Other young people felt more negatively about being reliant on lifts. In some cases young people felt badly about relying on others and described not wanting to be ‘a burden’, particularly where they used lifts from people other than family members. For other young people - particularly those in their late teens - reliance on lifts was a source of frustration or irritation for them, and sometimes apparently for their parents. Their reliance on others made it difficult to make spontaneous decisions about their travel, or meant that the times at which they could be picked up or dropped off were restricted.
Young people were also restricted in when and where they could travel by limited public transport services. Young people living on the outskirts of towns or in rural areas in particular described limited bus or train services, especially in the evenings and on Sundays. Whilst some were able to use lifts or taxis, others were not able to make trips at all.
Difficulties with public transport also meant young people sometimes felt a lack of control when using public transport. Not knowing when buses or trains would arrive, or not being able to predict how long journeys would take, were key sources of frustration. Where problems like traffic jams arose during the course of a journey, people were exasperated by the lack of control they had.
‘I just want to go downstairs and drag the busman … even though you can’t get nowhere but … no, it makes you feel really stressed. You can see everyone else’s faces as well they’re thinking “oh, for goodness sake!” kind of thing. And those times you just wish you could have a car and just drive your own self there ‘cause you know you have to go by a certain route when it comes to the bus and sometimes that can be really annoying if it’s the longest route in the world or the shortest route when it comes to traffic it’s really stressful.’ (Female, 18, urban area)
For other young people the lack of reliability meant that it was difficult to make plans. One young parent who was reliant on buses described how this made it difficult to meet up with friends at lunchtime, so she did not try to make these trips.
‘I’ve got a lot of friends that work in town, then I could meet them for dinner and stuff like that, but not knowing what time buses come, and I can’t have a taxi just to go and meet a friend ….’ (Female, 21, rural area)
Another young person in a rural area described how they stayed at a friend’s house during the week to allow them to get to work as there was no public transport which would have got him to work at the correct time.
Finally, as well as supporting young people’s autonomous travel, having a car also meant others including parents, siblings and friends were sometimes reliant on young people for their travel. Young people were in some cases the only driver in the family, and were responsible for taking family members on journeys to access key services such as shopping, or visits to the doctor. In other cases the young person interviewed was not the only driver in a household but gave lifts to other family members because the other driver was not available, or because it was more convenient. One young person living in a rural area, for example, was responsible for taking his siblings to their school (which he also attended) every day. Young people also offered their friends lifts to social activities where they did not mind driving, were the only driver in a friendship group or did not mind not drinking alcohol.
A second aspect of young people’s mobility was the financial resources available for travel. Young people were asked as part of the study how much they spent on transport in an average week. Estimates of expenditure ranged from £2 in an average week by young people with limited mobility or who mainly walked, to £70 where young people drove long distances for work.
People did not always find it easy to estimate their expenditure on transport. Public transport users referred to the cost of daily, weekly or monthly tickets, but were less confident in making a global estimate of their travel costs. Car users tended mainly to think about the cost of their cars in terms of fuel costs. Estimating costs was made complicated by the fact that young people were not always responsible for meeting all their transport costs themselves. Parents tended to pay for some or all of younger people’s travel expenditure, for example giving 16 and 17 year olds money for school journeys and for taxi fares in the evening. Drivers who still lived at home also sometimes received support with car related costs, and this could mean they had limited awareness of how expensive these were (further detail, see chapter 4). Young people at the upper end of the age range, and particularly those who had left home and moved into work, were responsible for meeting their own public transport or car related expenses. University students drew on financial support from parents and student loans, and travel expenses came out of this ‘pot’.
Young people also did not monitor their expenditure on transport closely because it was regarded as an essential expense, so there was limited attention to managing costs. Public transport users tried to limit travel not covered by concession passes [14], and car users set amounts they wanted to spend on fuel in a given week and curtailed their travel when they reached or neared this limit. More active budgeting was unusual but was evident amongst individuals in their early to mid twenties who ran their own households, who monitored the impact of travel expenses and in particular those related to car use more closely. Young people with dependent children also appeared to be more conscious of how much they spent. They described having to limit journeys made by car or public transport, and other expenses took priority.
A third aspect of young people’s mobility was ‘travel horizons’ – the distance and range of journeys people are willing to undertake, or aspire to undertake. There was significant variation within the sample, related to personal circumstances; social and family relationships; daily activities; and confidence.
Young people’s personal circumstances and responsibilities were an important influence on the distances they travelled and wanted to travel. Young people still living in the parental home, and younger age groups, tended to make a more limited range of journeys within the local area. They continued to be at least partly dependent on parents for their travel, and in some cases had limited desire to move away from this dependence. Amongst older age groups, circumstances and responsibilities were more diverse and they made a wider range of trips associated with household errands, DIY, and visits to parents in different areas.
Having caring responsibilities meant journeys including taking babies and children to nursery, school or health appointments, which tended to be local. These responsibilities could also restrict young people’s travel because of limited available time and problems associated with taking children on transport, and could make young people more dependent on others.
Social and family relationships were also a significant influence on young people’s travel. Where young people lived close to the majority of their family and friends, this could limit mobility. Similarly, university students' relationships tended to be with people living close by and their regular travel was limited to this area, although as noted below going to university also widened travel opportunities.
However, relationships could also expand young people’s travel horizons. Having family further afield - including siblings, parents, aunts and uncles - meant that young people travelled further distances with their immediate family, and sometimes aspired to undertake these journeys by themselves. For young people in rural areas, making friends from nearby villages prompted them to travel more widely across the local area, in some cases independently of their parents. Establishing virtual relationships over the internet also prompted young people to travel to new places, as did having friends who had moved away.
Young people’s participation in education or training, work and leisure activities influenced the distances they travelled and their travel horizons. Going to a college or university could mean travelling to a new area, and visiting new friends in their home areas. Young people who continued to live at home whilst attending university had more limited new experiences of travel. Where young people were undertaking other activities - in particular work or caring - alongside their study, their travel did not necessarily expand in the same way because they had more limited leisure time available. Work was also a catalyst for young people travelling further distances. Whilst some young people worked close to their homes, others travelled long distances as part of their work, or in some cases moved to take up a new job. Involvement in leisure activities such as playing a musical instrument in a band or singing in a choir, playing for a sports team, or having hobbies such as walking were all described as providing impetus for young people’s travelling further for longer distances and gaining experience of travelling.
The distances travelled by young people, and their travel horizons, also appeared to be related to their confidence about using transport and travelling. This varied considerably amongst young people, particularly in relation to public transport use. Perhaps predictably, it appeared to be higher amongst young people who had travelled by public transport with their families and where young people had been using it for a long time, and lower where people had negative past experiences of using public transport, for example being harassed or the victim of crime.
The way that young people talked about their feelings about travelling suggested that there were also differences in how confident young people were about travel per se. Some talked about enjoying the experience of travelling, for example because it offered them an opportunity to see new things or places; others seemed less inclined to visit new places and talked about the practical difficulties this would raise.
A final aspect of young people’s mobility was how satisfied they were with their travel and mobility. There was not a linear relationship between the amount of young people’s mobility and their satisfaction with their travel. Although there were very mobile people who were satisfied with their travel, there were also very mobile people who were not satisfied with their travel. This section explores these different groups. The chapters that follow then explore in more detail people’s views and experiences of different forms of transport, and the impact on their life choices and transitions.
In the diagram below, the vertical axis maps satisfaction, and the horizontal axis mobility. The four quadrants are necessarily crude, but they highlight the diversity of relationships between satisfaction and mobility among young people.
Figure 2.1 Mapping mobility and satisfaction
The first group of young people were more mobile, travelling to a wide range of journeys destinations, sometimes for longer distances. They were satisfied with their travel and mobility because they felt that they were unconstrained and autonomous in their travel. Young car users and young people using diverse public transport modes featured prominently in this group. This group had few significant financial constraints on their travel either because they received parental support or were in relatively well paid work.
The second group were less mobile than young people in the first group, making a smaller range of journeys and travelling shorter distances, but nonetheless satisfied with their travel and mobility. They relied mainly on cars, either as a driver or passenger. They felt they could get to most places they needed to even if this involved reliance on lifts. In some cases this appeared to be related to participants’ ages: they tended to be younger and so had a more limited range of journeys for education and leisure. In other cases participants appeared to have more limited mobility because their aspirations both in relation to travel and more widely were more limited.
The third group were not satisfied with their mobility, but were more mobile. These young people tended to be making longer journeys for work or work-based learning, either by public transport or by car, but found this travel unsatisfactory. Public transport users described frustration with aspects of travel like over-crowding, cost and unreliability. Car users described being stuck in traffic, and were unhappy about the amount that they spent on travel. This group were able to access the services or opportunities they wanted to access, but the journeys they had to make were in some cases very difficult and took a great deal of effort and motivation. This group were therefore dissatisfied with their experiences of making their journeys.
This final group of young people had limited mobility and were not very satisfied. Their travel tended to be limited in its scope and reach. They were reliant on others, and their travel was financially constrained. This group tended to travel using a limited range of public transport, and felt that their choice was restricted or that they faced a number of barriers to using it. This included young people in rural areas whose transport options were limited; young parents whose mobility was constrained financially and because of the difficulties associated with travelling with children on public transport; and young people whose finances were constrained because they were out of work. This group sometimes described trip suppression - not being able to make journeys when they wanted to, or at all, because of difficulties with transport. As a result these young people felt that the choices available to them in terms of education, training, employment and leisure were more limited.
Overall, then, people’s satisfaction with their travel reflects not only how mobile they are and their experiences of travel, but also how mobile they want to be. Limited mobility does not necessarily mean limited satisfaction. However, there is an important group of young people whose travel is more constrained than they want, because of either their personal circumstances or the availability of public transport, and who see this as limiting their access to services and opportunities. The implications of this limited mobility are discussed in more detail in chapter 5.
There is significant variation in young people’s travel patterns and mobility. Travel patterns including journey purposes, destinations, distances and time travelled, varied considerably depending on young people’s ages, personal circumstances, and where they lived. They used a range of modes to get around including car use, public transport use, and walking. Attachment to particular modes varied: whilst some drivers or passengers were almost exclusively reliant on cars, others used cars in combination with public transport. Public transport users also varied in the range of modes used: whilst some relied primarily on one form, others used a range of different modes depending on their journey purpose and destination. There was also diversity in young people’s mobility in terms of the degree of autonomy, control or reliance they had and the degree to which their mobility was constrained by financial issues and the scope of their travel horizons. The relationships between mobility and satisfaction with it are not linear: there were groups of young people who were both more and less satisfied with more limited mobility, and similarly groups who were both more and less satisfied with greater mobility.
[11] A copy of the focus group topic guide is included in the appendices.
[12] A copy of the in-depth interview topic guide is included in the appendices.
[13] The main mode of transport is defined in NTS as the mode used in the longest (distance) stage of the journey(s) in question. If two stages had equal length, the mode of the latest stage was taken as the main mode.
[14] Concessions or subsidies made a significant contribution to some young people’s travel budgets. These included Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) and access to free or subsidised travel on the basis of their age or still being in education.
In this chapter we look in detail at young people’s views of public and private transport. The chapter begins by taking a thematic approach to the issues participants discussed when talking about different modes of public transport (section 3.1). It then goes on to discuss, in section 3.2, young people’s views of private transport, with a particular focus on their views of cars. The chapter concludes with a discussion of wider influences on young people’s views (section 3.3), highlighting a range of factors from personal experience to issues regarding identity.
As might be expected, the views of the young people in this study regarding different modes of transport varied significantly. Some liked buses, others did not; some were keen on trains, while others thought trams were the best form of transport. In part, this reflected the fact that the individuals taking part in the research lived in different parts of the country with different local services, which meant they were not comparing like with like. It was also the case that discussions of public transport were dominated by talk of buses, as it was the mode most commonly used by participants. However, underlying young people’s views about public transport were a number of key concerns, and it is these that are the focus of the discussion below. The order in which they are presented does not necessarily reflect their overall importance, but instead moves roughly from ‘external’ to ‘internal’ issues. The environment and health are not discussed here because they did not emerge as a significant theme in young people’s views on public transport, but are discussed in section 3.2, which discusses views of private transport, and in chapter 4, which focuses on decision-making.
Although the distinctions young people made between different modes of transport largely reflected differences in the quality of provision in their local area, what were perceived as the inherent benefits and limitations of different modes affected participants' views. Generally, trains were seen as more reliable than buses and this seemed to be linked to a feeling that train timetables were more rigid than bus timetables. Linked to this was the feeling that it was easier to find out about train times, either by phone or at the station, though this was less true where there were digital information boards at bus stops. On the other hand, one of the attractions of buses compared to tubes was that they enabled travellers to see many different parts of their local area; the corollary of this was that they were perceived by some participants as ‘going round the houses’ rather than going directly to their destination and therefore slower than they need be. Buses also differed from trains because the driver was a visible presence, and this had negative and positive implications (see sections 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 below).
The perceived advantage of taxis was that they would pick up and drop off exactly where requested rather than the individual having to make their own way to and from the transport link. However, in some cases taxi drivers were seen as unsafe drivers due to the fact that they were trying to earn as much as possible by completing jobs as quickly as they could. Inherent benefits and limitations of trams did not emerge clearly from young people’s accounts.
The aspects of local service provision young people felt were important were the cost of journeys, frequency of services, reliability, how crowded the service is, whether it arrives and leaves on time, and how many stops the service makes between an individual’s starting point and their destination. Thus common complaints against buses in some locations were that they were irregular, that they did not turn up and that they were often late. In other locations, participants were complimentary about the local bus services, describing them as frequent and reliable, and in contrast felt that trains were very expensive. In some cases evaluations remained specific to a particular service, but in other cases they seemed to be generalised from one particular route or mode to public transport more widely.
Closely related to the basic functions of the service as transport, was the nature of the vehicle’s internal environment. There were wide variations in the extent to which different services were perceived to be tidy and clean. Buses in some areas were singled out for the state of their internal environment, with participants complaining that surfaces were soiled, that upholstery was in poor condition, and that there was vandalism. In other areas buses were praised for their cleanliness, which participants linked to the fact that they were new. These factors seemed to have a significant effect on young people’s feelings about using the service, as indicated by the use of emotive descriptors such as ‘unhygienic’.
Those individuals who had begun to take on household or family responsibilities faced a number of issues in using local transport. Of particular significance was doing food shopping, because it meant having to carry a large number of bags and frozen goods which made using public transport more difficult because of having to walk to and from the transport link. New parents also talked about the challenges of using buses when they had pushchairs or buggies with them. The difficulties centred around physically manoeuvring pushchairs on board (which was alleviated by buses designed for wheelchair access). Parents also had safety concerns about having to collapse a buggy in order to board the bus and so not being able to focus on their child who was waiting by the roadside. There were also problems in finding space on board buses to stow pushchairs, which meant that at busy times a young parent could have to wait for several buses to come and go before there was enough space for them to ride. For these individuals, taxis were seen as a clear alternative.
‘I don’t think I’d use a taxi from town more than twice. It’s usually if I’m with my mum and we’ve both got pushchairs, and we’ve both got loads of bags and stuff on the pushchairs. ‘Cause it’s difficult to get on to the bus with pushchair and a load of bags … [particularly] at school time, ‘cause everybody else is coming home at same time, and you can’t get on bus at all with pushchairs then.’ (Female, 21, rural area)
Young people had mixed experiences of their contact with officials. Some individuals described bus drivers as friendly and helpful, and said drivers would get to know them if they used the route regularly. Other participants had had negative experiences of their contact with transport officials, and for some this had an impact on their perception of public transport more generally.
‘A bus driver took my bus pass off me, because I’d dyed my hair blonde. I mean, the picture, it was like mousy brown [laughs] and he, he just had this issue with it, and it was like, it’s not you. I’m gonna take it, and he took this bus pass off me. And then, like, my, my mum rang up the, the depot garage and then this bus driver had said that I’d been really abusive to him, and that’s why he took it. And I was, like [laughs] that’s not like me at all .… So, yeah, I suppose that didn’t really leave me with a good impression of public transport.’ (Female, 23, urban area)
There was also the belief that some drivers would make up prices on the spot rather than charge the correct fare for the journey.
Personal safety was a key concern for young people in their evaluations of public transport. Participants identified three kinds of potential risk to their safety. Firstly there were concerns about the safety of particular forms of transport that related either to their basic functioning or reflected special circumstances. For example, some young people expressed worries about using underground services in the light of the attacks on London transport in July 2005. These worries seemed to be particularly associated with using the tubes, rather than buses, and there was a feeling that there was greater danger during peak travel times than during the middle of the day. Other young people expressed concerns about the safety of buses, arguing that drivers drove too fast and braked too violently, meaning they were thrown about inside the buses, their concern heightened by unsteady or ‘wobbly’ seats. Among some participants who had children, there was a perception that cars were safer than buses, because they could strap the children in and didn’t have to rely on bus drivers being sensible and careful.
The second kind of risk identified by young people concerned the possibility of being attacked while waiting for transport or walking to and from transport links. This fear was felt particularly keenly when participants believed that the area in general or the specific location of the transport link was known for attacks or ‘trouble’. In some cases, female participants felt they were especially vulnerable, and talked about asking male friends to meet them at a bus stop and accompany them home. The time of day and year had an effect on the perceived threat, with some individuals saying they were happy to walk home when it was light, but wanted to get a lift when it was dark. Perceived risks associated with waiting for transport were alleviated by well-lit stations and the presence of police, as was thought to be the case at some tram stations.
The third area of concern regarding safety was the threat from fellow passengers while travelling, which participants identified as coming from other young people and ‘drunks’, particularly late at night. These concerns reflected direct experiences of feeling threatened and incidents of being harassed or attacked. One worry was about being ‘ganged up’ on, and some participants said they felt safer when they were travelling with friends. Some young people were reassured by the presence of bus drivers, but others felt that drivers would not or could not intervene. The presence of other passengers, along with CCTV on buses, were also seen as important sources of reassurance.
‘I just, I personally just feel a bit safer if there’s a few cameras around. I generally know if there’s a camera about, so I normally have a look. But yeah, if there’s no cameras, I wouldn’t, you know, stand in a place where there wasn’t a camera.’ (Male, 16, rural area)