Documents

Guidance documents - Expert

Unit 3.6: The Accessibility Objective

There are four modules within this section:

3.6.1: The Option Values Sub-Objective

3.6.1C: The Option Values Sub-Objective - Consultation

3.6.2: The Severance Sub-Objective

3.6.3: The Access to the Transport System Sub-Objective

3.6.4: The Personal Affordability Sub-Objective

Unit 3.6.3: The Access to the Transport System Sub-Objective

April 2011

Unit 3.6.3 (Adobe Acrobat - 85KB)

1. Accessibility
   1.1 Why is accessibility important?
   1.2 What is accessibility?
   1.3 Who are the potential vulnerable groups?
   1.4 When should accessibility be considered in the transport strategy and intervention development process?
2. The Accessibility Analysis Process
   2.1 Introduction
   2.2 Core Accessibility Analysis (Step 4)
   2.3 Appraisal Outputs (Step 5)
3. Datasets
   3.2 Origins
   3.3 Destinations
   3.4 Public Transport Network
   3.5 Socio-Demographic Data
   3.6 Local Data Sources
4. Further Information
5. References
6. Document Provenance

1. Accessibility

1.1 Why is accessibility important?

1.1.1 Increasing car use has provided greater opportunity for people to travel and access the services they require. However one in four households do not have access to a car for reasons including cost, disability and choice. These people rely on public transport, walking, cycling or lifts from friends, family or community organisations. The reliance on such 'networks', which are often limited, can lead to social exclusion.

1.1.2 In recent years, Government has recognised the link between transport and social exclusion and introduced policies specifically aimed at improving access to essential services.

1.1.3 This TAG Unit describes the approach to be followed in the appraisal of the accessibility impacts of transport interventions.

1.2 What is accessibility?

1.2.1 Accessibility is a term that has a multitude of meanings within the transport profession ranging from the physical access onto a public transport vehicle, the ability to get to a given place (for example a hospital), to the accessibility of information about a particular public transport service.

1.2.2 In some cases, accessibility benefits from transport interventions are the same as transport user benefits. However, transport user benefits are usually defined in a narrow way within the appraisal process, and it is important to consider accessibility benefits in a more holistic way.

1.2.3 'Making the Connections' (Social Exclusion Unit, 2003) identified five key barriers impacting on accessibility:

• The availability and physical accessibility of transport: For some people in isolated urban and rural areas there are limited or no public transport services or the services are unreliable, or do not go to the right places or at the right times;
• Cost of transport: Some people find the costs of personal or public transport very high or unaffordable;
• Services and activities located in inaccessible places: Developments including housing, hospitals, business and retail are often located in areas not easily accessible to people without a car;
• Safety and security: Some people will not use public transport or walk to key services because of the fear of crime or anti-social behaviour; and
• Travel horizons: Some people are unwilling to travel long journey times or distances, or may not know about or trust transport services.

1.2.4 Building on this, accessibility may be presented as reflecting the range of opportunities and choices that people have in connecting with jobs, services and friends and families. The level of access will depend on where people choose to live, where services are located, and the availability of 'home delivery' of goods or services. It is also about the availability and affordability of transport; providing journeys that are appropriate in terms of time and cost. Improving accessibility can be achieved through one or a combination of these elements.

1.2.5 The appraisal of accessibility within this Unit focuses on the public transport accessibility aspect of accessing employment, services and social networks. This provides an holistic approach to considering the accessibility needs of different groups of people, taking into a wide range of factors, including journey times to reach key destinations, service frequencies and provision of accessible boarding at stops. This comprehensive approach replaces the guidance that was given in the previous Access to the Transport System (previous TAG Unit 3.6.3), which is now withdrawn.

1.2.6 This new TAG unit links with The Severance Sub-Objective (TAG Unit 3.6.2), which appraises barriers to accessibility within a local community, focusing on walking to local facilities, including access to the public transport stop. It also links with The Personal Security Sub-Objective (TAG Unit 3.4.2) and the new unit describing Personal Affordability (TAG Unit 3.6.4), because personal security and personal affordability issues themselves can act as barriers to accessibility.

1.2.7 This approach examines the public transport availability and opportunities for the population living within the area to access essential services and facilities, and identifies any impacts as a result of the transport intervention on this level of access. This latter aspect will link closely with the appraisal undertaken within the Severance indicator, in terms of access from home to the public transport stop, as the first part of the public transport journey.

1.2.8 The approach also considers the end-to-end journey, which includes the physical access on to and within the public transport system (such as low floor access vehicles, capacity for wheelchairs) and aspects such as audio visual announcements informing passengers that the vehicle is stopping.

1.3 Who are the potential vulnerable groups?

1.3.1 Different social groups have different transport needs and priorities. These complex relationships need to be understood and carefully considered during the examination of the need for intervention, developing and sifting of options, and detailed appraisal of preferred options.

1.3.2 Examples of such different needs are given below:

• Good access to healthcare is particularly important for people with children, older people and those with a long term illness and these people may value the availability of routes closer to home, and lower priced fares, to higher frequency services;
• People with disabilities are less likely to drive and more likely to be dependant on public or community transport that offers door to door usage, or lifts from family and friends;
• In some rural areas access to a public transport route can be crucial to maintaining accessibility to essential services such as shopping for food;
• Women are less likely than men to have access to a car during the day and are often undertaking more complex trip chains relating to caring responsibilities or school drop offs/pick ups; and
• People on low incomes living in households with no access to a car are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion in the event that public transport does not provide the accessibility needed to reach key destinations.

1.3.3 Consideration should be given to the social impacts of changes in accessibility on the following groups: parents with small children, young people, older people, people with disabilities, women in one-car households, carers and people living in households with no access to a car.

1.3.4 Distributional impacts should also be considered, in terms of impacts on households in different income bands. Low income households may suffer disproportionately from poor accessibility and no access to a car.

1.3.5 Guidance on the social and distributional impacts of transport interventions (including changes in accessibility) is provided in Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions (TAG Unit 3.17). The analyst should make reference to TAG Unit 3.17 in undertaking the accessibility analysis.

1.4 When should accessibility be considered in the transport strategy and intervention development process?

1.4.1 Consideration of accessibility issues should take place throughout the appraisal process, commencing with the consideration of current and future transport challenges, in which the opportunity should be taken to consider options to tackle identified accessibility problems.

1.4.2 Accessibility issues should also be considered in the process of identifying options for intervention, and accessibility impacts should be taken into account in the analysis of specific transport interventions.

1.4.3 Intelligent design can therefore be implemented at an early stage in the process of considering issues and developing options to mitigate accessibility issues and to improve overall acceptance of the intervention.

2. The Accessibility Analysis Process

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The approach described in this section is based on a five-step sequence, as follows:

• Step 1 - identification of the area impacted by changes in accessibility;
• Step 2 - analysis of the demographic profile in the area impacted by changes in accessibility;
• Step 3 - a screening process, to determine if it is appropriate to undertake further analysis of the changes in accessibility;
• Step 4 - the core accessibility analysis process; and
• Step 5 - the collation and presentation of the outputs from the accessibility analysis process.

2.1.2 The process to be followed for Steps 1, 2 and 3 is described in Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions (TAG Unit 3.17).

2.1.3 The sections below should be used to guide the technical analyses required in Steps 4 and 5 of this process.

2.2 Core Accessibility Analysis (Step 4)

2.2.1 This step comprises of the following key elements of work:

Identify Existing Accessibility Evidence

2.2.2 As a first step the analyst should make initial reference to any existing local policy documents, such as the Accessibility Strategy (within the Local Transport Plan) and Local Community Strategy, to establish the key accessibility challenges identified for different groups, particularly the potential vulnerable groups within the study area.

2.2.3 It is also advisable to make contact with the Local Authority officer responsible for Accessibility Planning to establish any existing accessibility evidence that may have been collated for the area. This will also provide the analyst a better first-hand understanding and appreciation of the issues faced by residents in the area.

Accessibility Analysis

2.2.4 Accessibility mapping can be undertaken using GIS or an accessibility planning software package. Accessibility mapping should be undertaken for the scenarios 'without intervention' and 'with intervention'. The 'with intervention' scenario(s) should reflect changes to the public transport network resulting from the intervention as identified in Step 3 as described in Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions (TAG Unit 3.17).

2.2.5 It is important to establish what other modes of public transport may become less or more accessible to passengers and to understand the frequency and interchange timings that are relevant for reaching key destinations.

2.2.6 Accessibility mapping should provide the analyst with contour maps showing accessibility to the specified destinations within selected time periods appropriate to the intervention under consideration, such as off-peak, evening and/or weekends, and for appropriate catchment time bands, for example 10, 20, 30 , 40, 50, 60 minutes. Alternatively in cases where the nearest destination is not always the most suitable (e.g. employment) then a calculation can be performed to identify the number of destinations that are accessible from a set of origins within specified time periods. This will provide an accessibility 'score', with the higher the score the more accessible the origin.

2.2.7 The analyst should then undertake a series of assessments, using a suitable GIS tool, to calculate the impacts of the intervention on public transport journey times to a series of key destinations, for a series of public transport users and potential vulnerable groups.

2.2.8 For example, in the case of a bus priority intervention, this should calculate the increase in the numbers of people that can access key destinations served by the bus routes within set time bands as a result of improved bus journey times. In the case of a road intervention, the planned diversion of the bus route should be coded and changes in numbers of people accessible to the key destinations within given time bands calculated.

2.2.9 The outputs of the accessibility analysis are presented in Step 5 in a series of accessibility analysis worksheets. Table 2 provides an example of a completed worksheet to illustrate this analysis.

Accessibility Audit

2.2.10 The analyst should identify and consider the other elements of the intervention that will have impacts on accessibility for different users. For example if a quality bus corridor is being proposed the analyst should take into account (but is not limited to) the following:

• Frequency of services - for example is the service every 10 minutes or more during peak and daytime hours?;
• Boarding and alighting - for example, are there level boarding kerbs, have low-floor buses been proposed to serve the route, and will the bus be able to stop in line with the kerb?;
• Is there provision for visually impaired people at the bus stops to gain information on route times and also of approaching services?;
• Are the vehicles to be used fully internally accessible? How easy is it for older people and people with disabilities to access and alight safely and what is the space available for pushchairs?; and
• Movement within interchanges - is there provision for ease of movement between services and modes, distance that must be walked, access of thoroughfare, ramps or steps and clarity of directions.

2.2.11 The analyst should first undertake a desktop analysis of these issues, focusing on the end-to-end journey for the user, and obtain any necessary technical specifications required to give understanding of the proposed provision as part of the intervention.

2.2.12 It may also be necessary to undertake a site audit of the study area; examining the main public transport infrastructure such as stations and waiting facilities and also proposed vehicles. The audit should provide digital images as documented evidence.

2.2.13 Any existing problems should be identified, and opportunities taken to examine how these existing barriers can be tackled as part of the design process. If expert evaluation is required, such as consideration of disability access, the analyst should ensure that this is noted and reported to the Project Manager for further action.

2.2.14 Consideration of the impacts on the affordability of public transport services should be given through Personal Affordability (TAG Unit 3.6.4). Consideration of personal security impacts should be given through The Personal Security Sub-Objective (TAG Unit 3.4.2).

2.2.15 The specific impacts of the intervention, both positive and negative, should then be considered, for example the widespread introduction of full level-boarding access as part of a bus corridor upgrade or a potential reduction in service provision.

2.2.16 The accessibility audit worksheet (refer to Table 4) is a suitable tool for undertaking the desktop analysis and audit work.

2.2.17 It should be noted that a 'Community Audit' may be required, as part of the process of analysing local severance issues in the area, which could significantly affect the walk to the public transport stop. The requirement for and process of undertaking the 'Community Audit' is described in The Severance Sub-Objective (TAG Unit 3.6.2), and the analyst responsible for undertaking the Accessibility Audit might find it useful to liaise with the analyst responsible for undertaking the Community Audit for severance.

Primary Research

2.2.18 Primary research can play an important role in enabling the analyst to better understand the potential accessibility impacts of the intervention on different groups of people, especially the potentially vulnerable groups. For example, it can help in providing greater understanding of the potential benefits of level boarding facilities for groups such as older people, parents with pushchairs and people with disabilities.

2.2.19 In the event that significant impacts are identified in the desktop analysis, the analyst should then consider if it is appropriate to undertake qualitative research through discussion groups with the identified groups. In many cases, the potential impacts will be understood from existing research. However, in cases where novel measures are being introduced, where there are complex issues that must be addressed, or where there is an explicit objective to improve accessibility, discussion groups should be considered.

2.2.20 The primary research should consider the following issues during the discussion groups, in terms of the quality at present, the potential improvements with the intervention, and the importance of the issue to the different groups of people:

• Provision of information about journey opportunities before making the journey itself;
• Availability of clear and readily understandable information at the public transport stop;
• Provision of seating and weather protection at the stop;
• Ease of boarding the vehicle from the stop (is there level boarding, or is there a step involved?);
• Ease of purchasing a ticket and sense of welcome and reassurance when on board the vehicle;
• Ability to navigate within the vehicle, to find a seat or other suitable area, for example wheelchair space;
• The comfort of the journey, including ambient temperature, crowding, ability to sit, heavy braking and jolting from track / road surface;
• Information provided during the journey, including audio announcements, display screens;
• Ability to alight from the vehicle at the destination platform or bus stop; and
• Movement within interchanges, in cases where changes between services or modes are required.

2.2.21 It is advised that, to add value to the discussion groups, the analyst should also consider discussing key issues with stakeholders such as the Accessibility Planning officer in the Local Authority and specific local community groups.

2.2.22 The findings from the primary research can be used to establish the importance of different aspects of the intervention in affecting accessibility for different groups of people. The example of the accessibility audit worksheet (refer to Table 4) demonstrates how this can be used to inform the analysis for different groups of people.

Report to the Project Manager

2.2.23 Findings from the accessibility mapping of the public transport network and the accessibility audit, along with any findings from the primary research, will need to be reported to the Project Manager.

2.2.24 Reports should be presented in a consistent and documented format. To support any further evaluation and corroboration, the analyst should ensure that supporting evidence is provided, for both positive and negative findings.

2.3 Appraisal Outputs (Step 5)

2.3.1 The main outputs and measurements as a result of the accessibility appraisal will be a combination of statistical and mapping outputs based on the accessibility analysis results and a series of qualitative assessments.

Accessibility Analysis

2.3.2 The statistical outputs of the accessibility analysis will be dependent on the local journey patterns and key destinations likely to be impacted by the transport intervention. The analyst should determine the most appropriate accessibility analysis and complete the relevant series of accessibility analysis worksheets. A worked example is shown in Table 2.

2.3.3 The accessibility analysis worksheets could include the following, although the analyst should determine and agree the final list with the Project Manager as the list below only provides a series of suggestions and is not a complete list:

• Population living in car-owning households and non car-owning households - access to any key destination;
• Population with limiting long term illness accessing healthcare destinations; and
• Jobseeker Allowance Claimants accessing areas of employment opportunity.

2.3.4 The analysis could also include the following key destinations:

• Areas of employment: main centres, business parks, industrial estates, and out of town retail outlets;
• Educational facilities: special educational needs, primary, secondary, further and higher education establishments;
• Health facilities: Hospitals, GPs, health clinics, dentists and pharmacies;
• Recreational and leisure facilities: parks, public sports centres and swimming pools;
• Major and Local Shopping Centres: fresh food and retail outlets; and
• Social amenities: community centres and day care facilities.

2.3.5 The appraisal score for each accessibility analysis worksheet will need to be determined using the following scoring criteria, as shown in Table 1. This demonstrates a seven point score, based on the proportion of change (e.g. household numbers) as a result of the intervention.

Table 1 - Accessibility Analysis Appraisal Criteria

Proportionate Changes	Accessibility Analysis Score
> +16%	Large Beneficial
+6% to +15%	Moderate Beneficial
+2% to +5%	Slight Beneficial
-1% to +1%	Neutral
-2% to -5%	Slight Adverse
-6% to -15%	Moderate Adverse
> -16%	Large Adverse

2.3.6 The analyst should combine the various individual scores on each worksheet to provide one overall accessibility analysis score for each accessibility analysis worksheet. The various total scores for each accessibility analysis worksheet should also be combined to provide one overall score. It is not advised to add weightings to the various accessibility analysis worksheets.

2.3.7 In addition to the worksheets the analyst could also produce accessibility maps for the 'without intervention' and 'with intervention' cases, demonstrating locations that will experience accessibility improvements or adverse impacts as a consequence of the intervention.

Table 2 - Example of an Accessibility Analysis Worksheet

Public Transport accessibility of population in study area to nearest Gen. Hospital (07.30 - 09.30) weekday	Without Intervention		With Intervention		% Change		Overall Score
	Car h'holds	No Car h'holds	Car h'holds	No Car h'holds	Car h'holds	No Car h'holds	Car h'holds	No Car h'holds
0-10 mins	250	300	290	360	16%	20%	Large Beneficial	Large Beneficial
11-20 mins	450	600	500	700	11%	17%	Moderate Beneficial	Large Beneficial
21-30 mins	850	950	969	1,121	14%	18%	Moderate Beneficial	Large Beneficial
31-40 mins	3,500	4,500	4,270	5,625	22%	25%	Large Beneficial	Large Beneficial
41-50 mins	5,200	6,500	6,396	8,064	23%	24%	Large Beneficial	Large Beneficial
51-60 mins	6,500	6,000	7,930	7,860	22%	31%	Large Beneficial	Large Beneficial
Total Households with 60 mins	16,750	18,850	20,355	23,730
Study Area Household Totals	25,200	26,250	25,200	26,250

Accessibility Assumptions Journey Purpose: Access to the nearest General Hospital. Travel Time: Travelling on a weekday between 07.30 - 09.30 am (no maximum travel time). Default Walk Distances: 400m walk to public transport stop from origin/400m walk from public transport stop to destination. Assessment Criteria: Car and No Car Households within study area.

Overall Score: Large Beneficial. Qualitative Statement: The transport intervention has a large beneficial affect on both households with and without a car, however the impacts are slightly more beneficial for households without a car. The greatest positive impact is achieved for those living within a no car household and located a 50 - 60 minute journey time of their nearest General Hospital.

Accessibility Audit

2.3.8 The various accessibility analysis worksheets described in the previous section will be supported by an appraisal of the aspects relating to access onto and within the public transport system as described in the previous accessibility audit section.

2.3.9 The analyst will need to consider how the transport intervention impacts on the public transport experience through various elements of the system such as:

• Information at the public transport stop;
• Ability to independently board a vehicle;
• Comfort of vehicle; and
• 9Movement between any interchanges.

2.3.10 Each element needs to be scored for each identified journey type to key destinations and where possible by each potential vulnerable group. The following scoring scales should be used;

-3 to +3 should be used for the impacts of transport intervention for journeys to key destinations (-3 reflecting a large adverse change, 0 reflecting no change, +3 reflecting a large beneficial change); and 0 to +4 should be used for the level of importance given to each element of the journey by the different social groups under consideration.

2.3.11 If primary research has been undertaken with different groups in the area then this will have established any problems with the physical aspects of accessibility and the importance that people place on such elements of the public transport system. If this information has been gained from local research then the weightings described above can be applied to each element of the system by different groups.

2.3.12 Table 4 demonstrates a worked example for the accessibility audit, with higher weightings in the table attributed to specific elements of the public transport system for certain potential vulnerable groups. If primary research has not been undertaken (or other suitable secondary evidence is not available) then the weightings should not be applied.

2.3.13 The total accessibility scores are calculated at the base of the table, and are then attributed qualitative impact assessments on the basis of these scores. The assessment shows that, whilst there are slight beneficial impacts attributed to the majority of groups, the impacts are scored as medium beneficial for older people and large beneficial for people with disabilities.

2.3.14 The overall appraisal score for each accessibility audit worksheet should be determined using the scoring criteria as shown in Table 3. This demonstrates a seven point scale based on the overall scores from the scoring system in Table 4.

Table 3 - Accessibility Audit Appraisal Criteria

Total Score	Accessibility Audit Appraisal Score
51 to 120	Large Beneficial
31 to 50	Moderate Beneficial
1 to 30	Slight Beneficial
0	Neutral
-1 to -30	Slight Adverse
-30 to -50	Moderate Adverse
-51 to -120	Large Adverse

Table 4 - Example Worksheet for Accessibility Audit

• Table 4 - Example Worksheet for Accessibility Audit (Adobe Acrobat - 15KB)

Combining Accessibility Analysis Score with the Accessibility Audit Score

2.3.15 The appraisal of transport interventions requires an overall score for each Social and Distributional Impacts indicator for inclusion in the Matrix of social and distributional impacts, described in Unit 3.17. It is recognised that these two aspects of accessibility may have different levels of importance in relation to individual interventions. However, for the purpose of consistency between transport appraisals, the weightings between the two aspects of accessibility should be considered equal.

2.3.16 To calculate the overall accessibility indicator score the analyst should consider the individual scores for each completed worksheet.

2.3.17 The process should use the following criteria to score the overall assessment score:

• A majority vote of overall scores is used to decide the final score;
• For a split number of scores the analyst should choose the more conservative score; and
• For an equally shared scoring the analyst should choose the midway score.

2.3.18 In the event of a negative impact score this must be highlighted in the assessment with a supporting qualitative statement.

2.3.19 A worked example is provided in Table 5.

Table 5 - Example of Overall Accessibility Indicator Score

Criteria (from individual worksheets)	Overall Score
Access to hospitals for older people	Moderate Beneficial
Access to employment for no car households	Slight Beneficial
Access to primary schools for 5 - 11 year olds	Slight Beneficial
Access to main centre for disabled people	Slight Beneficial
Access to employment centres for no car households	Slight Beneficial
Access to main centre for older people	Moderate Beneficial
Overall Assessment Score	Slight Beneficial

2.3.20 The scores for each of the social groups under consideration should then be reported in the matrix of social and distributional impacts, described in Step 5 of Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions (TAG Unit 3.17).

3. Datasets

3.1.1 This section provides an overview of the data required to effectively appraise the accessibility impacts of a transport intervention using the following datasets:

• Origin and Destination sets;
• Public Transport Network;
• Socio-demographic Information; and
• Data provided by Local Partners.

3.2 Origins

3.2.1 Measuring accessibility by public transport requires the assessment of journey times between designated origin points and destination points.

3.2.2 For appraisal purposes the origin sets can be made up of equally spaced grid points covering the study area or can represent the centre or (centroid) of a postcode sector. By using postcode data it is possible to weight any socio-demographic data used for the assessment according the number of households within each postcode area. Postcode data could be taken from the Royal Mail Codepoint file. This is updated every year, and the 'total number of domestic delivery points' for each postcode could be equated to total number of households.

3.3 Destinations

3.3.1 Destinations can be represented by a geo-referenced point or points depending on the type of service being appraised. For example, the calculation could examine access to a hospital for which a single point may be required, or alternatively it could examine access to the nearest hospital in an area with a number of hospitals. The types of destinations that would be needed for the appraisal are as follows:

• Areas of employment; main centres, business parks, industrial estates, and out of town retail outlets;
• Educational facilities: special educational needs, primary, secondary, further and higher education establishments;
• Health facilities: Hospitals, GPs, health clinics, dentists and pharmacies;
• Recreational and leisure facilities: parks, public sports centres and swimming pools;
• Major and Local Shopping Centres: fresh food and retail outlets; and
• Social amenities: community centres and day care facilities.

3.4 Public Transport Network

3.4.1 The public transport is updated on a weekly basis for Traveline inputs; however the Department for Transport (DfT) prepares a snapshot of public transport services for each local authority in England every October, which is available from DfT through the THALES National Public Transport Data Repository website (www.nptdr.org.uk). The data is available in ATCO CIF format and contains timings of all bus services down to individual stop level.

3.4.2 Alternatively this data is readily available through TransXchange which has been developed as a successor to ATCO_CIF files, with bus timetable and interchange information contained with an XML file.

3.4.3 More generic timetable data can be used to prepare a general overview of the public transport network in the study area to show, for example, bus, train and tram service frequencies, the extent of areas covered by high frequency (10 mins) 'turn up and go' services, how frequencies vary by time of day and day of week and community transport availability.

3.4.4 This data can be overlain against local area data to provide a spatial understanding of local accessibility issues such as travel times from major employers, major shopping centres, health and education facilities and major urban centres.

3.4.5 If the public transport service or network will be altered by the intervention then the proposed timetables should be analysed, as previously stated, to compare against the existing timings and identify any positive or negative impact.

3.5 Socio-Demographic Data

3.5.1 Socio-demographic data can be used to define how changes in accessibility impact on different potential vulnerable groups (social impacts) within the study area, together with the distribution of impacts across all residents within the study area (distributional impacts).

3.5.2 The evidence suggests that there are a number of potential social impacts in terms of changes in accessibility. The most recent demographic data is contained in the 2001 Census, and data should generally be analysed at a disaggregate level. In some cases, this should be focused at Output Area level, with analysis of areas where there are particular concentrations of potential vulnerable groups.

3.6 Local Data Sources

3.6.1 Other sources of accessibility evidence can be sought from local stakeholders. This may include data that stakeholders use for delivering and prioritising their services or for internal day-to-day performance management. Examples include:

• Adult and Children's Services Departments: local information on disabled people, key day care centre destinations and other community facilities;
• Children's Services Department (Education): availability of school transport and changes to the education system such as 14 - 19 year curriculum and school closures / mergers or openings;
• Planning: new housing and employment developments;
• Jobcentre Plus: detailed information on Jobseekers, labour markets and current skill requirements and vacancies in the study area;
• Primary Care Trusts and Hospitals: locations of hospitals and other health facilities; services available at each facility, closures/mergers and availability of health transport;
• Public Transport Operators: availability of travel information, types of vehicle used (e.g. wheelchair accessible), reliability, passenger satisfaction, results of their passenger surveys;
• Organisers of Community Buses: details of services;
• Supermarkets/Food Stores: shopping, opening hours and home delivery services; and
• Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Retail Forums and Major Employers: locations of jobs and vacancies; patterns of shift work.

3.6.2 A list of potential data sets for sourcing relevant socio-demographic information is provided in Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions (TAG Unit 3.17).




4. Further Information

The following documents provide information that follows on directly from the key topics covered in this Unit.

For information on:	See:	TAG Unit Number:
The approach to treatment of user benefits in Transport Analysis	Transport User Benefit Computation	Unit 3.5.3
Severance issues that could affect the walk to the public transport stop	The Severance Sub-Objective	Unit 3.6.2
Personal security issues that could affect people's confidence to travel	The Personal Security Sub-Objective	Unit 3.4.2
The costs of travel, which impact on people's ability to make trips	Personal Affordability	Unit 3.6.4
The background and overall approach to the Social and Distributional Impacts of transport interventions	Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions	Unit 3.17




5. References

Social Exclusion Unit (February 2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion




6. Document Provenance

This Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit is based on research undertaken by DfT on the social and distributional impacts of transport interventions. This replaces The Access to the Transport System Sub-Objective (TAG Unit 3.6.3) (June 2003), which is now withdrawn.

The guidance was originally released FOR CONSULTATION in September 2009 and IN DRAFT in January 2010. A few minor deletions were made in April 2011.

Technical queries and comments on this Unit should be referred to:

Integrated Transport Economic Appraisal (ITEA) Division
Department for Transport
Zone 3/04 Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR
Email: itea@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7944 6176
Fax: 020 7944 2198

Updated: April 2011