The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Two: Current Travel Patterns of Disabled People in Scotland

Objectives of Chapter 2:

• To demonstrate the different travel patterns of disabled and non-disabled adults in scotland using shs travel diary data
• To demonstrate the extent to which disabled adults currently travel and find it difficult to travel using shs data and tns survey data
• To identify how much more or widely disabled people want to travel drawing on tns survey

Introduction

2.1 The overall aim of this chapter is to examine the reality of travel patterns of disabled people and illustrate that action is still clearly required to move towards equality in travel opportunities. The chapter draws on a range of sources with the aim of building up a clear picture of travel patterns and how these compare with those of non-disabled people, and vary among disabled people. Different types of journeys are examined - for example journeys to access healthcare, employment, shopping and social activities. As well as different journey types, differences in relation to type of disability, economic status, household type and geographic location are also examined. The chapter draws on the analysis of the Scottish Household Survey ( SHS) and the quantitative survey of just over 700 people with long-term illness or disability undertaken for this study.

2.2 Evidence from both these sources is presented to compare the travel behaviour of disabled people with non-disabled people to demonstrate the considerable extent of the differences. The chapter also attempts to identify the extent to which the travel patterns of disabled people are currently constrained by the travel opportunities available and difficulties travelling and how much more travel might be undertaken if opportunities were different.

Comparison of Disabled and Non-Disabled Travel Behaviour: SHS Data

2.3 A key source of information about travel patterns in Scotland is the Travel Diary element of the SHS. The travel diary asks people about all the different trips that they made the previous day. There is a systematic under-recording of trip-making in the SHS diary for all those surveyed - it is thought that respondents generally make an additional 0.42 trips for every one trip that they report. This under-reporting is not thought to vary amongst sub-groups of respondents, however (i.e. disabled people are not more likely to under-report their trip making than are other people.) so it is valid to make comparisons between the travel patterns of disabled and non-disabled adults based on travel diary data. It is, however, not possible to compare SHS data with data from the TNS survey as the Travel Diary collates information on different trips over a particular period of time while the TNS survey considers the frequency of a specific set of journeys.

Trips on previous day

2.4 Approximately half (49%) of disabled adults did not make any journeys at all on the previous day, compared to 37% of adults with a long term illness and 25% of other adults (those who do not have a disability or long-term illness). This means that a non-disabled adult is 50% more likely to make any kind of trip on a day than is their disabled counterpart. The average number of trips made per person per day was 1.7, 2.0 and 2.5 for the three groups respectively (after correcting by 1.42 for the systematic under-reporting of trip making by all respondents to the SHS).

2.5 Fewer older ⁷ disabled adults (59%), long term ill adults (46%) and non-disabled/ long term ill adults (37%) made any journeys on the previous day, compared to their younger counterparts. The percentage of disabled adults, adults with a long term illness and other adults not making trips varied according to SHS urban/rural classifications. Disabled adults living in all six urban/rural classifications categories made fewer trips compared to adults with a long term illness and other adults. Disabled adults living in remote rural areas made the fewest trips compared to disabled adults living in other locations.

Mode of travel and journey purpose

2.6 Access to a car is a key issue - disabled adults, adults with a long term illness and other adults without driving licences made fewer trips compared with those with driving licences.

2.7 When considering the trips that were made, only minor variations in the main modes of travel used by disabled adults, adults with a long term illness and non-disabled adults were observed. Over half of disabled adults (52%) adults with a long term illness (55%) and non-disabled/long term ill adults (53%) travelled by car, 17% of each group walked, about 10% travelled as car passengers and 10% made journeys by service bus. This is in spite of the fact that (see below) many more disabled adults than non-disabled adults reported difficulties with using bus services.

2.8 Of those respondents who did make trips on the previous day, only minor variations in the journey purposes of disabled adults, adults with a long term illness and non-disabled/ LT adults were observed. Between 22% and 24% of trips made by all three groups were for shopping purposes, between 22% and 25% travelling to work and about 12% to visit friends/relatives. Thus it appears that the biggest difference in trip making between disabled and non-disabled adults is not the way that they make trips or the reason for the trips, but the fact that the former are much less likely to make a trip at all.

Bus use

2.9 There were some differences in bus use between disabled and non-disabled adults. Older disabled adults (63%) were less likely to have used local buses in the previous month compared with younger disabled adults (57%). In comparison younger non-disabled/long term ill adults were less likely to have used local buses compared with older non-disabled/long term ill adults. No differences were observed between older and younger long term ill adults in bus use. Bus use was observed to vary between urban/rural locations. A greater number of disabled adults (83%), adults with a long term illness (78%) and non-disabled/long term ill adults (86%) reported not using their local bus services in remote rural areas compared with disabled adults (50%), adults with a long term illness (45%) and non-disabled/long term ill adults (43%) living in large urban areas.

2.10 A greater number of disabled adults (75%), adults with a long term illness (72%) and non-disabled/long term ill adults (75%) with valid driving licences reported not using their local bus services compared with disabled adults (50%), adults with a long term illness (39%) and non-disabled/long term ill adults (25%) without driving licences.

2.11 Disabled adults who use a wheelchair (93%) or a walking stick (72%) were less likely to use bus services compared with the general disabled adult population (60%), adults with a long term illness (55%) or non-disabled/long term ill (60%). 87% of disabled adults had not travelled by bus in the evening compared with 82% of adults with a long term illness and 77% of non-disabled/long term ill adults. Greater percentages of older disabled adults (90%), adults with a long term illness (87%) and non-disabled/long term ill adults (82%) had not travelled by bus in the evening compared with their younger counterparts.

Train use

2.12 92% of disabled adults did not use a train service in the last month, compared with 89% of adults with a long term illness and 81% of non-disabled/long term ill adults. Fewer older disabled adults (95%), adults with a long term illness (93%) and non-disabled/ LT ill adults (87%) reported using trains compared with their younger counterparts.

Key findings from the analysis of SHS data include:

• A non-disabled adult is 50% more likely to make any kind of trip on a day than is a disabled adult.
• The average number of trips made per person per day was 1.7 by disabled people, 2.0 by people with a long term illness and 2.5 by people with no disability or long term illness.
• Older people across all groups made fewer trips than younger ones, as did those without a driving licence compared with those who had a licence.
• Disabled people made fewer trips in all types of urban and rural locations than those in other groups; disabled people in remote rural locations made the fewest trips.
• There was minor variation in number of trips made by mode of travel used and journey purpose.
• Buses were less likely to be used by older disabled adults than by younger ones. In contrast younger non-disabled adults were less likely to use buses than older ones
• Fewer older people in all groups used trains compared with younger people.
• Use of buses was less in remote rural areas than in large urban areas across all groups of respondents.
• Likelihood of using buses decreased for people who used mobility aids including wheelchairs and walking sticks

Travel Patterns - Frequency of Travel: TNS Survey

2.13 Having established that there are key differences in the travel behaviour between disabled and non-disabled adults - with disabled adults travelling significantly less than non-disabled adults, it is important to examine in further detail, the travel patterns of disabled adults to identify:

• Which journey types are undertaken by which people?
• What are the most common and least common journey types?
• What are the easiest and most difficult journey types?
• What kinds of trips would people like to undertake more often?

2.14 The TNS survey took the form of a face-to-face questionnaire survey of 700 people who described themselves as disabled or having a long-term illness, randomly selected from previous respondents to the SHS. The sample for the project specific survey includes people with a broad range of travel patterns and experiences. Before examining the detail of different travel patterns of those interviewed who do travel, it is worth noting that a significant minority of respondents in the sample NEVER travelled at all - 3% (n=18) said that they never make any journeys. All of these respondents are either part of a pensioner couple household or live in a household not containing any other adults. The majority (11 out of 18) are pensioners and the remainder are adults of working age.

2.15 Table 2.1 shows the frequency of making certain journey types for the remainder of the sample who do travel. Putting aside journeys to work or education and to a day centre or similar (as these journey types only relate to a minority of the sample population), the results indicate that what might be deemed 'essential journeys' such as shopping or visiting a doctor are much more common than social visits. A considerable proportion of disabled people never travel for evening leisure purposes (64%), daytime leisure purposes (60%) or go away on holidays or for weekends (around 50% each). Visiting friends or relatives is more common suggesting that such journeys are shorter or easier (or are perhaps facilitated by friends or family).

Table 2.1: Frequency of undertaking different journey types

Source: TNS Survey 2005
Key:
* = less than 5%
- = 0

2.16 Annex 3 provides tables showing the frequency of undertaking different journey types by key characteristics such as urban/rural location, economic status, household type, presence of children etc. An example journey, visiting friends and relatives, is included below.

2.17 Analysis was carried out to compare frequency of undertaking journeys by the urban or rural location of respondent (for the purposes of this study, the Scottish Executives six-way rural-urban classification has been split into two). No clear patterns of difference between urban and rural dwellers were identified. Overall, there are broad similarities between urban and rural areas in patterns of data although there appears to be a general tendency for a greater proportion of those in urban areas never to make any journeys. However, for some journey types (for example convenience stores, supermarkets and visiting friends and relatives), those living in urban areas travel more often and for others (such as work or education and daytime leisure), rural dwellers do so. This suggests that the explanation for the travel patterns is more complex than either disability or rural/urban location alone.

2.18 Generally, given the overall trend that disabled adults travel less than their non-disabled counterparts, travel patterns among disabled adults adhere to what would be expected from looking at travel patterns of the population as a whole with older, single pensioners travelling least and younger adults in paid employment or education, travelling most. For example, almost a fifth of single pensioners never visit friends or family, almost a third never visit a convenience store and over two-thirds never travel in the evenings for leisure purposes.

Table 2.2: Frequency of visiting friends or relatives by key variables

Source: TNS Survey 2005

Key findings from the TNS survey on the analysis of travel patterns include:

• A significant minority of respondents in the sample, 3% (n=18) NEVER travelled at all.
• Essential journeys, such as shopping or visiting a doctor, were much more common than social visits.
• The explanation of travel patterns among disabled people and those with a long term illness appears to be more complex than either type of disability or location alone.
• Older single pensioners travel the least, and younger adults in paid employment or education travel the most.

Ease or Difficulty of Travel: SHS Data/ TNS Survey

2.19 As the data from the SHS Travel Diary Data and the TNS Survey indicate, overall, disabled adults travel significantly less than their non-disabled counterparts. In addition, there are different travel patterns within the sample of disabled adults indicating that older adults and those with particular disabilities travel less than other disabled adults. It is evident that, particularly some older disabled adults have very limited social interactions owing to difficulties travelling and that this is much more pronounced than for older people in the non-disabled population.

2.20 The data also indicates that for many disabled adults, travel is much more difficult than for non-disabled adults. For example, data from the SHS demonstrates that over three quarters of disabled adults (78%) indicated they experienced difficulties in performing certain daily activities, compared to 56% of adults with a long term illness. The greatest difficulties experienced by disabled adults concerned climbing stairs (57%), walking for 10 minutes (54%) and standing for 10 minutes (51%). In comparison, 38% of adults with a long term illness stated they had difficult climbing stairs, 34% walking for 10 minutes and 30% standing for 10 minutes. That this clearly extends to difficulties travelling is evidenced by the fact that twice as many disabled adults reported difficulties using buses (35%), trains (26%), taxis (14%) and cars (13%) compared with adults with a long term illness.

2.21 For all activities, a greater percentage of older disabled and long term ill adults reported experiencing difficulties with each activity. The high proportion of disabled people requiring mobility aids further suggests that a significant proportion are likely to experience difficulty with travel - 15% of disabled adults and 8% of adults with a long term illness use a wheelchair, and 50% of disabled adults and 36% of adults with a long term illness use walking sticks/crutches.

Fig 2.1: % of disabled adults experiencing difficulties using transport modes

2.22 As analysis later in the chapter demonstrates, a key reason given by respondents in the TNS survey for not undertaking journeys is that the journey is too difficult and that a considerable proportion of disabled people do travel despite difficulties they might face. As noted above, 3% of all TNS Survey respondents NEVER travel as travelling is too difficult. In addition:

• 29% say that they always experience difficulty travelling;
• 24% sometimes experience difficulty travelling
• 19% occasionally experience difficulty travelling

2.23 Given the high proportion of respondents indicating that travelling is difficult, it is clear that many respondents are undertaking journeys despite such journeys being difficult. Table 2.3 shows the extent of such difficulty by those who do (at least occasionally) undertake journeys from the TNS survey data.

Table 2.3: Ease or difficulty of undertaking each journey type

Source: TNS Survey 2005

2.24 The table above shows, for example, that, although 64% of people frequently (either most days or at least once a week) visit a convenience shop, a fifth find the journey fairly or very difficult. Similarly, 87% ever visit friends or family but almost a third find travel for such visits difficult. As the table indicates, level of ease or difficultly varies by journey type reflecting the different forms of transport and distances involved in different trips.

2.25 In relation to the geographic location of respondents, perhaps surprisingly, there are no significant differences in ease of different journeys by urban/rural location and where differences do exist, these appear to reflect general differences between urban and rural locations (for example it is slightly more difficult for those in rural areas than in urban area to travel to a supermarket).

2.26 The following table, using one journey type as an example indicates that level of difficulty also varies depending on the demographic characteristics of respondents.

Table 2.4: Difficulty of journey to visit friends or relatives by demographic variables

Source: TNS Survey 2005

2.27 Age combined with disability does appear to have a major effect on travel frequency but age appears to be much less strongly correlated with perceptions of the ease or difficulty of travelling. For example, while 28% of single pensioners and 26% of pensioner couples say they find it very or fairly difficult to visit friends or relatives, the proportions of single adults of working age or working couples are similar or higher (26% and 36% respectively). This pattern is repeated for journeys to convenience stores and for evening journeys for leisure purposes. This indicates that travelling is perceived to be difficult by a significant proportion of disabled adults.

2.28 So, to try and identify the extent of the impact of travel problems on the lives of disabled adults, we need to consider both frequency of travel and difficulty with travel. Looking first at a relatively common journey type (visiting convenience or local shop), overall, 3% of the sample never make any journeys (including this journey type), 25% of the remainder, never make this particular journey and one in five of those who make the journey find it either fairly or very difficult. This indicates that even for the most commonly undertaken journey, 40% of respondents either cannot undertake it or find it difficult to do so.

2.29 In relation to longer (and perhaps more complex journey types) such as going away for a weekend, 3% never travel, 50% never go away for the weekend and almost a third of those making such a journey find it difficult. Thus, just over 65% - that is almost two thirds of all disabled adults - either cannot go away for weekends or find it difficult to do so.

2.30 Key questions are what proportion of those who say they cannot currently travel could do so if travel opportunities were improved and what proportion of those who currently have difficulty travelling would travel more if travelling were easier?

2.31 These questions are investigated using the TNS survey data. It could be suggested that a proportion of respondents do not make particular journeys simply because they do not wish to do so. To address this, those who never make any journeys or never make specific journeys were asked if they would like to make particular journeys. In addition, those who made journeys, but only infrequently, were asked if they would like to make these journeys more often.

2.32 Overall, 70% of the sample indicated that, if travel were not a difficulty, they would travel more than they currently did. Table 2.5 shows how this percentage varies by different characteristics such as age, type of disability and geographical location.

2.33 As Table 2.5 shows, there is no significant difference in relation to rural/urban location and wishing to travel more, rather, the differences appear to relate to age, type of disability and economic status (or more likely, a combination of the three). For example, 60% of single pensioners would like to travel more compared with 85% of single adults of working age. Similarly, 59% of those retired from paid work would like to travel more compared with 76% of those in paid work. Those with mental health problems or learning disabilities would like to travel more compared with those with other illnesses or disabilities.

Table 2.5: Percentage of respondents in each category who would like to travel more

Source: TNS Survey 2005

2.34 So, what are the key characteristics of the people who wish to travel more and what are the key characteristics of those who are unlikely to travel more? As Table 2.6 shows, there are some similarities and differences between the two sub-samples. The samples do not really differ in relation to rural or urban location or, significantly, between adults with different disabilities. Those who would like to travel more are more often of working age than are those who don't want to travel more. The reverse is true when pensioners are considered.

Table 2.6: Profile of those who would and would not like to travel more

Source: TNS Survey 2005

Key findings about the ease or difficulty of travel include:

• A key reason for disabled people not undertaking journeys is difficulty travelling - almost three-quarters of disabled people or those with a long term illness experience at least occasional difficulty travelling
• Difficulty travelling is as common for disabled people in urban and rural areas (but it must be noted that there are key differences between travel behaviour and opportunities between urban and rural areas common to everyone living in these areas)
• While age combined with disability affects frequency of travel, it does not appear to have an effect on perceptions of ease or difficulty of travel.
• Around 40% of respondents cannot undertake, or have difficulty undertaking, the most commonly made journey; almost two-thirds cannot undertake a more complex or longer journey such as a weekend away.
• Seven in ten respondents in the TNS Survey would like to travel more than they currently do. This varied by a combination of age, type of disability and economic status.

Latent Demand Across Journey Types: TNS Survey

2.35 The discussion above has been about travelling in general; the following section examines specific types of journey. Table 2.7 shows the current position of survey respondents in relation to all the different journeys covered in the survey and is a good starting point from which to try and tease out levels of latent demand for travel as it indicates the percentage who make the particular journey as often as they need or want and the percentage who do not need to make the journey. These two figures combined immediately indicate from where there will be no additional demand - for example, overall, 8% of respondents travel to a day centre as much as they currently need to and 55% do not need to travel to a day centre - therefore, there is only any possible additional demand for such a journey from 37% of all disabled adults. The next stage is to assess or estimate what percentage of the remainder might wish to make particular journeys.

2.36 The final column in Table 2.7 shows the maximum potential latent demand for journeys assuming that all those who do not want to or do not need to make journeys do not do so owing to difficulties travelling ⁸. However, this assumption is clearly an overestimate as, for example, it assumes that all respondents would, if possible, like to travel to work or education or to visit a day care centre which is clearly not the case. In order to get a more realistic estimate, it is necessary to further examine the reasons behind the figures shown in the table.

Table 2.7: View and status of each journey type by respondent

Source: TNS Survey 2005

2.37 So, a starting point is looking at those who do make journeys but who would like to make them more often and do not because of difficulties travelling. This enables us to make sure we are not overstating the latent demand by including those who would like to make the journey more often but do not do so owing to a reason other than difficulties travelling. Next, we need to look at what percentage of those who don't want to make journeys say this is because of difficulties travelling. Finally, we need to consider what percentage of those who say they can't make the journey say this is owing to difficulties travelling. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8: Percentage saying journey not made owing to difficulties with travelling

Source: TNS Survey 2005

2.38 The figures presented in Table 2.8 provide the minimum percentage who say they would make additional journeys if travel were less difficult as it excludes all those giving other reasons for not wanting, needing or being able to make the journey. The actual percentage will lie between the minimums shown in column D of Table 2.8 and the maximums shown in Column F in Table 2.7 above (so for example, in relation to going away for a weekend, the figure will be between 12% and 68%) as it can be argued that an un-measurable proportion of the difference between the two figures is owing to respondents' perceptions of current transport options.

Key findings about latent demand include:

• Maximum latent demand for each journey type are estimated to range between 9% for hospital appointments and 69% for taking a holiday
• Minimum latent demand is estimated to range between 1% for hospital appointments and 13% for travelling on holiday
• The 'true' figures lie somewhere between the minimum and maximum estimates.

Summary

Differing travel patterns

2.39 This chapter has demonstrated that disabled adults travel significantly less than non-disabled adults. In fact, SHS Travel Diary data indicates that a non-disabled adult is 50% more likely to make any kind of trip on a day than is their disabled counterpart. Further analysis of data from the SHS in relation to accessing services and facilities suggests that this difference in travel patterns contributes to levels of social exclusion. For example, data from the SHS indicates that a greater percentage of disabled adults viewed a range of local services (outpatients, doctor's, bank, public transport, chemists, post office and grocery shops) as inconvenient to use compared with adults with a long term illness and other adults. Almost 20% of disabled adults viewed public transport as inconvenient compared with 14% of adults with a long term illness and non-disabled/long term ill adults. A greater percentage of older disabled adults and adults with a long term illness rated all seven services as inconvenient compared with their younger counterparts. Disabled adults were less likely to report participating in a range of social activities (i.e. communicating with, visiting, going out with, or having round, friends or relatives) compared with adults with a long term illness, or with non-disabled adults.

Difficulty travelling

2.40 The data also indicates that a significant proportion of disabled adults who do travel find it difficult and that a proportion do not travel or do not travel as much as they wish owing to difficulties with travel. For example, in relation to a relatively common journey type (visiting convenience or local shop), overall, the TNS survey data demonstrated that 40% of respondents either cannot undertake it or find it difficult to do so. The proportion is even higher for longer and perhaps more complex journeys such as going away for a weekend where the data suggest that just over 65% - that is almost two-thirds of all disabled adults - either cannot go away for weekends or find it difficult to do so.

Latent Demand

2.41 Finally, TNS survey data indicates that, overall, 70% of the sample would, if travel were not a difficulty, travel more than they currently do. However, looking at specific journeys indicates that potential latent demand is slightly lower because of peoples' differing needs and preferences in relation to travel. Taking 'visiting friends and relatives, as an example, Table 2.7 indicates that the maximum possible increase in demand for such a journey is 47% (comprising those who either state that they would like to make such a journey more than they currently do, that they don't want to make the journey and those who state that they are currently unable to do so). However, as Table 2.8 indicates, not all those who say they are currently unable to make such a journey give travel as the reason so we need to reduce the estimate slightly to reflect this. Therefore, focusing only on those who say difficulty with travel is the reason for not making the journey, not wanting to make the journey or not making it as frequently as required reduces the overall estimate to 12%. The latter is likely to be an underestimate and the former an overestimate - the true figure is likely to lie between 12% and 47%

« Previous | Contents | Next »