The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Three: Barriers to Travel

Objectives of Chapter 3:

To examine key negative factors which affect and contribute towards disabled peoples' travel patterns;
To investigate what prevents people from travelling more easily, often and widely;
To identify the key barriers and obstacles facing disabled travellers;

drawing on:

Scottish Household Survey Data
Literature Review
Practical Audits
TNS Survey of disabled people
Concessionary fare data

3.1 Chapter 2 presented clear evidence showing the different travel patterns of disabled and non-disabled adults and demonstrated that the majority of disabled adults want to travel more than they do currently. This chapter examines which factors contribute to the travel behaviour of disabled people and what barriers and obstacles exist to prevent travel parity between disabled and non-disabled adults. Several elements of the proposed research feed into meeting this objective. Firstly, secondary evidence is presented drawing on the SHS and the review of literature undertaken for this project. Secondly, additional primary evidence is presented drawing on a range of practical audits undertaken as joint exercises between disabled travellers and researchers for the current research. Thirdly, evidence is presented from the TNS quantitative survey of disabled people. Finally, the chapter discusses the role of concessionary fares drawing on a range of evidence. Concessionary fares are treated separately owing to the importance previously attached to their role by policy makers.

Evidence from Previous Studies: SHS Data

3.2 According to the recent Scottish Household Survey ( SHS), a quarter of respondents (26.6%) reported having "any long-standing illness, health problem or disability that limits your daily activities or the kind of work that you can do", with 7.6% of the sample reporting difficulty using a bus, 10.9% difficulty standing for 10 minutes and 11.9% difficulty walking for 10 minutes. Factor analysis of the data found "difficulty using a bus" to be correlated with two separate groups of items: one factor grouped difficulty with bus use with difficulties with standing, walking and climbing stairs, and a second factor grouped together four transport modes - taxi, car, train, bus - suggesting they present a common difficulty to some people. Analysis was also carried out to identify the factors influencing whether respondents had used the bus in the last month. Whether the respondent's household did or did not have access to a car emerged as the most powerful predictor of bus use in the previous month. Amongst those with no car access, difficulty with using a bus made the most difference (reducing usage from 67% to 20%).

3.3 Evidence from the SHS in relation to the difficulties and barriers associated with travelling for disabled people suggests some key issues relating to accessibility and safety on public transport.

Barriers to bus use

3.4 An analysis of SHS data around reasons why people do not use public transport at all, or more than they do at present showed some marked differences between disabled and non-disabled people. Respondents who indicated that they have used local bus services once per week or less, or not at all, were asked "In general, what discourages you from using buses more often than you do?" Respondents who gave more than one reason were then asked to indicate their main reason that discouraged them from using buses more often.

• 46% of disabled adults stated that health reasons discouraged them from using buses more often compared to 30% of long term ill adults and 2% of non-disabled/long term ill adults. Difficulty accessing buses was also an important reason for disabled people not to use buses more (11% gave this reason);
• A greater percentage of older disabled adults, and older long term ill adults, cited health reasons and difficulty accessing buses (13%) as main reasons for not using public transport more, compared to their younger counterparts;
• In contrast, the reason cited by the greatest number of non-disabled/long term ill adults for not using public transport more was that they use their own car, although 20% of disabled adults and 23% of long term ill adults also cited this reason.

Table 3.1: Reasons for not using buses generally by age

NB: Only reasons cited by over 5% of either disabled adults, adults with a long term illness or non-disabled/long term ill adults are presented in table

3.5 Looking specifically at disabled people who use certain mobility aids, their bus use is seen to be significantly lower than the population as a whole.

Table 3.2: Frequency of bus use; by use of mobility aid

3.6 As the following table shows, it also appears that perceptions of neighbourhood safety, and safety on public transport, are worse amongst disabled people and people with a long term illness, compared with the wider population. In fact, the proportion of disabled travellers feeling 'not safe at all' when travelling by bus in the evening is approximately double the proportion of non-disabled travellers.

Table 3.3: Perceived safety when travelling by bus, train and walking at night

Key findings from SHS data on barriers include:

• Difficulty using a bus is correlated with mobility issues (such as difficulties walking, standing and climbing stairs) and with difficulties using other forms of transport (taxi, car or train).
• For almost half of disabled people and almost a third of those with a long term illness, health reasons discouraged them from using public transport.
• People using wheelchairs or walking sticks were significantly less likely to use busses than the population as a whole
• The proportion of disabled travellers feeling 'not safe at all' when travelling by bus in the evening is approximately double the proportion of non-disabled travellers.

Evidence from Previous Studies: Literature Review

3.7 Part of this study has involved an analysis of previous research and literature examining some of the key barriers and obstacles preventing transport being more accessible for disabled people in Scotland. These barriers and obstacles have been assessed on the basis of research studies, good practice guidelines and communication with transport providers in the field. For example, Meadows ⁹ suggests that there are three categories of inhibiters to movement for disabled people; these are "Personal" (pertaining to the individual's health, functional capabilities and expectations for mobility), "Environmental" (weather conditions, physical accessibility of the environment) and "Trip-related" (length of the trip, the cost of travel, the reliability and availability of transport services provided).

3.8 The literature review identified a number of barriers related to information provision; accessing the public transport network and using public transport. These are described in more detail below:

Information Provision

3.9 The availability of information before and during a journey can have a profound effect on the passenger's experience of that journey and can even be a determining factor of a disabled person's decision to travel or not. This is regardless of the accessibility of vehicles and infrastructure, and is demonstrated by several UK research studies. Most recent was the investigation of disabled people's information requirements, commissioned by the Department for Transport in 2003 ¹⁰. A general finding from this research was that there was generally an inverse relationship between people's propensity to be able to travel confidently and independently, and the importance they place on the requirement for pre-trip information. For example, participants in the research who were deaf or hard of hearing, who were among those most able to travel independently, put a relatively low level of importance on pre-trip information, and were more concerned about travel information during their trip. Conversely, the people with learning disabilities and wheelchair users, who were least able to travel independently, regarded accurate and reliable pre-trip information as being crucial before feeling confident to begin a journey. Just as it is important for there to be an unbroken "chain of accessibility" for a journey to be feasible, disabled travellers place greater importance than non-disabled people on the need for information to be available on each leg of a journey.

Accessing the Public Transport Network

3.10 An important element of the accessibility of public transport is the ease with which people can physically access the network; typically, this refers to how easy it is for people to travel from their home to the nearest bus stop or train station, and for disabled people the important factors are the distance they need to travel in order to achieve this, and the quality of the pedestrian environment.

3.11 Research carried out in 1994 as a follow-up to the London Area Travel Survey ¹¹ found, on the basis of 2,417 interviews, that almost a quarter of the sample could not walk for more than five minutes (which equates to approximately 50 metres, or less). Similarly, about a third of the sample could not stand for more than five minutes. Combining information on interviewees' ability to walk and stand, it was deduced that 68% of the sample would be able to manage a walk of 50 metres and a wait of one minute, whilst 40% could manage a 200 metre walk and a five minute wait. These findings suggest that, in order for local public transport services to be usable for all members of the public, there is a requirement for them to have both a high penetration into residential neighbourhoods, and be of high frequency, to minimise the time during which people need to stand and wait. (The same is true for services needing to have destinations close to where people wish to travel, in order to minimise walking distance at the end of the journey).

3.12 The quality of the pedestrian environment is also very important in enabling disabled people to access the public transport network, since many obstacles might be encountered in the street environment. For instance, blind and partially sighted people can not use kerbs to guide them, or get on buses, if parked cars or goods vehicles block their way. Blind and partially sighted people and wheelchair users who have participated in research have often expressed their frustration at the lack of enforcement to prevent other road users from parking in such a way. People's experiences of walking confirm Freund's (2001) ¹² assertion concerning the "disabling city", where the car has dominated public spaces to the exclusion and disablement of those without access to a car, with walkers encountering barriers and "walker unfriendly" spaces.

3.13 Signage and tactile paving ¹³ are also essential for blind and partially sighted people, as they make them aware of physical features in the environment such as lamp-posts, bollards, bus stops, a pedestrian crossing or irregular changes to the pavement (such as a dropped kerb). The lack of tactile markings can make walking very dangerous. Research ¹⁴ has shown that blind and partially sighted people can often mistake lamp-posts for bus stops because of the lack of tactile paving to guide them. Other obstacles on pavements include parked cars, uneven surfaces, rubbish bins, shop frontages, other pedestrians and cyclists. Generally, blind and partially sighted people need to be able to walk in a straight line, preferably along the roadside or a wall, but physical barriers can make this task extremely difficult. These obstacles are also a major problem for wheelchair and scooter users (including manual and powered mobility vehicles) and often cause them to use a longer route, drive on grass or drive on the road. Research commissioned by the Department for Transport into the use of powered wheelchairs and scooters in the UK¹⁵, has found the poor maintenance of pavements and footways to be a major obstacle for users of such mobility aids. In fact, a questionnaire survey conducted for this project indicated that 86% of users of Class 2 powered wheelchairs and scooters (i.e. "pavement vehicles" designed to travel at no more than 4 mph) said that they used their vehicle on the road on some occasions, adding that this was mainly due to obstacles encountered on pavements.

3.14 Pedestrian crossing facilities are extremely important to blind and partially sighted people, but research has found that their experience of them can be negative, due to inconsistent design within and between regions, the absence of tactile paving and audio information at some crossings and insufficient time being allowed to enable pedestrians to safely cross the road.

3.15 There is evidence to suggest that such barriers can reduce a person's confidence to travel alone, even to walk to shops that are local to that person's home. These types of barriers can also result in disabled people relying on lifts from friends and family, or Community Transport services to access local amenities. The limitation of such means is that the user does not have the freedom of choice to travel with spontaneity, nor is there the flexibility in when and where the user can travel for purposes such as shopping, leisure and social events, as well as going to work or attending college.

3.16 Other problems within the pedestrian environment that have a major impact on people with walking difficulties, and in particular blind and partially sighted people, involve the relocation of bus stops as a result of service disruptions - a common impact of regeneration and construction work. Disabled people need to be made aware of such changes before they make a journey, otherwise, as research has indicated, it could lead to many people not making the journey in the future, especially if it reduces their confidence to travel alone.

3.17 Just as the pedestrian environment is important in providing access to the bus, tram and rail network, access to the taxi and private hire service industries relies on accessible means for making bookings. Many disabled people find taxis and private hire vehicles to be the most appropriate and accessible form of transport - this was a finding of research commissioned by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee ( DPTAC) ¹⁶ in their national survey of over 900 disabled people (including people with physical disabilities, people who were deaf or hard of hearing and people who were blind or partially sighted). This is because of the convenience and safety of the door-to-door service being offered by these means of transport, and also the facility of being able to book a (private hire) car at any time of day, (which is not possible with demand responsive services offered by the Community Transport sector). It is especially important, therefore, that such transport resources are made available to as many people as possible. Affordability is acknowledged to be a very important aspect in mobility for disabled people - and taxis and private hire services are, without subsidy, more expensive than, say, buses.

Using public transport

3.18 Key issues relating to the accessibility of public transport vehicles emerging from previous research relate to: ¹⁷ perceptions of a lack of consistency in relation to customer care, driver courtesy and communication. There are also problems with a lack of consistency of provision of audio and visual information which increases the passenger's reliance on drivers. The physical accessibility of public transport vehicles is also a difficulty for some who have a need for low-floor buses, guaranteed space allocation and seats at the front of the bus.

3.19 There are some problems relating to ticketing - in particular, handling cash to pay for fares on-board a vehicle can be problematic for some people, including blind and partially sighted people and people with learning disabilities. Additionally there is a lack of, or perception of lack of, safety and feeling of personal security. Research studies for DPTAC and the Department for Transport have found that there is an apprehension among many disabled people of being verbally or physically abused when using public transport (e.g. waiting at bus stops and in train stations, and on-vehicle) which can inhibit public transport use, especially at certain times of the day (e.g. after school hours and during the evening). Some 40% of disabled people in England and Wales say they are fearful of travelling by public transport, and 46% say that improvements to public transport would have a positive improvement on their life ( DPTAC, 2002).

3.20 Another common concern of disabled people in public transport environments - particularly people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and people with learning disabilities who are at risk of becoming confused - is what might happen to them in an emergency evacuation situation. In the case of people who are deaf or hard of hearing, this is because alarms are often solely audible.

The key barriers highlighted by the literature review included:

• The lack of provision of accurate and timely information, both pre-trip and during the journey, in accessible formats is a key barrier to many disabled travellers.
• A key barrier is accessibility of the public transport network including problems associated with people being able to reach the nearest point of this network (a bus stop, for example) from their home; the quality of the pedestrian environment; and accessing more flexible door-to-door services.
• Using public transport, including both the physical accessibility of vehicles and the lack of availability or inconsistency of public transport staff to support the individual needs of disabled people when they are using public transport.

Primary Evidence: Journey Audits

3.21 As indicated in the literature review, there are a complex range of considerations and potential barriers to consider. This is further supported by the audit evidence which also indicates the multi-faceted nature of the potential barriers and the need for packages of planned and tailored responses. It is important to point out that, as all the audits involved those who do travel (albeit some with carers), have access to public transport and whose disability does enable them to travel (albeit with some difficulties), the audits focus specifically on barriers people encounter while travelling, rather than those that may prevent people from travelling.

3.22 Six audits were conducted with disabled people in various locations in the Central Belt and in Dundee. The purpose of the audits was to assess the quality of the street environment linking the disabled person's home to the nearest bus stop, and from the destination bus stop for a "typical" journey to the final destination. In all bar one of the audits this was the trip from the disabled person's home to city centre shops or a city centre station. The assessment consisted of two elements: a checklist evaluation by Napier researchers of the street environment (quality of footways, dropped kerbs, crossings, crossing time, tactile paving, audible signals, bus stop clearways, bus information at bus stops etc.); and a user evaluation by means of a structured questionnaire. The motivation for the audits was twofold: firstly, previous work (as identified in the literature review) has shown that the street environment is as much a barrier to many disabled people's use of public transport as is the public transport itself; and, secondly, because the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 may put a duty on local authorities to carry out similar audits and improve the accessibility of their street environments. Full details of the various audits, including accompanying photographs, are included in Annex Five. Five of them are summarised below.

Audit One

3.23 Audit One, which was undertaken by two disabled people using a wheelchair accompanied by two researchers, indicates the range of barriers and obstacles involved in a short trip from the city centre home of the respondents to shops in the City by bus, and then return without the use of transport.

3.24 The journey by wheelchair from home to the bus stop (around 300 metres) involved some difficulty caused by uneven and cracked paving - this made movement difficult and had, on previous occasions, caused a wheelchair user to get stuck. An additional difficulty was caused by the timing on a pedestrian crossing which the respondents felt did not allow adequate time to cross without rushing. The actual road crossing was also difficult owing to the cracked surface and a high kerb. The remaining journey to the bus stop was made more of a challenge by the placing of utility poles.

3.25 Bus timetable information was displayed but was too high for the participants to view all the information clearly. No raised kerb was provided for boarding purposes. The travellers were unable to access the first bus which arrived as the allocated wheelchair spaces were occupied by children's buggies which the driver did not ask passengers to move. Traveller 1 was able to board the next bus. The driver knelt the bus but did not deploy the ramp or offer to do so and the bus moved off before the traveller was fully secured in the wheelchair space. Traveller 2 waited a further 12 minutes for another bus which she boarded without the bus being knelt or the ramp being deployed. The bus moved off while the Traveller was approximately half way to the wheelchair space. Upon arrival at the destination bus stop, neither driver utilised the ramp. The trip from the bus stop to destination and the return homeward journeys were relatively unproblematic owing to adequate paving and pedestrian crossings in most locations.

3.26 So, in the course of what could be seen as short and relatively simple journeys, the participants faced and had to overcome a range of obstacles in the form of physical barriers (such as uneven paving and accessing the bus without the driver deploying the ramp or utilising kneeling equipment), not being able to travel on the first bus, not being able to travel together and the bus moving off before they were secure.

3.27 The two participants were asked to comment on their general perceptions of the journey and both felt that, if a certain set of requirements could be relied on, the journey would be unproblematic - the driver deploying the ramp, pulling close to the kerb and kneeling the bus, the wheelchair space being unoccupied by buggies and being able to secure themselves before the bus moves off. The key problem for both travellers was the uncertainty surrounding these requirements. There were additional concerns about uneven paving and potholes as these were perceived as dangerous. Thus in general they were reluctant to use conventional public transport.

Audit Two

3.28 The second audit involved a journey from a sheltered housing development in a city suburb to a supermarket about half a mile from the participant's home - again by bus. On this occasion, the traveller was deaf, has a very narrow field of vision and also had difficulty walking owing to a childhood illness. In relation to the trip from home to the supermarket, the following difficulties were experienced:

• There are no dropped kerbs within the sheltered housing development so he had to walk in the road.
• Uneven footways in several locations making walking difficult and potentially dangerous.
• The walk from the destination bus stop into the supermarket entails crossing the wide and un-signalled junction of the car park with a major and busy road. The participant found this to be a significant barrier and was clear that it should be signalised if it was to be made easier for him to cross.
• The short length of time provided at the pelican crossing outside the supermarket was insufficient, given the participant's walking speed.

3.29 Again, the participant was asked to comment on the journey. Particular problems experienced on other occasions when undertaking the journey were:

• When boarding the bus it starts before he can sit down, even though he is unsteady on his feet. Drivers rarely lower low-floor buses for him.
• People do not tend to give up their seat for him, even if they are sat in the older and disabled priority seats at the front of the bus.
• Uneven footway surfaces mean that he trips and falls over quite frequently.
• When he is the only person waiting at the bus stop, he sometimes fails to see the bus and it does not stop.
• He has also been hit by cars when crossing the road. This is because of his limited field of vision as well as other site-specific factors.

Audit Three

3.30 Audit Three involved five participants all living in a residential home and having mobility problems of different types (including blindness, deafness, learning disabilities, and problems with balance). The trip comprised a combined foot and bus journey from home to a City Centre train station. Difficulties and obstacles faced during the journey were as follows:

• Walking was sometimes difficult owing to uneven and cracked paving slabs.
• The travellers had to negotiate several obstacles such as parked cars, bikes or temporary street signs.
• Heavy traffic noise making audible crossing instructions difficult to hear.
• Lack of clearway or raised kerb for boarding buses.
• Lack of information at bus stops (or not clear enough to read).
• Seats in bus stops facing away from approaching buses so people cannot see them.
• Inaccessible seats - not possible for all to sit on owing to design (too narrow and high).
• Bus pulling away before passengers seated or secured.
• Drivers failing to 'kneel' buses for passengers to access bus.
• Wheelchair spaces on buses occupied by other passengers (e.g. with buggies).
• Lack of street crossing at convenient place to cross.

3.31 As with other audits, residents were invited to discuss their perceptions of the journey and indicate what they perceived to be the main barriers. Some of the participants no longer used buses at all, with the main reasons being difficulties boarding or alighting, even when ramps were deployed. One participant commented that for her "it is potentially dangerous trying to get on and off buses in my electric wheelchair" and another stated "some drivers will help, but a lot won't, which means taking the risk that the next bus has a helpful driver on". Both participants recounted instances in the past where they had asked drivers if they could deploy ramps and were told they (the drivers) were not qualified (have not been trained) to lower ramps. Some of the local buses are fitted with automatic ramps, although in many instances it appeared that they were not working at the times when participants had attempted to use buses previously. Even when ramps were deployed and buses kneeled, all three participants commented that they would not be able to access buses unaided and would have to rely on assistance from their carers. For some participants, this limited their ability to travel, as "there is a lot of places I would like to go to, but cannot unless I can persuade someone to come with me" and "it certainly limits my social life"

3.32 A second problem that affected all participating wheelchair users concerned wheelchair spaces being occupied by other passengers. In most instances, the wheelchair space was occupied by parents/carers with children in buggies, although sometimes by other passengers. All participants commented that, in their experience, drivers had never asked passengers to vacate the designated wheelchair space, and had been told by the driver to wait for the next bus. This could result in lengthy delays for participants if several consecutive buses arrived and wheelchair spaces were occupied.

3.33 A third problem related to concerns manoeuvring wheelchairs into wheelchair spaces once on board buses. The problem was particularly relevant to the two participants in electronic wheelchairs, which were slightly larger and harder to manoeuvre than manual chairs.

3.34 All wheelchair using participants commented that for most longish journeys they used taxis, in preference to local bus services, due to the problems highlighted above. One participant commented that taxis were more reliable and worth paying the extra cost and another stated 'at least I know I'll get there'.

Audit Four

3.35 This audit involved a person with learning disabilities who uses a wheelchair, travelling with his carer from home to work by bus. The actual bus journey takes approximately 1 hour (including interchange). Based on previous experience, the traveller and his carer allow for additional travel time in case they are unable to board buses due to the wheelchair space already being occupied. A shorter, more convenient route is available, but past experiences of attempting to use this route found that the buses are typically full and wheelchair spaces usually occupied (at the times required), which prevents the traveller from being allowed to board. Apart from this major issue, which means the participant cannot travel using his route and timetable of choice, the following difficulties were faced during the journey:

• Uneven paving.
• Not enough time allowed to cross using the pedestrian crossing.
• No raised kerb to facilitate access to bus.
• Feelings of fear or intimidation while waiting at bus stop.
• Bus driver did not lower the access ramp.
• Bus driver pulled away before secured in wheelchair space.

3.36 When asked to comment on travelling generally, the participant raised the following issues:

• Sometimes drivers do not lower the ramp and will say it is broken. In these instances, without the physical assistance of his carer the participant would not be able to board buses by himself.
• When bus drivers pull away too quickly, he felt quite nervous due to being 'bumped about', causing him to bang into other passengers and poles/seats.
• On some buses the internal layout makes it difficult to negotiate the wheelchair space, making it awkward to enter and secure the wheelchair.
• In many instances the designated wheelchair space is occupied by other passengers, mostly by parents/carers of children with buggies.
• The poor condition of pavement areas (unevenness, cracks) makes his journeys uncomfortable, and raises concerns over possible 'spills' from his wheelchair.
• The presence of various obstacles on pavement areas (e.g. rubbish bins, road work signs and advertising A-boards), which restricted his movement and sometimes forced him to travel too close (sometimes on) to the roadway, which increased his safety concerns.

Audit Five

3.37 This was slightly different from the other audits as it comprised discussions with blind participants about the journey from the Royal Blind School in Edinburgh to Waverley Station. The journey comprises a short walk to a bus stop, two bus journeys, a walk to the train station and entry into the Station. Key problems and difficulties associated with the journey were:

• Negotiating obstacles such as parked cars.
• Taking care not to slip on wet leaves and avoiding overhanging vegetation.
• Poor street lighting.
• Positioning of timetable information possibly blocking drivers' view of waiting passengers.
• Too small font size on bus timetable.
• Bus drivers forgetting to inform passengers that they have arrived at their destination stop.
• Difficulty with unsafe steps and lack of consistent handrail.
• Stairs being partially blocked by street sellers and youths.
• Lack of crossing time available to cross at crossing.

3.38 When participants were asked to comment generally on walking and using buses, the following issues were raised. The main concern in relation to bus use concerned drivers forgetting to inform participants of their correct stop. This created both fear and anxiety amongst pupils, and was their greatest concern about using buses on an independent basis. Three participants mentioned not being able to use buses during peak periods. When buses are full disabled people are not allowed to board and stand (they must be seated), due to the bus providers' health and safety policy. For one participant (an ex-pupil), a lack of information, or not being able to see information at bus stops, created the greatest problem for using buses independently. He described the recently-installed real time passenger information ( RTPI) signs as 'totally useless to me'.

3.39 The main problem expressed by participants in relation to walking concerned the presence of obstacles on pavement areas, which both impeded their progress and presented safety concerns when walking. A range of physical obstacles were cited, including advertising boards, rubbish bins, general litter, leaves and dog dirt. In some instances, the presence of obstacles had forced pupils to walk onto the road area, increasing their concerns for personal safety when walking. A more recent problem regarding walking in the local area around the RBS was related to recycling boxes. These are left outside of residents' homes on the pavement area for collection, and several pupils commented on the hazard that they posed.

3.40 A further problem was the general condition of pavement surfaces. Loose slabs, cracks and uneven surfaces present tripping hazards to pupils and several pupils spoke of instances in the past when they had fallen. Cracked pavement surfaces were particularly hazardous to pupils when walking, as their canes would get caught in cracks causing 'jarring' of their cane arm which is 'very painful' for them. Several pupils commented they were forced to walk more slowly than normal in certain areas of the City due to the condition of the pavement surface.

Key points highlighted in particular by the journey audits include:

• The generally poor condition of the street environment. With the exception of some town and city centres, it commonly presents trip and other hazards to people with problems of poor mobility and visual impairment. There is also a lack of adequate crossing facilities, including basic ones such as dropped kerbs. The experience of the few relatively independent disabled people who took part in these audits shows that many have had falls due to trips on poor footway surfaces. Fear of such falls is likely to deter many other disabled people from attempting independent travel at all.
• The inconsistency of bus driver behaviour towards disabled people, and especially disabled people who need assistance when boarding and alighting. It appears that DfTPSV Driver Conduct Regulations - which are part of the training of all PSV drivers - are not regularly adhered to. Because of this inconsistency, disabled people cannot rely on/trust the conventional public transport system - even though they recognise that it has the potential to provide a useful service. They therefore prefer the security and predictability of taxis.

Primary Evidence: TNS Survey

3.41 In comparison the Journey Audits, the TNS survey sample comprises a much broader range of respondent types with different travel experiences. Survey respondents were asked the main difficulty they faced in relation to travelling. Data from the quantitative survey indicates that the key difficulties faced by disabled people are largely related to difficulties walking, standing or climbing. There were, however, some different interpretations of the question by respondents with some reporting their general difficulty while others related the difficulty specifically to travelling. Overall, key general difficulties mentioned by respondents are:

• Difficulty walking (39%)
• Restricted mobility due to joint or back problems (13%)
• Breathlessness/asthma (11%)
• Anxiety/panic attacks/agoraphobia (8%)
• Dizziness/balance problems (5%)
• Difficulty seeing/blind (5%)
• Difficulty standing for long periods (4%)
• Difficulty climbing stairs (4%)
• Heart problems/angina (4%)
• Bowel or bladder problems (2%)
• Short-term memory loss (1%)

3.42 Specific difficulties relating to travel mentioned were:

• Difficulty getting on and off public transport (14%)
• Cannot travel alone (4%)
• Inadequacies of public transport (3%)
• Bus drivers not giving you enough time to sit down/get off (3%)
• Can only travel by car/taxi/handibus (3%)
• Lack of wheelchair facilities (2%)
• Difficulty getting in/out of car (2%)

3.43 Several key points can be identified by considering the two lists of difficulties mentioned above. First, as the lists demonstrate, survey respondents have a range of problems and difficulties likely to cause different challenges in relation to travelling. Additionally, respondents were only asked to mention the main difficulty they faced - evidence from other sources and from other parts of the survey data indicates that many respondents - especially older respondents face more than one difficulty caused by a range of illness or disabilities.

3.44 Second, it is clear from some of the problems mentioned that many of the difficulties and barriers are particularly challenging from a travelling perspective and several are not likely to be solved by changes to existing conventional public transport. In fact, the list perhaps demonstrates that the opposite is true - that many of the difficulties or barriers to travel will require solutions outwith the conventional range of adaptations and alterations to conventional public transport.

3.45 For example, the three most commonly mentioned difficulties - difficulty walking, restricted mobility owing to joint problems and asthma or breathlessness - suggest that the most significant barrier to using public transport is the trip to the bus stop or train station from home and from the stop or station to the final destination. Difficulties getting on and off public transport and some drivers not giving sufficient time to sit down were mentioned by a significant minority of respondents but by not nearly as many as general mobility issues. This suggests that driver training is important but is not likely to address the whole problem of accessibility for many of those with mobility issues.

3.46 The data also suggests that some of the particular personal difficulties faced by respondents require personal solutions which are not likely to be able to be addressed merely by changes to public transport. For example, the 8% who have agoraphobia or anxiety attacks, those with short-term memory problems or bowel or bladder problems and those who feel they cannot travel alone are not likely to feel comfortable or confident travelling unaccompanied by bus for example.

Key findings on barriers from the TNS Survey include:

• The majority of survey respondents mention difficulties relating to the accessibility of transport, fear of travel and personal barriers to travel.
• Barriers arising due to lack of information were not mentioned as often, although the literature review has demonstrated the importance of information on ability to travel.
• Results suggest difficulties getting from home to points of transport departure (and to and from destination at embarkation.
• Many barriers to travelling are unlikely to be solved by changes to existing conventional transport.
• Staff training is important but does not in itself address the whole problem of accessibility and use of public transport

Concessionary Fares: SPT Data and TNS Survey

3.47 An area which has previously been seen as a key barrier to travel (and provided the original impetus for this research) that has been considered as part of this research is the area of affordability of public transport. As affordability in relation to accessing transport has historically been seen as an important element in making transport accessible for disabled people, the provision of Concessionary Fares has been promoted as a positive way of enabling and encouraging more use of public transport by disabled people. There is, however, currently little data available on the use made of concessionary fares by disabled people in order to test whether the provision of such concessions does indeed encourage use of transport. Among other things, this study has sought to examine, as far as possible, what difference, if any, the provision of concessionary fares makes to the travel patterns of disabled people.

3.48 As highlighted in Chapter 1, previous research carried out in Scotland in 2004 ¹⁸ has suggested that cost remains an important barrier where other barriers such as availability or accessibility have been addressed, but is not as important where these issues remain. This section draws on two further sources of information. First, analysis was undertaken of evidence gathered from the Strathclyde Passenger Transport area, compared with other unpublished concessionary fares data from an urban area in the East of Scotland and assessed against population estimates. Second, a series of questions were included in the quantitative survey examining the proportion of respondents in possession of concessionary fare benefits and how much these are used.

3.49 The analysis of the SPT data was undertaken to test the hypothesis that, if price were the only barrier for disabled people's use of conventional bus travel, then it is to be expected that their take-up and use of the concession might be similar to that of people who qualify on grounds of age (60 and over)'. This assumption was tested using data from the SPT area and from another large urban area in Scotland. The former was able to supply passholder numbers broken down by people qualifying on grounds of age, and those qualifying on grounds of disability. Together with the use of SHS data on the percentage of people who state that they are disabled, and census data on the proportion of the population aged 60 and over, it was possible to calculate a take-up rate for each kind of pass (i.e. the proportion of the population eligible that actually applies for and gets a pass).

3.50 The second area was able to supply the same data as SPT and, in addition, it was able to supply the total number of concessionary trips made on conventional bus services run by the major operator in its area. This permitted the calculation of two trip rates per person: one for disabled people with a pass, and one for people who qualified for a pass because of their age. Clearly of course there will be some overlap between the two groups: some people aged 60 and over are disabled but prefer to claim their pass on grounds of age because the process is simpler. But the numbers do give an indication of the relative take-up of the concession by the two groups; and then how much they use it. This, in turn, can give an indication of how useful the concession is to each group.

3.51 The following table shows expected take-up and actual take-up for disabled people and people aged 60 and over in the two areas. Expected is simply equal to the total number of people in each group in each area. Actual is the pass-holder numbers in each category as supplied by the relevant scheme promoter. Trip rates are also shown.

Table 3.4: Expected and Actual Take-up of Concessions

3.52 Even allowing for some people who would qualify because they are disabled choosing to take a pass on grounds of age instead, these figures show significantly different rates of take-up and use by disabled people and people aged 60 and over. (Unfortunately it is not possible to obtain trip rates for disabled people who are aged under 60.) Taking into account the limitations of available data, this suggests that granting a concessionary fare to disabled people perhaps only makes a limited contribution to reducing the difficulties that they have in using conventional public transport and needs to be provided as part of a broad range of other initiatives.

3.53 The TNS survey included a range of questions relating to concessionary fares. Overall, just over 60% of all respondents had some kind of travel concession (it must be noted that respondents are self-defined as having a long-term illness or disability so might not necessarily fit the criteria for eligibility for concessionary fares). Specifically:

• 59% had a concessionary card for bus travel
• 23% had a concessionary card for train travel
• 5% had a concessionary card for taxi travel.

3.54 However, as indicated in the analysis above, possession of concession does not necessarily equate with use of concessions. Of those with bus concession, 79% ever use the concession for bus travel. Of those with a train concession, 60% ever use it and of those with a taxi concession, 91% ever use it.

3.55 The fact that a higher percentage of those with a taxi concession ever use the concession coupled with reasons given by those who do not use their bus or train concessions suggests that the taxi concession is often considered the most useful. The provision of free or cheap fares for bus or train travel clearly leaves a whole range of other barriers to using such transport. Additionally, a significant proportion of those with concessionary travel passes have access to a car or other (more convenient) transport. For example, these are the main reasons given by those who have bus concessions but do not use buses (n=90):

• Have own car/access to car (37%)
• Not able to use buses (20%)
• Have difficulty using buses (owing to steps, not enough time to sit down etc) (16%)
• Too far to bus stop from home (8%)
• Not enough buses in local area (6%)
• Can't travel alone/go out alone (6%)
• Don't like crowds (3%)
• Prefer taxis (3%)

3.56 Similar reasons are given by those with train concessions who do not use trains (n=64):

• Have own car/access to car (11%)
• Not able to use trains (55%)
• Too far to train station from home (9%)
• Can't travel on my own (5%)
• Too many steps at station (3%)

3.57 Only three respondents have a taxi concession and do not use it - two of these do not use taxis as they have access to a car at all times. Just 2% of those who do not currently have any entitlement to concessionary fares (n=274) say that either cheaper fares or a free pass would encourage them to use public transport more than they currently do.

Key Issues identified by the review of evidence on concessionary fares are:

• Previous studies suggest that affordability is a key barrier where other issues of availability and accessibility are addressed.
• Uptake of concessionary fares is less in relation to the population for disabled people than for those aged 60 or over,
• Among those interviewed as part of the TNS Survey, entitlement to taxi concessions were far less common than either bus or train concessions.
• At the same time, a higher proportion of those entitled to taxi concessions actually used them than use either of the two other forms of concession suggesting that such concessions are perhaps more useful and that targeting of concession types rather than blanket provision might be more effective.
• Taken together findings suggest the provision of free or cheap fares is only one of a range of barriers to using these transport modes.
• Generally, there is a lack of evidence relating to the effectiveness and, in particular the cost/benefit of concessionary fares compared with other transport schemes.

Summary

3.58 In summary, the range of evidence examined identifies that there are some key barriers still in existence which negatively impact on the travel behaviour of disabled people. In addition, a key issue identified by evidence presented above (particularly by the Audit evidence) is that, generally, more than one obstacle or barrier exists for each journey type, the barriers vary by journey type and those with different disabilities face different barriers. In essence the evidence shows that because the problem is multi-faceted, no one single 'solution' is likely to make a difference to the travel opportunities of many disabled adults in Scotland.

3.59 Some of the barriers are:

• Difficulties with existing conventional public transport provision in relation to physical accessibility
• Difficulties travelling from home to point of public transport departure
• Difficulties with the physical environment of public transport buildings and infrastructure e.g. railway stations, and the pedestrian environment e.g. kerbs, stairs and pavements
• A lack of trust or confidence in the transport system - even in relation to basic features such as drivers using ramps
• Personal safety issues relating to using public transport
• A lack of a reliable companion or information source for the entire journey
• A key issue relating to the role of concessionary fares is the relationship between eligibility for certain types of travel and the travel needs of individuals. Many people, although eligible for concessionary travel on buses and trains cannot actually use such forms of transport but could use, for example, taxis for which they do not necessarily enjoy concessions.
• The evidence suggests that although affordability is a key element of accessibility, concessionary fares alone are unlikely to have a major impact on travel behaviour unless other, perhaps more visible, barriers have been addressed

« Previous | Contents | Next »