Designing Public Transport to Foster Patronage and Social Inclusion

Janet Stanley, John Stanley & Stephen Lucas, Melbourne, Australia.

Paper delivered to Thredbo9 Workshop A, September, 2005.

Context

Policy goals for passenger transport systems typically target economic, social and environmental goals with a governance goal becoming more common

Social goals are probably the least developed or understood

With PT provision being partly justified by its social role, these concepts need to be better understood if effective policies are to be developed and implemented

Scope of paper Overviews work on social exclusion, especially in a

transport (accessibility) context

Seeks to broaden understanding of SE

Clarifies pathways to reducing exclusion

Warns how fragmentation in service delivery for excluded groups might institutionalize exclusion

Suggests how social governance models can enhance inclusion

Adds value and meaning to the proposition that PT services should aim to provide transport choices, especially for transport disadvantaged groups/individuals

Social exclusion Concept relates to the consequences of the existence of

barriers which make it difficult or impossible for people to participate fully in society

Extensively considered in the UK, with transport given particular focus

SE and transport is clustered around accessibility

SEU identified and examined five transport accessibility barriers likely to contribute to SE

Measures to remove transport barriers (SEU adapted)

Improve physical accessibility and

availability

Widen travelHorizons

Make travel more affordable

Reduce the need to travel

Safer streets and stations

Measures that can helptackle accessibility

problems

Accessibility

An integrating framework for much UK work on social exclusion/inclusion

But no attempt to establish how access improvements might increase wellbeing

Improved accessibility has become the end being pursued, rather than the means to the end of improved wellbeing

Also, links between accessibility and social capital, as a second pathway to improved wellbeing, have been largely neglected in the transport/SE work

Warrnambool case study

Began with transport disadvantaged groups Examined (with them) their travel needs

and ways to better meet these needs Three major issues stood out:

1. No discussion of why accessibility is important

2. PT provides additional benefits for socially excluded groups of people as it facilitates the creation of social capital and community strengthening.

2. Social capital = the development of reciprocity, social networks and trust

Community strengthening = active engagement and social connectedness, leadership, volunteering, community pride

An elderly lady, with restricted mobility, made a circular bus trip, getting on and off at her home, simply to get out of her house and talk to other passengers and the driver

Direct benefits of Social capital and access to social capital (OECD 2001):

Improved health Greater self-reported wellbeing Better care for children Lower crime rates Improved government with higher levels of trust

Warrnambool (cont.)3. A potential order of magnitude difference in benefit from

improving PT for the “excluded” compared to the “included”

There was an expressed lower level of wellbeing among seniors (e.g. loneliness) who made the least number of trips (e.g. some saved for a taxi trip to a shopping centre to talk to people)

Diminishing marginal utility of mobility suggested Higher service standards (lower patronage per trip) for

excluded groups can be defended from this basis (on social inclusion/welfare grounds)

Valuing such a difference is a challenge for economists and social policy analysts

Warrnambool (cont.)

The least socially excluded group of those interviewed were people with a disability. They had: a strong culture of non-car travel and often (in an

urban area) a great sense of independence this was strongly support by well-coordinated

alternative transport systems, as well as PT, ‘community transport’, walking, taxis, volunteers, friends.

A broader approach: accessibility plus social capital, community strengthening and wellbeing

Unemployed person

Transport accessibility

Employment

Wellbeing (health & happiness)

SOCIAL EXCLUSION

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Other contributing

factors

Social capital & Community

strengthening

Community Transport (CT): an example of social goal failure

What is CT in Australia? provided for specific groups usually small buses, but can be private cars owned by services & local government and usually

funded by social services ad hoc system size = quite large and growing initiated/run by non-transport sector

Social goal failures of CT:

1. Often socially excluding for those outside CT system

CT best catered for certain groups of people at risk of SE

In – people with a disability, aged Out – children/youth, new migrants, low

income people Establishment of another transport system

may harden the boundary between CT and PT and risk viability of both.

CT as socially excluding2. CT may be excluding for people inside the CT system:

CT fosters bonding social capital to the detriment of bridging and linking capital

The larger and more diverse an individual’s social network, the more access he or she will have to functional social relationships, and the more potential benefits there are likely to be for health.(Cooper et al 1999)

Bonding SC = trust and reciprocity in closed networks Bridging SC = spreading resources between networks

Linking SC = links with those in power to obtain resources

CT as socially excluding

Wellbeing = Social Support & Personal Control

Exclusive/restrictive eligibility and inflexible availability (time) type of use (eg. priority given to medical

appointments) Patronising, treating people as different – loss of control

Social goal failures of CT:

3. CT leads to difficulties in achieving other policy goals:

Safety: Drivers Vehicle inspections

Economic efficiency and sustainability US – In Washington, paratransit catered for 3% of

trips but required 14.5% of transport budgets

Will lead to the reduction of public transport (buses/trains) and therefore lead to less availability of services overall, at a higher cost.

Failure of integration of CT and other transport systems Service delivery is typically structured around

modes rather than around meeting people’s needs for access

PT/school bus/community transport services operate in isolation, rather than as a single service delivery system

Someone needs to “own” accessibility and the value of the ability to be mobile!!!

Missing Governance goal in transport

Governance = a process goal reflecting views about how policy outcomes should be pursued

Governance issues tend to be place-based In transport, governance goal relates to: contribution to transport policy by key stakeholders a coordinated approach to the provision of transport

STRATEGIC

TACTICAL

OPERATIONAL

COMMUNITY

NGO’S

GOVERNMENT

Governance (cont.)

Integration/collaboration/partnerships needs: Transparency Trust Longer-term time horizons Resourcing Commitment & leadership Devolution of power and authority

Child welfare analogy: Laming (2003) is not alone in concluding that patterns of need and risk have been obscured by different agencies

holding fragments of a jigsaw rather than a complete picture.

Governance position in Australia While the concept is increasingly being talked about, in

reality there are problems (across fields) in relation to:

Very small scale and not ‘mainstream’

Govt. not prepared to devolve power

Resourcing – high community cost

Integration beyond the operational level

Lack of willingness to have longer-term goals

Treasury economically-driven

An even broader approach: accessibility, governance, social capital and wellbeing

Unemployed person

Transport accessibility

Employment

Wellbeing (health & happiness)

SOCIAL EXCLUSION

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Other contributing

factors

Social capital & Community

strengthening

Governance

Conclusions A deeper understanding of social goals in public

transport is likely to improve social inclusion as well as increase patronage, deliver economic efficiencies and improve environmental outcomes

The challenge is to understand the relationships better and develop service standards or benchmarks

Transport needs to be better integrated with broader community and societal social goals, targeting increased wellbeing