Transport and Social Inclusion Committee Conference: Transport, Social Inclusion and Well Being: Whe

1
Transport and Social Inclusion CommitteeConferenc
e Transport, Social Inclusion and Well Being
Where to From HereThursday 19th November 2009

• Investigating Links Between Transport
  Disadvantage, Social Exclusion and Well Being in
  Melbourne An Update of Results

Professor Graham CurrieInstitute of Transport
Studies, Monash University
2
Paper Authors Currie, Graham Institute of
Transport Studies, Monash University Richardson,
Tony Urban Transport Institute, Australia
Smyth, Paul Centre for Public Policy, Melbourne
University Vella-Brodrick, Dianne School of
Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological
Medicine, Monash University Hine, Julian The
University of Ulster, UK Lucas, Karen Oxford
University, UK Stanley, Janet Monash
Sustainability Institute, Monash
University Morris, Jenny The Department of
Infrastructure, Victoria Kinnear, Ray The
Department of Infrastructure, Victoria Stanley,
John ITLS Sydney University Delbosc
Alexa Institute of Transport Studies, Monash
University
Australian Research Council ProjectInvestigating
Transport Disadvantage, Social Exclusion and
Well Being in Metropolitan, Regional and Rural
Victoria (RMO 2006/1020 LP0669046)
3
Agenda

• Introduction
• Fringe Car Ownership on Low Income
• Decomposing Transport Disadvantage
• Time Poverty
• The Value of Mobility
• Structural Equation Modelling

4
This is an update on research on social exclusion
(SE), well being (WB) transport disadvantage
(TD)...

• Focus is preliminary results
• Australian Research Council funded project
  Investigating Transport Disadvantage, Social
  Exclusion and Well Being in Metropolitan,
  Regional and Rural Victoria (RMO 2006/1020
  LP0669046). Social Exclusion (Social Policy)
• Project is run by the Institute of Transport
  Studies, Monash University
• Principal Chief Investigator is Prof G. Currie
• Research Fellow is Alexa Delbosc
• Industry Partners are
• Department of Transport (Victoria)
• Bus Association of Victoria
• Brotherhood of St Laurence
• Interface Councils of Melbourne

Monash Sustainability Institute Monash School of
Psychology
5
...which aims to measure links between these
elements
Social Exclusion
Transport Disadvantage
Subjective Well-being
6
This presentation focuses on results of a
Metropolitan field survey...

• Sample frame
• Not meant to be representative of population
• Emphasis on low income households, outer
  Melbourne areas and adolescents
• A very long questionnaire (av 70-80 mins) due to
  complex well being, personality tests
• Follow on survey from the Victorian Integrated
  Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA)
• Metro sample is 535 responses - 239 (45) out of
  535 were from fringe areas

7
and is structured as follows

8
Agenda

• Introduction
• Fringe Car Ownership on Low Income
• Decomposing Transport Disadvantage
• Time Poverty
• The Value of Mobility
• Structural Equation Modelling

9
PT supply is concentrated centrally
Whittlesea
Hume
Nillumbik
Yarra Ranges
Melton
Wyndham
Cardinia
Casey
Mornington Peninsula
Note Supply Public transport services per week
factored by walk access distances
Nillumbik, Yarra Ranges, Cardinia and
Nillumbik, Yarra Ranges, Cardinia and
Nillumbik, Yarra Ranges, Cardinia and
Nillumbik, Yarra Ranges, Cardinia and
the Mornington Peninsula
the Mornington Peninsula
the Mornington Peninsula
the Mornington Peninsula
10
While Social Needs have a fringe spread
Whittlesea
Hume
Nillumbik
Yarra Ranges
Melton
Wyndham
Cardinia
Casey
Mornington Peninsula
11
The Gap (very high social need/ below average
PT supply) is a fringe issue
Whittlesea
Hume
Nillumbik
Yarra Ranges
Melton
Wyndham
Note These 677 CCDs house 397,673 residents
Cardinia
Casey
Mornington Peninsula
12
High car ownership on low income is concentrated
in outer suburbs......
Whittlesea
Hume
Nillumbik
Melton
Yarra Ranges
Wyndham
Casey
Cardinia
Mornington Peninsula
13
....remote from public transport.....and...
Whittlesea
Hume
Nillumbik
Melton
Yarra Ranges
Wyndham
Casey
Cardinia
Mornington Peninsula
14
...remote from local activity centres
Whittlesea
Hume
Nillumbik
Melton
Yarra Ranges
Wyndham
Casey
Cardinia
Mornington Peninsula
15
Research suggests fringe high car ownership may
be a bigger issue than zero car ownership
Number of Households in Outer Melbourne
Proportion of Income on Transport
Cars per Household
(Approximate) Share of Income Spent on Transport
Number of Low Income Households (lt500/Week)
Source Currie G and Senbergs Z (2007) Exploring
Forced Car Ownership in Metropolitan Melbourne
Australasian Transport Research Forum 2007
16
Not having a car on the fringe could be an
advantage
High Car Ownership on Low Income
Zero Car Ownership on Low Income

• 20,831 HH - low income and high car ownership
• Zero/very low walk access to local activities and
  limited public transport

• 16,357 HH without a car
• Better off ?
• Live close to activity centres
• Walk and use public transport
• do not have to spend a high share (over 50) of
  income on running a car
• can walk to activities
• can access public transport

Source Johnson V Currie G and Stanley J (In
Press) A critique of Zero Car ownership as a
Measure of Disadvantage Social Indicators
Research Journal Monash University
Australian Research Council Project LP0669046
(2008-9)
17
Surveys show LIHCO make more travel report less
travel difficulties....
Source Currie G and Delbosc A (Under Review)
"Exploring Conflicting Positions on the Social
Impacts of Zero vs High Car Ownership on Urban
Fringe Low Income Residents" Transport Policy
(Submitted April 2009)
18
LINCO are more socially excluded than LIHCO....
Note No statistically significant well-being
differences
19
....but is this due to person type or mobility
and access?

• Typology
• Young families
• New Mortgagees
• Home Maker Child
• Single HH Worker

• Typology
• Single Person HH
• Older
• On a Pension
• Rented Accommodation
• Sub-group - single parent families

Note No statistically significant well-being
differences
20
Significantly LINCO dont have low well-being is
this social sustainability?

• Typology
• Young families
• New Mortgagees
• Home Maker Child
• Single HH Worker

• Typology
• Single Person HH
• Older
• On a Pension
• Rented Accommodation
• Sub-group - single parent families

Note No statistically significant well-being
differences
21
Agenda

• Introduction
• Fringe Car Ownership on Low Income
• Decomposing Transport Disadvantage
• Time Poverty
• The Value of Mobility
• Structural Equation Modelling

22
4 types of transport difficulty result from
factor analysis explaining 57 of variance
Modelled Factors for Degree of Difficulty with
Transport
Note Bold variables were used to formulate that
factor for further analyses
23
All relate to fringe areas but only one relates
to Social Exclusion Poor Well Being
Modelled Degree of Difficulty Factors Access,
Segment Type and SE/WB
Transit Disadvantage
Transport Disadvantage
Vulnerable / Impaired
Rely on Others

• 38 of sample
• Working adults
• Mid age, income
• Av. public transport use
• Access
• Outer/remote
• Low PT Supply
• Self Reported Difficulties
• Lack of Time
• Moderate Travel Difficulties
• High Activity Barriers
• High Fuel Price Impact

• 18 of overall sample
• Busy working adults
• Lowest public transport supply but highest use
• Access
• Outer/remote
• Lowest PT Supply
• Self Reported Difficulties
• Lack of Time
• High Travel Difficulties
• Very High Activity Barriers
• High fuel Price Impact

• 10 of sample
• Older females
• Low income
• Poor health, disability pension
• Feel unsafe on transit and in home
• Access
• Outer/remote
• Low/Av. PT Supply
• Self Reported Difficulties
• Low Travel Difficulties
• Very High Activity Barriers

• 25 of sample
• Av. age and household
• Unemployed
• Lower income
• Poor health, disability pension
• Feels unsafe
• Lack of trust
• Access
• Outer/remote
• Average PT Supply
• Self Reported Difficulties
• Lack of time
• Moderate Travel Difficulties
• High Activity Barriers
• V. High Fuel Price Impact

Social Excluded Low Well Being Slightly Low
Social Excluded Low Well Being Slightly Low
Social Excluded High Well Being Low
Social Excluded Some (Social Support) Well
Being Low
24
Agenda

• Introduction
• Fringe Car Ownership on Low Income
• Decomposing Transport Disadvantage
• Time Poverty
• The Value of Mobility
• Structural Equation Modelling

25
Time poverty analysis examined those who felt
isolated due to lack of time
26
Time poor groups made more travel than others....
Source Currie G Delbosc A (2010) Quantifying
Links Between Time Poverty, Well Being and Social
Exclusion Transportation Research Board Meeting
January 2010
27
... tended to be mid-aged, working and have a
family..
Source Currie G Delbosc A (2010) Quantifying
Links Between Time Poverty, Well Being and Social
Exclusion Transportation Research Board Meeting
January 2010
28
...they were less socially excluded....
Source Currie G Delbosc A (2010) Quantifying
Links Between Time Poverty, Well Being and Social
Exclusion Transportation Research Board Meeting
January 2010
29
...but had lower well being...
Source Currie G Delbosc A (2010) Quantifying
Links Between Time Poverty, Well Being and Social
Exclusion Transportation Research Board Meeting
January 2010
30
Should time poverty be modelled separately when
examining SE and well being?
Source Currie G Delbosc A (2010) Quantifying
Links Between Time Poverty, Well Being and Social
Exclusion Transportation Research Board Meeting
January 2010
31
Agenda

• Introduction
• Fringe Car Ownership on Low Income
• Decomposing Transport Disadvantage
• Time Poverty
• The Value of Mobility
• Structural Equation Modelling

32
Economics values travel using VOT based on income
trips are worth 4 and 5

• Wage rates are used to value travel time in all
  economic appraisals world wide
• For low income groups this is particularly
  problematic since it means their travel is valued
  less than higher income groups
• Using economic rule of a half in transport
  appraisals values a new trip at between A3.54
  and A 4.78

Source Stanley J , Hensher DA, StanleyJ, Currie
G, Greene WH, Vella-Broderick D (Forthcomming)
Social Exclusion and the Value of Mobility
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy
(Accepted Nov 2009)
33
ARC project proposed a new valuation method based
on social exclusion

• Method used a Logit model where social
  exclusion is explained by factors
• Socex f (Socom, Socap, Pers, Inc, Trips)
• where
• Socex risk of being socially excluded
  (categorical)
• Socom sense of community
• Socap social capital measures
• Pers personality measures
• Inc household income
• Trips number of trips

34
An average value of 20 resulted, substantially
above current values
Example Application

• IPART (NSW) valued the benefit of Sydney buses at
  320Mp.a. using traditional valuations of trips
• Said 467,000 trips would not be made if buses
  withdrawn
• NEW approach valued these at about 20 each i.e.
  comes to 2.7B

Value of An Additional Trip (A)
Income A/ Day
Source Stanley J , Hensher DA, StanleyJ, Currie
G, Greene WH, Vella-Broderick D (Forthcomming)
Social Exclusion and the Value of Mobility
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy
(Accepted Nov 2009)
35
Agenda

• Introduction
• Fringe Car Ownership on Low Income
• Decomposing Transport Disadvantage
• Time Poverty
• The Value of Mobility
• Structural Equation Modelling

36
Initial results showed poor Transport
Disadvantage - Well-being links

• Social exclusion
• Low income
• Unemployed
• Political disengagement
• Lack of participation
• Lack of social support

• Transport disadvantage
• Transit disadvantage
• Transport disadvantage
• Vulnerable / impaired
• Rely on others

.18
-.11 (not significant)
-.77

• Subjective
• well-being
• High Positive affect
• Low negative affect
• High satisfaction with life

37
Inclusion of time poverty improved the fit
significance of links

• Social exclusion
• Low income
• Unemployed
• Political disengagement
• Lack of participation
• Lack of social support

• Transport disadvantage
• Transit disadvantage
• Transport disadvantage
• Vulnerable / impaired
• Rely on others

.24
.12
Not enough time
-.79

• Subjective
• well-being
• High Positive affect
• Low negative affect
• High satisfaction with life

-.17