Travel Behaviour of People with a Travelimpeding Handicap

1
Travel Behaviour ofPeople with a
Travel-impeding Handicap

• Each Trip Counts

Peter Bakker AVV Transport Research Centre The
Netherlands Ministry of Transport and Public
Works
2
Presentation Overview

• Research goals
• State of the art
• Research methodology
• Results
• Conclusions

3
Research goals (long term)

• Monitor how far the transport system meets the
  travel needs of people with a handicap or medical
  condition
• Clarifying the travel behaviour of people with
  disabilities,in order to assess the benefits of
  accessibility policies (or costs of poor
  accessibility)

4
Research goals (short term)

• Pilot explore response effects of additional
  question in Dutch National Travel Survey
• Determine most effective survey design

5
State of the art (1)

• In contrast to the costs of better accessible
  transport, its benefits are still difficult to
  quantify.

6
State of the art (2)

• Disability definition and registration
  problems
• Age as a proxy
• The travel behaviour of elderly people is well
  known.
• Causes for differential mobility
  medical-condition-effects or stage-of-life-effects
  ?
• And what about the travel behaviour of younger
  people with disabilities?

7
State of the art (3)

• Disability definition and registration
  problems
• Interest groups and user groups as a research
  population
• Detailed studies available
• Results heavily influenced by choice of survey
  groups
• Picture of total population (prevalence) remains
  unclear

8
Research methodology (1)

• Plug-in question in yearly Dutch Mobility Study
  (National Travel Survey)
• Self-assessment of travel-impediments
• Postal follow-up questionnaire for people with
  travel-impediments
• Two-way survey pilot in order to explore cost-
  and response-effects

9
Dutch Mobility Study regular design
30.000 households yearly
MON household questionnaire household personal
characteristics
postal
Member 1
2
3
N
66.500 persons yearly
Personal trip diary (1 day)
reminder by phone or post
10
Pilot extensions Design A
screening question for travel impediments
1.500 households additional
MON household questionnaire household personal
characteristics
Member 1
2
3
N
2.400 persons additional
Personal trip diary (1 day)
6 Persons with Difficulty Traveling
postal follow-up questionnaire
11
Screening question
Do you have a temporary or permanent condition
or handicap that results in any difficulty
with travelling?
12
Pilot extensions Design B
MON household questionnaire household personal
characteristics
Member 1
2
3
N
Personal trip diary (1 day)
random sample 5,200 households 12,000
persons follow-up screening by phone
postal follow-up questionnaire
5 Persons with Difficulty Traveling
13
Survey design - conclusions

• Results design A and B are similar
• Screening question on household questionnaire no
  negative response-effects on Dutch Mobility
  Study, even better response.
• Avoiding extra costs for screening afterwards by
  phone

14
6 people with difficulty travelling?

• 6 900,000 people in the Netherlands
• Other sources
• 1 million people living independently with severe
  impairments, 1 million with moderate impairments
• 400,000 people eligible for Dutch paratransit
• US NHTS2001 9 (Do you have a medical condition
  that makes it difficult to travel outside the
  home?)
• France Personal Travel Survey (1993) 93 is not
  hindered by any handicap (living in normal
  households)

15
People with Difficulty TravellingCHARACTERISTICS
16
People with Difficulty TravellingCharacteristics
INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION heavy over-representation
of elderly causes stage-of-life related
effects SO an age-controlled reference group is
needed to clarify differences in travel behaviour
caused by handicap
17
Differential travel behaviour FEWER TRIPS, FEWER
ACTIVITIES

• 79 of PDT report to travel less than people in
  reference group (PREF)
• Based on revealed travel behaviour
• 1.9 trips per day (PREF 2.5) 25 less
• 48 does not leave the house on any given day
  (PREF 28)
• 15 km/day (PREF 26 km/day) 40 less
• Age under 65 14 fewer hours outside the home

18
Differential travel behaviourTRIP PURPOSE

• Smaller share of work related trips
  (7PDT-14PREF)
• Bigger share of service and leisure related trips
• More service related trips in absolute numbers

19
Differential travel behaviour CHOICE OF MODE

• PDT
• More on foot, fewer by bike
• Drive cars less, more often passenger(as a
  result of 65 only, mainly work purposes)
• Less use of public transport (indicatively -20
  share/-40 trips)As a result of lt65 only, 50
  less!Primarily for longer distances.
• Shares taxi - public transportPDT
  taxi/paratransit 2 x public transportPREF
  taxi/paratransit ½ x public transport

20
Alternative ways to accommodate travelling

• Results follow-up questionnaire
• 16 depend on personal escort, another 20
  sometimes
• 2-3use adapted cars
• 70 ask for rides (½ sometimes, ½ always)
• a third uses taxi more often
• 20 experience difficulty using public transport
• 85 experience problems walking

21
Conclusions (methodological)

• The design used proves to be feasible
• No extra costs
• Monitoring instrument available that clarifies
  how (far) the transport system meets the need of
  people with travel impediments
• Starting-point for monetarizing the social
  benefits of better accessibility

22
Example (indicatively)

• Yearly
• 88 million activities lost
• 100 million extra hours for carers giving lifts
• 27 million extra taxi/paratransit rides

23
Conclusions (content)

• People with travel impediments
• are clearly less mobile
• have a higher utility from being able to drive
• are not particularly dependent on regular public
  transport, at least for shorter distances(to
  much of a hassle).