Basic Access and Basic Mobility
Meeting Society’s Most Important Transportation Needs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
This chapter describes the concepts of “Basic Access” and “Basic Mobility,” which refer to transport activities that are considered socially beneficial, and how TDM strategies can help achieve Basic Accessibility.
Basic Access refers to people’s ability to access goods, services and activities that society considers particularly important (also called essential or lifeline). Basic Mobility refers to physical travel that provides Basic Access. Basic Access typically includes:
· Emergency services (police, fire, ambulances, etc.).
· Public services and utilities.
· Health care.
· Basic food and clothing.
· Education and employment (commuting).
· Mail and package distribution.
· Freight delivery.
· A certain amount of social and recreational activities.
Basic Access recognizes that some transport activities are particularly important to society (they are considered merit goods), and so justifies policies that insure access to them, even if this requires giving certain transport activities priority over others (those considered less important). For example, most drivers are happy to pull over to let an ambulance or fire truck pass them in an emergency, but most probably would object if a pizza delivery vehicles also used a siren to get through congestion more quickly. Similarly, many communities subsidize demand response transit (which serve people with physical disabilities) at a relatively high rate per trip, while commuter-oriented transit trips are subsidized less, and leisure-oriented transportation services (such as shuttles from parking lots to arenas) are often expected to be self-financing.
Basic mobility typically requires the number of trips as indicated below. In some locations a significant portion of these Accessibility needs can be met by walking, but as a community becomes more Automobile-Dependent an increasing portion require motorized travel (public transit, driving or taxi). These are typical values and may not apply to everybody. For example, people who are engaged in community activities, very sociable or require special medical services may need more mobility.
|
|
Minimal
Weekly Out-of-Home Trips |
|
Unemployed |
2-5 |
|
Unemployed caring for children |
3-6 |
|
Employed or attending school or college |
5-10 |
Basic Access has many implications for transport planning. For example, it suggests:
· Transportation policies and
management practices may Prioritize Transportation
activities and investments to favor higher value trips and lower cost
modes priority over lower value, higher cost trips.
· Transportation subsidies may
be justified for certain transportation activities but not others.
· Transportation systems may
be evaluated in terms of its ability to provide Basic Access, even under
unusual or difficult conditions. That is, the system is measured based on the
quality of transportation under the worst conditions (e.g., a low-income person
with physical disabilities who needs to get to work) rather than under the best
conditions (e.g., the convenience of air travel).
· Society may subsidize a
certain among of mobility for an individual, but not an unlimited amount.
Freedom of movement and access to certain activities and destinations are recognized in many cultural and legal traditions, and under some circumstances may be considered to be a basic human right (Hay and Trinder, 1991; Hamburg, Blair and Albright, 1995). For example, property owners may demand right-of-way through adjacent properties, and freedom to roam over rural landscapes is a well established tradition in some regions. There is no universal standard for determining exactly what transportation activities or level of Accessibility is Basic, and this will tend to vary depending on geographic, demographic and social factors. In Automobile Dependent areas, where economic and social activities require a high level of mobility, the amount of travel required for Basic Access tends to increase. For example, a non-driver living in an automobile dependent city may require more passenger-miles of transit or taxi travel to meet their basic access needs than if the same person lived in a more multi-modal city.
Basic Access is an important concept in Transportation Demand Management planning because TDM often involves Prioritizing Transportation Activities and rationing resources such as road and parking capacity based on specific economic or social criteria. As a result, TDM often requires explicit consideration of which transportation activities can be considered Basic Access.
There is virtually no limit to the demand for mobility: if travel were cheap enough (inexpensive, fast, safe and comfortable) people would the continent for dinner, cross the ocean for a party, and fly to the moon for a holiday. As per capita mobility increases, an increasing portion is discretionary travel that provides ever smaller net benefits to consumers. Although there are often reasons for society to subsidize (or bear external costs from) travel that provides Basic Access, there is less justification for society to subsidize lower value travel, which represents an increasing portion of total transportation activity. Transportation Market Reforms and other TDM strategies can help avoid ever-increasing economic inefficiencies from such travel.
Table 1 compares the uses of common travel modes. Each is suitable for certain applications. Walking and bicycling inexpensive, but are slow and limited by physical ability. Taxies are relatively expensive. Ridesharing requires cooperation from drivers. Transit provides mobility for non-drivers who are not very wealthy or fit.
Table 1 Suitability of Travel Modes
|
Mode |
Non-Drivers |
Poor |
Handi-capped |
Limitations |
Most Appropriate Uses |
|
Walking |
Yes |
Yes |
Varies |
Requires physical ability.
Limited distance and carrying capacity. Difficult or unsafe in some
areas. |
Short trips by physically
able people. |
|
Wheelchair |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Requires sidewalk or path.
Limited distance and carrying capacity. |
Short urban trips by people
with physical disabilities. |
|
Bicycle |
Yes |
Yes |
Varies |
Requires bicycle and
physical ability. Limited distance and carrying capacity. |
Short to medium length
trips by physically able people on suitable routes. |
|
Taxi |
Yes |
Limited |
Yes |
Relatively high cost per
mile. |
Infrequent trips, short and
medium distance trips. |
|
Fixed Route Transit |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Destinations and times
limited. |
Short to medium distance
trips along busy corridors. |
|
Paratransit |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High cost and limited
service. |
Travel for disabled people. |
|
Auto driver |
No |
Limited |
Varies |
Requires driving ability
and automobile. High fixed costs. |
Travel by people who can
drive and afford an automobile. |
|
Ridesharing (auto passenger) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Requires cooperative
automobile driver. Consumes driver’s time if a special trip (chauffeuring). |
Trips that the driver would
take anyway (ridesharing). Occasional special trips (chauffeuring). |
|
Carsharing (Vehicle Rentals) |
No |
Limited |
Varies |
Requires convenient and
affordable vehicle rentals services. |
Occasional use by drivers
who don’t own an automobile. |
|
Motorcycle |
No |
Limited |
No |
Requires riding ability and
motorcycle. High fixed costs. |
Travel by people who can
ride and afford a motorcycle. |
|
Telecommute |
Yes |
Varies |
Varies |
Requires equipment and
skill. |
Alternative to some types
of trips. |
Each mode is suitable for certain types of travel. None is a perfect substitute for driving.
Because non-drivers’ mobility is so constrained, increasing their travel provides greater benefit than comparable increases motorists’ travel. For example, a transportation improvement that increases motorized travel by one trip per week represents a 10% increase for a non-driver who otherwise only takes 10 trips per week, but only a 5% increase for drivers with comparable travel needs who currently take 20 trips per week.
Although non-drivers on average have relatively low mobility needs because many are retired or unemployed, there are large variations in these needs. A significant portion of non-drivers have education, employment and family care responsibilities that demand high levels of mobility.
Basic Access is an important concept for Transportation Equity. By definition, Basic Access helps people meet their basic needs, such as access to emergency services, medical service and other essential goods, and it helps provide economic opportunity through access to education and employment. Transportation equity can be evaluated based on a transportation system’s ability to provide Basic Access to everybody, including those who are economically, physically or socially disadvantaged.
People who can afford a car and are able to drive or can afford to hire somebody to drive them to common destinations seldom have difficulty achieving Basic Access. Efforts to provide Basic Access focus primarily on people who are transportation disadvantaged, and so have significant unmet transportation needs.
Basic accessibility can be defined as land use patterns and Transport Options which allow people to travel to medical appointments, shopping, commuting to work or school, and participate in other high-value activities without excessive financial or time costs. “Excessive” can be defined as significantly higher than average: more than 20% of household expenditures or more than 1.5 hours per day devoted to transport for basic activities. A basic level of public transit service can be defied as at least four round-trip stops a day, with weekend service, which allows residents to use transit for travel to an urban center and return in one day. Special transportation programs, such as low priced Taxi service and Ridesharing can augment transit service, but does not necessarily substitute for it.
In order to evaluate Basic Access and apply it to transportation planning it is necessary to define and rank the types of activities and services that a community considers essential or “basic.” This might include the following:
1. Emergency services (police, fire, ambulances, etc.).
2. Public services and utilities.
3. Health care.
4. Mail and package distribution.
5. Freight delivery.
6. Basic food and clothing.
7. Education and employment (commuting).
8. A certain amount of social and recreational activities.
However, it does not require that everybody enjoys the same level of mobility or convenience: that every non-driver or lower-income person must have the same level of mobility (i.e., travels as many miles each year) or quality of service (i.e. convenience and comfort) as a wealthy motorist. For example, Basic Access does not mean that a society must necessarily pay for an automobile or a taxi ride to allow a low-income person to get to work if transit service can provide access to the same destination.
Basic Access can be evaluated based on Transportation Adequacy, which refers to whether Transportation Options and services meet minimum standards that society considers necessary. Transportation Adequacy is affected by:
· Affordability – Whether transportation options have financial costs within the targeted users’ budget.
· Availability – Whether transportation options exist at the location and time users require.
· Accessibility – Whether transportation options accommodate users’ abilities, including people with disabilities and special needs (Universal Design), taking into account the total journey (i.e., door-to-door).
· Acceptability – Whether transportation options are considered suitable to users.
What is considered adequate reflects geographic and demographic factors, as well as values and perspectives that may vary from one individual or community to another. For example, different people may have different ideas as to how far physically-able transit users should be expected walk to access a bus, or how many shopping and recreation trips people need for basic access. For this reason it is important to involve public officials, community members and users in evaluating Basic Access and developing Basic Access plans and programs.
Basic Access requires that essential public services be provided even during Disasters or other periods of stress, that people are able to reach basic activities and services even if they have economic or physically constraints, and that economic activities be supported by efficient transportation systems even during periods of uncertainty and change. This requires determining the worst combination of conditions that are likely to occur, and identifying suitable responses (Evaluating Resilience).
|
A
guy walks into a bar with both ears bandaged up, and orders a stiff drink.
Other patrons can’t withhold their curiosity, and after a few minutes one
asks, “Hey buddy, what happened to your ears?” He
replies, “Yesterday I was ironing a shirt when the telephone rang and
(holding his fist near his ear) shhh! I accidentally answered the iron.” The
other patrons shake their heads sympathetically, and after a pause somebody
asks, “That explains one ear, but what happened to the other one?” He
says, “Well, jeez, I had to call an ambulance!” |
For more information on issues related to Basic Access see Evaluating Equity, Accessibility, Evaluating Transportation Choice, Community Livability, TDM Planning, Measuring Transportation, and Sustainable Transportation and TDM.
A survey of rural
A survey of residents in
A number of studies indicate
that inadequate mobility is often a significant constraint on employment and
career advancement by disadvantaged people, such as people with disabilities,
lower-income workers in general, and people transitioning from welfare
dependency to employment. Welfare-to-work programs often include various
components to improve mobility options, including public transit subsidies,
carsharing, and support to purchase private vehicles.
Yi (2006) found that job
accessibility by public transit have significant impacts on employment levels
in
Researcher Karel Martens argues that current transport evaluation practices
exaggerate the benefits of automobile-oriented improvements and undervalue
improvements to alternative modes, because they are based on demand (the amount of transport that people
can afford) rather than need (the
amount of transport that people need to access basic services and activities). To correct these biases he recommends the following
changes to transportation modeling and economic evaluation techniques:
Wallace, et al. (2005)
analyzed the 2002 National Health Interview
Survey to evaluate the degree to which inadequate transportation is a
constraint to non-emergency medical services. They estimate that 1.3% of the
AARP (2005), Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide, AARP Public Policy Institute (http://assets.aarp.org).
Gary Barnes and Heather Dolphin (2006), An Exploratory Survey of Potential Community Transportation Providers and Users, University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies (www.cts.umn.edu/publications/reports/reportdetail.pl?id=1086).
Evelyn Blumenberg and Margy Waller (2003), The Long Journey to Work: A Federal Transportation Policy for Working Families, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu), Transportation Reform Series.
BTS (1997), Mobility and Access; Transportation Statistics Annual Report, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov), pp. 173-192.
Robert Cervero (1996), “Paradigm Shift: From
Automobility to Accessibility Planning,” Conference Proceedings from NZPI
Annual Conference / 15th EAROPH World Conference,
A. Church, M. Frost and K. Sullivan (2000),
“Transport and Social Exclusion in
David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press (www.trb.org).
FTA (1998), Federal Transit Administration Strategic Plan, Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.dot.gov/library/intro/sp21toc.htm).
John Hamburg, Larry Blair and David Albright (1995), “Mobility as a Right,” Transportation Research Record 1499, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 52-55.
A. Hay and
Kunihiro Kishi
and Keiichi Satoh (2007), “Attitudinal Study on a Reciprocal Community
Transport System in Japan,” International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 1, No. 3 (www.tandf.co.uk), July-Sept 2007,
pp. 161-171.
Todd Litman (2001), “You Can Get There From Here: Evaluating Transportation Choice,” Transportation Research Record 1756, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 32-41; at www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf.
Todd Litman (2003), Social Inclusion As A
Transport Planning Issue in
Todd Litman (2004), Evaluating Transportation Equity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
Karen Lucas and Sophie Tyler (2006), Evaluating The Contribution of Transport Projects to Welfare To Work: An International Study, Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/trb_cd/Files/06-0309.pdf.
Karel Martens (2006), “Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Social Justice,” Berkeley Planning Journal, Volume 19 (www-dcrp.ced.berkeley.edu/bpj).
Patricia Mokhtarian and Ilan Salomon (2001), “How Derived is the Demand for Travel? Some Conceptual and Measurement Considerations,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 35, No. 8 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra) September 2001, pp. 695-719.
J. Oluwoye and E. Gooding (2006), Rural Public Transportation: An On-Board Survey of Transit Users in Rural Alabama Counties, Transportation Research Institute, Department of Community Planning and Urban Studies, Alabama A&M University (www.aamu.edu/saes/302l.htm).
R. H. Pratt and
T.J. Lomax (1996), “Performance Measures for Multi-Modal Transportation
Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1518, Transportation
Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 85-93.
Sandra Rosenbloom (2003), The Mobility Needs of Older Americans: Implications for Transportation Reauthorization, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu), Transportation Reform Series.
William Ross
(2000), “Mobility and
Accessibility: The Yin and Yang of Planning,” World Transport Policy &
Practice (www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wtj_index.htm),
Vol. 6, No. 2 pp. 13-19.
Ilan Salomon and Patricia L. Mokhtarian (1998), “What Happens When Mobility-inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-enhancing Policies?” Transportation Research D Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 129-140.
K.H. Schaeffer and Elliot Sclar (1980), Access for
All,
Jan-dirk Schmocker,
Mohammed A. Quddus, Robert Noland and Michael G. H. Bell (2005), “Estimating
Trip Generation of Elderly and Disabled People: Analysis of London Data,” Transportation
Research Record 1924, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 9-18.
S.L. Suen and CGB Mitchell (2000), “Accessible Transportation and Mobility,” Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions, Perspectives from Transportation Research Board Standing Committees, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).
Social Exclusion Unit (2002), Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/published.htm).
TSG (2005), Measuring Accessibility as Experienced
by Different Socially Disadvantaged Groups, Transport Studies Group –
Robert Wallace, Paul Hughes-Cromwick, Hillary Mull and Snehamay Khasnabis (2005), “Access to Health Care and Nonemergency Medical Transportation: Two Missing Links,” Transportation Research Record 1924, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 76-84.
Chang Yi (2006), The Impact of Public Transit on Employment Status: Disaggregate
Analysis of Houston, Transportation
Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, TRB (www.trb.org);
at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/trb_cd/Files/06-1558.pdf.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#103