David Connolly & Lucy Barker MVA

TRPG and SHS Topic Report Long Distance Commuting

Background

Transport Research Planning Group (TRPG) & SHS Topic Report on long distance commuting in Scotland

The Scottish Executive has long term objectives to

reduce traffic volumes

decrease number of casualties

reduce traffic congestion

promote rail & bus travel

Influencing the behaviour of LDC will help achieve these aims

Research uses

SHS (household and travel diary)

Census data (1991 and 2001) and

transport modelling techniques (TMfS)

Overview of Presentation

Definition of long distance commuting and distance calculations

Current geographic pattern of LDC

Impacts of LDC on the Scottish transport network

Trends in LDC

Understanding the long distance commuter (SHS analysis and focus

group research)

Next steps

Definition of ‘Long Distance’

‘crow-flies’ under-estimates distance

Ignores curves/bends in roads

Ignores detours due to geographic features (eg estuarial crossings)

‘actual road-based estimates’ - calculate shortest route between origins & destinations (using OS road networks)

road based estimates were attached to SHS and census travel to work data

long distance >15km

SHS % long distance

‘crow-flies’ 18%

‘road-based’ 24%

actual road based estimatesOS roads and DZ in Edinburgh & West Lothian

Geographic Pattern of LDC (Census 2001)

% LDC = number of working people commuting

out from their DZ area of residence / total number

of employed people living in the DZ

Proportion LDC higher outside main urban areas

(eg Aberdeenshire)

Geographic Pattern of LDC (Census 2001)

15+km 20+km 25+km 30+km

SHS Travel Diary 1999-2004

21%21%19%18%18%17%17%16%16%16%15%15%15%14%14%14%14%14%14%13%13%13%12%12%12%12%11%11%11%6% 6% 5% 3%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ab

erd

ee

nsh

ire

We

st

Lo

thia

n

Ea

st

Lo

thia

n

No

rth

La

na

rksh

ire

We

st

Du

nb

art

on

sh

ire

An

gu

s

Ea

st

Ayrs

hir

e

No

rth

Ayrs

hir

e

Mid

loth

ian

Mo

ray

Fife

Stirl

ing

So

uth

La

na

rksh

ire

Cla

ckm

an

na

nsh

ire

Pe

rth

An

d K

inro

ss

Sco

ttis

h B

ord

ers

Re

nfr

ew

sh

ire

Fa

lkir

k

Inve

rcly

de

Sh

etla

nd

Isla

nd

s

So

uth

Ayrs

hir

e

To

tal

Ea

st

Du

nb

art

on

sh

ire

Ea

st

Re

nfr

ew

sh

ire

Na

H-E

ilea

na

n A

n I

ar

Ork

ne

y I

sla

nd

s

Arg

yll

An

d B

ute

Hig

hla

nd

Du

mfr

ies A

nd

Ga

llow

ay

Gla

sg

ow

City

City O

f E

din

bu

rgh

Du

nd

ee

City

Ab

erd

ee

n C

ity

To

tal

Long Distance Commuting Short Distance Commuting Shopping Education Business other/not stated

7am to 10am 13% long distance commuting 4pm to 7pm 8% long distance commuting

Impacts of LDC on Scottish Transport Network

Transport modelling techniques (TMfS) used to estimate LDC contribution to traffic volumes, vehicle emissions, vehicle speeds and PT revenue

Inter-urban routes have significant percentages (often exceeding 50%) of AM Peak traffic made up of LDC.

Proportions LDC lower in main urban areas

The highest volumes of LDC on key trunk road routes (eg M8, M9/A9, Forth Road Bridge, M77/A77, M80)

% of AM peak traffic (TMfS) AM peak absolute numbers LDC (TMfS)

Trends Over Time (SHS 1999 to 2005)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

% M

ee

tin

g D

efi

nit

ion

of

'Lo

ng

'

>15km

>20km

>25km

>30km

SHS no significant growth in LDC (as % of all commuting trips) over time

NTS (Scotland) average commute distance increased from 5.4 miles (1980s) to

8 miles (2000)

Understanding the Long Distance Commuter

SHS personal variables

age - commuting distance first increases and then decreases with age

female - females have an shorter average commute than men

employment status - full time workers commute further than part time workers

social class grouping - professional/ managerial & technical occupations commuter furthest

SHS household variables

household income - commuting distance increases as household income rises

household structure - two parent household generate longer average commuting distances than single adult

and single parent households

urban/rural classification - commuting distance varies significantly by urban/rural/remoteness classification of

home address (less so by classification of employment location)

SHS transport variables

mode - train commuters travel further than car and bus commuters

household car availability - commuting distance increases with car ownership

good public transport – those who rate their neighbourhood as having good PT commute shorter distances –

this may be urban/rural affect again

Factors influencing LDC

ANOVA – Inter-relationships between variables.

Interaction between pairing of gender and other variables significant

Classification Tree – detect differences between LDC & SDC

Total24%

Mode

Train Car Bus Walk/Cycle Other56% 33% 18% 0% 38%

Urban/Rural Classification

Accessible Rural Remote Rural

Accessible Towns Other Urban

Remote Towns

Large Urban Areas

48% 45% 44% 33% 22% 18%

Gender and Age

females commutes

less than males across

age groups

males 35-39 commute

furthest (15km)

for females, those

aged 25 to 29 travel

furthest (11km)0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 -2

0

20-2

4

25-2

9

30-3

4

35-3

9

40-4

4

45-4

9

50-5

4

55-5

9

60-6

4

Age

Av

erag

e C

om

mu

tin

g D

ista

nce

(k

m)

Male

Female

Gender and Income

general trend is longer

distance amongst higher

earners

females commute shorter

average distance than

males for all income bands

males with incomes >40K

travel furthest (21km)

for females, incomes >40k

travel furthest (13km)0

5

10

15

20

25

up to £10,000 £10,000-£20,000 £20,000-£30,000 £30,000-£40,000 over £40,000

Income

Av

era

ge

Co

mm

uti

ng

Dis

tan

ce

(k

m)

Male

Female

Gender and Urban/Rural Classification

females commute

shorter distance than

males for each

urban/rural category

males from accessible

towns (17km) and

accessible rural areas

(17km) travel furthest

for females, those from

accessible rural areas

commute the furthest

(13km)

17 17

14 14

1110

11

13

11

9

6

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Smallaccessible

towns

Accessible rural Remote rural Other urban Small remotetowns

Large urbansettlements

Urban/Rural Classification

Av

era

ge

Co

mm

uti

ng

Dis

tan

ce

(k

m)

Male

Female

Gender and Social Class Groupings

16

14

13

12 12

10

11

13

88

7

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Managerial andtechnical occupations

Professional etcoccupations

Skilled manualoccupations

Skilled non-manualoccupations

Partly skilledoccupations

Unskilled occupations

Social Class Grouping

Ave

rag

e C

om

mu

tin

g D

ista

nce

(km

)

Male

Female

females commute shorter distance than males for each social class grouping

males from managerial and technical occupations travelled the furthest (16km)

for females, those from professional occupations travelled the furthest (13km)

Gender and Household Structure

15

13

10

6

9

10

7 7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Family (kids) Adult (no kids) Older/Pensioners (no kids) Single Parents

Household Type

Av

era

ge

Co

mm

uti

ng

Dis

tan

ce

(k

m)

Male

Female

males from families

with children commute

the furthest (15km)

no significant difference

between commuting

distance of male and

female single parents

HH Income and Household Structure

Average commuting

distance tends to

increases with HH

income (with the

exception of households

with children + very low

incomes)

this ‘kink’ is probably

due to the influence of

house prices0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 to 10k 10 to 20k 20 to 30k 30 to 40k 40k+

Household Income (£)

Av

era

ge

Co

mm

uti

ng

Dis

tan

ce

(k

m)

Family (kids)

Adult (nokids)

older/pensioners (no kids)

Car user –reasons for not using PT

37% LDC car commuters stated they had a ‘PT option’ (compared to 49% of SDC car commuters)

LDC ‘takes too long’ 54% (compared to SDC 37%)

LDC ‘no direct route’ 31% (compared to SDC 20%)

LDC ‘cost (14%) (compared to SDC 8%)

37%

45%

20%

28%

8%10%

7%9%

5% 5%4% 4% 3%

1%3% 2%

54%

46%

31%

22%

14%

11% 11%9%

7%6%

3% 3% 2% 2% 2%1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Tak

es to

o lo

ng

Inco

nven

ient

No

dire

ct r

oute

Use

my

own

car

Cos

t

Nee

d a

car

for,

at w

ork

Lack

of s

ervi

ce

Wor

k un

soci

al,u

nusu

alho

urs

Too

infr

eque

nt

Pub

lic tr

ansp

ort

unre

liabl

e

Oth

ers

Too

muc

h to

carr

y,aw

kwar

d

Dis

like

wai

ting

abou

t

Unc

omfo

rtab

le

Long

wal

k to

bus

sto

p

No

need

reason for not using public transport

% c

ar c

om

mu

ters

ShortDistance>15km

LongDistance>15km

Mode Share (SHS)

58%

26%

13%

1% 2%

84%

0%

7%5%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Car Walk/Cycle Bus Train Other

'usual' mode of travel to work

% c

om

mu

ters

shortdistance(less than15km)

longdistance(more than15km)

Mode Change

changed mode over the previous year 8% SDC (N=7,373) 9% LDC (N=2,854 )

SDC (N=612) 11% switched to car, 2% switched to train 9% switched from bus

LDC (N=209) 19% switched to car, 11% switched to train 2% switched from bus

33%

6%

28%

23%

11%

44%

4%

19%

23%

9%

36%

11%

20% 20%

14%

55%

22%

18%

0%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Car (driver orpassenger)

Rail Bus Walking Other

Short DistanceMode one year ago

Short Distancecurrent mode

Long distanceMode one year ago

Long distancecurrent mode

Reason for mode change

Most frequent reasons were ‘changed job’ or ‘moved home’

No significant difference between long and short distance commuters

49%

23%

12%

5%3% 3%

1% 0% 1%

12%

51%

22%

10%

6%

3%1% 1% 1% 0%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

chan

ged

job

mov

ed h

ome

boug

ht a

car

empl

oyer

re-

loca

ted

sold

car

chan

ged

wor

king

hour

s

publ

ic t

rans

port

serv

ice

with

draw

n

lost

lice

nce

publ

ic t

rans

port

serv

ice

adde

d

othe

r

reason for change of means of travel

% c

om

mu

ters

shortdistance>15km

longdistance>15km

Travel to Education (SHS) Classification Tree

3% of children travel further than 15km to school

a higher percentage of children from rural areas travel more than 15km

compared to children from towns or urban areas

Total3%

Urban/rural household

classification

remote rural

accessible rural

accessible towns

other urban

large urban settlement

remote town

19% 8% 3% 1% 0% 0%

Focus Group Research

SHS was used to identify/select potential participants

took part in the SHS survey between 2003 to 2005

at the time of SHS traveled 15+km to work

agreed to take part in follow up work

workplace location in Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Dundee

Focus groups covered

+ve and -ve aspects to LDC

changes over time

factors affecting residential location

work and workplace choices

alternatives (diff mode, working from home, car sharing)

Work/Home location

many factors involved in why people live/work where they do:

near family

important at diff life stages, partners requirements, looking after elderly parents

rural location

nice scenery, less stressful than city

house prices

important in initial decision & prevents from moving, get more for money further from work

schools

not major factor, but discourages relocating if child is settled in a school

commute

not major factor, but some participants considered the commute when purchasing a new home eg ‘drove the route’ to work at peak times or looked for houses within close proximity to a rail station

little/no choice available

financial constraints, lived in area whole life, commitments to extended family

Next Steps

complete comparison of 1991 & 2001 census

policy implications

LDC postal/telephone survey

Questions and Discussion

“I wouldn’t say I enjoy the commute. I would

rather not do the commute. I would rather it

was just five minutes away where I wouldn’t

have to spend an hour a day or two hours a

day actually travelling.” (female train

commuter, Glasgow)

“I don’t like to live on top of my work. I have

always lived 15 or 20 miles away from where I

work. I do like to feel as if I’ve got a sense of

getting out of there you know, away from it”.

(male train commuter, Edinburgh)