Access to Transport and Material Goods

Transport

The amount of traffic in an area will affect both the travel time and the air quality for residents. At the time of the 2001 Census, 61% of people aged 16 – 74 in employment in Bristol travelled to work by car or van, both as passengers and drivers. Between 1994 and 2004 the volume of traffic on the West of England’s roads increased by 21% compared with 18% nationally. In some areas, such as the North Fringe[1], where there has been large-scale growth in employment, traffic levels have grown by 30%.

Impact of Congestion

Department for Transport data suggests that there has been an improvement in average journey times during the morning peak[2] in all of the Core Cities. In 2008/2009 the average person journey time (for car and bus passengers) during peak morning hours in the Bristol Urban Area was 3:26 minutes per mile. This has improved by 13% since 2004/2006 which is the largest improvement of all the Core Cities.

Transport connectivity is a significant problem for residents in the south of Bristol, which has a high level of economic deprivation, as many residents would struggle to be able to commute to employment opportunities in the North Fringe area. Bristol, along with neighbouring authorities in the West of England, is trying to improve transport issues and connectivity with schemes such as the Cycling City project and the bid for the South Bristol Link submitted to the Department for Transport in March 2010.

Return to Achieve Economic Wellbeing page.



[1] The North Fringe refers to the area around the M4/M5 junction (Almondsbury interchange) in South Gloucestershire

[2] The morning peak is defined by each urban area 

This entry was posted in Access to transport, Achieve Economic Well-being. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Access to Transport and Material Goods

  1. Anne James says:

    I would like a transport section to include special transport for disabled and PRU young people, the move three years ago to decrease the numbers of children and young people in taxis – successes and lessons learnt from this work.
    Also the move the reduce school buses is a cost saving proposal – CYPS pay for school buses so i think this should be included. I think another issue is the travel school. Are school buses more used by medium income families than low income? It would be good to know what transport issues are related to anti-poverty and which ones aren’t.
    In 2008 equalities audit it showed the numbers of children living and attending school in S1 S2 etc areas is fairly consistent, does this mean travel to school is short distance. I presume the school census could let you know average length of travel to school for each area in Bristol. Also it would be able to show has there been a reduction over time in children being taken to school in cars etc to dovetail with eh city’s transport strategy as traffic dramatically reduced during school holidays.
    Equalities stakeholder consultation with young people in 2010 indicated cost of public transport is a real barrier for young people – especially in accessing volunteering and sports activities. I think travelling by public transport has a real anti-poverty angle that should be explored in this section, for example to compare the costs of family travel on public transport across core cities, if there are more than 2 adults on a bus journey it can be chaeper to drive and pay for parking etc. As women has less access to cars than men, then cost of public transport is a key issue for families headed by a single woman as x proportion of these do not have access to a car. Again this impacts on ability for children to attend enrichment activities. In regeneration areas, transport is usually provided for children to attend holiday activities because car use for parents/carers is low.

  2. Jason Neal says:

    I know that the ‘Everychild Matters’ agenda remains fairly constant, but hasn’t the terminology itself changed by the coalition government?

    Key changes to phrases in the children’s sector include the replacement of safeguarding with child protection, children’s trusts with “local areas, better, fairer, services'” and using the term “help children achieve more” in place of Every Child Matters or the five outcomes.

    Will the final plan reflect this?

    Regards,

    Jason Neal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s