Transport Justice in the Suburbs: Leveraging social capital to reduce transport disadvantage
Laurel Marie Johnson
Master of Built Environment (City and Regional Planning) QUT
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9928-0246
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
The University of Queensland in 2020
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
i Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Abstract Transport infrastructure and transport services are vital to a city’s function. Transport connects citizens with employment, goods, services and each other. Despite this shared understanding of the central role of transport in urban life, for some city residents, the cost, availability, reliability, convenience and/or quality of transport constrains their access to the city’s assets. These individuals experience transport disadvantage. Transport disadvantage is strongly associated with locational and social disadvantage, though causality is complex.
In this study I use a longitudinal research method to investigate transport disadvantage at a single urban location. The purpose of the research is to understand the factors that reduce transport disadvantage. The research method is qualitatively-dominant mixed methods and the theoretical interest is the roles of social capital in reducing transport disadvantage.
The investigation presents policy, theoretical and methodological findings and recommendations. The research highlights a model of governance that delivered new transport infrastructure and services designed by residents in a transport- disadvantaged place. A significant policy recommendation is that linking social capital in the form of authentic power with and enduring local governance arrangements in transport disadvantaged places can be potent in reducing transport disadvantage.
Theoretical recommendations include expanding social capital theory to inquire into the role of kindness in enabling mobility in transport disadvantaged places and extending transport poverty theory to consider locational disadvantage as a factor in transport poverty. The research promotes qualitatively-dominant, local and mixed methods investigations as a way to better understand transport disadvantage and the ways to reduce it.
ii
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Declaration by author
This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.
iii
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Publications included in this thesis Research Papers 1. Johnson, L. & Herath, S. (2004). Big Roads, No Transport: A report of the Goodna and Gailes Community Mapping for Transport Improvements Study, Research Monograph 5. Brisbane: Urban Research Program, Griffith University. 2. Johnson, L. (2005). Still Waiting: A report of the Carole Park Community Mapping for Transport Improvements Study. Brisbane: Urban Research Program, Griffith University.
Journal Article 1. Grant-Smith, D., Osborne, N., & Johnson, L. (2017). Managing the challenges of combining mobilities of care and commuting: an Australian perspective. Community, Work & Family 20(2): 201-210.
Book Chapters 1. Burton, P. & Johnson, L. (2010). Getting on and getting around: transport, mobility and disadvantage. In Gleeson, B. & Steele, W. (Eds.). A Climate for Growth: planning South-East Queensland (pp. 220-237). St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. 2. Grant-Smith, D., Edwards, P., & Johnson, L. (2018). Putting Children in their Place on Public Transit: Managing Mobilities in the Child-Friendly City. In Demaziere C., Freestone R. & Silver, C. (Eds.). Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning 6: The Right to the City, pp. 201-217. New York: Routledge.
Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis No manuscripts included submitted for publication.
Other publications during candidature No other publications
iv
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Contributions of Others to the Thesis No contributions by others to this thesis.
Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.
Research involving Human or Animal Subjects This research involved human subjects and obtained human research ethics approval from The University of Queensland’s Faculty of Science Low and Negligible Risk Committee (approval no. 20170806) and The University of Queensland’s Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee (approval no. 201900965). The ethics approval letter is Appendix A.
v
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Acknowledgement This thesis is not possible without the participation of the residents of Ellen Grove, Queensland, Australia. They endure, thrive and care for each other despite many hardships. I have learnt a lot from them about meaningful relationships and kindness. I hope they get the transport system they need to live a good life.
My principal advisor Professor Neil Sipe is a clever and kind man. He has provided strategic advice and gentle guidance along the way. I am ever grateful to him. Professor Jago Dodson provided important advice at the mid-term review that assisted me to focus the work. Many thanks to Jago.
The research affirms my belief in the important role of public Universities to actively use their resources for public benefit, particularly for the benefit of voiceless individuals, communities and places. Much thanks to the University of Queensland and my colleagues in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, especially David Pullar who each stepped up when I needed him in the final stage.
The technical editor Dr Catriona McLeod did an incredible job reading and editing the thesis. I wasn’t game to ask my family or friends to do that. Many thanks to Catriona. Finally, many thanks to the two examiners and the chief examiner who each generously took time to add good value to the research. I am indebted to you.
vi
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Financial Support
The first stage of the research was funded by Brisbane City Council.
No financial support was provided to fund the second stage of this research.
Keywords transport disadvantage, social capital, transport poverty, transport justice, kindness capital
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)
ANZSRC code: 120506, Transport Planning, 70%, ANZSRC code: 120501, Community Planning, 30%
Fields of Research (FoR) Classification
FoR code: 1205, urban and regional planning, 70%, FoR code: 1604, human geography, 30%
Dedications
My extraordinary Mother died suddenly without illness during this research at the end of 2017. My heart broke. I knew she would want me to finish the research. My mother knew the vital importance of good transport, particularly for women with children and older people. This thesis is for my funny, creative, intelligent, irreverent, courageous, hard working mother, Heather Johnson. She would be very impressed that the research was largely responsible for a free Ellen Grove community bus service. Thanks for everything Mum. Because of her, I can.
vii
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Contents Abstract ...... ii Tables ...... xiii Figures ...... xiii Glossary of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... xv Chapter 1 Introduction to the research ...... 1 1.1 Research Problem ...... 1 1.2 Research Aims, Objectives and Questions ...... 3 1.3 Knowledge Gaps...... 4 1.4 Contribution of the Research ...... 4 1.5 Research Paradigm ...... 5 1.6 Structure of the Thesis ...... 5 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...... 7 2.1 Introduction ...... 7 2.2 Defining Transport Disadvantage ...... 7 2.3 Inquiring into Transport Disadvantage ...... 9 2.4 Relating Social and Transport Disadvantage ...... 14 2.4.1 Person-Based Transport Disadvantage ...... 14 2.4.2 Place-Based Transport Disadvantage ...... 17 2.4.3 Socio-spatial Factors in Transport Disadvantage ...... 18 2.4.4 Vehicle Ownership and Disadvantage ...... 19 2.5 Urban Design and Transport ...... 21 2.6 Significance of Transport Disadvantage ...... 21 2.7 Measuring Transport Disadvantage ...... 22 2.7.1 VAMPIRE Index ...... 23 2.7.2 Mobility Disadvantage Index (MDI) ...... 23 2.7.3 Land Use Urban Planning and Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) ...... 24 2.7.5 Quantitative Measurement in Transport Disadvantage Research ...... 25 2.7.6 Qualitative Measures in Transport Disadvantage Research ...... 26 2.7.7 Combined Quantitative and Qualitative Measures ...... 28 2.8 Transport Poverty ...... 28 2.8.1 Mobility Poverty ...... 29 2.8.2 Accessibility Poverty ...... 30 2.8.3 Transport Affordability ...... 30
viii
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2.8.4 Exposure to Transport-related Externalities ...... 31 2.8.5 Non-Transport factors ...... 31 2.9 Transport Justice ...... 31 2.10 Social Capital Theory: origins and currency ...... 32 2.10.1 Social Capital Theory in Urban Research ...... 34 2.10.2 Social Capital in Transport Research ...... 34 2.10.3 Defining and Measuring Social Capital ...... 35 2.11 Key Concepts in the Research ...... 38 2.11.1 Social Disadvantage ...... 39 2.11.2 Transport Disadvantage ...... 40 2.11.3 Transport Poverty ...... 41 2.11.4 Social Capital ...... 41 2.11.5 Relationship between Key Concepts...... 41 2.12 Conclusion ...... 42 Chapter 3 Research Framework...... 43 3.1 Introduction ...... 43 3.2 Access as a ‘right’ ...... 43 3.3 Research Paradigm ...... 43 3.4 Theory in the Research ...... 47 3.5 Research Approach: An Inquiry into Solutions to Transport Disadvantage...... 48 3.6 Research Methods ...... 48 3.6.1 People-based and Place-based ...... 49 3.7 Role of the Researcher ...... 52 3.7.1 Research Relationships ...... 53 3.8 Longitudinal Research ...... 54 3.9 Data Collection, Stage 1 ...... 57 3.10 Data Collection, Stage 2 ...... 58 3.11 Limitations of the Research ...... 58 3.12 Summary of the Research Framework...... 62 3.13 Introducing the Case Study Area ...... 63 3.13.1 Rationale for Case Study Selection ...... 63 3.13.2 Locational Characteristics ...... 64 3.14 Conclusion ...... 68 Chapter 4 Case Study Context ...... 69
ix
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
4.1 Introduction ...... 69 4.2 First Nation Habitation and European Settlement ...... 69 4.3 Community and Transport Disadvantage ...... 71 4.4 Research in the Case Study Community ...... 72 4.4.1 Community Variations in Crime, 2007 & 2011 ...... 74 4.5 History of Government Interventions ...... 74 4.5.1 Building Better Cities, 1994 ...... 75 4.5.2 Community Renewal Carole Park 2007 ...... 77 4.6 Leadership and Governance Context ...... 78 4.6.1 EG2020 Forum ...... 79 4.6.2 State Government ...... 80 4.6.3 Brisbane City Council ...... 81 4.6.4 Brisbane Transport ...... 82 4.6.5 Special Taxis ...... 82 4.6.6 Community Development ...... 82 4.7 Conclusion ...... 85 Chapter 5 Results: Stage 1 and Stage 2 ...... 86 5.1 Introduction ...... 86 5.2 Research Methods, Stage 1 and Stage 2 ...... 86 5.3 Participant Engagement, Stage 1 and Stage 2 ...... 88 5.3.1 Participant Profile and Representativeness ...... 88 5.4 Data Collection, Stage 1 ...... 89 5.4.1 Community Profiling ...... 89 5.4.2 Mobility Audit ...... 90 5.4.3 Participant Recruitment ...... 90 5.4.4 Transport Information ...... 92 5.4.5 Social Capital in the 2005 Research ...... 95 5.5 Stage 1 Focus Group Findings ...... 95 5.5.1 Transport Challenges ...... 96 5.6 Stage 1 Transport Solutions ...... 100 5.7 Summary of Stage 1 Findings ...... 104 5.8 Introduction to Stage 2 Research ...... 105 5.8.1 Ellen Grove Local Governance, 2015 ...... 106 5.8.2 EG2020 Community Engagement ...... 107
x
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
5.8.3 Stage 2 Participant Recruitment ...... 108 5.8.4 Stage 2 Resident Survey ...... 110 5.9 Data Collection, Stage 2 ...... 111 5.10 Interviews ...... 112 5.11 Variation in Data Collection, Stage 1 and Stage 2 ...... 113 5.11.1 Transport Disadvantage Indexes ...... 114 5.12 Stage 2 Findings ...... 115 5.12.1 Key Findings from Residents ...... 115 5.12.2 Profile of Survey Respondents, 2017 ...... 116 5.12.3 Social Capital Measurement ...... 118 5.12.4 Transport Use ...... 119 5.12.5 Transport Poverty ...... 120 5.12.6 Open-ended responses ...... 121 5.12.7 Transport Sharing ...... 122 5.12.8 Who Shares Transport?...... 122 5.12.9 Social Capital and Transport Sharing ...... 123 5.12.10 Resident Focus Groups...... 123 5.12.11 Paper Figure Exercise ...... 126 5.13 Consistent Findings, Stage 1 and Stage 2 ...... 129 5.14 Conclusion ...... 129 Chapter 6 The Intervening Years Analysis ...... 131 6.1 Introduction ...... 131 6.2 Transport Audit ...... 132 6.2.1 Transport Investment ...... 132 6.3 Quantitative Measures of Transport Disadvantage ...... 135 6.3.1 Mobility Disadvantage Index (MDI) 2011, 2016 ...... 135 6.3.2 Land use Urban Planning and Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) 2011, 2016 ...... 137 6.3.3 VAMPIRE Index 2006, 2016 ...... 139 6.4 Comparing the Three Quantitative Indexes ...... 140 6.5 Travel Cost and Social Disadvantage...... 141 6.6 Framing the Intervening Years: transport poverty and social capital ...... 143 6.6.1 Transport Poverty ...... 144 6.7 Transport Poverty Findings ...... 160 6.7.1 Mobility Poverty: summary ...... 161
xi
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
6.7.2 Accessibility Poverty: summary ...... 161 6.7.3 Transport Affordability: summary ...... 161 6.7.4 Exposure to Transport Externalities: summary...... 161 6.8 Social Capital and Transport Disadvantage ...... 162 6.8.1 Community Organisation for Transport Improvements ...... 162 6.9 Kindness Capital and Mobility ...... 163 6.10 Community Organisation and Transport Advocacy ...... 164 6.11 Conclusion and summary of Intervening Years Inquiry ...... 165 Chapter 7 Discussion of Research Findings ...... 167 7.1 Introduction ...... 167 7.2 Additional Notions of Transport Poverty ...... 167 7.2.1 Locational Disadvantage ...... 167 7.3 Social Capital in Transport Disadvantage ...... 168 7.4 Transport Justice in the Suburbs ...... 172 7.5 Activities that Reduce Transport Disadvantage ...... 173 7.5.1 Local-Scale Transport Improvements ...... 173 7.5.2 Strategies to Reduce Transport Disadvantage ...... 174 7.6 Transformative Research ...... 175 7.6.1 The Transformative role of the Researcher ...... 176 7.7 Transferability of Research Findings ...... 177 7.8 Conclusion ...... 177 Chapter 8 Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions ...... 178 8.1 Introduction ...... 178 8.2 Addressing Gaps in Knowledge ...... 180 8.3 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 180 8.4 Policy Recommendations ...... 181 8.5 Conclusion ...... 182 8.5.1 COVID Pandemic Conditions ...... 183 References ...... 184 Appendix A Ethics Documentation, Research Stages 1 and 2 ...... 191 Appendix B Resident Questionnaire, Stage 2 Research ...... 195 Appendix C Invitation Letter for Transport Research Dinner, Stage 2 research ...... 199 Appendix D Ellen Grove-Inala Community Bus Promotional Flyer ...... 200
xii
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Tables Table 1: Select Transport Disadvantage Literature ...... 11 Table 2: Person-Based Social Disadvantage and Transport Disadvantage ...... 16 Table 3: Research Objectives, Questions, Data Sources and Analysis ...... 52 Table 4: Research Limitations and Contingency Strategies ...... 61 Table 5 Relative socio-economic rating, Carole Park, 2001-2016 ...... 71 Table 6 Select Socio-economic indicators, Carole Park & Brisbane, 2006-2016 ...... 72 Table 7 Research in the Case Study Area ...... 73 Table 8 Extract, Carole Park Community Action Plan, 1994 ...... 77 Table 9 Transport-related agents and their roles ...... 83 Table 10 Research participant types and techniques ...... 88 Table 11 Focus Group Participation, 2005 ...... 96 Table 12 Transport Challenges, Carole Park, 2005 ...... 98 Table 13 Transport Infrastructure Solutions, Carole Park, 2005 ...... 101 Table 14 Transport Service Solutions, Carole Park, 2005 ...... 103 Table 15 Leadership and Participation Solutions, 2005 ...... 104 Table 16 Eight Statement of Social Capital ...... 110 Table 17 Profile of Survey Respondents and Ellen Grove Community, 2017 ...... 117 Table 18 Responses to Social Capital Statements ...... 118 Table 19 Frequency of Use, Transport Modes, 2017 ...... 119 Table 20 Suppressed Travel due to Transport Costs and Availability ...... 121 Table 21 Open-Ended Survey Responses ...... 122 Table 22 Thematic Analysis of Focus Group Results, 2017 ...... 124 Table 23 Paper Doll Results, 2017 ...... 127 Table 24 Summary, Resident Identified Challenges, 2005 and 2017 ...... 129 Table 25 Transport Related Investments, Case Study Area, 2005 to 2018...... 134 Table 26 Mobility Disadvantage Index Rating, Statistical Areas, Case Study Community, 2011, 2016 ...... 136 Table 27 LUPTAI Median Composite Results (seconds), Statistical Areas, Case Study Community, 2011, 2016 ...... 138 Table 28 VAMPIRE Score, Statistical Areas, Case Study Community, 2011, 2016 ...... 139 Table 29 Selected Household Expenditure, Queensland, 2016 ...... 146 Table 30 Roles of Social Capital in Reducing Transport Disadvantage ...... 171 Table 31 Relating Transport Poverty and Social Capital ...... 172 Table 32 Activities to Reduce Transport Disadvantage ...... 175 Table 33 Research Questions and Summary Responses ...... 179 Table 34 Recommended themes and actions for future research ...... 180
Figures Figure 1 Research Overview: research approach, methods and chapter content ...... 2 Figure 2 Key concepts in the literature ...... 40 Figure 3 The Roles and Relationship of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods ...... 51 Figure 4 Carole Park Community Mapping 2005 ...... 57 Figure 5 Longitudinal research approach ...... 62 xiii
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 6 Ellen Grove Metropolitan Context Case Study Area ...... 61 Figure 7a Ellen Grove Case Study Area…………………………………………………………………………………………….63 Figure 7b Ellen Grove Case Study Area: bus routes, Local Government boundary……………………………67 Figure 8a Family walking to Gailes railway station on a roadway guard rail, 2005 ...... 93 Figure 8b Walking path to Gailes railway station, 2007 ...... 93 Figure 9 Stairs up and down from walkway over Ipswich Motorway to Gailes railway station, 2005 . 94 Figure 10 EG2020 Forum Structure, 2015 ...... 107 Figure 11 Resident Transport Research Dinner, 2017 ...... 109 Figure 12 Word cloud of Open-Ended Survey Response, 2017 ...... 121 Figure 13 Paper Doll Result, Older Resident, 2017 ...... 127 Figure 14 Paper Doll Result, Young Resident, 2017 ...... 127 Figure 15 Travel Cost and Socio-Economic Disadvantage, Great Brisbane ...... 143 Figure 16 Three Mode Transport Corridor: car, rail, bike/walking, Case Study Area ...... 151 Figure 17 Springfield passenger railway line traverses the case study area ...... 152 Figure 18 Stairs to access the platform, Gailes railway station, 2017 ...... 154 Figure 19 Bus stop, Carole Park, 2005 ...... 155 Figure 20 Bus Shelter, Carole Park, 2005 ...... 155 Figure 21 Disability compliant bus stop, with Braille, in case study area, 2018 ...... 156 Figure 22 Centenary Highway district bicycle/walk path terminates in the case study area ...... 157 Figure 23 Isolated walking path, Carole Park to Forest Lake, 2005 ...... 158 Figure 24 Walking path Carole Park to Forest Lake, 2018 ...... 158 Figure 25 Transport Corridor Noise Quality ...... 160 Figure 26 Transport Corridor Air Quality ...... 160 Figure 27 Timeline of Transport and Social Capital Activity ...... 165
Note: except where cited, all photographs were taken by the author.
xiv
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Glossary of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations SEIFA Australian Social-Economic Indexes for Areas ERI National Economic Resources Index Vulnerability Analysis of Mortgage, Petroleum and Inflation VAMPIRE Risks and Expenditure Index MDI Queensland Government’s Mobility Disadvantage Index LUPTAI Land Use Urban Planning and Transport Accessibility Index BCC Brisbane City Council Smart card system Travel Card Enabled Public Transit System SEQ South East Queensland GoCard The South East Queensland public transit travel card A research method for the community identification of spatial Community Mapping features Lucas’ theory of the four notions that underpin transport Transport Poverty disadvantage The idea that the research respondent acts in ways that they Rational actor approach say they act, for example, in their response to questionnaires Insider-outsider The dual role of the researcher in participatory research SLA Statistical Local Area BBC Building Better Cities program DHPW Department of Housing and Public Works CPCiA Carole Park Community in Action Incorporated CRG Community Reference Group ACCS Australian Community Capacity Survey A time limited State Government investment program for Community Renewal Program socially disadvantage areas of the State WMB Wesley Mission Brisbane EG2020 Ellen Grove 2020 Strategic Forum EG2020 Community Connectors Ellen Grove 2020 Strategic Forum working group TransLink SEQ Public Transit Agency QAO Queensland Audit Office ward Local Government Electoral Unit CityCat Brisbane River Public Ferries PPT Personalised Public Transport BT Brisbane Transport ride-share Private share ride services such as UBER and DIDI BAZ Bicycle Awareness Zone Carole Park TAG Carole Park Transport Action Group DTMR State Department of Transport and Main Roads SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences NGO Non-Government Organisation
xv
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 1 Introduction to the research This introductory chapter presents the research context and assists the reader with thesis navigation. The introduction details the research problem, aim, objectives, questions and knowledge gap and the contribution of the research to the transport disadvantage field. The introduction also outlines the research paradigm and structure of the thesis. Figure 1 diagrams the research approach, methods and chapter content.
1.1 Research Problem Despite transport infrastructure and service innovations and investments to address transport disadvantage, the problem of transport disadvantage still exists for many urban citizens, communities and locations. Transport disadvantage is closely associated with social disadvantage and wellbeing; this makes the investigation of transport disadvantage a major concern for urban researchers, government and non- government agents (Currie, Richardson, Smyth, Vella-Brodrick, Hine, Lucas & Stanley, 2010; Currie, Stanley & Stanley, 2007; Dodson, Buchanan, Gleeson, & Sipe, 2006; Dodson, Gleeson & Evans, 2007; Lucas, 2012; Lucas, 2011; Lucas, Wee & Maat, 2016b; Currie & Delbosc, 2010; Delbosc & Currie, 2011a; Currie, 2009; Lucas, 2011; Schwanen, Lucas & Akyelken, 2015; Stanley & Stanley, 2017).
If an individual or a community is transport-disadvantaged, then their access to the city’s resources is constrained, which in turn influences the quality of everyday life and life’s opportunities.
1
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 1 Introduction research objectives and questions contribution of the research structure of the thesis
Chapter 2 Literature Review linking social capital connects individuals and communities to power the transport poverty framework (Lucas) is comprehensive and analytical transport justice is an emergent idea in research and policy
Chapter 3 Research Framework qualitative-dominant, local longitudinal research research paradigm and methods, limitations and contingency strategies rationale for case study selection
Chapters 4 & 5 Case Study Context and Analysis review of urban planning, policy and transport trends in the case study location results of pimary data collection at two points in tiime
Chapter 6 Intervening Years Anaylsis applies social capital theory and transport poverty framework to analyse the data
Chapter 7 Discussion of Findings major transport investment may not reduce transport disadvantage linking social capital can reduce transport disadvantage kindness of neighbours (bonding and bridging capital) can reduce transport disadvantage
Chapter 8 Recommendatiions future research- investigate the roles of locational disadvantage, transport advocacy and kindness in transport disadvantage Policy- Target transport disadvantaged places through cross-agency, participatory local governance and leverage new transport investment to reduce transport disadvantage.
Figure 1: Research Overview: research approach, methods and chapter content The problem of transport disadvantage is well-studied (Currie et. al., 2010; Dodson et. al., 2007; Lucas, 2016b; Delbosc & Currie, 2011a; Currie, 2009; Schwanen et. al., 2015; Stanley & Stanley, 2017). Most transport disadvantage research identifies
2
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
transport disadvantaged areas, then investigates the relationship between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage. While there is much research about its causal relationship to social disadvantage, there is limited research focus on how to reduce transport disadvantage. Reducing and solving transport disadvantage remain elusive.
Lucas et. al. (2016b) note that our ability to effectively reduce transport disadvantage is inhibited by a lack of detailed and local qualitative research. To address that issue, this doctoral research is a local and detailed investigation of transport disadvantage undertaken using qualitatively-dominant, local and longitudinal case study research.
During the thirteen year research period, there was transport infrastructure and service investment in the case study community, though transport disadvantage remains. Longitudinal research provides an opportunity to investigate what happened in this case study community since 2005. The transport fortunes of the community are dynamic, with many-million dollars of transport investments in the area during the research period. In this research I investigate this case and, through the investigation, identify what worked and what did not work to reduce transport disadvantage.
1.2 Research Aims, Objectives and Questions The research aims to improve understanding of transport disadvantage and the activities that reduce transport disadvantage. The method is a longitudinal case study of a transport disadvantaged urban community in Brisbane, Australia. The aim is to investigate this case of transport disadvantage in 2005, and again over ten years later, to identify and explain the strategies, activities and investments of the intervening years that reduced and did not reduce transport disadvantage.
In this research, an exploration of social capital theory and governance and community organisation are used to explore how they might improve our understanding of transport disadvantage. The research investigates one case study location over time, as there is limited longitudinal and qualitative research in the field of transport disadvantage (this limitation in current research is discussed in Section 2.3).
The research has two objectives, namely:
1. To identify and explain the factors that reduce transport disadvantage; and
3
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2. To develop and apply a research framework to better understand transport disadvantage.
I have devised three Research Questions to guide the research process and address the objectives:
1. Which strategies reduce transport disadvantage?
2. What role does social capital play in reducing transport disadvantage?
3. How can a qualitative-dominant mixed method research approach help researchers to better understand transport disadvantage? 1.3 Knowledge Gaps My review of literature (see Chapter 2) demonstrates there are knowledge gaps in the investigation of transport disadvantage; specifically, limited focus is on strategies and initiatives that reduce transport disadvantage for people and places. My research addresses that limitation and extends the theoretical link between social capital and transport disadvantage. In addition to addressing a knowledge gap, my research responds to calls from leading urban and transport researchers for more theoretical depth to complement the extensive body of empirical research in the field (Dodson et. al., 2006; Schwanen et. al., 2015; Lucas, 2012).
There is an exploratory body of research that investigates the mediating influence of social capital (bonding and bridging) on transport disadvantage and social disadvantage (Stanley, Staley & Hensher, 2012; Lucas, 2012; Schwanen et. al., 2015). The theoretical interest in the current research builds on this lineage of social capital theory in transport disadvantage research and, specifically, the contribution of the three types of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking) to reducing transport disadvantage.
1.4 Contribution of the Research Within the field of transport disadvantage, the current inquiry contributes in three domains: transport policy; transport disadvantage theory; and research methods, as follows:
4
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
1. The contribution to transport policy takes the form of strategies to reduce transport disadvantage. These strategies could have application in other outer urban transport disadvantaged places. 2. The theoretical contribution is threefold. First, the theory of linking social capital is a potent idea in reducing transport disadvantage and should be considered in transport disadvantage strategies and research. Second, another form of social capital, kindness, needs to be investigated for its role in reducing transport disadvantage. Third, the four notions in transport poverty theory could be expanded to include locational disadvantage as an additional indicator of transport poverty. 3. My research demonstrates the efficacy of a qualitative-dominant, mixed method and participatory longitudinal inquiry to address transport disadvantage.
While generalisation is not possible from single case study research, there are features of the case study community that are similar to other places in the region. The challenge is to recognise the implications of this research for transport-disadvantaged places, beyond a single case study community. My thesis concludes with policy recommendations that extend to other transport disadvantaged places.
1.5 Research Paradigm The research paradigm is the philosophical view that frames and informs an understanding of the research problem and in turn directs the selection of research methods. The research paradigm used here is transformative which means that the research aspires to instigate change. It is important to articulate the research paradigm at the outset as it guides the overall research design (Creswell, 2014). Chapter 3 of the thesis discusses the research paradigm.
1.6 Structure of the Thesis The thesis has eight chapters: 1. The Introduction presents the research problem, aim, objectives, Research Questions, gaps in knowledge, likely contributions and a diagram to illustrate the overall research logic. 2. The Literature Review maps key methods and concepts in transport disadvantage research that influence and position my research. It also presents 5
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
transport poverty and social capital theory and their applications in transport disadvantage research. 3. The Research Framework presents the research paradigm, methods and limitations and the rationale for selection of the case study area. 4. The Case Study Context chapter is an analysis of the context, history, and governance issues in the case study location. 5. The Results Chapter is an analysis of the primary data collected in stages 1 and stage 2 of the research. 6. The Intervening Years chapter applies transport poverty (Lucas, 2016a) and social capital theory to analyse the changes that influenced transport disadvantage in the intervening years, that is, the years between stage 1 and stage 2 of the research. 7. The Discussion of Research Findings identifies the factors that reduce transport disadvantage in the case study community. 8. Summary, Recommendations and Conclusion summarises responses to the Research Questions and makes recommendations for policy including possible application to other, similar locations in the region and areas for future research.
6
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction This chapter explores key themes and influential ideas of relevance to the research, such as the links between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage, socio- spatial analysis in transport disadvantage, transport poverty, social capital and distributive justice. A review of the literature locates the current research within many investigations of transport disadvantage. As well as reviewing the substantive literature in the area of transport disadvantage, the Review explores the research methods in the field. This ensures that my inquiry utilises contemporary and sound research practices to address transport disadvantage.
The Review first defines and scopes transport disadvantage; then it examines the connection between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage as person-based and place-based. Following this is an overview of transport disadvantage measurement, which concludes that the concept of transport poverty is a contemporary and multi-faceted framework for comprehending, measuring and potentially reducing transport disadvantage. Transport poverty is a sound framework to support targeted policy and planning interventions. The Review then briefly explores transport justice as an influential idea in my research.
The Review examines the history and application of social capital theory in urban and transport research as well as social capital measurement. Past research in the case study area is summarised and, finally, a brief reflection on the role of the researcher (me) is included. The conclusion of the Literature Review is a summary of key themes and ideas that influence my research. Figure 2 summaries these themes and their relationships.
2.2 Defining Transport Disadvantage Transport incorporates the design, operation and organisation of travel systems (Schwanen et. al., 2015). Transport disadvantage occurs when individuals, households and communities are unable to easily utilise the travel system for optimum travel (Church, Frost & Sullivan, 2000; Moore, Lucas, & Bates, 2013). The travel system includes public and private travel and active transport modes, such as walking 7
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
and cycling. The historical fragmentation of a city into land use activity zones means that education, employment, food, leisure, health and social services are often distant from home, and each other (Mees, 2000; Kenyon, Lyons & Rafferty, 2002). Although these activities are generally serviced by travel systems, access to these systems is not equally distributed across a city (Banister, 2018; Martens, 2016).
In European, North American and Australian cities, public transport services often compete unfavourably with the private car, and car ownership can be expensive for lower income households (Mees, 2000; Kenyon et. al., 2002; Walks, 2018). A city’s design and the domination and cost of private transport in addition to transport system barriers, such as limited public and active transport infrastructure, and/or a low level of public transport service reinforce transport disadvantage.
Transport barriers are categorised as temporal, spatial and material (Hine & Mitchell, 2003). Temporal barriers include the time of day and days of the week that public transport services are available and traffic congestion at peak periods. Spatial barriers include physical obstacles to accessing transport services, such as major roads, stairs and other constraints; locational disadvantage is a spatial barrier to effective transport service for many communities (Dodson & Sipe, 2008; Maher, Whitelaw, McAllister, Francis, Palmer, Chee & Taylor, 1992; Stimson, Baum, Mullins, O'Connor, 2001).
Material barriers may be the costs of transport access or the quality of infrastructure such as paths and transit stops and waiting areas (Hine & Mitchell, 2003; Johnson, 2005). Transport disadvantage can result from a traveller’s physical ability and mobility limits, caring responsibilities and individual and community poverty (Preston & Raje, 2007; Grant-Smith, Edwards, Johnson, 2018). Fear (and cultural and social exclusion) can also inhibit a traveller’s effective use of the transport system (Church et. al., 2000; Stanley & Stanley, 2017; Gholamhosseini, Pojani, Mateo Babiano, Johnson & Minnery, 2018). When these systemic and individual factors coexist, then transport disadvantage can result for individuals, communities and places.
Transport disadvantage constrains access to the city’s resources (USDT, 2017). Despite advances in on-line services and on-line social networks, the need for physical encounters in the city remains important to the quality of everyday life; opportunities
8
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
include employment, education, good health, social networks and the building of social capital for individuals and communities (Kenyon et. al., 2002; Stanley et. al., 2012). Access as a ‘right to the city’ is an emergent position in transport disadvantage research. This position references social justice and resonates with fair city and transport justice concepts (Banister, 2018; Bouton, Knupfer, Mihov, & Swartz, 2015; Martens, 2016).
Kenyon and colleagues (2003) propose one of the most widely agreed definitions of transport disadvantage that can be summarised as reduced access to opportunities:
[Transport disadvantage is] the process by which people are prevented from participating in the economic, political and social life of the community because of reduced accessibility to opportunities, services and social networks, due in whole or part to insufficient mobility in a society and environment built around assumption of high mobility (Kenyon et. al., 2003, p. 210).
This definition highlights the relationship between transport and social disadvantage by implying that if mobility is constrained, then the ‘right to the city’, a right to access the assets of the city, cannot be exercised. The definition also suggests a spatial element, implying locational disadvantage for those areas of the city with less access to transport. The idea of locational disadvantage (Maher et. al., 1992) resonates with my case study research.
2.3 Inquiring into Transport Disadvantage The legacy of transport disadvantage research is a collection of quantitative and qualitative methods to measure and report transport disadvantage and its association with social disadvantage (Dodson et. al., 2006). There are limitations with each of the methods that Dodson groups into three categories:
modelling, socio-spatial, and qualitative (Dodson et. al., 2006).
9
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The body of transport disadvantage research is largely empirical. There is a gap in the theoretical understanding of transport disadvantage, and transport disadvantage researchers have had little success in reducing transport disadvantage for people and places on the ground (Lucas, 2004).
Table 1 is a summary of key transport disadvantage research, their methods and headline recommendations in chronological order. The purpose of the table is to position the current inquiry in the broader field of transport disadvantage research. I selected each of the documents in Table 1 based on its significance in the lineage of transport disadvantage research and influence on the current research. Though the table is not a comprehensive presentation of transport disadvantage research, its purpose is to position the current research in the field.
A mixed methods longitudinal investigation is not common in transport disadvantage research. My research addresses this methodological limitation and applies and extends ideas of transport poverty and social capital in transport disadvantage research. Quantitative data, in the form of censuses, household travel surveys and indexes, as well as studies and policy reviews are common in transport disadvantage research. Case study analyses enrich and contextualise transport disadvantage inquiries, although they are less prevalent than broad scale, data-driven inquiries. My research deploys a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in a longitudinal case study investigation. For the current research, the three most influential researchers are Lucas, Schwanen and Martens.
10
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 1: Select Transport Disadvantage Literature in Date Order
Analysis and/or findings, Literature type Quantitative Qualitative Recommendations
Apply and recommend Church, A., Frost, M., and Sullivan, K. Applies an Index Review of accessibility indicators for (2000). Transport and social exclusion of Deprivation to literature in London. Transport Policy 7(3): 195- measuring social exclusion and London 205. transport in London. Compared three socially Household survey Hine, J. (2004). Transport disadvantaged case study analysed for disadvantage and social exclusion in gender, income areas. Transport policy and urban Scotland. Built Environment and car service recommendations for 30(2): 161-171. ownership those areas. Trip destination analysed. Bradbury, A. (2006). Transport, Research encourages transport mobility and social capital in Household survey
developing countries. Engineering in Kenya sector to consider social benefits Sustainability, 159(2), 79-86. of roads and transport. Carpooling is used as an indicator of neighbourhood social capital. Found that the Charles, K.K., and Kilne, P.(2006) greater numbers of neighbours Relational Costs and the Production of Census data at of the same race relates to a Social Capital: Evidence from neighbourhood greater propensity to carpool, carpooling. The Economic Journal, scale though (independent of race), 116(511): 581-604 this did not apply to wealthier households or those households with many vehicles.
To include social justice, transport models should Review of consider need (minimum level of Martens, K. (2006). Basing Transport modelling and service for all) rather than Planning on Principles of Social cost-benefit Justice. Berkeley Planning Journal, demand for transport. analysis (CBA) 19(1): 1-17. Accessibility gains in transport. recommended as key to CBA in transport projects.
Dodson, J., and Sipe, N. (2008). Metropolitan and spatial analysis Census Data Shocking the Suburbs: Urban Review of of household vulnerability to Social Location, Homeownership and Oil research and Vulnerability changes in mortgage (interest) Vulnerability in the Australian City. trends Index rate and petrol prices. Housing Studies, 23(3): 377-401. Analysis of economic costs of Currie, G. (2009). Australian Urban transport disadvantage Household Transport and Social Disadvantage. Survey in associated with urban sprawl Australian Economic Review. 42(2): Melbourne and consolidation is 201-208. recommended.
11
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Analysis and/or findings, Literature type Quantitative Qualitative Recommendations
Through mode choice modelling of the national travel data, found that public transit use declines for immigrants with years of Blumenberg, E., and Smart, M. (2010) residence in the US and that Getting by with a little help from my US National friends…and family: immigrants and Household Travel carpooling was much more carpooling, Transportation, 37: 429- Survey prevalent than PT use for 446 immigrants (both within and external to their household members), compared to native born Americans.
Those with closer family and friendships were more often Lovejoy, K., and Handy, S. (2011) using carpooling than those with Social Networks as a source of private- less close ties (less bonded vehicle transportation: The practice of Focus Group getting rides and borrowing vehicles social capital). The exchange for Discussions (10) among Mexican immigrants in carpooling services included California, Transportation Research A, mutuality, but sometimes cash 45: 248-257 (particularly for those with less bonded social capital).
Evaluates eight years of social International exclusion and transport Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social review of policy exclusion: Where are we now? research. Recommends more and research Transport Policy, 20: 105-113. innovative research to persuade methods policy change.
Survey results modelled to Stanley. J., Stanley, J. and Hensher, Household D. (2012). Mobility, social capital and measure link between social Survey in sense of community: what value? capital (bonding, bridging), Melbourne Urban Studies, 49(16): 3595-3609. social exclusion and wellbeing. Global social and economic change and International case Urry, J. (2012). Social networks, studies illustrate the role of mobile lives and social inequalities. Review of mobility in social equity. Journal of Transport Geography, 21: literature 24-30. Global inequity in distribution of network capital.
A composite Burke, T, and Stone, J. (2014). Housing for low-income indicator: An Transport disadvantage and low- households (private and public) accessibility income rental housing, AHURI Review of model overlaid on is overrepresented in outer Positioning Paper No. 157. Melbourne: literature the locations of suburban areas with limited Australian Housing and urban low cost rental public transport services. Research Institute. housing Blumenberg, E., and Weinstein Interviewed 73 High reliance on transport Agrawal, A. (2014). Getting around Household low-income assistance (formal and informal). when you’re just getting by: expenditure data travellers to
Transportation survival strategies of identify their
12
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Analysis and/or findings, Literature type Quantitative Qualitative Recommendations the poor, Journal of Poverty 18(4): mobility Travellers undertake creative 355-378. strategies. travel planning and limit trips to minimise transport costs.
Schwanen, T., Lucas, K., Akyelken, N., Solsona, Dc., Carrasco, Ja., and Advocates qualitative methods Neutens, T. (2015). Rethinking the that investigate context, Review of links between social exclusion and International temporality and dynamics transport disadvantage through the research between social exclusion, social lens of social capital. Transportation capital and transport. Research Part A: Policy and Practice 74:123-135. Review of Lucas, K., Mattioli, G., Verlinghieri, E., Promotes transport poverty and International and Guzman, A. (2016). Transport National travel research in its measurement as multi- poverty and its adverse social survey (UK) transport dimensional: four notions. consequences 169: 353-365. poverty Review of Posits justice theory and Martens, K. (2016). Transport Justice: philosophy, accessibility measures to Designing Fair Transportation transport policy underpin assessment of Systems. London: Routledge. and transport system performance. measurement Review of Deploys the theory of distributive Pereira, R. H. M., Schwanen, T., & seminal Banister, D. (2017). Distributive justice philosophies to justice to move beyond and equity in transportation. Transport clarify justice in descriptive studies and influence Reviews 37(2): 170-191. transport transport policy. research. This comparative analysis of social connectedness for suburban and inner urban dwellers found that there is little difference between social Morris, E.A. and Pfeiffer, D. (2017) connectedness in the suburbs American Time Who Really Bowls Alone? Cities, Use Surveys and inner city. Walking, cycling suburbs, and social time in the United 2003-2013 and public transport are not States more inherently social than driving, as time spent travelling is generally associated with more social connectedness, despite the mode.
Research (some Review of longitudinal data) Global trends in Promotes justice in transport of travel income and prioritisation for the six modes Banister, D. (2018). Inequality in behaviour (mostly travel choices. Transport. Oxfordshire: Alexandrine in the United with walking, cycling and bus Press. Kingdom) mode Review of being highest priority as they are use, affordability transport available to most. and accessibility research and measurement. policy.
13
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2.4 Relating Social and Transport Disadvantage Since the 2000s, there has been much Australian and international research effort to explore the relationship between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage (Delbosc and Currie, 2011b; Currie, Richardson, Smyth, Vella-Brodrick, Hine, Lucas & Stanley, 2009; Currie, 2009; Dodson et. al., 2006; Grant-Smith, Osborne, Johnson, 2016; Lucas, 2012; Schwanen et. al., 2015; SEU, 2003; Walks, 2018; Rachele, Learnihan, Badland, Mavao, Turrell & Giles-Corti, 2017; Banister, 2018). Many researchers have refined the understanding of the causal relationship between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage. Researchers who defined that relationship as highly contextualised include Lucas, 2012 and Urry, 2007. Stanley et. al., 2012; Currie et. al., 2009; and Banister, 2018. These researchers see transport disadvantage as quantifiable and influential in social disadvantage. There is also an emergent view in research and policy that transport disadvantage constrains the citizen’s right to a fair share of the city’s resources (Banister, 2018; Martens, 2016; USDT, 2017). In this sense, transport disadvantage is emerging as a ‘right to the city’ issue.
The legacy of transport disadvantage research is a causal link between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage (Currie, 2009; Currie & Delbosc, 2010; Currie et. al., 2010; Delbosc & Currie, 2011a; Dodson et. al., 2006; Lucas, 2012; Church et. al., 2000). Transport disadvantage is compounded by other forms of disadvantage, such as income and disability (Dodson et. al., 2006). There is little argument that transport disadvantage results in, and compounds, social disadvantage for many (Lucas, 2012). This interplay between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage is associated with quality of life and wellbeing and that association has seen transport disadvantage attract the interest of social justice and also health and wellbeing researchers (Delbosc & Currie, 2011a; Grant-Smith, Edwards, & Johnson, 2018; Martens, 2016; Rachele et. al., 2017).
2.4.1 Person-Based Transport Disadvantage Many of the accepted indicators of social disadvantage are also constraints to the effective use of the transport system; they are the factors that underpin transport disadvantage for individuals (Stanley & Stanley, 2017). To clarify this link, it is helpful to describe these social indicators and their relationship to transport disadvantage. For 14
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
example, a low income can constrain travel due to the costs of public and private transport, including car ownership (Preston & Raje, 2007; Kenyon et. al., 2002; Walks, 2018).
Limited proficiency in speaking or reading English can affect a traveller’s ability and confidence to navigate the public transport system and road travel (Chung, Choi, Park, & Litman, 2014; Stanley & Stanley, 2017). Physical disability and mobility barriers constrain travel options as some transport is difficult to access, due to stairs, distance from home to transit stops and other material barriers (Hine & Mitchell, 2003).
Table 2 presents a selection of indicators of social disadvantage and their association with transport disadvantage, and demonstrates some of the known links between transport and social disadvantage, although these links are not always certain (Lucas, 2012). For example, not all socially disadvantaged individuals are transport disadvantaged and not all transport disadvantaged individuals and transport disadvantaged locations experience social disadvantage (Currie et. al., 2010; Lucas, 2012).
Table 2 also shows the relationship of transport disadvantage with selected social indicators that form part of the Australian Social-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). The Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) compiles the SEIFA indexes and they are an authoritative and broadly accepted measure of relative socio-economic disadvantage and relative socio-economic advantage in Australia. When applied spatially to compare Australian cities, regions, suburbs and neighbourhoods, the SEIFA Index for relative socio-economic disadvantage is particularly powerful. The reason for using social indicators from the SEIFA index in my research is because they describe key features of socio-economic disadvantage that manifest in Australia and elsewhere. These features are strongly associated with transport disadvantage (Dodson et. al., 2006; Stanley & Stanley, 2017).
15
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 2: Person-Based Social Disadvantage and Transport Disadvantage
Indicator of Socio- Economic Associated Transport Disadvantage Disadvantage Nil or limited access to private transport (Mees, 2010a; Newman & Vehicle ownership Kenworthy, 1999). Where income is low, the cost of owning and running a vehicle (as a proportion of income) is relatively high. That is the low income high cost ratio of car ownership (Mattioli, Lucas, & Marsden, 2016). Depending on the jurisdiction, lower income households can spend proportionally less on transport (including air travel) than higher income households (Blumenberg & Weinstein Agrawal, 2014). Low Income Nevertheless, forced car ownership (where poor public transport service forces private vehicle ownership) can particularly disadvantage low income households (Walks, 2018). Limited disposable income for public or on-demand travel, such as taxis, ride-shares and others limits mobility, particularly where the scheduled public transport system is not adequate and fares are expensive (Li, Dodson, & Sipe, 2015). Limited local language can constrain the traveller’s ability to navigate the transport system (read signs, timetables, route information) and can Level of English limit the confidence to travel (Chung, Choi, Park & Litman, 2014). proficiency Cultural safety issues, particularly for minority groups can also inhibit public transport use (Gholamhosseini et. al., 2018). Driving, active and public transport options require a level of Physical ability independent mobility, so physical disability can materially limit travel options (Stancliffe, 2014). Many scheduled public transport services are not available after hours and on week-ends so casual, part-time and shift workers can have difficulty accessing affordable transport and thereby, employment Employment status (Burton & Johnson, 2010). There are limited public transport subsidies for unemployed or underemployed persons. In most Australian jurisdictions, none exists.
Transport disadvantage can manifest at some sites in the city. Outer suburban areas are particularly vulnerable to transport disadvantage Location of residence due to high car dependence and the variable quality of public transport at these locations (Dodson & Sipe, 2006; Johnson & Herath, 2005).
Other social indicators that constrain the individual traveller (although not of themselves evidence of social disadvantage) include age, driver’s licence status, caring responsibilities, level of physical fitness and social confidence (Grant-Smith et. al., 2016; Kenyon et. al., 2002). An individual experiencing multiple social disadvantages is at higher risk of transport disadvantage (Dodson et. al., 2006; Stanley & Stanley, 2017). According to studies, the compounding effect of social
16
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
disadvantage and transport disadvantage can result in social exclusion (Power, 2001). This is important as social inclusion is strongly associated with wellbeing (Delbosc & Currie, 2011a).
The seminal report Making the Connections was released in 2003 by the social exclusion unit of the government of the United Kingdom at that time (SEU, 2003). The report is significant in the lineage of research and policy as it elucidates the relationship between transport disadvantage and social exclusion. It also represents a shift in transport disadvantage research from transport data modelling and quantitative evaluation of transport system performance to policy-driven research that links transport with social disadvantage to motivate action to reduce transport disadvantage. This shift encouraged new methods in transport disadvantage research and promoted a view of quality public transport as a ‘right to the city’; that is, a government’s interest in social disadvantage (as expressed in the UK as social exclusion and in Australia as locational disadvantage) is premised on the view that fair transport access for all citizens is a prerequisite in an efficient and fair city (Maher et. al., 1992; Power, 2001; Stimson et. al., 2001; USDT, 2017).
2.4.2 Place-Based Transport Disadvantage In addition to being associated with individual characteristics, transport disadvantage is also locational or spatial. It is argued that non-drivers are transport-disadvantaged in areas of Australia that prioritise private travel (Mees, 2010; Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). For some areas of the city such as inner urban areas, there is evidence that household car ownership rates decline where good public transport exists, and there is paradoxically evidence of high rates of car ownership for households at the edges of the city, especially where there are less effective public transport services (Dodson & Sipe, 2008). Regional and rural areas do not enjoy the same access to public and on-demand transport as city areas. Some areas of the city are locationally disadvantaged due to poor public transport access and factors related to city design and consequent constrained access to the city’s assets (Burke & Stone, 2014; Johnson, 2005; Burton & Johnson, 2010; Maher et. al., 1992; Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998).
17
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2.4.3 Socio-spatial Factors in Transport Disadvantage In many locations, the combined effect of people-based and place-based transport disadvantage is profound and results in entrenched transport disadvantage (Burton & Johnson, 2010). Transport disadvantage can be the outcome of the planning and design of the area, including its distance from transport, activity centres and services and the local barriers to accessing transport such as the quality and safety of pathways and transit stops (Burke & Stone, 2014; Johnson & Herath, 2005; Hine & Mitchell, 2003).
In Australia, recent research on the socio-spatial qualities of social disadvantage has surprised many as the results destabilise traditional thinking about urban poverty (Burke & Stone, 2014; Randolph & Tice, 2017). The shift and concentration of social disadvantage in the suburbs (the area outside 10km from the city centre) is coupled with declining disadvantage in the inner city (Randolph & Tice, 2014). When transport access (car ownership, public transport availability and frequency) is overlayed on this analysis of socio-spatial, structural urban disadvantage, then new understandings of the relationship between social disadvantage and transport disadvantage emerge, including the concentration of low-income households in those areas of city with the most limited public transport services (Burke & Stone, 2014; Dodson & Sipe, 2008).
Dodson and Sipe analysed car dependence and mortgage vulnerability for Australian households; the findings challenge the common association between car ownership and social disadvantage where no car is generally equated with increased social disadvantage and is an indicator of transport disadvantage (Dodson & Sipe, 2008; Mees, 2000; Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). The concept of oil dependence disrupts the common equation that no car equals social disadvantage. The prospect of ‘peak oil’ and the associated volatility of petrol prices creates a vulnerability for those Australian households that have the highest levels of dependence on motor vehicles (Dodson & Sipe, 2008). In an era of high and fluctuating petrol prices the seminal idea that no car corresponds to social disadvantage is inverted. Those areas of the city with a high number of cars per household are likely to be more socio-economically vulnerable than those areas where households have no car and good access to public transport and activity centres.
18
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2.4.4 Vehicle Ownership and Disadvantage In Australia, motor vehicle ownership is a common variable that is included in measures of social disadvantage. Having no motor vehicle is weighted highly (-0.73) as a variable in the National Economic Resources Index (ERI) that compares the relative economic resources for areas. The ERI includes variables associated with the financial aspects of social disadvantage, including motor vehicle ownership. In the ERI, a car is an economic resource and owning a car is a social advantage. Motor vehicle ownership is also included as a variable in a broader national index of relative socio-economic disadvantage (that is one of the indexes of SEIFA). In the index for socio-economic disadvantage, motor vehicle ownership is a measure of social advantage and, in that index, it carries a weighting of -0.49. The data for both ERI and SEIFA is derived from the ABS five-yearly National Census of Population and Housing. Motor vehicle ownership is measured per dwelling and is self-reported. The question in the Australian census questionnaire that relates to motor vehicle ownership is:
How many registered motor vehicles owned or used by residents of this dwelling were garaged or parked at or near this dwelling on the night of (the census) include vans and company vehicles kept at home? (ABS, 2016)
If the resident reports there is no vehicle at the dwelling, then the quantum of economic resource is lowered for that household; thereby, socio-economic disadvantage increases. While no motor vehicle is an accepted measure of social disadvantage, it is known that in some cities, the rate of motor vehicle ownership is declining in inner city areas of social advantage with quality public and active transport infrastructure and services (Dodson & Sipe, 2006).
Motor vehicle ownership may not be a useful indicator of social disadvantage if inner urban residents abandon private car ownership. Not owning a vehicle could be a choice for households with access to good quality public transport and a mix of land uses and densities in the local area that enable walking and cycling to a range of services (Mees, 2010b; Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). The development of areas with good accessibility to transport and a local range of goods and services accompanied by restricted on-street and limited off-street parking can motivate residents to reconsider private motor vehicle ownership (Mees, 2014). 19
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Investment in walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure and services, combined with relatively dense development and a mix of land uses, can achieve good access for residents in some areas of the city (Dovey & Pafka, 2020; Mees, 2014). Sometimes, the mix of uses is in the one block or building and this enables convenient walking access to goods and services. Investigations of walkability, find that the combination of higher density and mixed use development is critical to creating high levels of walkability in an urban environment (Dovey & Pafka, 2020; Mees, 2014). These locations tend to be in the inner city where land values are high and urban consolidation policies are focused, although the trend to mixed use transit oriented walkable neighbourhoods is extending to transit proximate locations in Australian suburbs. This trend to higher accessibility in Australian cities means that measuring private motor vehicle ownership as an indicator of social disadvantage can be misleading.
In the meantime, households that have many vehicles and whose members rely on casual employment are more vulnerable to volatile petrol pricing than other households (Dodson & Sipe, 2008). These vulnerable households are disadvantaged by having too many vehicles and a high reliance on private travel for employment access; further, these households tend to be located in the growing outer suburbs at the edges of cities (Dodson & Sipe, 2006). This new thinking about social disadvantage and transport disadvantage has shifted the view that owning a car is always a social advantage. The situation is more complex than a linear association between car ownership and social disadvantage. Relatively recent place-based dynamics in Australian cities disrupt this thinking.
Nevertheless, research in the United States demonstrates the value of private vehicle ownership for disadvantaged Americans (including immigrants and lower income households) to gain mobility through carpooling and social connectedness through the ease of travel afforded by private vehicles (Charles & Kline, 2006; Blumenberg & Smart, 2010; Lovejoy & Handy, 2011; Morris & Pfeiffer, 2017). There is a major contextual difference between the US and Australia with relation to private vehicle ownership that complicates comparative research in the area of private vehicle ownership and socially disadvantaged households and communities. That is, there is
20
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
a major difference in the cost of fuel in Australia. In Australia, the cost of fuel is more than double the per litre cost in the US. In addition, electric vehicles are far cheaper to purchase in the US than Australia. So, the running costs of a private vehicle in the US are more affordable than the running costs in Australia.
2.5 Urban Design and Transport Other spatial research to challenge common thinking about transport disadvantage and social disadvantage recently emerged out of Brisbane, Australia (Rachele, Learnihan, Badland, Mavoa, Turrell, Giles-Corti, 2017). When areas of socio- economic disadvantage were assessed according to urban design features that engender walkability and public transport, such as street block and cul-de-sac lengths and placement of transit stops, Rachele et. al. (2017). made the surprising finding that areas of socio-economic disadvantage may not be transport disadvantaged. The authors acknowledge they did not factor destinations or costs of transport into their assessment (although their findings are optimistic). Their focus was on the potential of urban design to facilitate walking and access to public transport stops for enhanced health outcomes in lower socio-economic areas. This research highlights the challenge of measuring transport disadvantage. The measurement task is complex and it risks being over simplified if just one or two indicators is deployed, as in the Brisbane urban design study, undertaken by Rachele et. al. (2017) .
2.6 Significance of Transport Disadvantage Transport disadvantage matters. It matters, whether the perspective is social justice and concern for a shared right to the city, or a concern for economic performance through the efficient movement of goods and people as producers and consumers. Transport disadvantage does not just disadvantage the transport user; it also weakens the function of the transport system and urban functionality and ultimately the city’s social and economic performance as it excludes many residents from employment, education and other activities (Currie et. al., 2010; Delbosc & Currie, 2011c; Burton & Johnson, 2010). This in turn influences quality of life and wellbeing for transport disadvantaged individuals and locations (Currie et. al., 2009).
Since 2000, transport disadvantage research has advanced globally with many cities investing in inquiries to explain this form of disadvantage (Power, 2001; Stanley &
21
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Stanley, 2017; Wu & Hine, 2003). While this research has enlightened policy makers, it has not resolved the issue or identified workable solutions to reduce the seemingly entrenched problem of transport disadvantage (Dodson et. al., 2006; Lucas, 2004). Transport disadvantage research generally utilises quantitative data to define and describe the problem (Dodson et. al., 2006)(See Table 1).
There are multiple quantitative measures of transport disadvantage and these have been applied in many cities to demonstrate the link to socio-economic disadvantage and the spatial distribution of multiple disadvantages (Li, Sipe, & Dodson, 2017; Randolph & Tice, 2014, 2017; Stimson et. al., 2001). These measures include various indexes that reveal socio-spatial disadvantage.
2.7 Measuring Transport Disadvantage There are many ways to measure transport disadvantage and some of those measures capture the interplay between transport and social disadvantage. This section of the review investigates a selection of approaches to highlight the multiple perspectives that underpin the measurement of this complex relationship. It is important to note that the development of measures and the measurement method is influenced by the measuring agency, its mandate and its motivation (Dodson et. al., 2006; Lucas et. al., 2016b) The examples here are Australian although, as demonstrated in Table 1, similar approaches to these are applied in other locations. The measures range from single variables such as motor vehicle ownership, to multivariate and weighted indexes, such as the Economic Resource Index (ERI), Vulnerability Analysis of Mortgage, Petroleum and Inflation Risks and Expenditure (VAMPIRE) Index, the Queensland Government’s Mobility Disadvantage Index (MDI) and the Land use Urban Planning and Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) and others.
The measures are generally geo-spatial, which allows for easy comparison across areas, and the data is usually presented in a mapped format. This is important as it enriches understanding of the spatial distribution of transport and social disadvantage and it can help to contextualise and compare locations of combined social and transport disadvantage. As explored earlier in Section 2.4, transport disadvantage is a complicated concept with many possible causes and its measurement reflects that 22
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
complexity (Lucas et. al., 2016b). The next section describes the VAMPIRE and other quantitative, socio-spatial measurement of transport disadvantage that relates transport disadvantage to social disadvantage.
2.7.1 VAMPIRE Index A recent investigation into social vulnerability in Australian cities challenges the idea that having no motor vehicle is a social disadvantage. In these inquiries, high levels of motor vehicle ownership are associated with social disadvantage, which is described in that investigation as social vulnerability. In this instance, social vulnerability is related to high levels of private car dependence and, in particular, the increased financial vulnerability that this dependence brings through exposure to petrol price increases.
The Vulnerability Analysis of Mortgage, Petroleum and Inflation Risks and Expenditure (VAMPIRE) Index assembles census data to analyse the relative social vulnerability of Australian cities (Dodson & Sipe, 2006). In the VAMPIRE index, key variables are overlayed to better understand the exposure of households to the combined pressures of an increase in mortgage interest rates and petrol prices. The VAMPIRE is a socio- spatial measurement tool that allows comparison between areas of the city. The VAMPIRE index joins many others as a quantitative, socio-spatial measure of transport disadvantage. These indexes marry transport and select social data to express the interplay between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage.
2.7.2 Mobility Disadvantage Index (MDI) The Queensland Government assembled a Mobility Disadvantage Index (MDI) in 2011, and again in 2017, to measure the degree of comparative mobility disadvantage in local areas (at the smallest statistical local area) in the south east corner of the state. For this index, mobility is the ability to physically travel from one location to another with relative ease. The index is ‘people-based’ in that it measures the mobility of individuals in a local area and then compares the results across local areas. The MDI is a deliberately basic and simple measure of mobility disadvantage for local areas, based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics census data. The idea is for policy officers and researchers to use this index as a foundation and then overlay other data, as relevant.
23
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The MDI index is the combination of five variables using data from the census for individuals and households. The MDI is a geospatial measure that appraises the comparative performance of local areas (statistical local area 1) on these five variables; this allows comparison across areas. The five variables are:
1. no motor vehicle at the dwelling; 2. a low household income (less than $600.00 per week); 3. need for assistance with core activities; 4. high number of dependants in the family and 5. the portion of the labour force that is unemployed.
These five variables are combined to show relative mobility disadvantage based on the resident profile in a local area (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011). This simple index views mobility as physical and material. The index considers the absence of a no motor vehicle to be a disadvantage (unlike the VAMPIRE index) and it does not consider the availability of public transport or other more complete measures of the local area. The research combines and compares the MDI and LUPTAI for the case study area at 2011 and 2016. The results are discussed in Section 6.3.
2.7.3 Land Use Urban Planning and Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) The LUPTAI is a place-based composite index and a comparative measure of transport disadvantage based on accessibility of transport (public, private, walking and cycling) and destinations (education, employment, health, recreation and community services). Both physical access (distance to stops and activity centres) and frequency of transport services determine accessibility. The accessibility index includes all modes (walk, cycle, public transport and private vehicle) and six destination groups. A description of the destination groups demonstrates the wide range of activities that are included in the index:
- Education includes childcare, schools and higher education facilities. - Employment is blue and white-collar employment areas. - Health is general practitioner and hospital. - Recreation is cultural, open space and sports. - Retail is major shops but also banks, post office, local shops. 24
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- Services are community, library and welfare services.
The LUPTAI applies rules, then assigns scores to locations, depending on their performance against the rules such as distance to public transport stops and the time it takes to travel by different modes to the destinations. Areas are ranked for their accessibility (Pitot, Yigitcanlar, Sipe, & Evans, 2006). The Queensland Government overlays the LUPTAI (place) and MDI (people) indexes to highlight areas of unmet transport need.
2.7.4 SNAMUTS
Similar to the LUPTAI (described above), the SNAMUTS is an index to assess the relationship between the public transport network, its performance and levels of service relative to land use categories and desired destinations. Unlike LUPTAI, the SNAMUTS provides a supply-side assessment and thereby, it is most valuable in planning the network and identifying areas suitable for densification of development and new public transport services or network changes.
The SNAMUTS builds to a composite index based on six indicators that combine to take into account service frequency, land use intensity, speed of service, ease of movement, travel time ratio for public transport and car travel and travel impediments (Burke and Stone, 2014). This is a comprehensive geo-spatial measure, though it is not applied in the current research as it is not used in Queensland to inform public transport decisions.
2.7.5 Quantitative Measurement in Transport Disadvantage Research This section describes the quantitative measurement of transport disadvantage. The quantitative measurement was categorised by Dodson as modelling and socio-spatial (Dodson et. al., 2006). Despite the passage of time between Dodson’s review of methods in transport disadvantage research and my research, the categorisation aligns somewhat with contemporary practices in transport disadvantage research. Dodson was differentiating between the data (or formula driven mathematical measurement of transport system performance) and travel behaviour (modelling) and the policy-driven assessment of transport that is an explicit inquiry into a city’s transport disadvantage (socio-spatial). The socio-spatial assessment of transport
25
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
disadvantage is influenced by the development of research and policy interest in the structure of the city and how the city structure impacts equity (Stimson et. al., 2001).
The emergence of big data sets associated with smartcard travel systems allows the investigation of temporal and spatial movement patterns for all card-using travellers. This data is often open-access and generally available for research purposes. This has engendered renewed interest in the quantitative measurement of travel behaviour. Depending on the data collected, the smartcard travel system can facilitate access to detailed temporal and spatial travel information. Advances in technology enable the ‘real time’ tracking of individual movement for entire city regions. Smartcard enabled travel systems are designed for transport efficiency and not for research; hence, the quality and type of smartcard travel data that is available for research is different in different jurisdictions.
The south east Queensland (SEQ) card is known as the GoCard and the system is ‘tap on’ and ‘tap off’ enabling the collection of detailed origin-destination travel movements. Other Australian cities have ‘tap on’ only travel cards so the origin, but not the destination of the travel, is recorded. The key advantage of the SEQ GoCard data is that it is geo-spatial as the transit stops have geo-coordinates and this allows spatial presentation of most travel behaviour. The manipulation of smartcard data can produce communicative maps to illustrate travel patterns across the city and in local areas. Collaborations between universities, commercial software companies and policy makers to generate indexes and analyse travel data in smartcard travel systems are viable. The risk is a return to data-driven transport research and a shift away from policy or value-driven research and more intensive and time consuming qualitative methods in transport disadvantage research (Dodson et. al., 2006). The following section discusses some qualitative research methods and the value of mixed methods research; my doctoral study deploys qualitative-dominant mixed research methods. 2.7.6 Qualitative Measures in Transport Disadvantage Research Qualitative research methods are not as common in transport disadvantage research as quantitative research approaches (Dodson et. al., 2006). This is likely as qualitative research is time-consuming and generally occurs at the local scale. The availability of system-wide travel data from many of the urban smartcard travel systems allows 26
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
relatively simple and fast comparative spatial analysis, and persuasive and communicative presentation of mapped travel data. This has appeal for urban transport researchers and transport policy makers due to the urgent transport issues in growing cities. Though, as with all measurement, the purpose and means of using the new wave of quantitative travel behaviour data is dependent on the measuring agent and their motivation (Lucas et. al., 2016b).
When it is used, qualitative research in transport disadvantage tends to be explicitly value-driven, rather than data-driven (Dodson et. al., 2006; Hamilton & Jenkins, 2000; Hine & Mitchell, 2003; Burton & Johnson, 2010). Qualitative transport research represents the perspective of the transport user and reports their experience of the transport system. Value-driven transport disadvantage research can utilise quantitative methods, although the advantage of qualitative research is the power of the everyday narrative. Depending on the audience, the narrative of the ordinary experience of the transport-disadvantaged traveller can be powerful and even transformative (Creswell, 2014; Grant-Smith et. al., 2018; Burton & Johnson, 2010; Blumenberg & Weinsten Agrawal, 2014).
Common qualitative techniques in transport disadvantage research include travel diaries and focus groups for specific social groups that experience transport disadvantage, such as young people, new migrants, people with a disability, those with low income and the unemployed (Johnson & Herath, 2005). In addition to focus groups, interviews and surveys with these groups are also of value in qualitative research as are observation, field work and evaluations of transport system performance based on the needs of disadvantaged user groups (Grant-Smith et. al., 2018; Hamilton & Jenkins, 2000; Burton & Johnson, 2010). Community mapping is a participatory technique that is useful for spatial representation of the views of local transport users including their solutions to transport disadvantage in the area (Grant- Smith & Johnson, 2012).
One weakness of qualitative research is that it is time-consuming and it can be resource-intensive (Creswell, 2014; Yin, 2013). In transport research, qualitative methods are best suited to the local scale and transport policy interests are usually district or city-wide. When transport research is data-driven, then the local experience 27
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
can be overlooked in favour of general travel patterns that can be garnered from smart card enabled transport systems.
2.7.7 Combined Quantitative and Qualitative Measures It is not common for researchers to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in transport disadvantage research, for practical reasons, such as time and resource constraints in research. However, it also reflects a historical antagonism between the disciplines that engage these different research approaches (Hodgkin, 2008). These research approaches are situated within different scientific traditions (Creswell, 2014). Table 1 presented a selection of methods in transport disadvantage research, and shows the general use of quantitative travel survey and social data and limited primary qualitative research.
A mixed methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative methods can engage the strengths of the big data sets that measure city-wide travel behaviour and multi-variant socio-spatial and comparative analysis with the experiences of transport users in local places (Dodson et. al., 2006). The following section presents an approach to transport disadvantage that engages both quantitative and qualitative methods in systematic inquiry. The transport poverty framework accommodates people-based and place-based data and combines people-based and place-based indicators of transport disadvantage (Lucas et. al., 2016a). The framework is policy- driven, not data-driven. As it is policy-driven, the transport poverty framework enables both city-wide and local inquiries and the use of big and/or descriptive data.
2.8 Transport Poverty Transport poverty is a recent and comprehensive framework for understanding and measuring transport disadvantage (Lucas, Mattioli, Verlinghiere & Guzman, 2016a). The concept of transport poverty aligns with the overarching concern in this research for transport justice. Transport justice is a fair distribution of mobility for access to goods, services and social and cultural networks to satisfy everyday needs and to maximise opportunities (Martens, 2016). The transport poverty framework is comprehensive and encourages multiple data sources to address transport disadvantage. The transport poverty framework overrides singular and simple transport disadvantage measures with a multi-variate, multi-layered understanding of
28
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
the phenomenon to support comprehensive policy responses to reduce transport disadvantage. Transport poverty draws together multiple factors that underpin transport disadvantage. These factors are summarised in the following sections.
Lucas presents transport poverty as four notions (Lucas et. al., 2016a). These four notions describe and seek to explain transport disadvantage and they respond to the complexity of the concept and its measurement. There is no singular measure of transport disadvantage. The four notions are expressions or manifestations of transport disadvantage. Lucas asserts that if the measurement of transport disadvantage examines only one or two of these notions, then it is partial, as the choice of what to measure and the measurement tool will heavily influence the identification of who is impacted and any subsequent policy or program solutions (Lucas et. al., 2016a). Lucas’ four notions of transport poverty are:
1. mobility poverty; 2. accessibility poverty; 3. transport affordability; and 4. exposure to transport externalities, including air and noise pollution and the severing effects of major transport infrastructure.
Some transport disadvantage research is an example of partial assessment (Rachele et. al., 2017). If transport disadvantage is not understood in its complexity, such as through the concept of transport poverty and the four notions approach, then there is a risk that the investigation of the phenomenon and resultant solutions will be partial. These concepts are overlapping and, in the following sections, I consider each of the four notions of transport poverty, as identified by Lucas, to better understand the distinction and relationship between them (Lucas et. al., 2016a). This in turn will help to guide the current research as the intervening years analysis deploys the four notions of transport poverty for the case study location.
2.8.1 Mobility Poverty Simply described by Lucas as a lack of transport (usually motorised), mobility poverty results in difficulty getting around (Lucas et al., 2016a). Mobility poverty refers to a lack of transport options related to a systemic failure in the transport system, rather
29
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
than an individual’s ability to pay for transport (which is transport affordability) (Mees, 2010b; Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). While transport affordability is a separate notion, Lucas highlights the symbiotic relationship between a low income and mobility poverty whereby limited mobility results in and compounds a low income and subsequent social disadvantage (Lucas et. al., 2016a).
2.8.2 Accessibility Poverty Accessibility poverty relates to the extent of effort it takes to get to key activities with reasonable time, ease and cost (Banister, 2018; Lucas et. al., 2016a). Here, Lucas extends the idea of mobility poverty to consider the convenience of travel. This second notion of transport poverty positions access as a ‘right’ and it presents reduced access as diminishing this right (USDT, 2017). Accessibility poverty is a manifestation of transport poverty and the concept resonates with an emergent interest in mobility as a ‘right’. Bouton and colleagues promote access as a fundamental right:
The world’s cities are facing an urgent set of challenges when it comes to ensuring that fundamental rite of urban living: getting around (Bouton, Knupfer, Mihov, & Swartz, 2015, p. 1).
2.8.3 Transport Affordability Transport affordability is the ability of the individual to pay for the costs of transport. This includes the costs of both public and private transport. The benchmark for transport poverty is 10% of household income; that is, those households spending over 10% of their income on transport are transport poor (Lucas et. al., 2016a). As the costs of a single fare and the costs of car ownership as a factor of household income are relatively easy to calculate, this is a common measure of transport affordability.
The limitation in this measurement is that it does not account for latent transport demand. That is, households may not travel due to the high costs of transport and the current transport affordability measures only capture the costs of actual travel. The simple equation of transport cost as a factor of income does not factor suppressed travel demand (Lucas et. al., 2016a). Some individuals simply do not travel as it is too expensive to do so. Further, to be a comprehensive measure of affordability, the costs of transport need to be considered in relation to other household costs, in particular the cost of housing. The work of Dodson and Sipe is important as their research
30
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
developed an index of vulnerability that considered the cost of transport in concert with the cost of housing and identified those households most at risk through exposure to rising costs in either sector (Dodson & Sipe, 2006; Dodson & Sipe, 2008).
2.8.4 Exposure to Transport-related Externalities Exposure to the damaging effects of transport infrastructure is also a notion in transport poverty. Often it is the most disadvantaged communities that suffer from the external impacts of transport (Li et. al., 2017). This may be because of the relative affordability of land that is subject to transport externalities (railway and highway corridors) or (in Australia) the high cost of new, low emission vehicles. Externalities include air and noise pollution, as well as the severing effect of transport corridors that traverse communities and areas and form barriers to movement.
2.8.5 Non-Transport factors Given these multiple manifestations of transport poverty, Lucas posits that transport poverty may not be a transport delivery problem at all; rather, it could be an issue of urban planning and for planning and social welfare services to resolve (Lucas et. al., 2016a). This means that an assessment of transport disadvantage needs to consider issues beyond transport, and investigations should contextualise the multiple factors that might influence and reduce transport disadvantage in a place.
2.9 Transport Justice The idea of transport justice is important in my research. Transport disadvantage constrains the right of access and transport justice promotes fairness and equity in transport policy and plans. Mobility, as a human right, and related ideas of transport justice shift the debate in transport to social justice and citizen rights. This positionality influences transport disadvantage research and in particular, the measurement of transport disadvantage (Banister, 2018; Martens, 2016). Martens is a key theorist here, proposing a system of transport planning that moves from measurement and modelling of transport demand to the allocation of funds based on distributive justice and access as a right (Martens, 2016). The right to access a fair share of the city resonates in the origins of modern planning (Shevellar, Johnson, & Lyons, 2015).
In Legacy’s investigations of transport planning and transport infrastructure projects in Australia, transport justice emerges as a critical concern. Specifically, the antagonistic
31
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
way that Government’s plan transport infrastructure including a lack of transparency, undermining civil-society critics of large transport infrastructure projects and transport infrastructure decisions that exacerbate patterns of socio-spatial disadvantage and inequity (Legacy, 2017; Steele & Legacy, 2017; Legacy, Ashmore, Scheurer, Stone and Curtis, 2019). For Legacy, these factors create a sense of urgency for transport justice in both the planning and provision of transport infrastructure, particularly considering the role of the private sector and profit in that provision.
Similar to Legacy, for Martens, transport policy should also be premised on distributive justice rather than distributive demand (Martens, 2006, 2016). This conceptualisation is relevant to my research as I highlight considerable transport expenditure to meet projected transport demand that overlooked existing and localised need in an area of chronic transport disadvantage. This transport investment outcome would be unlikely if the transport policy and planning ethos is based on transport justice, expressed as a policy of distributive justice in transport investment decisions.
In the following section I introduce and outline the theory of social capital. First, there is an overview of the origin of social capital theory, then consideration of its application in urban and transport research. Finally, I provide a short summary of social capital measurement to identify the value and limitations of this measurement.
2.10 Social Capital Theory: origins and currency In this section I define social capital and map the lineage of the theory as it relates to urban research and transport. The three types of social capital are bonding, bridging and linking social capital, and all three are of interest in my research, although I focus on bonding and linking.
It is nearly two decades since Putnam published his key text on the decline of social capital in America (USA) (Putnam, 2000). In that text, Putnam charts the origins of the use of the term ‘social capital’ to 1916, when it was used to espouse the value of community involvement in successful schools. Putnam maps the term through time and across locations and disciplines to Jacobs (1960s, American urbanist), Loury (1970s, American economist), Bourdieu (1980s, French social theorist), Schlicht
32
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
(1980s, German economist) and finally Coleman (American sociologist) who firmly embedded the theory in education, in the late 1980s.
Putnam presents extensive evidence of social change in the USA and he posits that this change results in a weakening of the pillars of social capital:
- community organisational life; - engagement in public affairs; - volunteerism; - informal sociability and - social trust (Putnam, 2000).
The social changes that are implicated in the decline of social capital are:
- time and money pressures; - long working hours; - suburbanisation and the related urban sprawl and private vehicle commute; - television and other electronic ‘home’ entertainments; and most importantly - the changing civic values of the younger generations.
Putnam does not suggest this list is complete and he concedes there are likely to be other factors that play a role, such as the changing family structure and racial segregation. What is relevant to transport research is that Putnam implicates the rise of the automobile and associated suburban development in the decline of social capital. He presents evidence of the rise of the commute to work by private vehicle and consequent decline of public transit use. We spend more time driving than cooking or eating, though importantly, we tend to drive alone and ‘the car and the commute are … demonstrably bad for community life’ (p. 213).
Putnam (2000) also notes that smaller suburbs are more conducive to social capital (p. 205). This finding is relevant to my research where the case study community is a spatially isolated small urban community severed from the metropolis by major transport infrastructure.
33
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2.10.1 Social Capital Theory in Urban Research More than a decade ago, urban theorists joined many other disciplines inquiring into social relationships and communities through the filter of social capital theory (Hutchinson & Vidal, 2004). Many urbanists viewed social capital as a new way of understanding the dynamics in communities. The desire among some urban planning theorists for more equitable outcomes for urban residents inspired interest in social capital theory. The following statement typifies the enthusiasm for the concept of social capital at that time: … when disadvantaged or impoverished people seek to improve the conditions under which they live, social capital is almost certainly the strongest resource at their disposal (Light in Hutchinson & Vidal, 2004, p. 145). More specifically, Vidal argues that “bridging [social] capital holds the most promise for planning that seeks to promote greater equity in cities” (Hutchinson & Vidal, 2004, p. 44).
The positive view of social capital as a valuable resource for disadvantaged individuals and communities represents an important school of thought in social capital theory. My research generally aligns with an appreciation of social capital as a positive and potential means to address social inequity, though this position is contested. There is a view that social capital has a ‘dark’ side and that it can act to exclude the disadvantaged, protect, and reinforce elite, highly resourced networks, thereby working to sustain structural inequality (Beall, 1997).
2.10.2 Social Capital in Transport Research The interplay between social capital and transport and social disadvantage, is a fluctuating theoretical interest in transport research (Charles & Kline, 2006; Stanley et. al., 2012; Urry, 2012; Bradbury, 2006; Schwanen et. al., 2015; Lucas et. al., 2016a). Transport disadvantage researchers have used social capital theory in various ways (Schwanen et. al., 2015). The two key approaches are:
1. to investigate the influence of transport disadvantage on individual and collective social capital; and
34
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2. to investigate the influence of individual and collective social capital on transport disadvantage (Schwanen et. al., 2015; Lovejoy & Handy, 2011).
For example, there is evidence that if an individual has a high quotient of bonded social capital expressed as a rich local social network, they may be less reliant on individualised transport (such as their own private vehicle) (Charles & Kline, 2006; Lovejoy & Handy, 2011). They may car pool or get lifts with friends and others in their social network, or they may not need to travel for their daily needs (Blumenberg & Smart, 2010; Lovejoy & handy, 2011). Also, the regular use of public transport can enhance the social networks for travellers ‘on board’ that mode of transport. There is evidence that regular travel can enhance both bonding and bridging social capital stocks (Stanley et. al., 2012; Bradbury, 2006; Morris & Pfeiffer, 2017).
A less positive finding in transport disadvantage research is that an individual’s obligations to the social network can make them reluctant to utilise that network for regular travel assistance (Lovejoy & Handy, 2011; Blumenberg & Weinstein Agrawal, 2014). In other US research, Morris and Pfeiffer found little association between social connectedness (social capital) and travel mode for both suburban and inner city residents. They found that the time spent travelling was more important to social connectedness than the mode of travel (ibid). My research investigates the influence of bonding and linking social capital on transport disadvantage.
2.10.3 Defining and Measuring Social Capital As well as debating the positive and negative features of social capital, social capital theorists also debate the definition and measurement of social capital. The formative typology of bonding and bridging social capital has been refined to include bracing and linking social capital and multi-scaled social capital (Rydin & Holman, 2004). Rydin and Holman are key researchers here, as they extend the social capital typology to reflect the complexities of urban governance. They encourage a more specific and contextualised idea of social capital that appreciates the boundaries and territoriality of a place, as well as the scale and horizontal and vertical nature of the linkages between individuals and groups (Holman & Rydin, 2013).
35
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Bonding social capital is the social capital that exists in the close network of family and friends who generally live nearby. Social capital bonds individuals to this network. Bridging or structural social capital joins individuals to other individuals and networks outside of their immediate bonded group and to broader entities, such as neighbourhood and local organisations. Bridging social capital is important as it reaches beyond the connection with the family and local friendship group so that we experience the ‘other’. This is significant for social cohesion and harmony as it engenders trust in those who are not like us. Bridging social capital is the basis for local networking through volunteering, reciprocated exchanges and local organisation.
Linking social capital is of particular interest to my study. Linking social capital is the links that individuals have to institutions that hold power in society (Woolcock, 2010). In disadvantaged communities, relationships with institutions that hold power and resources connect the powerless to agents with influence and structural power. Confidence and trust in these institutions is important as the connection between individuals and these institutions (this includes political representatives, government organisations and others) can translate to improvements in everyday life, such as better transport services and access. In their research, Healy and colleagues recognise the limiting role of local social capital (bonded) in engendering change in disadvantaged communities (Healy, Hampshire and Ayres, 2014). Instead, they advocate for extending the policy interest in social capital to enhancing the non-local ties that can be transformative for communities experiencing disadvantage. This insight resonates with my research as a University researcher who represents a non- local tie with considerable institutional and social resources to ‘make a difference’ in communities (ibid). It is also consistent with the research finding in this case study that a bonded community when it links to external institutions and agencies, is best able to meet its needs for fundamental services including mobility.
Putnam’s work is important as it uncovers multiple measures of social capital for individuals, groups and communities (Putnam, 2000). The measures are derived from social capital theory and, in particular, the idea that the density and type of an individual’s social network and the levels of trust and reciprocity within and beyond those networks including externalities is measurable (Stone, 2004). Social capital is
36
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
understood as both an individual good and a collective good (Putnam, Light, de Souza Briggs, Rohe, Vidal, Hutchinson, Gress, & Woolcock, 2004).
In a study of social capital and employment outcomes, Stone collected data from a random sample of 1,500 Australians (Stone, 2004). The 1,500 research participants were asked a series of questions to measure the type and density of their social networks, their general levels of trust and their institutional ties. These questions measured bonding, bridging and linking social capital respectively for these individuals. The individual results were analysed and grouped to generate a typology of social capital, including
- social capital rich, - strong norms and civic connections, - informal emphasised; and - social capital poor.
The research aggregated Individual results and respondents were categorised according to this range of social capital types; that is, through their survey results, individuals were categorised into one of these social capital categories. The research correlated the social capital types with employment outcomes for the individuals in those groups. This data analysis allowed the researchers to understand the relationship between individual social capital stocks and employment outcomes. This approach assumes a ‘rational actor approach’ in that individuals will behave in ways that are consistent with their expressed preferences. The rational actor assumption allows the researcher to merge and categorise individual survey responses and to model expected behaviours accordingly.
When measuring social capital, Australian researchers have interpreted social capital within a rational actor framework. It is assumed that the results from social capital survey instruments (such as questionnaires) will align with the actual behaviours of the respondents. That is, the stated preference survey is used as a key measure of social capital. This is problematic in that stated preference and actual behaviour may not always reliably align (Babbie, 2004). In the current research, a state preference survey was used in association with an investigation of smart card travel data, focus
37
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
groups, in-depth interview and researcher observation to triangulate the social capital findings.
As it is an individual and a collective good, it is important to measure social capital for individuals, groups and communities (Putnam, 2000). The measures include:
- attitudes towards others; - sense of belonging; - the density and type of social networks; - the levels of trust and reciprocity in those networks; and - trust in external institutions (Stone, 2004).
For this research I deployed a questionnaire and other methods (interviews, travel data interrogation, observation) to measure social capital in the case study community (see Appendix B for a copy of the questionnaire).
2.11 Key Concepts in the Research Following is a summary of the themes and ideas from the literature that influence my research; each of these points if then described briefly. Figure 2 diagrams the key concepts in the research and the relationship between these ideas.
The travel system includes private, public and active transport modes; There is convincing evidence of a link between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage; Socio-spatial factors are important in transport disadvantage research as there is interplay between social and locational disadvantage and transport disadvantage; Transport disadvantage is a complex and evolving concept and it can be measured using both quantitative and qualitative methods; The selection of measurement methods is influenced by the motivations and values of the measuring agent; Transport poverty is a multi-faceted framework for comprehending and measuring transport disadvantage that reflects its complexity and moves beyond single agency measurement interests;
38
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Transport justice influences transport disadvantage research, ranging from the selection of research methods, the analysis of power and recommendations for transport policy; Social capital can be measured, although (as the indicators are self-reported) actor rationality is assumed; Social capital research in transport tends to focus on the role of transport in building social capital and less on the role of social capital in reducing transport disadvantage; and There is limited investigation of the role of linking social capital in reducing transport disadvantage.
2.11.1 Social Disadvantage The literature review discussed the role of social disadvantage in transport. As noted, Table 2 presents the attributes of social disadvantage that interface with transport disadvantage. Representation and associated links to power are a feature of social disadvantage that is a central idea in the research. Effective representation can link to power and instigate action to reduce transport disadvantage. The individual and community link to representative and other power is theorised in the research as linking social capital.
The empirical interest is the quality of representation and community organisation and local governance that enables engagement and transport advocacy to reduce transport disadvantage. Another interface between social and transport disadvantage is locational disadvantage. This research identified that some city locations are vulnerable to transport disadvantage. Research demonstrates that outer suburbs are spatially vulnerable to transport disadvantage due to comparatively limited accessibility and high levels of car dependence (Dodson & Sipe, 2006).
39
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Social Disadvantage Access to Transport Poverty opportunities (Lucas, 2016) Income Ability Mobility Location Accessibility Employment Affordability
Vehicle ownership Externalities Language Travel choice, Representation residential choice & power to Influence
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Bonding-
Improves Mobility Chances
Linking- Connects to Figure 2: Key concepts in the literature Power
2.11.2 Transport Disadvantage The effect of transport disadvantage is not uniform as it is experienced differently, depending on individual (person-based) and spatial (place-based) circumstances. For example, a person in a location may be transport disadvantaged if they do not drive and do not have easy access to public transport, but the private resources available to them can fund private and share ride services that facilitate their mobility, thereby improving access and reducing transport disadvantage. Another person in the same location without access to private resources might experience transport disadvantage
40
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
more acutely. Individual circumstances will influence the social and economic outcomes for them, although they live in the same transport disadvantaged location. Transport disadvantage is complex and dependent on many variables; hence, the adoption of the multi-notional transport poverty framework to guide the analysis in my research.
2.11.3 Transport Poverty The notion of transport poverty is useful as it reveals the many causes and conditions of transport disadvantage and this allows systematic measurement and review of those causes. Transport poverty has four underpinning notions (Lucas et. al., 2016a). Lucas identifies four notions of transport poverty: mobility poverty; accessibility poverty; transport affordability; and exposure to transport externalities. These concepts are overlapping. I outlined these four notions in Section 2.8. They provide an analytical framework for investigating transport disadvantage in the case study area over the research timeline (2005 to 2018).
2.11.4 Social Capital One aim of my research is to explain the contribution of the three types of social capital to transport disadvantage in the case study location. The three types of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking social capital) may exacerbate, mediate, or be unrelated to transport disadvantage (Woolcock, 2010). Social capital may be an enabling factor to reduce transport disadvantage, or there may be no relationship. My research will examine the roles of social capital in transport disadvantage and not simply accept a positive causal relationship.
2.11.5 Relationship between Key Concepts Figure 2 summarises the research approach as it shows the relationship between key concepts. The theoretical interest is to identify the multiple ways that social capital reduces transport disadvantage. Transport poverty is a multi-faceted framework for comprehending and measuring transport disadvantage. As shown in Figure 2, there is an assumed ‘symbiotic’ relationship between transport poverty and social disadvantage. Those experiencing transport poverty have constrained access to everyday opportunities and this compounds social disadvantage. Those experiencing social disadvantage generally have less travel and residential choice and limited
41
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
power to influence their circumstances. I assume that social capital can reduce transport poverty in two ways.
1. Bonding social capital can directly improve mobility by facilitating shared transport and other mobility efforts for those within a social network. 2. Linking social capital can connect the transport disadvantaged to more powerful institutions and agents that can influence transport decisions including local transport investment and service priorities.
2.12 Conclusion Understanding factors that reduce transport disadvantage is vital to my research. As such, the deployment of social capital theory and the application of the four notions of transport poverty and extending those to consider governance, community organisation, locational disadvantage and other factors in the case study community can help explain factors that reduce transport disadvantage (Lucas, 2012, 2004; Lucas et. al., 2016a).
In Chapter 3 I devise and explain the research framework.
42
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 3 Research Framework
3.1 Introduction In this chapter I reflect on the conceptualisation of the research and devise an aligned research framework. I describe the influential ideas that shape the research paradigm and methods. The research paradigm, the role of theory, the research approach and a research framework diagram, research methods and limitations of the research follow.
3.2 Access as a ‘right’ The research is located with inquiries in urban social disadvantage, transport disadvantage and social capital. Lefebvre’s conceptualisation of the right to the city influences the investigation. Lefebvre promotes the right to the city as fair access to the city’s spaces and assets for full participation in all aspects of everyday urban life (Lefebvre, 2014; Butler, 2012).
The individuals and communities that have difficulty moving through the city are disadvantaged by constrained access to employment, training, social and recreational activity and services. Powerful agents acknowledge the relationship between constrained mobility and limited access to opportunities (USDT, 2017). The right to full participation in the city is denied when access is constrained and transport is a central element that facilitates access to the opportunities of the city.
Access to the city’s resources is necessary to fulfil utilitarian needs and it may underpin a good life and self-actualisation (Kaufmann, Bergman, Joye, 2004). Researchers agree that access is fundamental to the enjoyment of a fulfilling and quality urban life (Banister, 2018; Martens, 2016; Pereira, Schwanen, & Banister, 2017). The idea of access as a right influences the research paradigm and research methods in my study.
3.3 Research Paradigm A research paradigm is the philosophical view that informs an understanding of the research problem and in turn directs the selection of methods and techniques. For my research, the research paradigm is transformative. It is important to articulate the research paradigm at the outset as it guides the overall research design (Creswell, 2014). An articulation of the research paradigm promotes alignment of the research 43
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
elements. The research design, methods and techniques derive from the research paradigm; they operate collectively within the research paradigm.
Transformative research emerged in the 2000s as a reaction to a general dissatisfaction with empirical research that treats the ‘researched’ as the object/s of study and not equal research participant/s (Creswell, 2014). The research paradigm is a worldview that relates to the epistemological and ontological positions that guide the research. The worldview is presented here as it makes transparent the researcher’s (that is, my) perspective on the research problem and consequently, the design of the research.
Transformative research is based in an epistemology that understands knowledge as being socially constructed (Mertens, 2009). Research knowledge is gained by engaging with the experiences of the research participants. It follows the ontological position that reality is socially constructed. In transformative research, the inclusion of the voice of the research participant is critical to understanding reality, and reality is strongly influenced by power (Hodgkin, 2008). This epistemological and ontological perspective means that it is not enough to simply observe and report social patterns as a generalisable ‘truth’. Truth is contingent on understanding the power and privilege that manifest as reality and how reality is experienced by the research participants. Transformative research is typified by a recognition of the ‘non-neutrality of knowledge, the pervasive influence of human interests and issues such as power and social relationships’ (Creswell, 2014, p. 75).
The research is conducted in order to ‘make things better;’ to transform the research participants or the conditions that limit access and opportunity for the research participants (Mertens, 2009). This approach assumes that constrained access limits the everyday experiences and opportunities that maximise life chances. It is important to declare the transformative worldview as this pronounces that the research has a ‘bias’ to transformation. That bias influences:
- the selection of social capital theory and the transport poverty framework, - the framing of the research problem, - the research approach,
44
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- the case study selection, - research objectives and questions, - data sources and analytical techniques, and - the treatment of the research participants (Creswell, 2014).
Transformative research is based on the idea that reality is socially-constructed and strongly influenced by social relationships that result from structural power (Mertens, 2009). In this transformative investigation, social capital is a theory of interest from a viewpoint that it might challenge or undermine structural power. In this sense, social capital can mediate the influence of structural and locational disadvantage that manifests as transport disadvantage.
I appreciate that for some communities (but not all), inequality manifests as transport disadvantage and that it is crucial to investigate social relations and appreciate the role of power in creating and maintaining inequity. The manifestation of ‘top down’ structural power is challenged when social capital enables new and unexpected social relationships to develop and disrupt the influence of structural power. The way that social capital is generated and maintained in a community can, on the other hand, reinforce inequality and extend unequal structural power relationships to local social networks. This is the dark side of social capital, or ‘anti-social’ capital, as I noted in Section 2.10.1 (Beall, 1997).
Transformative research has its critics, including Gravem, Bachhuber, Fulton-Bennett, Randell, Rickborn, Sullivan & Menge (2017). The idea that a research project can commence under the label of ‘transformative’ is presumptive as it infers that change will result from the research. How can this be known at the outset of the research (Gravem et, al., 2017)?
For transparency, it is important to state that the research aspired to be transformative and the research transformed local mobility as it led to change in the case study community in 2005, and again in 2018. The discussion component (Chapter 7) of the thesis presents these changes and analyses the association between reduced transport disadvantage and social capital, especially linking social capital.
45
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The right to the city for the purposes of this research falls short of the organised force for change promoted by Harvey. The research resonates with Fainstein’s idea of the ‘just’ city (Fainstein, 2010), rather than with the more revolutionary ideas of Harvey, who promotes urban revolution among the dispossessed so that they can take back the control of the city they have been denied (Harvey, 2008).
Fainstein (2010) views Harvey’s call for fierce conflict to deliver justice in the city as inconsistent with the desire of most city dwellers for a peaceful life. She concurs with Harvey that the current system in a capitalist democratic city excludes many residents; however, she believes that the system can be modified, rather than overthrown. Her modifications include spatial strategies, such as public open space, porous boundaries between communities,and housing policies that inhibits segregation. Fainstein also promotes non-spatial strategies to enhance democracy through better participation of marginalised groups via advocates and other participatory planning initiatives (Fainstein, 2010).
My research will explore a case of transport disadvantage to promote the possibilities for better access and opportunity in the case study community. This study is influenced by the idea of distributive justice as it relates to transport access (following Pereira and colleagues) (Pereira et. al., 2017). The question of fairness is central here as the everyday transport disadvantage experienced in the case study community constrains individual access to the opportunities of the city; this in turn limits the rights of those individuals to share equally in the assets of the city.
My research is undertaken in the tradition of critical theory; that is, the research critically reviews the experienced world. It is not enough to report the empirical observations in the case. The research will engage with issues of structural inequity in the city. The case of transport disadvantage exists because of these structural inequities: that is a clear starting point for the research. The transformation occurs throughout the research through the empowerment of participants including residents and significant agents as they engage with the research and its findings.
46
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
3.4 Theory in the Research Theory will lead my research in two ways. First, adopting Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ theory means the research considers transport as more than simply a means to get from place ‘a’ to place ‘b’ (Butler, 2012). Transport facilitates access to opportunities for a good quality, everyday urban life. My interpretation of Lefebvre’s theory is that transport is a right, as transport access is pivotal to determining the quality of everyday life in the modern city. Observations of everyday activities are the basis of Lefebvre’s right to the city hypothesis.
In my research, it is important to hear from the residents about their experience of transport in their everyday lives. The local context is important and the perspective of the resident is paramount to understand the everyday experience of transport disadvantage. Equitable access to the resources of urban life is a right. There is emergent, yet strong, interest in access as a right and transport as an issue of distributive or transport justice (Martens, 2016). Where transport disadvantage exists alongside social disadvantage, then there is inequity as individuals and communities are unable to exercise their right to access a fair share of the goods and assets of the city; their right to the city.
Second, the research employs theory to understand the ‘real’ (empirical) world. To better understand the seemingly entrenched transport disadvantage in the case study community, I use transport poverty and social capital theory to analyse and understand the experiences of everyday life, according to the resident travellers and socio- economic and travel data in the case study location.
Social capital theory refines and guides the research task. In this sense, social capital theory is ‘a priori’ (Creswell, 2014). The theory exists and the research will test the contribution of the theory to addressing transport disadvantage. The research process is not linear. In my research, social capital theory is not a hypothesis tested empirically. Social capital theory is a lens that guides the analysis. It is hoped that the research will modify and extend social capital theory, as the patterns observed in the case study will inform the theory. In this way, the research is iterative, with theory informing the empirical, and the empirical potentially informing social capital theory and the conceptualisation of transport poverty. 47
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
3.5 Research Approach: An Inquiry into Solutions to Transport Disadvantage The research approach is influenced by the concepts and methods explored in the literature review. The research approach aligns key concepts and the methods, such as the techniques for data collection and analysis.
There is much research on transport disadvantage and its interplay with social disadvantage; that research is largely quantitative, although there is also qualitative research in the field (see Table 1). Investigations of the interplay between transport and social disadvantage help communities and policy makers to understand the relationship and the causes of transport disadvantage, although solutions to transport disadvantage are elusive. More transport infrastructure and service investment is an obvious solution; however, where that has occurred, it has not necessarily reduced transport disadvantage or achieved much change in the indicators of social disadvantage at the sites of transport investment.
The case study area that is the subject of this investigation has had many Government interventions to improve social outcomes, including public and active transport investment during the research period. Whether the measures are quantitative or qualitative, transport disadvantage remains an issue in the case study community. This research will focus on a single transport disadvantaged area over time to identify what activity, if any, reduced transport disadvantage in this place.
3.6 Research Methods This section identifies the research methods, their limitations and contingency strategies to address those limitations. The research objectives and research questions are restated as they guide the investigation and bring rigour and focus to the research.
The theoretical gaps identified by key urban transport theorists and the review of literature informs the current research objectives and research questions (Dodson et. al., 2006; Lucas, 2012; Schwanen et. al., 2015). This research has two objectives:
1. Identify and explain the factors that reduce transport disadvantage. 2. Develop and apply a research framework to address transport disadvantage.
48
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The research applies three Research Questions to achieve the research objectives: 1. Which strategies reduce transport disadvantage? 2. What role does social capital play in reducing transport disadvantage? 3. How can a qualitative-dominant mixed method research approach help researchers to better understand transport disadvantage? The research methods that follow are designed to address the research questions and achieve the research objectives. 3.6.1 People-based and Place-based
Transport disadvantage is not just the result of transport availability. Transport disadvantage is also associated with less tangible factors, such as where you live and your individual characteristics, such as age, ethnicity, gender, physical ability and wealth (Stanley & Stanley, 2017). Transport disadvantage can also reflect the quality of the transport system, including routing and scheduling, frequency, cost, safety, and effective timetable information (Lucas et. al., 2016b). As discussed in Section 2.4, transport disadvantage can be understood using place-based (geo-spatial) and person-based measures (individual and group characteristics, resources and capabilities, including time, budgets and others) (Lucas et. al., 2016b).
Because of these two dimensions of transport disadvantage measures, investigating transport disadvantage is ideally undertaken through a marriage of quantitative data sets and fine grain qualitative inquiry. This combination allows broad and comparative data to be refined through engagement with travellers and investigations at a local level. Place-based data is interrogated from the transport user and resident perspective. By utilising both quantitative and qualitative data, the research can oscillate between the general and the specific; across geographic scales from citywide to local; and from the traveller to the transport system.
While historically there has been a divide (and sometimes antagonism) between quantitative and qualitative research approaches and researchers, a mixed methods approach brings the strengths of both methodologies to the investigation of this complex research problem (Hodgkin, 2008). The use of ‘big data’ is possible as I had access to open source smartcard (GoCard) travel data for the south east Queensland region and Australian Bureau of Statistics, as well as a range of indexes, such as 49
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
SEIFA, MDI, LUPTAI and VAMPIRE. Smartcard travel data combined with resident perspectives highlights the issues that compound and potentially reduce transport disadvantage.
To maximise a dynamic relationship between quantitative and qualitative data, this research applies an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2014). Figure 3 illustrates the quantitative-qualitative sequence of the research. As it is participatory research, the research process encourages iteration between the resident view and the quantitative data. Although the sequence is generally linear, there is resident-guided quantitative data analysis and resident verification of the findings of the quantitative analysis. Figure 3 shows this iteration as a feedback loop between qualitative and quantitative processes. This feedback loop enriches the research and enables the resident/traveller to explore, explain and verify patterns in the quantitative data. Note the iteration between the quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis in Figure 3.
It is anticipated that sometimes, the resident identified transport issues lead the sequence and these issues guide and direct the type of quantitative data to collect and analyse.
50
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Case Study Selection- social and transport disadvantage indexes, metro context, socio- economic profile, researcher familiarisation
Literature Review- positionality, transport disadvantage measurement, influential concepts
Residents guide and verify. Resident/traveller experiences- transport challenges and solution Data analysis identification, community mapping reveals patterns and issues. Data Collection/Analysis- transport system and investment audits, social capital measures, smart card data, researcher observations
Figure 3: The Roles and Relationship of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
This research employs qualitative-dominant mixed methods (Johnson, Onwuegbuziw & Turner, 2007). This means that while a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods are utilised, the emphasis is on qualitative data and analysis. It is a mixed approach in the sense that both quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analysed in this research. The mix of methods enables me to engage in both metropolitan-wide measurement and localised problem and solution definition.
Table 3 presents the research objectives, questions and related research methods. While the table shows the quantitative and qualitative techniques separately, as explained in Section 3.6, they work together to address the research questions. Table 4 shows the research methods utilised at the start, in 2005, and in the latter stage of the research. The results and discussion sections of the thesis describe the research findings at 2005, the latter stage, and the intervening years.
51
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 3: Research Objectives, Questions, Data Sources and Analysis
Research Research Quantitati Qualitative Data Analysis Objectives Questions ve Data Data Interviews Audit of transport investment in the case study community Identify and Focus Groups Which explain the Community map of transport solutions, strategies Resident factors that Workshops 2005 reduce survey, reduce transport 2017 Thematic analysis of interview, focus transport Community disadvantage? group and workshop data 2005, 2017 disadvantage Mapping Review of community organisation and Observation local governance Intervening years analysis
Identify and What role does Thematic analysis of interview, focus Interviews explain the social capital group and workshop data 2005, 2017 Resident Literature factors that play in survey, review Content analysis of plans and reports reduce reducing 2017 Focus Groups transport transport Audit of transport investment in the disadvantage disadvantage? case study community Review of community organisation and local governance Community map of transport solutions, 2005
Mobility Disadvantage Index 2011, 2016
How can a Accessibility index (LUPTAI) 2011, qualitative- 2016 Interviews Develop and dominant Socio-Spatial Socio- apply a mixed method spatial Focus Groups research research Vulnerability (VAMPIRE) Index 2006, data 2016 framework to approach help Workshops address researchers to Accessibili Demographic benchmarking for city- transport better ty data Community wide comparison disadvantage understand mapping transport Demographic analysis over the case disadvantage? study timespan
Thematic analysis of interview, focus group and workshop data 2005, 2017
Audit of transport investment in the case study community
3.7 Role of the Researcher It is important to make the role of the researcher (in this case, me) explicit and to highlight the role of universities in transformative research, particularly where the 52
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
research is transformative. The university is a resourced and powerful institution that can advantage communities that are able to link with it. The researcher can act as a link between the community and the university and thereby become an embodiment of linking social capital. The linking role of the university researcher underlies the transformative potential of research, although it also promotes ethical concerns. The participatory, transformative researcher could be described as an ‘inside-outsider’. The inside-outside researcher is not truly within the community, nor without. The researcher’s position in participatory, transformative research has been described as in-between: not inside or outside of the community that is the site of the research (Miligan, 2016). To address this duality in the current research, ethical approval was sought and received from the University of Queensland (see Section 3.7.1 and Appendix A) and careful planning was undertaken to engage with the community. The objectives of relationship and trust building underpin the research commencement and community engagement protocols and processes and participant recruitment strategies in the research. My research methods are described in more detail following.
3.7.1 Research Relationships The relationship between the researcher and the research participants in this research is important. For the qualitative component of this longitudinal research to be effective, a relationship of mutual trust was needed between the residents, community organisations and service providers and me, the researcher. This enabled the qualitative data collection effort in 2005 and re-engagement with the community, from 2015. Building relationships between me, as researcher, and the residents in the case study community is consistent with the transformative research paradigm in social scientific research (Mertens, 2009). The researcher’s identity in qualitative social scientific research can be a vexed issue, particularly where the research takes place over time (Silverman, 2005). At both stages of the primary data collection, I provided an information sheet about the research and that sheet was distributed through community networks and meetings in the community (see Information Sheet, Appendix A). I accessed the community through its known organisations; that is, rather than create a separate grouping of residents for this research, the participants were engaged within their existing networks. This meant that I attended local meetings of 53
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
existing community organisations and groups, to both build rapport and collect information for the research.
Building trust was important for the recruitment of residents and stakeholders for the qualitative parts of the research, such as the interviews and focus groups. Relationships with some residents were founded in 2005 and were revitalised in the later stage of the research from 2015. The thesis reports the views of long-term residents, who were engaged in both the 2005 research and the recent stage of the research, as well as the perspectives of new residents.
To facilitate a return to the case study community ten years on, I sought the permission of resident representatives to renew an investigation into transport disadvantage in their suburb. The resident representatives agreed to participate in further transport research, as they have ongoing transport concerns.
Once key residents and service providers indicated that they were willing to participate, I sought ethical approval from the University of Queensland to proceed with the research. Ethics documents, such as the University’s approval letter, the Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form for the participants in Stage 2 data collection are Appendix A. The research also achieved ethical clearance for the inclusion of Stage 1 data in the current research. That documentation (2019 amendment) also appears in Appendix A.
3.8 Longitudinal Research In 2005, I explored transport challenges and transport solutions in the case study area, using a community mapping method. For the purpose of longitudinal research, I returned to the community ten years later and similarly explored transport challenges and solutions with residents. In the later stage, I also reviewed transport investments and community, service, governance and other changes in the intervening years, and sought the views of residents and service providers about the impact of these changes on transport and access.
Menard (2011) describes longitudinal research as serving two purposes:
54
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- longitudinal research describes patterns of change. This means that longitudinal research will identify what has changed (if anything) and it will investigate the themes and trends in those changes; and - longitudinal research establishes the direction and magnitude of causal relationships that underpin change. Longitudinal research establishes whether a change is positive or negative, and the strength of the relationship between the change and the values investigated.
Most longitudinal research, particularly in the field of psychology, is based on the collection of data at one point in time from one cohort and the collection of that same data at a future time, from the same or an approximate cohort. The research repeats, the data is comparable and causal relationships are reported with some confidence. That is, the research is designed to be longitudinal and the repeat administration of a questionnaire or other data collection instrument, is designed into the research, at the outset.
This type of longitudinal research design is only partially possible in my research, as it was not anticipated in 2005 that the research would be repeated again, over ten years later. The recent resident cohort is not the same as the 2005 resident cohort (although a small group of resident participants is the same) and it is not an exact application of the same community mapping technique deployed in the 2005 research. Although a return to the research was not anticipated in 2005, there are consistent characteristics between the 2005 and later stage of the research that enable comparison and align with the features of longitudinal research.
The qualities of the research that are consistent in Stage 1 and Stage 2 are:
the site of the research (Carole Park, now known as Ellen Grove); the research focus on transport disadvantage; quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis; a qualitative-dominant mixed methods approach; audits of past transport and social scientific research in the case study community;
55
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
collection of information from residents about the role of transport in their lives (the challenges) and their solutions to these challenges; the researcher acting as an ‘outside-insider’ and ‘in-betweener’ who participates in community groups, local governance arrangements and activities; researcher familiarisation with the case study area through regular visits, walking around the area and regular local meeting attendance; interviews with elected representatives; and liaison with community networks to better understand the community’s organisation and to reach resident research participants.
Figure 3 is the overarching longitudinal research method, Figure 4 outlines the community mapping method utilised in the 2005 stage of the research. Figure 4 is included to demonstrate the general consistency in the data collection and analysis in 2005 and the later stage. Table 4 presents the overarching research objectives and research questions and shows how the data and analysis at both stages of the research combine to achieve the objectives. Figures 3 and 4 and Table 4 are best read together to understand the relationship between the research stages and illustrate the consistency in the stages.
While comparison between Stage 1 and Stage 2 data is possible, causality will not be certain as the research is largely qualitative, observational and explanatory. I consider the plausibility of the relationship between some factors such as social capital and transport outcomes. The investigation includes an audit of transport investment in the case study area and immediate surrounds to identify the temporal order of transport changes. The research also explores social organisation and local governance and considers the interplay between these changes and the performance of the transport system in this place. As Menard points out, the establishment of temporal order does not establish causality, but it is evidence of the plausibility of one causal relationship as opposed to another (Menard, 2011).
56
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
3.9 Data Collection, Stage 1 In Stage 1 of the research in 2005, I collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative primary and secondary data. The 2005 research was the first application of a community mapping technique for transport research in the south east Queensland region (Grant-Smith & Johnson, 2012; Burton & Johnson, 2010). The aim was to demonstrate the value of participatory research in understanding ‘wicked urban problems’, such as transport disadvantage. Figure 4 shows the research approach and methods in the research in 2005.
Case study selection: SEIFA index, socio- economic profile, review of past plans, interventions and transport research
Data collection: focus groups, interviews, workshops, researcher observations, field work and documentation of transport infrastructure, community cohort maps of transport challenges and solutions
Data analysis: timetable, destinations and fares analysis, community mapping results
Figure 4: Carole Park Community Mapping 2005
There are parallels between the 2005 research (Figure 4) and the overarching research approach shown in Figure 3: specifically, the quantitative-qualitative explanatory sequence and iteration between the resident perspective and quantitative analysis of the transport system is common to both.
57
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
3.10 Data Collection, Stage 2 As with the 2005 Stage, the data used in Stage 2 of the research is both quantitative and qualitative, primary and secondary. A few residents participated in both stages of the research; however, due to changes in the local population, the passage of time and the participant recruitment methods, there are many different residents in Stage 2.
The recent stage of the research has some advantages due to advances in the collection and availability of travel data, more recent research and policy interest in measuring transport disadvantage. For example, the latest stage utilises open source smartcard data that shows trip frequency and travel patterns in the south east Queensland public transport network. Since 2005, there has been much Australian and International research that has been foundational to the development of land use/transport/mobility/social indexes (Dodson & Sipe, 2006; Li et. al., 2015; Currie & Delbosc, 2010; Delbosc & Currie, 2011b; Dodson et. al., 2006; Lucas, 2012; Currie et. al., 2009).
The second stage therefore provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between land use and transport, as new approaches and quantitative data are available that reflect the research and policy interest in the interplay between these phenomena. This means that the data included a specific State Government generated mobility disadvantage index and other transport disadvantage indexes such as VAMPIRE and LUPTAI. These indexes are used in the later stage of the research, although they were not available at 2005 as the smartcard data did not exist and policy interest in transport disadvantage was less evolved.
3.11 Limitations of the Research There are five limitations of my research:
1. single case study location; 2. longitudinal research; 3. researcher identity; 4. data gaps; and 5. non-participation of State Government Transport Officers in the current stage.
58
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
In this research, the case study is an exploration of the circumstances in one location. As Yin (2013) explains, case study research has few data points (cases) and multiple variables This means that the analytical techniques that apply in quantitative research, where there are generally a large number of data points and few variables, do not apply in case study research (Yin, 2013). Case study research is highly contextualised and thereby generalisations from the case to the generic are limited, and often not possible. Nevertheless, case studies are useful in illuminating circumstances that may resonate in other locales. Although the research is contextualised, it is anticipated other, similar urban communities (and other cities) will find value in the research methods, findings and recommendations.
In this research, the limitations of the case study as identified by Yin are relevant, although the research is longitudinal and this allows analysis of the single case study area over time. In this context, comparative analysis between two cases is possible; albeit, the comparative cases are the same location at different points in time. The cases will be treated as discrete (‘within-case inquiries’) although it is viable to compare selected variables in the intervening years analysis where evidence exists. Having a comparative case, or multiple cases, does not resolve the fundamental challenge of case study research with few data points and many variables for analysis.
The second research limitation is the longitudinal case study approach. There is over ten years between the initial investigation into transport disadvantage in the case study community in 2005 and the later stage of the research that commenced in 2015. During this time, much has changed. New data is available in this later stage. Some new transport infrastructure developed in the area, including a passenger railway station in the neighbouring suburb and a passenger railway line and active transport path that traverse the case study area.
The suburb also experienced rapid medium density development to the east. As well as these structural changes, the suburb has had a name change from Carole Park to Ellen Grove (Ellen Grove is the name of the neighbouring suburb, which has absorbed the former Carole Park).
59
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The deployment of theory and an analytical framework guides the analysis of changes in the case study area over the research period. This approach enhances comparability between the two stages of research and potentially supports the replication of the current research method at other locations (Yin, 2013).
My historical relationship with residents in the community could cause confusion for resident and service provider participants. I have a history of association with the community, due to the original community mapping research in 2005. I returned to the community for the current stage of the research. A key strategy to address the confusion is the university ethical approval, the entry protocol and recruitment processes for the research. Before the research proceeded to fieldwork, ethical approval required that a clear description of the project and the expectation of project participants would be distributed to all research participants. This clarified the role of the current research and the researcher. The existing relationships in the community enabled re-entry to the community for the latter research stage. I was invited to attend community meetings and to access residents and groups from 2015, based on the positive legacy of the 2005 research.
The fourth limitation is data gaps. The main gap is the non-representative resident sample for focus groups, workshops and the resident survey in 2017. This limitation is the result of the recruitment strategy for the research. The research engaged residents who were interested in transport issues and they tended to be young and older residents. The fifth and final limitation is the non-participation of State Government Transport Officers in the latter stage of the research. Despite attempts to recruit State Government Transport Officers, none engaged in the second stage of the research.
The research deployed contingency strategies to address these five limitations. Table 4 presents the limitations and strategies to minimise the impact of the limitations on the research. Figure 5 follows Table 4 and it presents an overview of the longitudinal research approach.
60
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 4: Research Limitations and Contingency Strategies
Research Contingency Comments Limitation Strategies The longitudinal The longitudinal nature of the comparative case study 1. Single case study research enables a comparative incorporating data at two location. case study, albeit at a single points in time and an location. intervening years analysis. Apply social capital theory and Lucas’s transport poverty Ask research participants framework to the intervening years the same questions in analysis. This way, social capital 2005 and 2017 mapping theory and the four notions of 2. Longitudinal research- the exercise- identify transport transport poverty frame the passage of time and different challenges, transport intervening years analysis so that research participants. solutions. Compare the data and variables that address results through an these frameworks are used. This intervening years analysis. creates a consistent approach to data analysis across the research timeline. I sought the permission of key resident leaders to re-enter the case study community for Stage 2 Participant information of the research. briefings and clear, simple I am a member of the EG2020 consent forms to signed governance collaboration of State before data collection. 3. Researcher role and and Local Government, non-
relationships in the government and community agents I (as researcher) had community. seeking to address social participation in the Ellen disadvantage, including transport Grove 2020 strategic disadvantage, in the case study reference group from 2015- community. 2019. This role places me at regular meetings in the case study community. A review of other research that Triangulate the research occurred prior to and during the findings with past surveys research period informs the current 4. Data and Participant Gaps. and other primary data research. collection efforts in the A summary of that research is case study community. reported in the thesis, including key transport findings. An ex-Minister for Transport was interviewed to represent the views of the Department of Transport. 5. No State Government Interview a past This person was Minister during Transport Department Queensland Transport the research period. This informant representative in the latter Minister. provides insight into the major stage of the research. transport investment decisions in the area during the research timeline.
61
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Within case inquiry 2005 Within case inquiry 2018 community profile community profile focus groups focus groups interviews resident survey transport analysis interviews community map transport analysis Intervening years inquiry comparative analysis: socio-spatial; transport disadvantage indexes. Analytical qualitative data Framework local governance review Transport Poverty transport audit Social Capital
Figure 5: Longitudinal Research Approach
3.12 Summary of the Research Framework In summary, the research is:
● framed in a transformative research paradigm; ● undertaken in the tradition of critical social research; ● influenced by Lefebvre’s notion of the ‘right to the city’ as a right to a quality everyday experience and Martens (2016) idea of distributive transport justice; ● a longitudinal case study; ● an explanatory sequential (iterative) qualitative-dominant mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2014); ● limited in space (one location only); and ● explicit about limitations and contingency strategies.
62
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
3.13 Introducing the Case Study Area In this section I briefly describe the case study area, including the rationale for case study selection and locational characteristics. Following this introduction to the area, Chapter 4 commences with an analysis of multiple features of the case study area. This analysis is foundational to the research as it provides insight into the particulars of this case that underpin its social, transport and locational context.
3.13.1 Rationale for Case Study Selection I had experience as a transport disadvantage researcher applying community mapping methods in suburbs with similar social and spatial characteristics to the case study area. Because of this experience, the Brisbane City Council approached me in 2005 to apply a community mapping method and investigate transport disadvantage in Carole Park. Carole Park’s ranking on the Australian Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) and, particularly, the index for relative socio-economic disadvantage underpinned its selection for transport disadvantage research at that time. I, and Brisbane City Council officers, were aware that the measures of social disadvantage are strongly associated with transport disadvantage (see Table 2). This awareness motivated the Council’s interest and investment in transport disadvantage research in the case study area in 2005.
In 2015, I initiated the second stage of transport disadvantage research in Carole Park. I returned to the case study area as a PhD student for several reasons. First, I was aware that significant transport infrastructure and transport service investment had occurred in the area in the preceding decade. Despite this major investment, the State Government’s Mobility Disadvantage Index (MDI) ranked the suburb on the highest rank for mobility disadvantage in 2016. This outcome needed further investigation. Second, there is little longitudinal research in transport disadvantage and returning to the case study location was an opportunity to address this methodological gap in the research (see Table 1).
By returning to Carole Park (now called Ellen Grove) to investigate transport disadvantage, I aspired to understand the strategies that might reduce transport disadvantage. In this research I compare the circumstances in one location, over time. This two-staged approach provides a within-case inquiry and an intervening years
63
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
analysis for transport disadvantage in one location, over more than a decade. It is important to note that, despite other changes including a name change, the case study area boundary in this research did not change between the two stages of the research. The case study area is shown in Figure 7a, within the red area.
3.13.2 Locational Characteristics Ellen Grove is a small community on the southwest edge of Brisbane, at the administrative boundary of the Brisbane City Council and the Ipswich City Council. Figure 6 shows the location of the case study area in the metropolitan context. The case study area is 20kms south west of the Brisbane central business centre (CBD) and 25kms east of the Ipswich central business district (CBD). The population of the case study area at the time of the 2005 research was 1688 in 512 dwellings; in 2016 the population was 2200 in 766 dwellings. This change in population was due to a boundary change to the suburb that reflected its name change in 2010. Carole Park was absorbed into the neighbouring emerging community of Ellen Grove.
Figure 6 Ellen Grove Metropolitan Context
(Source: maps.au.nearmap.com, 14 May 2019).
64
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The case study area is a residential cluster of mostly detached housing and, on a map (see Figure 7a), the area approximates a triangle shape. Major roads form the triangle on two sides, the Logan Motorway (the State’s first toll road) and the Centenary Highway extended through Carole Park to the south in 2008 to service new master planned development at Greater Springfield. The roads traverse and contain the case study area. The case study area boundary did not change between the first and second stages of the research. Within the case study area, there is modest population growth over the timeline of the research, though very little development as this is a generally stable social and low cost private housing area.
The major road infrastructure that surround it has the effect of severing the suburb’s two parts (Carole Park and Ellen Grove) even though from 2010, they share the same suburb name. There is no direct access to Ellen Grove from the major roads. The roads inhibit access to nearby communities such as the master planned community of Forest Lake (22,000 residents) to the east and the smaller, much older community of Gailes to the south. The development of a passenger railway line parallel to the Centenary Highway in a shared transport corridor in 2013 reinforces the severing effect of transport infrastructure. Figure 7a is a map of the case study area showing the transport infrastructure and nearby industrial corridor.
Figure 7a shows the case study area which is inside the red area. On this map, the M5 and M2 highways that bound the suburb to the east and the south are visible. A passenger railway line runs parallel and beside the M5 (Centenary Highway) and it extends to the community of Greater Springfield to the south, although there is no passenger railway station at Ellen Grove. The nearest station to Ellen Grove on this railway line is almost 2km away to the north at Richlands. There is a walking/cycling shared path to that station (shown on the map as a green line) that, like the railway line, runs parallel to and beside the M5 Centenary Highway.
65
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
M2
Figure 7a Ellen Grove Case Study Area
(Source: maps.au.nearmap.com, 14 May 2019).
Figure 7b shows the bus route (green line) for both bus services that traverse the case study area. The bus route travels to the south east and does not service the new Richlands railway station to the north or the preferred shopping centre at Inala (north east) where the Centrelink, public housing service centre, health services, library and other desired services are located. Figure 7b also shows the Local Government boundary (pink line) between Brisbane and Ipswich City Councils. The case study area is at the edge of those Local Government areas.
66
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 7b Ellen Grove Case Study Area: bus routes, Local Government boundary (Source: maps.au.nearmap.com, 13 August 2020).
The case study location has many of the features that typify transport and socially disadvantaged locations in the metropolis such as: - proximity to an industrial area (Hipp, 2014); - concentration of social housing (Johnson & Herath, 2005); - proximity to major road infrastructure (Lucas et. al., 2016a); and - limited local retail, health, education and other services.
These features reinforce the choice of the case study location as the investigation of transport disadvantage in this place can generate lessons for other, similar locations. 67
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The case study area had a name change from Carole Park to Ellen Grove in 2010. The community agreed to the name change in response to the administrative disadvantages attached to the suburb name Carole Park. Carole Park is the name of the neighbouring industrial estate and this has caused confusion for many entities, including insurance companies, and postal/delivery services. It seemed that the best solution was a suburb name change to differentiate the industrial from the residential parts of the Carole Park area. The new name of Ellen Grove (sometimes the case study location is referred to as ‘new Ellen Grove’) is the name of the neighbouring suburb to the east of the Centenary Highway. That area is in transition from rural residential to medium density townhouse style neighbourhoods.
3.14 Conclusion In this chapter I overviewed the research approach including the seminal ideas in the research and how they relate to each other. The role of theory in the research is described. I also outlined the research questions, the aligned methods that address the questions and the limitations and contingency strategies. I introduced the case study area.
The next chapter is an analysis of the Aboriginal and European settlement history; community and transport disadvantage context; past research; government interventions; and leadership and governance issues in the case study area.
68
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 4 Case Study Context
4.1 Introduction This chapter analyses the influence of history and location, housing policy, planning and governance in the case study area. The chapter contextualises the case study location and highlights the social and locational disadvantage in this place. Its location at the edge of major transport infrastructure, industrial development, a key transport contract area and Local Government boundaries is implicated in the sub-standard quality of transport services.
4.2 First Nation Habitation and European Settlement The use of the case study area by First Nations people, as reported by Europeans, suggests it was a border between the Woogaroo and Yerongpan clans. This is marked by a single earth circle in Ellen Grove that indicates a clan boundary and the site of dispute resolution between clans (Mynott, 2009). The position of Ellen Grove at the ‘edge’ and its role as a border area continues as a theme today. It is on the border of two local governments and at the edge of residential development and industrial land uses. It is also in two different local government wards and hence at the edge of two Brisbane City Councillor’s representative areas. The major transport infrastructure contain the case study in its position at the edge of roads, railway lines and district bikeway.
According to the local history group, the European settlement of the case study area commenced in earnest in 1944 when two developers sub-divided 300 acres of land to smaller, affordable parcels (Mynott, 2009). Prior to that, the area had developed as scattered and isolated small farms. An early resident who reflected on the post-war period said, “there were no shops or post office and no bus to get to anywhere else” (Mynott, 2009, p.57). The nearby Wacol Immigration Centre opened in 1949 to process refugees from post-war Europe. In the 1950s, many Russian refugees settled in the case study area as it was affordable and close to their original place of arrival in neighbouring Wacol (Mynott, 2009).
The development of State housing (social housing) occurred from 1970 with the first Queensland housing commission residents moving into the area in 1971 (Mynott, 69
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
2009). The State’s social housing at that time was developed in the location as the land was affordable and proximate to an industrial area. The housing accommodated working families. The location of State housing for working families near industrial jobs was a logical locational decision.
This locational advantage became problematic when a policy change in the late 1990s changed the nature of Queensland’s social housing tenancies. A rental policy shift from a flat weekly rental payment to an indexed rental payment, based on 25% of household income, facilitated a change in the State housing tenant cohort. After this rental pricing policy change, social housing was comparable to, or even more expensive than, private rental housing, particularly if more than one adult in the household worked. This meant that social housing was no longer affordable to working families. This change in eligibility favoured low-income individuals and families.
In the last twenty years, the State’s housing policy has targeted individuals and families on very low incomes with ‘complex needs’, which means that since 2000, social housing is home to welfare-dependent or very low-income families with relatively high social support needs. These families are not likely to seek employment in the neighbouring industrial estate. The location of the Carole Park/Ellen Grove social housing community within the industrial corridor is now a locational disadvantage for some residents, as they are isolated from other residential areas and severed by the major roads that serve the nearby industrial corridor.
A number of trends in the lineage of urban planning and housing policy influence the area, including:
- rural residential development at the urban edge; - suburbanisation; - post-war social housing development; - industrial parks and industrial corridors on major transport routes; - passenger railway development; - shift from rail to road-based freight transport; - motorway development and privatisation of major roads;
70
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- change in social housing policy to preference the lowest income, most vulnerable and highest need households; - greenfield master planned communities; and - suburban densification.
4.3 Community and Transport Disadvantage The case study location continues to be a place of interest to Government and non- Government agencies, including research institutes, due to its high ranking on the National index for relative socio-economic disadvantage. Table 6 presents SEIFA for the case study area, over time and relative to Brisbane and its ranking in Australia. An area is more disadvantaged if it ranks lower on the scale; that is, a low number represents higher socio-economic disadvantage. The disadvantage index is comprised of multiple variables including education, income, employment, housing tenure, occupation and others. The case study area is the most populous area within the SLAs of Wacol and Ellen Grove; these rankings give an indication of the enduring relative socio-economic disadvantage of the community in the Brisbane and Australian context.
Table 5 Relative socio-economic rating, Carole Park, 2001-2016
Rating for Socio- Ranking in Australia for Brisbane City Rating Economic Socio-Economic Year for Socio-Economic Disadvantage: case Disadvantage (/1394 Disadvantage study area SLAs) 746 2001 18 1035 (Wacol SLA) 763 2006 75 1048 (Wacol SLA) 785 2011 51 1048 (Ellen Grove SLA) 813 2016 68 1048 (Ellen Grove SLA) (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, SEIFA series, 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016).
At the time of the initial transport disadvantage research in 2005, the SEIFA index and the community profile showed Carole Park to be a socially disadvantaged community. This profile was similar in 2006, 2011 and 2016. Table 6 illustrates the relative socio- economic disadvantage of the case study area at the time of the 2001, 2006, 2011
71
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
and 2016 census. The features of social disadvantage that relate to transport disadvantage are manifest in the case study community throughout the research period. Table 6 is a comparative socio-economic profile using a selection of indicators available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing at 2006 and 2016. These indicators include those socio-economic characteristics identified in the literature as closely related to transport disadvantage (see Table 2). The 2006 and 2016 census data is presented as that data best fits the timeline of my PhD research.
Table 6 Select Socio-economic indicators, Carole Park & Brisbane, 2006-2016
2006 2016 Carole Park Indicator Carole (Ellen Grove Brisbane Brisbane Park suburb profile) No motor vehicle at 12.5% 10% 7% 8% household 26% 15% 27% 15% Low income households (<500/week) (<$500/week) (<$650/week) (<$650/week) English Proficiency (none or not spoken 22% 8.5% 8% 9% well) Physical Ability (need assistance with core 5% 3% 10% 4% activities) Unemployed 11% 4% 9% 4.5% Own home or paying off 33% 63% 31% 60% mortgage State housing rental 47% 4% 27% 4% Private rental 6% 19% 26% 24% Journey to work by car 74% 60% 75% 60% (as driver or passenger) (Source: ABS Census of Population and Housing, Carole Park state suburb, 2006 and Ellen Grove state suburb, 2016 and Brisbane local government 2006 and 2016 general community profiles). 4.4 Research in the Case Study Community Due to poor performance on the National SEIFA index for relative socio-economic disadvantage, the case study area is the focus of many social scientific research projects and planned interventions. This section provides an overview of research 72
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
activity in the case study location. Table 7 highlights the results of past research that relate to transport. The results indicate the entrenched and long-term nature of transport disadvantage in the case study area. Importantly, the past research provides a basis for triangulating current findings, in particular transport challenges and transport use (Yin, 2013). The section that follows Table 7 is a short precise of the crime and resilience research that influenced the design of the questionnaire in my research.
Table 7 Research in the Case Study Area
Title and Proponent Key Transport Findings Carole Park Community in Action Inc. Limited public transport and low levels of car (CPCiA). (1998). Getting Outta Here. ownership inhibit travel. Brisbane. CPCiA. Public transport inadequacies (frequency, timing, Johnson, L. (2005). Still Waiting … routes, cost) and unformed and unlit paths are Report of the Carole Park community barriers to travel and inhibit opportunity for all ages. mapping for transport improvement Young people’s employment, social and training study, Brisbane: Griffith University. opportunities are particularly restricted by limited after hours and weekend public transport services. Seventy-five percent of the households in the case Community Renewal Program. study area was surveyed. It was found that the poor (2007a). Carole Park Community public transport service and low levels of motor Renewal Survey. Brisbane: vehicle ownership seriously inhibit the employment Queensland Government options for residents. (Queensland Government, 2007a). The construction of the Logan Motorway in 1986 Community Renewal Program. separated the industrial and residential parts of (2007b). Living Stories from the Carole Park. In 1997, Carole Park became part of Forgotten Suburb, Brisbane: Brisbane City Council, though the area has no Queensland Government. Brisbane City Council bus service. Thirty residents were interviewed. Amenity impacts from the surrounding motorways was an issue for many. Many noted that the noise from the motorways was a problem, especially at night. The physical barriers to manage the noise are large grey concrete walls that border people's back gardens. Australian Institute of Family Studies Residents reported that little was done to improve (AIFS). (2010). Life Around Here, the appearance of these walls. As one participant Research Report 19. Canberra: who lived opposite one of the walls said “You feel Australian Government. like you're in prison” (AIFS, 2010).
Others said that the high traffic volume on the roads around the area made it difficult to leave, further creating a sense of isolation. Residents consistently raised the lack of footpaths in the area as a safety issue. As many of the verges had uncut grass,
73
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Title and Proponent Key Transport Findings people were forced to walk on the road. This was seen as being particularly difficult and dangerous for people with young children and prams. Residents felt ‘stuck’ due to the lack of reliable public transport in Carole Park. Fifty-five residents were surveyed. Most residents Gillott, C. (2016). Elorac Place reported the car as more convenient than the bus Community Mapping and Strategic because of changes to bus timetables/routes, time Directions Report. Brisbane: Wesley taken, personal anxiety, bus rules (such as not Mission Brisbane (WMB). allowing more than six to eight shopping bags) and poor wheelchair access on the buses.
4.4.1 Community Variations in Crime, 2007 & 2011 The Australian Community Capacity Survey (ACCS) is the data collection tool for a longitudinal research project looking at crime and social resilience in Brisbane (Wickes, Homel, McBroom, Sargeant & Zahnow, 2011). The project commenced in 2007. A later version of the research in 2011 added Melbourne to the analysis. The Brisbane locations include Carole Park/Ellen Grove as one of 82 statistical local areas and the Carole Park/Ellen Grove resident sample size is 38.
The purpose of the ACCS research is to better understand how changes in a community's social disadvantage, ethnic diversity and residential mobility impact upon the development of social networks and informal social control. A resident survey was administered to elicit information on a range of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking) variables such as sense of belonging, local networks and trust in institutions and transport use. That resident survey instrument was reviewed and it informs the survey instrument deployed in my study.
4.5 History of Government Interventions Since the 1990s, the suburb has been the site of targeted and planned public intervention by successive governments. Each of the planned interventions has delivered physical and social improvements through the funding of specific actions. Despite the public investment, social disadvantage is still of concern and, according to residents, transport is a factor at the centre of this disadvantage.
Over both stages of my research, community members in many forums have raised transport system deficiencies and the consequent poor access to services as key
74
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
issues that impact their lives. The transport issues raised by community members relate to:
- the cost, timing and routing of public transport services that operate in and around the community; - access to education, training, employment, health and other services; - the quality of pathways, bus stops and lighting; and - the external environmental effects of transport, such as noise and air pollution.
While these transport system deficiencies also occur in other communities, in Carole Park/Ellen Grove these transport deficiencies compound social disadvantages.
There has been considerable investment in the case study area through place-based planning activities, as well as the general programs of the Commonwealth, State and Local Governments and non-government, university and private sector activity. It is clear that, despite this investment, the social disadvantage and transport disadvantage experienced in this location continues.
The following section briefly outlines the range of Government and non-Government interests and interventions in the area, to provide a historical context to the case study area.
4.5.1 Building Better Cities, 1994 Although the Building Better Cities program is outside the timing of my study, the influence of the program on transport infrastructure endured beyond the program’s completion. The Building Better Cities (BBC) program was initiated by the Commonwealth Government in the 1990s; its aim was to target areas of social disadvantage in Australian cities. The motivation for these interventions was to improve urban environments and to create more liveable communities (BBC, 1994). The Building Better Cities program targeted the areas of urban Australia with the highest socio-economic disadvantage.
Carole Park was identified as one of the areas for targeted BBC investment and the program funded many initiatives in the Carole Park area. The preparation of an action plan in consultation with residents was one of the first activities of the program. The Community Action Plan for Carole Park is described as an integrated plan for
75
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
community improvement in Carole Park (BBC, 1994). The plan’s recommendations were prepared in consultation with residents (focus groups and community workshops) and they were available in draft form for community review, before finalisation. The plan guided the government’s investments in the community. There were eight goals and 36 objectives with 52 associated recommendations. Recommendations that relate to transport are presented in Table 8.
76
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 8 Transport Recommendations, Carole Park Community Action Plan, 1994
Rec Community Action Plan for Carole Park: Transport No. Recommendations, 1994 1.1 Build footpaths on key walking routes 1.2 Build foot and bicycle paths to connect Carole Park to Camira (along Sandy Creek) and to the Brisbane bikeway network 1.4 Undertake a local traffic study aimed at minimising industrial traffic along Boundary Road between the Logan Motorway and Formation Street 1.8 Build noise barriers along Logan Motorway adjacent to Carole Park 3.5 Develop a community transport plan for the corridor to provide affordable after- hours services and reasonable access to basic services such as health, recreation and child care 3.9 Extend the footbridge across the Ipswich Motorway at Gailes to the railway station and add ramp access to the footbridge 4.3 Review public transport links with external employment areas and training and job support services 8.1 Provide adequate external and internal locational signage for Carole Park 8.2 Build welcoming entrances and exits as part of a community arts project (Source: Building Better Cities Secretariat, 1994).
My audit of transport related investment showed that many of the recommendations from 1994 were achieved; although, not necessarily with Building Better Cities funding. Some of these actions took many years to be completed as they were the responsibility of different spheres of government and different agencies.
4.5.2 Community Renewal Carole Park 2007 The Community Renewal program was an initiative of the Queensland Government with a major investment of funds targeted to social housing areas of the State. The program commenced in Queensland in 2004 with an aim to work with partners to develop sustainable solutions to local issues and build community capacity.
The Community Renewal program was active in Carole Park between 2007 and 2009. The idea of the program was that the Government, non-Government service providers and residents work together to direct the allocation of the funds to the priorities in the community. A participatory budgeting model prevailed to an extent, with resident representatives recommending projects for funding, although the elected State Government representative had the final sign-off on the funded projects.
77
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
A Community Reference Group (CRG) formed in each location. A Community Action Plan prioritised the community needs at each location. Agents seeking funding applied to the CRG and the CRG would vote to demonstrate its support (or otherwise) for the project or program. It was rare for a project to be funded if it did not have the support of the CRG. In an unusual move, the Carole Park community maintained its CRG until 2015, many years after the funding program had finalised in the area. This was the only community in the State’s 15 renewal areas to do so. The community kept the CRG operating, independent of the State Government program, as the CRG was viewed locally as an advocacy mechanism. The Carole Park CRG would invite State and Council officers to their meetings.
The 2005 stage of this research occurred just prior to the Community Renewal Program. The Community Renewal Program funding targeted actions identified and prioritised by the residents and local service providers (DHPW, 2008). This is important, as the State Government’s community renewal program invested millions of dollars in the Carole Park area on a range of projects to address social disadvantage, including transport projects. The engagement of residents and service providers in that local collaborative planning process resulted in a working relationship across Government and non-Government sectors, and with residents.
4.6 Leadership and Governance Context To shift its consistently poor comparative ranking on the SEIFA index, the case study area has been subject to Government intervention and targeted place-based investment since the 1990s. The interventions resulted in a relatively organised and engaged community leadership and an active community-managed, Government funded local community centre. The Carole Park Community in Action Incorporated (CPCiA) organisation formed in 1990. The resident-managed community development organisation had a purpose to empower and organise the community to meet basic needs and advocate for the area. The organisation acquired a housing commission (State housing) home as a base from 1990 and it later managed the then new Elorac Place community centre from 2009 to 2015.
The community leaders had identified transport challenges as a significant constraint to social development and they formed a Transport Action Group in 2004 to advocate
78
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
for transport improvements in the area. At the time, and again in 2015, the community leaders welcomed the transport disadvantage research and they provided avenues and advice for engaging with residents during the research.
The ageing of the core volunteer and community leadership group in the community underpinned a decision to relinquish community management of the Elorac Place community centre and its programs to an external non-Government organisation. The Wesley Mission Brisbane (WMB) took control of the Elorac Place community centre in 2015. Wesley Mission prefers that the role of the Elorac Place community centre and its programs is community-capacity building, rather than advocacy. The focus of the centre is primarily centre-based programs, such as playgroups, rather than advocating to Government and others for strategic and long-term social and structural improvements such as employment and transport. I explore the implications of this practice shift at the Elorac Place community centre in the social capital analysis (Section 6.8).
4.6.1 EG2020 Forum In 2015, WMB, in response to local research they had undertaken, initiated the EG2020 Forum. The WMB research indicated multiple issues such as lack of education and training, employment, early childhood development, youth services and transport challenges. It was determined by WMB that this plethora of issues required a cross-agency and integrated response. The EG2020 Forum was formed with representation from state, local government and non-government service providers and residents. The forum encourages agencies to prioritise and coordinate their activity in the case study area. The forum meets every few months, although there are working groups that meet regularly (sometimes fortnightly). The working groups report to the forum. From 2017, WMB withdrew support for the EG2020 Forum and the community centre officer no longer attends the meetings or supports the operation of the forum. It is not clear why the shift away from support for the EG2020 occurred (the WMB declined an interview request during my research), although it aligns with the WMB move away from activities that are considered to be advocacy. The result of WMB’s lack of support is that the forum is weakened, meetings are less regular and, consequently, member agencies are less likely to prioritise and coordinate activities in the case study area. 79
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
4.6.2 State Government The state government delivers and funds the expected range of services in the case study area; however, the socio-economic disadvantage attracts the interest of particular agencies. For example, the Department of Housing and Public Works, Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women and Department of Education are active in the EG2020 Forum as issues that relate to these portfolios are evident. The Queensland Government has also engaged in targeted intervention, including place- based planning and funding in the case study area. This activity has resulted in local transport improvements.
In this section I focus on Government and other agency roles in transport in the case study area. Table 9 presents an overview of these roles. The Queensland Government administers transport legislation and it plans, funds and delivers major transport infrastructure including roads, rail, cycling and public transport infrastructure, such as the south east Queensland busway network. In 2003, the Queensland Government created Translink. The vision for Translink is to Connect Queensland - delivering passenger transport for prosperity. Translink delivers network planning, single ticketing and timetable integration for public transport services in the south east Queensland region. Translink also contracts passenger transport providers in the region.
In 2018, the Queensland Audit Office reported that the State is not adequately monitoring and reporting public transport efficiency, reliability and integration (QAO, 2017). This finding is relevant to the case study area, as it appears that lack of integration influences the efficiency of the local public bus services. The case study is outside of the Brisbane Transport contracted bus service area. The case study area has two contracted bus services. Because these two services operate outside of the Brisbane Transport contract area, they do not travel to Brisbane’s city centre, or the preferred location destinations of the Richlands railway station and Inala Civic Centre, both of which are located in the Brisbane Transport contract area.
The two bus contracts that cover the case study area deliver two bus services that travel five minutes apart, but at one-hour intervals and they travel to different major shopping centre destinations to the west and east of the case study area. This means
80
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
that two buses pass through the case study area in the same direction at almost the same time, then there is no bus for an hour. This is likely the result of the absence of effective monitoring of the efficiency, reliability and integration of the metropolitan public transport network, as reported by the Queensland Audit Office.
4.6.3 Brisbane City Council Brisbane City Council’s role in transport in Ellen Grove over the research period has been twofold. The council has been both a transport provider (Council cabs) and a community organiser/advocate for transport improvements. The community development function in Brisbane City Council lead transport research activity in the case study area. While community development officers would not generally engage in transport matters, the transport disadvantage in the case study area has inspired the community development officer to engage in transport advocacy since the early 2000s.
The Council provides community development services to the case study area, although the service catchment for the Council officer is the south-west of Brisbane, so the case study area competes with other areas for the attention of that program. In 2016, a ward1 boundary restructure took effect at the time of the Local Government election that year that resulted in the two parts of Ellen Grove being ‘split’ between two wards. Each of the two wards that cover Ellen Grove is represented by a different Councillor. At the time of the research, one councillor was from the Liberal party and the other from the city’s opposition Labor party. The ward boundaries are the Centenary Highway and the passenger railway line. This ward configuration splinters the local government representation between two different Councillors. The case study location at the physical edge of both of the wards, means that neither of the Councillors is fully engaged in the community, as ward boundaries are regularly reviewed and the case study area may not be in the same ward area in the future. The area is also at the boundary of Brisbane City Council and Ipswich City Council. Residents describe this edge effect (being at the edge of two Councils) as making them feel like the ‘forgotten suburb’ (Gillott, 2016).
1 A ward is a local authority area, typically used for electoral purposes. 81
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
4.6.4 Brisbane Transport The Brisbane City Council is unique in Australia as it is one of the largest direct providers of transport (bus and ferry) services in any Australian city. The city council has a fleet of over 1,200 buses and 30 CityCats/ferries2 that service most of the council area. The State Government’s Translink agency contracts Brisbane Transport to provide a bus and ferry service for most of Brisbane. The case study area is one of a few communities that is within the Brisbane City Council area but outside of the Brisbane Transport contract area. Because it is outside of the Brisbane Transport contract area, the case study location is not eligible for the city’s personalised public transport service.
4.6.5 Special Taxis Brisbane City Council partners with yellow cabs to provide two discounted shared taxi services to select areas of the city. One is the personalised public transport (PPT) and the other is the Council Cabs service. The council cab is available to Ellen Grove residents who can satisfy the eligibility criteria. These are criteria that inhibit personal mobility such as physical disability and low income. Brisbane Transport provides PPT to areas of the city that Translink does not service due to low demand. This service currently operates eight routes in the Brisbane area. The PPT service is not available in the case study area, as the area is outside of the Brisbane Transport contract area. This administrative constraint and location at the edge of the Brisbane Transport contract area results in reduced transport services in the case study community.
4.6.6 Community Development Brisbane City Council funded Stage 1 of my research in 2005 through its community development portfolio. While Council has a transport portfolio, that section of Council was not involved in the transport disadvantage research.
There is a range of agents involved in transport in the case study area and some are not explicitly transport providers. Table 9 summarises the agents and their roles as they relate to the case study area.
2 Brisbane City Council operates a fleet of 22 CityCats and nine monohull ferries (including CityHoppers), over a network of 25 terminals. BBC introduced SpeedyCats in September 2018 that provide more than 100 peak hour express services each week (see https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/citycat- and-ferry-services).
82
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 9 Transport-related agents and their roles
Agent Role in Transport Comments - Translink undertakes the public transport network planning for south east Queensland. - Queensland Transport operationalise public transport service contracts. - Transport infrastructure planning, funding State-wide focus inhibits local and delivery such as major roads, district responsiveness. bikeways. Transport disadvantaged areas Queensland - Travel subsidies. and travellers are not prioritised Government - School buses (network and contracts). in transport policies or planning - GoCard travel card system management. and disability compliance is a - Operate Queensland Rail. Federal requirement. - Regulate and licence taxis. - Regulate ride sharing such as UBER. - Ensure disability compliance at waiting areas, stops, stations and for transport services.
- Brisbane City Council owns Brisbane Transport (BT) which operates the Brisbane bus and water transport The case study area is at the systems. edge of the BT contract area so - Local road construction and maintenance. Brisbane City the Brisbane City Council buses - Personalised Public Transport (PPT) and Council and personalised public council cab services. transport do not service the - Footpath, bus stop and lighting area. infrastructure. - Community development can advocate for transport and mobility improvements.
Contracted by the State Government (Translink) to Westside Bus - Bus service provider. provide a public bus service Service from Goodna Station to Forest Lake via Ellen Grove.
Contracted by the State Government (Translink) to provide a public bus service Park Ridge - Bus service provider. from Browns Plains to Bus Service Springfield Lakes via Ellen Grove.
Forest Lake The schedule of volunteer - Community shuttle-bus provider (initiated Uniting drivers for the community bus during Stage 2 research in July 2018). Church may not be sustainable.
Wesley Mission WMB does not undertake - Community centre programs, community Brisbane advocacy. Advocacy is out of its capacity building. (WMB) scope. WMB undertakes Elorac Place community capacity building activity and manages the Elorac
83
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Agent Role in Transport Comments Place community centre in Ellen Grove.
Media interest (leveraged from
university involvement) and University - Advocacy through research resident mobilisation around the researcher - EG2020 Forum and EG2020 Community research has resulted in Connectors working group member. reduced transport disadvantage. Local - Advocate to state government for government improved service. elected - Initiate actions such as path clearing representatives when that is brought to their attention.
Features of the case study area that are significant in this research are the:
- comparative ranking on the SEIFA Index for relative socio-economic disadvantage remains concerning; - change in community centre management from a resident-base to an external non-Government organisation has shifted the community centre focus away from advocacy for local issues, including transport; - location at the ‘edge’ of transport infrastructure, industrial development, Local Governments and Council wards has community members feeling like the ‘forgotten suburb’ (Gillott, 2016); - social housing rental policy and more recent changes prioritise social housing for very low-income and high need households and this has implications for services, including transport service needs; - past social scientific research in the case study community identifies transport challenges as a key concern for residents; - location of the area outside of the Brisbane Transport service catchment area results in a different service level to neighbouring areas that are within the Brisbane Transport area.
These factors mean that the case study location at the ‘edge’ of jurisdictions makes it spatially vulnerable to being ‘forgotten’. The risk of being ‘forgotten’ that is associated with the spatial edge effect is compounded by the change in management of the local community centre from resident committee to non-Government organisation. The
84
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
locational disadvantage of the case study area at the edge of Local Government areas and residential development and the change in community organisation have implications for visibility and ‘voice’ associated with advocacy and the capacity to deploy linking social capital for local improvements.
4.7 Conclusion In this chapter I profiled the settlement history and planning, transport and governance issues in the case study area. The profiling highlights the locational disadvantage of the case study area due to its spatial position at the edge of Local Government areas and residential development and the loss of resident management of the local community centre.
In the next chapter I present the results of the two stages of data collection in the research.
85
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 5 Results: Stage 1 and Stage 2
5.1 Introduction This section presents the primary data collection and findings for the case study area in the two stages of the research. The findings from these two stages are the ‘within- case’ components of the longitudinal research. I collected primary data in the case study location at 2005, and again from 2015 to 2018. The two stages of the research are presented separately.
In Chapter 6, an intervening years inquiry considers the data from the two stages and key transport investment and community milestones, to explore the role of transport investment and social capital in reducing the area’s transport disadvantage.
5.2 Research Methods, Stage 1 and Stage 2 In this section I present in detail the mixed research methods and the results of the inquiries in the case study location at the two stages of the research. At both stages, the research utilised quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. The research approach is qualitative-dominant mixed methods in an iterative, explanatory research sequence (Creswell, 2014; Johnson et. al., 2007). That is, the quantitative and qualitative data are complementary and the combination adds depth to the research. Local stories and perspectives enrich the research and the quantitative dimension locates this place in its socio-spatial metropolitan context.
The quantitative data leads the sequence to describe the metropolitan patterns of transport and social disadvantage and it provides a context for the case study location within its metropolitan setting. The qualitative data and analysis provide the resident traveller’s view of transport in the case study location. The method is iterative as the quantitative data was used, where relevant, to verify the qualitative findings. Further, the quantitative data and its analysis were guided by the qualitative findings; in particular, the resident view of important transport issues.
Although the research design in 2005 was not explicitly longitudinal, some of the data collected and analysed at 2005 and 2017/2018 is comparable and there has been data collection from other projects in the interim period (see Table 7). What is striking is the
86
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
significant changes in public transport data collection between the two stages of data collection, due to the introduction of a smart card travel system. That system was introduced in the metropolitan area in 2010 and it facilitates the collection of extensive travel data across the metropolitan region for bus, ferry and rail services.
In south east Queensland, where this research is located, a smart travel card, known as GoCard, collects travel information for each of the public transport modes at both the commencement and the completion of the journey. The GoCard is a ‘tap on’ and ‘tap off’ travel card so both origin and destination data is collected. This is a big data set and, like other big data sets, there are some issues in cleaning and applying the data in order for it to be meaningful for small location analysis.
Nevertheless, the GoCard data adds value to the latter stage of the research as it allows investigation of bus travel patterns and issues such as cost of travel. The travel data is a helpful resource as it is an almost instant way to verify resident concerns about the cost, time and destination of public transport travel in the case study area based on reliable open source information. However, one limitation of the GoCard travel data is that for paper ticket travel, only the traveller’s origin is known. For bus travel, paper tickets are generally purchased on-board from the driver, unless ticket machines are available at the origin stop.
The GoCard data is open-access and this presents an opportunity in my research to use this data to better understand the travel behaviour of those leaving and arriving in the case study community, and to overlay this data with other data to build a picture of the case study location in the metropolitan context. There is emergent concern for the privacy issues associated with open source smart card travel data. These are likely to be resolved in the future though, for this thesis, open access to the data (de- identified) is a welcome source of reliable travel data for the second stage of analysis. The public transport travel data was not available in 2005 as the GoCard system was not yet introduced. Although comparable smart card travel data was not available in 2005, a qualitative travel destination analysis was undertaken at that time, based on a manual review of railway and bus timetables, travel times, fare costs and the resident informant’s preferred destinations. The findings from that analysis are presented in Section 5.4.
87
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
5.3 Participant Engagement, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Table 10 presents a summary of the participants and techniques for primary data collection at both stages of the research. At both stages of primary research, the participants were residents, Government and non-Government service providers and elected officials. Table 10 shows the cohorts represented in the research and the data collection technique.
Table 10 Research participant types and techniques
2017 Participant Type 2005 Data Collection Technique / 2018 Focus group, ‘Cut-out doll’ Young residents x x drawing activity Older residents (including Focus groups, interview and some older migrant and x x surveys Aboriginal residents) Aboriginal residents x Focus group, surveys Migrant residents x Focus group Government service x x Workshops, interview providers: transport Government service x x Workshops, EG2020 meetings providers: other Non-government service x x Workshops, EG2020 meetings providers: local Elected representative x x Interview
5.3.1 Participant Profile and Representativeness In 2005, the research participants were members of the local Carole Park Transport Action Group, Queensland (State) Department of Transport officers, Carole Park Community Reference Group, Carole Park Community in Action Incorporated (CPCiA) committee members and Elorac Place volunteers, the ‘homework club’ (young residents in their early high school years), ‘young at heart’ (older residents) and the Local Government Councillor. These groupings of residents were valuable to the research as they had either come together as a result of transport disadvantage or had a lived experience of its impact (young and older residents in particular).
88
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
5.4 Data Collection, Stage 1 I worked closely with resident groups, including the Carole Park Transport Action Group (TAG) and the community development worker at the community-managed community centre known as Elorac Place. The idea in 2005 was to profile the community and transport infrastructure and services and ask different resident groups to identify transport challenges and their solutions to the challenges, a technique noted by Grant-Smith & Johnson (2012). Each group’s transport challenges and solutions were captured on a map of the area. The maps were combined so that, for example, the map generated by the young homework club participants was overlayed with the map generated by the community reference group, and so on. The final community map represented the views of a range of residents. The map displayed the transport challenges and captured many creative ideas for solving them. The project proved the capability of the community to not only articulate transport problems, but also identify transport solutions. The methods and results of the 2005 research are presented in this thesis in the research methods and the within-case inquiry (Sections 5.2 and 5.7).
The data collection in 2005 occurred between February and May of that year. The data collected for the research included Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census data 2001, resident and stakeholder interviews, field observations, a transport service (travel destination, time and cost) analysis and transport infrastructure audit and community mapping activities in focus groups and workshops. A review of literature and government policy provided a framework to analyse the data, as did benchmarking to the metropolitan context.
An audit of previous research and plans for the area was undertaken to highlight where transport issues had been resolved and the outstanding and ongoing transport service and infrastructure issues in the community. This was helpful as the residents were able to assess the priority and relevance of the outstanding transport issues that carried forward from previous studies and plans.
5.4.1 Community Profiling The 2005 research was undertaken a year before the ABS census of population and housing in 2006. Consequently, the census data used at the time of the 2005 research was four years old. To address this, ABS 2001 data on journey to work and vehicle
89
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
ownership and a profile of transport disadvantaged user groups from that census was complemented by interviews, focus groups and workshops with residents and transport and other service providers to triangulate and verify the census information. The community was profiled using selected indicators of social disadvantage, and also transport access and use (journey to work, number of motor vehicles per dwelling and others).
The 2001 census profile identified that the case study community had:
- high levels of unemployment (24% compared with 8% in Brisbane); - high percentage of migrant residents who do not speak English (21% compared with 6% in Brisbane); - slightly lower private motor vehicle access (13% of households have no car compared with 10% in Brisbane); - a young population (41% under the driving age of 17 years compared with 25% in Brisbane); and - low income households (39% earning under $500.00 a week compared with 19% in Brisbane).
These socio-economic features are known to underpin transport disadvantage (see Table 2).
5.4.2 Mobility Audit The 2005 research included a mobility audit that was a review of the timetabling of both bus and train services as well as a photo diary and video presenting key paths and transit stops (bus shelters, and the railway stations). The video that resulted from the research presented many of the barriers to local mobility in and around the community that would otherwise not be known to an outsider. Residents guided me by identifying local paths (some hidden from view), infrastructure and barriers to local mobility that were then visited, filmed and photographed.
5.4.3 Participant Recruitment As noted in Section 5.3, participants in the research in 2005 were recruited from existing community organisations and groups. There are several advantages in utilising existing community groups for data collection, such as ease of recruitment and an assumed relationship, familiarity and trust between group members. Data 90
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
collection was assisted by the existence of organisations and groups within the community. In this way, residents and stakeholders who were recruited were already participating in the community. The existing groups were small enough (up to ten people) to enable focus group activity for data collection and for generating community maps and guiding data collection and data verification.
The groups were enduring, rather than artificially formed for the purpose of the research; the research was an agenda item for the group, rather than the purpose of the group. This meant that as relationships between group members existed, a rapport between members could be assumed. Nevertheless, facilitation was necessary to ensure that each participant was able to express their views and participate in the community mapping focus group and community map verification workshops. In the 2005 community mapping project, the residents in these groups were asked to indicate their transport challenges and their solutions to those challenges. Challenges and solutions were identified on a base map of the local area (Johnson, 2005). The Carole Park TAG was the steering committee for the 2005 iteration of this research.
The results for each of the five focus groups were overlayed so that a final integrated community map was developed. The focus groups ran for one hour each. At the outset of the research, the TAG identified key local landmarks and movement paths that assisted me to generate a base map of the area with landmarks and key roads and paths indicated. A large A0 format of the base map was presented to each focus group. The map was placed at the centre of the focus group, on a table or on the floor. Focus groups members used coloured pens to draw or list their transport challenges on the map. Once that exercise was complete, focus group participants indicated their solutions to the transport challenges, on the same map.
In this stage of the research, the focus group data was collected in two forms: focus group notes and the annotated maps. The notes were analysed by grouping the issues identified in the focus groups into themes. The thematic analysis technique included a frequency count for each theme. In this way, issues raised in a focus group were counted within a theme. Where an issue identified in a focus group was outside of the themes, that issue was categorised as ‘other’ and the other category was broken down to ensure that no focus group information was lost in the analysis.
91
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
A verification workshop was conducted with the focus group members and Department of Transport officers to validate and discuss the integrated community map of transport challenges and solutions and the themes and frequency of issues raised within the focus groups. There were also four interviews undertaken with residents and Department of Transport officers. The purpose of the interviews was to clarify and verify the focus groups findings. The interviews were conducted after the focus groups to test the themes identified in the focus groups. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. In the interviews, respondents were invited to reflect and comment on the focus group findings (maps and the themes) from their perspective.
5.4.4 Transport Information In 2005, a timetable, destination and cost analysis and field work were undertaken to verify the resident and stakeholder perspectives on the availability of public transport (rail and bus) and active and community transport services that were identified in focus groups. The timetable and destination analysis assessed the availability of transport services to access key activities, such as employment, training, education, recreation, health, shopping and others, in a timely manner. The costs of public transport travel were also analysed at that time. The findings were that the public transport services did not support residents to access training or employment as there were no evening or week-end services and the week day bus services were not effectively integrated with the passenger railway services on the nearby Ipswich line to enable timely travel out of the area either to Brisbane or Ipswich city centres.
I walked around the area and created a video diary of the experience. Photo imagery was used to convey the quality of paths and transit stop and wait areas. Figure 8a shows part of the ‘walking path’ that connected the Carole Park residential area to the nearest passenger railway station at Gailes in 2005, the closest station to Carole Park at the time of the 2005 research. The path is over Sandy Creek and, in this image, a family is seen walking the path over a make-shift ‘bridge’. A re-used roadway, metal guardrail is the bridge. At the time, this image was central to persuading decision makers involved in the research to fund a sealed path from Carole Park to Gailes railway station. In this sense, the image and the community mapping research was transformative, although the transformation was not ensured at the time of the research (Gravem et. al., 2017). 92
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figures 8a and 8b show contrasting images of the shortest path to the nearest railway station on the Ipswich line at that time in 2005 and the new path that was constructed on that same route in 2007. The path was achieved as a result of the 2005 community mapping research. The image of the family on the makeshift bridge was presented to agency members of the cross-agency local transport governance group, the Carole Park Transport Action Group (TAG). The image caused concern as many of the non- resident Government members of the group were not aware of the poor quality of the popular path to the Gailes Station. Without the TAG forum, it is unlikely that the new sealed path to Gailes railway station (Figure 8b) would have been delivered, as the resource agents (State and Local Government agencies) would not have had a mechanism to engender a shared urgency for action.
Figure 8a Family walking to Gailes railway station on a roadway guard rail, 2005 Left (March 2005) Figure 6b Walking path to Gailes railway station, 2007 Right (June 2007)
The new path was the result of the awareness raising and advocacy of the community mapping research under the guidance of the local Carole Park TAG and the place- based funding in the Community Renewal program. The transport advocacy of the 93
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
TAG and the local governance arrangements of the Community Renewal program enabled local mobility priorities to be identified by resident travellers and funded by the State.
Figure 7 Stairs up and down from walkway over Ipswich Motorway to Gailes railway station, 2005 (March 2005)
Unfortunately, on reaching the Gailes railway station in 2005, there were steep stairs to traverse the Ipswich Motorway and gain access to the railway platform. Figure 9
94
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
shows the stairway across the Ipswich Motorway for access to the Gailes (closest) railway station at the time.
While the new path led to these steep stairs (Figure 9), the community nevertheless welcomed improved mobility for walking and cycling that was enabled by the new local path.
5.4.5 Social Capital in the 2005 Research Both bonding and linking social capital are evident in the 2005 community mapping research project in this community. The residents had formed groups for transport advocacy, homework, social activities for older residents and a community reference group for general issues including personal safety. There was also an active resident management committee at Elorac Place that had funding for a community development officer and community development and advocacy activities. The transport action, homework club, young at heart, community reference group and Elorac Place management committee members were bonded through their shared interests and some groups had common members. The groups met regularly and they were facilitated by the Elorac Place community centre, importantly, by the paid community development officer at the community-managed centre.
I was able to link through the Elorac Place community centre to the community groups and the resident, government and non-government members of those groups. The research findings were thereby able to be presented to decision makers and the resident view was presented in a video of movement through the area that was shared with Government and non-Government agents. There was evidence of bonding and linking social capital in action in the 2005 research that influenced the recruitment of participants, data collection, analysis, findings and implementation of some of the research recommendations that reduced transport disadvantage. An analysis of the social capital in the community and its relationship to transport disadvantage is presented in Section 6.10.
5.5 Stage 1 Focus Group Findings As well as generating the layers of the community map, focus group members also identified a range of transport issues. Table 11 shows the number of focus group participants. The gender was mixed in each focus group, though overall, there were
95
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
more female participants. The focus group members were asked to identify two things: transport challenges and transport solutions. Forty-seven transport challenges were identified and these are presented in Table 12.
The focus groups overwhelmingly identified access limitations, safety and transport infrastructure and also time to travel, liveability and service frequency/convenience as key challenges. The transport solutions were identified and these are incorporated in the recommendations in Tables 13, 14 and 15. The solutions are also informed by the verification workshops, interviews and my observations. They relate mostly to transport infrastructure and service improvements to address the challenges. Interestingly, a priority solution in 2005 was welcome and directional signage closely associated with place identity and Carole Park residents feeling ‘invisible’ to outsiders. This was not a direct transport service, but it was a highly prized solution identified by a number of residents engaged in the research. For the residents consulted at the time, place identity was as important a solution to their perceived transport disadvantage as transport solutions. This is the result of the location of the suburb adjacent to the Carole Park industrial estate and a feeling that the industrial estate overwhelmed the residential area. Research participants identified that there was no signage on the Motorway exits to identify the Carole Park residential area. Directional signage was important to ‘put them on the map’ in the urban area.
Table 11 Focus Group Participation, 2005
Focus Group Focus Group Participants Homework club n= 7 Young at heart n= 6 Transport Action Group n=10 Community Reference Group n= 5 Carole Park Community in Action Inc n= 5 Management Committee members
5.5.1 Transport Challenges Table 12 presents the transport challenges identified from the focus groups, workshops, mobility audit, transport analysis and researcher observations. The table includes direct quotes from resident focus group members and researcher observations. 96
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
97
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 12 Transport Challenges, Carole Park, 2005
Frequency Challenge Selected Quotes and Observations (n=47) - “I’m looking for a job at the moment. I’m going to get the job and worry about the transport later.” - Students in the homework club estimated that half of the high school aged residents of Carole Park go to Forest Lake State High and half to Redbank High, because “it is cheaper” and “Forest Lake is too posh”. - Students travelling to Redbank High have to get the 7.00am bus, if they miss this bus, there is no way to get to school by public transport. - “If students miss the 8.30am Westside bus to Forest Lake High, the next bus is not until 9.30am and they get detention for being 19% Access late to school.” n=9 - “We got tickets to Wet and Wild (Gold Coast) on a Sunday and it took us 5 hours to get there.” - “The Westside bus is crowded with Forest Lake high school students Wednesday afternoon as it is the one day we all leave school at the same time at 2.30pm. We sit on the floor of the bus and on each other’s laps.” - “There is not much for us locally on the week-ends, so we walk to Forest Lake and to Gailes railway station to get to the city/Southbank.” - “No weekly after dark, Saturday afternoon or Sunday services means we’re bored and stuck at home.” - “Progress Road overpass to Wacol Station is narrow and dangerous for pedestrian and cyclists.” - “There are not enough bus shelters and it is hot to wait for the bus.” - The lack of footpath at Roxwell Street into Carole Park forces walking and cycling on the road in an isolated, desolate and unsafe stretch of road under the Centenary Highway. This is a major route for students from Forest Lake High School and young people walking to Forest Lake Shopping Village. - “A footpath on Waterford Road would assist walking and cycling. It is not a wide road and it is dangerous for students and other residents walking on it.” - Footpaths on Boundary Road and Progress Road are not Transport 17% complete. They are overgrown in places with uneven surfaces. Infrastructure n= 8 - Young people push their bikes and walk through the bush track on the unformed section of Waterford Street to get to Gailes Station. Someone has formed an informal bridge over Sandy Creek by pushing a guardrail over the creek. - There is no access off the Centenary Highway extension at Carole Park. - “Car is the best way to get out of Carole Park to other areas, though Ipswich is awkward (if using Progress Road) as this can congest with traffic and ‘back up’ to Boundary Road lights. Other way to Ipswich is ‘spaghetti junction’ at Gailes, which can be dangerous.” - “Westside timetables are at Wacol Station, but not at the Inala Bus Interchange or Forest Lake Shopping Village.” - “We are scared of walking along Roxwell Street to and from 17% Safety Carole Park to Forest Lake as there is no footpath and no n= 8 lighting and a boy was taken from there.” 98
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Frequency Challenge Selected Quotes and Observations (n=47) - “People often drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid the central slow points.” - Fear of walking from Wacol Station because cars often flash their lights and make rude signs (particularly the young girls in the focus group). - “It does not feel safe walking on Sunday to get the train at Wacol Station as there are less cars and trucks and the factories are closed.” - “It is safer (more overlooking) to walk along Boundary Road to Progress Road to Wacol Station (45 mins), but it is a longer walk than the ‘back way’ through the industrial area to Gailes Station (25 mins).” - “There are tracks over the Logan Motorway where young people run across it to get to Gailes and Goodna.” - The trains and buses do not synchronise as buses are always late. “The 8.25am bus in the morning is always late to meet the train at Wacol Station. There isn’t enough time for the drivers to get to the station. The timetable needs to be reviewed.” Bus - “You must allow plenty of time when travelling on the bus and frequency, 15% train to get to appointments as the buses are often late, or they scheduling, n= 7 leave the train station before the train has arrived. You schedule reliability, your train travel to the bus as there are more trains and they are convenience reliable. If you are leaving the city, you make sure you get the train that is scheduled to meet the bus at Wacol Station.” - “Buses are late or not coming at all” (appointments missed). - “Why can’t there be more bus and train services?” - Cleanliness of bus shelters (wasp nests and spiders) - “We live in the ghetto of Brisbane.” - “I’m scared walking around here.” (young female resident) 11% Liveability “People don’t like bus shelters because the kids sniff paint in n= 5 - them.” - “Walking through the bush to Gailes Station makes your shoes dirty for going out.” - “You need to leave on the bus an hour early to make sure you get the train to get to appointments on time.” 9% Travel Time - “You get used to waiting.” n= 4 - It is about 45 mins to Wacol Station and 25 mins to Gailes Station if walking. Other (suburb - No signs to indicate Carole Park at any access points to the identity, suburb.”Need signs at Roxwell Street, Boundary/Progress Road cooperation corner, Wacol exit off Ipswich Motorway at least.” between - “Why do Forest Lake have nice bus shelters and Carole Park 9% transport doesn’t?” n= 4 service - There is a coordination and ‘generosity’ issue between Brisbane providers, Transport (BT) and Westside; for example, no Westside signage car is the or timetables at the BT stop at Inala. most - “Car is the best way to get out of Carole Park to other areas.” convenient) Bus and - “No bus from Richlands State Primary School to Carole Park on 3% Train Progress Rd in the afternoon. State School students need to n= 2 Destinations walk to Richlands Tavern to get the bus home to Carole Park.”
99
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
5.6 Stage 1 Transport Solutions In addition to the focus groups, in 2005, a verification workshop, regular TAG meetings and four interviews were undertaken. The interview participants were recruited from the TAG membership, including a Department of Transport representative, a key resident, and an Elorac Place representative. The fourth interview was with the local Brisbane City Councillor Cr Les Bryant who represented the case study area at that time. The purpose of the interviews was to clarify and verify the focus group findings. The focus group and interview findings inform the recommendations in the Tables 13, 14 and 15.
Tables 13, 14 and 15 present the transport solutions in the 2005 community mapping research. Although not directly a transport matter, there was a general agreement among the different community members that place identity was of critical importance. The solutions are compiled from information collected during the study by:
- a review of past area-specific consultations and plans; - researcher observations; - analysis of ABS Census data 2001; - community meetings, focus groups and workshops; - community mapping exercises; and - interviews (residents, Councillor and Queensland Transport Officers).
The full set of solutions is shown in three parts, including Infrastructure, Service and Leadership and Participation. The three tables of solutions include the number, the solution and the transport challenge related to the solution (Johnson, 2005). The solutions for Carole Park Transport Improvements are numbered 1 to 26 in Tables 13, 14 and 15.
100
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 13 Transport Infrastructure Solutions, Carole Park, 2005
Transport Infrastructure Solutions, Carole Park, 2005 No. Solution Challenge Construct four entrance signs for Carole Park: 1. Skepper Street entrance 2. Between Centenary Highway and Sinclair Drive on Julie - Carole Park lacks a sense of entry and distinct Road 1 identity in the corridor. 3. Northern end of Carole Park Primary School on Boundary Road 4. Corner of Waterford Road and Clendon Street. - The Carole Park residential area needs its own identity. Most signs to the Carole Park Industrial Area say ‘Carole Park’ and some signs (such as Skepper Street, Boundary Road corner) direct Differentiate signs to ‘Carole Park traffic away from the residential area to the 2 Industrial Estate’ and ‘Carole adjoining industrial estate causing confusion. Park’. - The exit sign off the Logan Motorway at Boundary Road is an example of clear signage differentiating the Carole Park Industrial and residential areas.
- The current directional signage from the Ipswich Improve directional signage from Motorway at the Progress Road exit does not the Ipswich Motorway exit at include Carole Park. 3 Progress Road and the corner of - Directional signage to Carole Park will enhance Progress and Boundary Roads to the identity of the suburb. Carole Park.
- The high growth area of Springfield to the south of Ensure the proposed public Carole Park will be serviced with a rail or bus link transport corridor from Darra to on the Centenary Highway to Darra in the near 4 Springfield on the Centenary future (part of Translink 10-year plan). Highway has an accessible stop - Access to this service for Carole Park residents is for Carole Park residents. a critical consideration in the planning for this public transport link. Provide a footpath on one-side of each main street in Carole Park - Most Carole Park streets have no footpaths, 5 (completion of the Julie Road making pram pushing and walking off the road footpath is a priority). difficult.
Construct a safe foot and bike - The current path is an isolated bush track over 6 path to Gailes railway station from Sandy Creek. This is the quickest way to the Waterford Road. closest railway station for residents. - With no evening or Sunday and public holiday bus services to the Wacol station, many residents Complete the footpaths have no choice but to walk or cycle to the Wacol 7 (Boundary and Progress Roads) station (40 minutes). to Wacol Station. - The current footpaths stop and start making cycling and walking to Wacol station on Boundary and Progress Roads difficult and dangerous. 101
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Transport Infrastructure Solutions, Carole Park, 2005 No. Solution Challenge - The current footpaths are not continuous. - With no after-hours, Sunday or public holiday bus Construct a lit, shared foot and service, this path is a critical link to Forest Lake, bike path on Julie Road to particularly for young people seeking casual retail 8 connect to the shared foot and employment and week-end entertainment. This bike path on Roxwell Street. path and lighting could form part of the entry experience to Carole Park. Erect effective and aesthetic - Traffic noise pollution is an ongoing issue for noise barriers at the Logan Carole Park residents as the Logan Motorway and 9 Motorway and Centenary Centenary Highway bind the area. Highway. - The stairs at Gailes station are very steep and there is no bike storage on the western side of the Improve access at Gailes station motorway, requiring cyclists to carry bikes up with new stairs or a ramp over the steep stairs to the station. 10 Ipswich Motorway and bike - The steep stairs inhibit prams and those with storage on the southern side of mobility impairment from accessing the Gailes the Ipswich Motorway. station from the western side (Carole Park side) of the Ipswich Motorway. - There is no after hours, Sunday or public holiday bus service from Carole Park, effectively isolating public transport dependent residents (such as Build bikeways in Carole Park young people and those without vehicle access) at that connect to key destinations these times. Carole Park is a young population 11 and the Brisbane bikeway with over 40% of residents under 17 years of age, network. compared with 25% for Brisbane. - Bikes and bikeways may be an affordable solution to transport needs for some of this group. - The Inala bus interchange has no bus stop Improve the Inala bus signage for Carole Park, limited seating, no interchange for Carole Park 12 timetable and no nearby trolley bay for the Carole travellers. Park stop. - There are four bus shelters in Carole Park that are in a poor state of repair. Increase the number of bus - There does not appear to be clear responsibility 13 shelters in Carole Park and for the current shelters and their maintenance. ensure their maintenance. - Summer days can reach over 40 degrees C in Carole Park and shelter is essential for bus travellers. Increase the number of rubbish - There are few bins at bus stops in Carole Park. bins at bus stops in Carole Park. 14 Bins will need regular emptying and maintenance.
Increase the bus timetable available in the community - The new Translink timetable (current from 18 April 15 (Elorac Place, all household 2005) needs to be more widely distributed. letterbox drop, at bus stops).
102
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 14 Transport Service Solutions, Carole Park, 2005
Transport Service Solutions, Carole Park, 2005 No. Solution Challenge - There is no after hours, Sunday or public holiday bus service, yet Brisbane Transport provides this service (No. 100) minutes away in the neighbouring Reroute the Brisbane Transport suburb of Forest Lake. 100 bus service to terminate - An extension of this service to Carole Park would 16 and commence at Waterford not be an extra service, just an extension of an Road, Carole Park, rather than existing service which will terminate and commence Forest Lake. at Carole Park, adding approximately 15 minutes to the service. - This would address many of the public transport needs in Carole Park, particularly after-hours travel. - This would provide a service directly to a sub- Divert the Brisbane Transport regional shopping and service centre (including bus service No. 460 from Forest Medicare office) and the City for Carole Park 17 Lake to Mt Ommaney through residents. Carole Park. - This is not a new bus service, but an extension of an existing Brisbane Transport service. Trial a community transport - Community transport could be an option to address 18 service in Carole Park. this deficit in public transport. - Elorac Place community centre has an 11-seater Utilise the Elorac Place mini-bus min-bus. Insurance and funding issues prevent its 19 for community transport. community-wide use. Implement flexible transport - A flexible transport system may address the 20 options in Carole Park. deficiency in public transport service. - The Inala Hospital flyer currently leaves from the Inala Community Health Centre to a number of hospitals in the region. Expand the Inala Hospital flyer - It is difficult to access hospital appointments from 21 to pick-up at Elorac Place. Carole Park (particularly early appointments). Expansion of the existing Inala service may address this need. Expand the ‘council cabs’ - Expansion of the council cab service to weekends 22 (criteria for travellers and times with expanded traveller criteria may address the and days). public transport deficit. - Students of Forest Lake State High School and the Carole Park Primary School report that the bus Improve public transport travel service does not meet their needs for school travel 23 for school students. due to overcrowding at times and limited bus service times.
103
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 15 Leadership and Participation Solutions, 2005
Leadership and Participation Solutions, 2005 No. Solution Challenge - Trucks are using residential streets in Carole Park, Investigate why industrial traffic is causing conflict with residential use (lack of using residential streets in Carole footpaths mean people walk on the Carole Park 24 Park and minimise the resultant roads, residents note the general noise, safety conflicts. and pollution impacts). - The current traffic calming was implemented by Review the current traffic calming Building Better Cities eleven years ago (1994) and 25 for effectiveness and aesthetic looks ‘tired’. appeal. - It is also variable in its effectiveness, with trucks travelling through the residential area. - The Carole Park Transport Action Group is an active forum that meets regularly. - The TAG includes residents and representative of Queensland Transport, Brisbane City Council, the Support the Carole Park Community Renewal Program (Department of Transport Action Group (TAG) as Housing) who engage in productive exchange of a forum for the participation of 26 information and views on transport plans and local people in transport decision transport improvements for the area. making. - This group provides Government and the community with a forum for constructive dialogue on transport issues in Carole Park and leverages funding for transport infrastructure and services.
5.7 Summary of Stage 1 Findings The five key findings from the Stage 1 research are:
1. The public transport system in Carole Park does not meet the transport needs of many of the residents of the area. It was a 20-minute walk through isolated bushland to the nearest railway station at Gailes. It is a 40-minute walk to the next nearest railway station at Wacol. There are no weekday or Saturday evening, Sunday or public holiday bus service to connect residents to the railway stations.
2. Carole Park is transport disadvantaged; that is, there is unmet transport need for a number of residents, particularly the public transport dependent, such as young people and residents without access to private vehicles.
3. Physical improvements to the local transport system (for cars, cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users) such as directional and entry signage,
104
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
sealed, lit and safe paths, seating, shading, bus shelters, timetables and bins need to be implemented to bring the suburb to minimum standards.
4. There is disparity between the poor standard of transport services (roads, public transport, bus stops and shelters, paths and networks) in Carole Park and the standard in the neighbouring master planned community of Forest Lake and most other similar areas of Brisbane City.
5. At solution 4 in Table 13, residents identified the then proposed Springfield transport corridor that would traverse the area and serve the growing community of Springfield to the south as an opportunity for improved local access.
6. Local transport governance arrangements improved the local transport system to reduce transport disadvantage, though the arrangement did not endure.
Since the 2005 research, a number of metropolitan, district and local transport infrastructure and services have been delivered in the area. These are presented in Table 25. The railway line to Springfield and three additional railway stations on that line were the most significant investment. Unfortunately, there is no local access to this metropolitan railway service. A district cycle/walking path connecting to the Centenary bikeway and local cycle/walking path to the Gailes railway station were also constructed. There were local improvements such as bus shelters, timetables and bins at some bus stops. An additional bus service and more frequent bus services were introduced, though they were rerouted.
In the following section I discuss the results and findings of the Stage 2 inquiry undertaken in the case study area in the later stages of the research, from its commencement in 2015.
5.8 Introduction to Stage 2 Research This section presents the data collection and findings for the second stage of the research. The section leads with an explanation of the local governance and community engagement and research participant recruitment strategies and data collection methods. Stage 2 research commenced in 2015 and continued into 2018, with most primary data collected in 2017. This long timeline reflects the relationship
105
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
and trust building that was necessary to underpin the qualitative data collection methods. The following sections presents the results of the 2017 resident survey, focus groups and cut-out doll data collection activities.
5.8.1 Ellen Grove Local Governance, 2015 The case study area changed its name from Carole Park to Ellen Grove during the research timeline. The Ellen Grove 2020 (EG2020) Forum formed in 2015 to provide Ellen Grove with a local governance mechanism. The EG2020 Forum was created by Wesley Mission Brisbane after it took over management of the Elorac Place Community Centre from the local Community Action in Carole Park Inc organisation in 2015.
The purpose of the EG2020 Forum is to identify and act on the priority issues in the community in a coordinated way. The EG2020 Forum is a collaborative grouping with members from not-for-profit organisations, State Government departments, Brisbane City Council and residents. The EG2020 embodies linking social capital, as it actively connects residents with implementation agencies and resources. Figure 10 shows the EG2020 Forum membership.
I re-engaged with the case study community to commence stage 2 of the research in 2015, the year that the EG2020 Forum was established. By the time of the 2017 primary data collection for Stage 2 of the research, the EG2020 Forum and an EG2020 Community Connectors working group were meeting regularly. I attended the meetings of both the EG2020 Forum and the EG2020 Community Connectors working group. As with the 2005 stage of the research, the local resident/service provider collaboration (the Transport Action Group in 2005 and EG2020 Community Connectors in 2017) provided me with local insights, guidance, verification and a conduit to community members.
The EG2020 Community Connectors working group had a strong interest in addressing local transport disadvantage; although, this time, there were no Department of Transport Officers in attendance. Transport was one of the key priorities identified in the Wesley Mission Brisbane 2015 resident survey and in the EG2020 Forum planning sessions. The EG2020 Community Connectors working group was one of a number of working groups that reported to the EG2020 Forum. Figure 10 106
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
shows the EG2020 membership and the range of working groups. Working groups reported to the Forum and the Forum was the platform for the integration and coordination of the activities of the working groups.
Steerng Group State and Local Government, NGOs and residents
Youth working Under 12s working Employment & training working group: Community group: Dept of group:: TAFE, Council, Connectors working education, Dept of Challenge serice group: Dept of child safety, Mission employment, providers, Housing, Uniting Australia, Council, residents young Church, Food shed, residents residemts Council, University, residents
Figure 8 EG2020 Forum Structure, 2015
5.8.2 EG2020 Community Engagement The EG2020 Community Connectors working group initiated a series of catered community dinners to recruit residents and provide a community voice to the EG2020 process. Each of the dinners had a theme, and resident members of the EG2020 and the Elorac Place community centre were invited to bring a neighbour to the dinner. At the first EG2020 community dinner in 2016 the agenda was simple. Activities during the dinner were designed to present and to collect information about values and issues for Ellen Grove residents. As well as identifying values and issues, another purpose of the initial dinner was to form a network of residents to interface with the EG2020 Forum.
107
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The first Community Connectors dinner promoted the theme of the second dinner in October 2017: a forum for transport research. The transport dinner was promoted on the Elorac Place Facebook site3 and a flyer was delivered to each home, as well as through a mail-out to residents who had attended the first community dinner in 2016. Again, residents were invited to bring a neighbour and enjoy a free community meal; the transport theme was identified in the flyer and letter of invitation.
5.8.3 Stage 2 Participant Recruitment By 2017, the Carole Park Transport Action Group, Elorac Place Homework Club and Young At Heart groups no longer existed. This is largely due to changes in the funded community organisation, which are discussed in Section 6.8 (intervening years). This is important to note as the role and function of the key community organisation influences the performance of linking social capital in the case study area. In 2017, the research participants were mainly residents; some of those residents were members of the EG2020 Forum. The EG2020 Forum had identified transport as a key issue for the community, although transport is not the sole focus of the forum. The EG2020 Community Connectors working group directly assisted the recruitment of resident participants for Stage 2 of the transport disadvantage research.
As with the data collection methods in Stage 1, resident focus groups and interviews were conducted in 2017 and 2018. In Stage 2 of the research, a resident survey (the questionnaire is in Appendix B) was administered to collect data. The questionnaire was voluntary and self-completed. The recruitment of resident survey participants and focus group members took place at the same event. The EG2020 Community Connectors working group held a transport workshop and dinner over a three and a half hour period on an evening in 22 August 2017.
Residents were invited via a letter sent to their home addresses. Some of the invited residents had attended the inaugural EG2020 community dinner in 2016 and had indicated at that time their interest in staying involved in the EG2020 initiative. The letter invited residents to attend the transport workshop and complimentary dinner,
3 https://www.facebook.com/EloracPlace/
108
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
and to bring a neighbour or friend from the case study area with them. The letter is in Appendix C.
Over 50 residents attended the dinner. Figure 11 shows some of the participants at the transport workshop dinner. During the dinner, information was collected in three ways. A self-administered survey, a focus group at each table and cut-out paper figures (See Figures 13 and 14) on which participants drew or wrote. Each table had an aerial photo of the case study location that was printed on fabric and acted as a tablecloth to assist participants to orient themselves and show the locations of transport challenges and solutions. This is similar to the Stage 1 focus groups, although at that time, the image was a hand drawn base map and focus group participants indicated locations and issues on that base map. Advances in technology since 2005 allowed a satellite image of the case study area to be generated and printed on fabric at A0. Residents used this high-resolution aerial image during the focus group sessions.
Figure 9 Resident Transport Research Dinner, 2017 (22 August, 2017)
109
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
5.8.4 Stage 2 Resident Survey The research utilised a resident survey designed to measure social capital, transport disadvantage and transport use. Questions about transport sharing were included to investigate the connection between social capital and transport.
The survey asked respondents to consider eight statements about Ellen Grove. Residents responded to the statements on a 4-point Likert scale to indicate whether they:
- strongly agree; - agree; - strongly disagree; or - disagree with the statement.
The respondents chose one of these responses per statement. Collectively, the statements are measures of individual (sense of belonging), bonding and linking social capital. Table 16 shows the eight statements and what they measure.
Table 16 Eight Statement of Social Capital What it No Statement Comment Measures Feeling a sense of belonging to a place is an I feel that I belong to this Bonding social 1 important feature of bonding community capital social capital (Wickes, et al., 2011). Feeling a sense of belonging to a place is an I would like to be living in this Bonding social 2 important feature of bonding community in three years’ time capital social capital (Wickes, et al., 2011). Pride in place is also an I am proud to live in this Bonding social aspect of bonded social 3 community capital capital (Wickes, et al., 2011). Feeling safe in your Bonding and community is an indication I feel safe walking down the 4 bridging social of bonding and bridging street after dark capital social capital (Wickes, et al., 2011). Knowing your neighbours is Bonding and I do not know many people in an important indication of 5 bridging social this community bonding and bridging social capital capital 110
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
(Wickes, et al., 2011). A belief that working with If we work together as a Bonding and others can affect change is 6 community we can make a bridging social also an indicator for social difference capital capital (Wickes, et al., 2011). Trust in officials is a factor My local member of parliament Linking social 7 in linking social capital cares about my community capital (Wickes, et al., 2011). Trust in officials is a factor My local Councillor cares about Linking social 8 in linking social capital my community capital (Wickes, et al., 2011).
The first four of the eight statements in Table 16 are consistent with statements in questionnaires in other social scientific longitudinal research that commenced in Carole Park/Ellen Grove in 2005. The statements are: I feel that I belong to this community; I would like to be living in this community in three years time; I am proud to live in this community; I feel safe walking down the street after dark. That research is part of a national study of community variations in crime. The Carole Park/New Ellen Grove community was chosen for that research due to the nationally significant level of socio-economic disadvantage in the case study area.
Statements seven and eight in the current questionnaire are designed to measure linking social capital; they achieve this by asking respondents about their attitude towards elected representatives as ‘caring’ for the community. Caring is a more value charged term than representing. While elected representatives will represent the community, the question here is do they ‘care for’ the community. The distinction is deliberate so that the respondent considers the level of care, not just the level of representation.
5.9 Data Collection, Stage 2 This section presents the detail of the 2017 data collection methods. First, residents who attended the community dinner were invited to fill-out a questionnaire (the resident survey) during the evening. The questionnaires were distributed in envelopes at the dinner. The dinner was attended by a cross-section of the community with Aboriginal people, Pacific Islanders, Somali and Anglo-Australian residents represented. There was representation of a range of age groups (seven years of age to 80 years of age) and gender at the dinner. Over 60 people attended and 50 of those 111
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
were Ellen Grove residents. The other ten were service providers, who acted as small group facilitators. A link to the survey was also made available on the Elorac Place community centre Facebook site; however, no surveys were collected via the Elorac Place Facebook link. Face-to-face administration is preferred in Ellen Grove as many community members do not have Internet access at home.
At each of the dining tables, focus groups were conducted. The focus groups were facilitated by members of the non-Government and Council members of the EG2020 Forum, and me. The facilitators had been briefed on the focus group data collection process. As with the 2005 resident focus groups, the 2017 focus groups asked residents to identify transport challenges and transport solutions. Like the 2005 focus group data, the notes of the 2017 focus groups were analysed according to themes and a frequency count was undertaken to report the strength of each theme. Table 22 shows the focus group results and includes selected quotes from focus group members to expand on the major concerns.
The third form of data collection was blank cut-out dolls. Residents were provided with coloured pens and invited to identify good and not so good transport experiences on either side of a blank cut-out paper doll. The purpose of using the blank cut-out dolls was to encourage younger residents and those less comfortable with completing questionnaires to also share their transport experiences. There were 23 responses to the questionnaire and all 50 residents participated in the six focus groups; thirteen cut- out dolls were collected. The range in ages of resident participants in the survey was 18 years to over 70 years. The range of ages in the focus group was more varied, as the seven young people (under 18 years) were active participants in two of the focus groups, and they also created cut-out dolls to express their transport experiences.
To triangulate the transport use data collected in the 2017 resident survey, data from the Council Cabs program and GoCard travel data were analysed to show the frequency of use of those services, compared to the transport use reported by residents.
5.10 Interviews In Stage 2 of the research, there were three interviews. As with the 2005 data collection, the purpose of these interviews was to clarify and verify the focus group 112
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
and audit findings. The interviews were with two residents and an ex-Minister for Transport Hon Paul Lucas. As noted earlier, Department of Transport officers did not participate in the later stage of the research. Despite many attempts, I was not able to persuade Department of Transport officers to engage in Stage 2 of the research. It is noteworthy that, as members of the local Carole Park Transport Action Group in 2005, Departmental officers were active participants in the research at that time. It may be that membership of local governance forums and local relationships encourage participation in applied local research, even when the field of research, such as transport disadvantage, is contentious.
The Stage 1 and Stage 2 interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the strongest themes in the interviews. Interviewees were invited to reflect on the focus group findings. Stage 2 interviewees were also invited to comment on the accuracy of the transport audit and to provide context to the findings of that audit. In particular, the ex-Minister for Transport was asked to describe the context for the transport investment decisions in the case study area at the time.
5.11 Variation in Data Collection, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Two factors influence the variation in data collection at Stages 1 and 2; namely, advances in information technology and a shift in social organisation in the community. The advances in information technology had two impacts. In the later stage, open access (smart card) GoCard travel data is available. Further, in this later stage of the research, desktop mapping applications enable the cost-effective production of accurate aerial maps of the case study area. These aerial images assisted residents and service providers to orient themselves during the focus group sessions.
The change in the management of the Elorac Place community centre in 2015 from community-management to an external non-Government organisation had unexpected consequences for the later stages of the research. The Elorac Place community centre did not directly support the later stage primary data collection. Under the WMB auspice the community centre does not undertake advocacy and the transport disadvantage research was determined to be advocacy-related.
113
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
5.11.1 Transport Disadvantage Indexes Stage 2 of the research used Transport Disadvantage Indexes that were not available in 2005. In Australia, there are multiple transport disadvantage indexes in use. The different indexes accord with particular characteristics of transport disadvantage that tend to reflect the motivation of the agency that has compiled the index and is undertaking the measurement (Lucas et al., 2016b). For example, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) developed a mobility disadvantage index (MDI) in 2011 that is used by that agency to identify comparative mobility disadvantage based on the profile of residents in a local area. The index does not consider travel demand or accessibility, but rather the features of the community members that indicate generalised mobility disadvantage in the area.
The DTMR intends that the MDI will influence transport planners and policy makers. The variables that underpin the MDI are:
- need for assistance; - number of dependents; - income; - unemployment; and - dwellings with no vehicles.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census of Population and Housing is the source of the data and the statistical local area 1 (the SLA1 is part of a suburb or a neighbourhood) is the geographical unit for the MDI. The latest MDI is compiled from 2016 census data, so the data is relatively current considering the census is undertaken every five years.
As well as the MDI, the DTMR also produce a land use and public transport accessibility index (LUPTAI). This index is used by the agency to identify those areas of the south east Queensland region and other major centres (the LUPTAI is focused on urbanised areas of the state) that are isolated from key destinations, due to proximity and frequency of public transport.
The vulnerability analysis of mortgage, petroleum and inflation risks and expenditure (VAMPIRE) index was developed by Griffith University in 2006. The purpose of the
114
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
VAMPIRE index is to compare the socio-spatial vulnerability of households in Australian cities. The socio-spatial vulnerability is measured by the level of household mortgage and household car dependence (Dodson & Sipe, 2006). These factors combine to leave some Australian households highly vulnerable to the external risks of increases in mortgage interest rates and oil prices. VAMPIRE effectively disrupts traditional notions of social disadvantage in Australia as it finds car dependence, expressed as households with a high number of motor vehicles, is a factor of socio- economic vulnerability.
5.12 Stage 2 Findings In this section I present the findings for the second stage of the research. The quantitative data and analysis is presented first, then the findings of the qualitative data collection. The quantitative data is GoCard data and the many data that combine to create transport disadvantage and social disadvantage indices. The methods and the findings are also discussed.
5.12.1 Key Findings from Residents This section of the thesis presents the findings of the 2017 survey of Ellen Grove residents. The questionnaire is designed to collect data about transport use and to measure social capital and investigate any association between these two factors. Different types of social capital (bonding and linking) are measured with questions about sense of belonging, attitude to the suburb and elected representatives and pride in community. The questionnaire also gathers information about the propensity to share transport resources with others.
As explained in Section 3.8, the data collection methods at the two points of time in this research are different. My inquiries in 2005 and 2017 both explored the impact of transport disadvantage on individual residents and groups, albeit using different methods. There were multiple data collection methods used at both times of the research, and, at both times, the inquiries investigated the resident’s transport and mobility challenges and their solutions to those challenges.
As discussed in the Section 5.9, the recent data collection includes a survey of residents and (as with the 2005 research) resident focus groups to identify transport challenges and solutions. The resident survey was conducted in October 2017 and it
115
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
achieved 23 responses. The profile of the survey respondents is shown in Table 17. A profile of resident survey respondents and the results for each survey question is presented as well as the correlation between results. IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software4 was used to cross-tabulate social capital measures with tendency to share private transport (give lifts and share cars). A chi-squared test was applied to the results to test the strength of the relationship between the variables. (The questionnaire is Appendix B).
5.12.2 Profile of Survey Respondents, 2017 Table 17 presents the profile of resident survey respondents compared to the profile of the case study area at the time of the 2016 census of population and housing. This survey respondent profile indicates that the sample is not representative of the community with young and middle-aged adults and men being underrepresented. Nevertheless, the information collected from the respondents (n=23) provides some interesting insights and potential areas for further research. Though the survey respondents are not representative of the broader community, there were a range of data collection methods deployed to reflect the range of language, abilities and ages of Ellen Grove residents.
In addition to the survey, three other strategies were used:
- focus groups; - a cut-out paper doll activity; and - interviews.
This range of methods was deployed to maximise the engagement of research participants and to clarify and verify research findings. There were 23 surveys, six focus groups, 13 cut-out dolls collected and three interviews undertaken. A total of 50 residents and ten service providers (State and Local Government and non- Government) attended the major data collection event for the research.
4 https://www.ibm.com/au-en/products/spss-statistics
116
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 17 Profile of Survey Respondents and Ellen Grove Community, 2017
Survey Ellen Grove Profile sample community Comments Characteristic (2017) (2016) AGE Ellen Grove is a young community and the cut- 4% 33% out doll exercise in the research was designed to attract the participation of younger residents. 0-18 (n=1) (n=950) While there is only one survey respondent under 18yo, three of the ten cut-out doll participants were under 18 years. 0% 17% 18-29 No survey respondents were 18-29 years of age. (n=0) (n=480) 9% 16% This age group is under-represented in the 30-39 (n=2) (n=457) survey sample. 4% 12% This age group is under-represented in the 40-49 (n=1) (n=363) survey sample. 26% 10% This age group is under-represented in the 50-59 (n=6) (n=303) survey sample. A significant over-representation of older people in the sample. This is likely because the 48% 7% engagement event was promoted in the 60-69 community as an exploration of transport issues. (n=11) (n=208) This group is most likely to be concerned about transport, particularly if they don’t drive or don’t have access to a vehicle. 9% 4% A generally acceptable representation of older 70-79+ (n=2) (n=109) residents. GENDER 33% 50% There are an even distribution of males and Male (n=7) (n=1459) females in the Ellen Grove resident population.
67% 50% There is a much higher representation (2 times) Female of females in the sample than the Ellen Grove (n=14) (n= 1448) population. TIME IN AUSTRALIA More of the survey sample was not born in Australia than Ellen Grove residents. There were Born in 44% 53% Aboriginal Australian residents who participated Australia (n=1538) (n=10) in the survey and Aboriginality was not a survey question. TIME IN ELLEN GROVE Longer term residents are more likely to be Resident of 70% 50% networked with other residents. Longer term Ellen Grove (n=1336) residents of Ellen Grove are over-represented in five years ago (n=16) the sample. (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing 2016, Ellen Grove General Community Profile, Catalogue number 2001.0).
117
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
This comparative table (Table 17) indicates that the resident sample does not approximate the profile of the broader Ellen Grove community. In particular, the sample population is not representative of young adult, middle-aged adult or male Ellen Grove residents. The over-representation of women and non-Australian born residents is interesting, and most likely reflects the recruitment strategy for the surveyed cohort. To address this issue with representation, the research is also informed by a review of the findings of other data collection activity in the community. That review is presented at section 4.4.
5.12.3 Social Capital Measurement The questionnaire measured social capital in a number of ways. The questions gathered information about the respondent’s feelings for the neighbourhood, including belonging, pride and safety, belief in bonding/bridging social capital (working together) and perceptions of the level of care for community that derive from their local and State elected representatives (linking social capital). Respondents were also asked how many people they know in Ellen Grove, apart from those people who reside in their own home. The survey participants were drawn from the community’s informal resident leaders and those who self-selected to attend a transport-related workshop in the community. Table 18 presents the results for the eight social capital statements.
Table 18 Responses to Social Capital Statements
Social Strongly Strongly No Statement Capital Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Type I feel that I belong to this 61% 17% Bonding 22% (n=5) 0% 1 community (n=14) (n=4) I would like to be living in this 65% 4% 9% community in three years’ Bonding 22% (n=5) 2 (n=15) (n=1) (n=2) time I am proud to live in this 59% 9% Bonding 32% (n=7) 0% 3 community (n=13) (n=2) I feel safe walking down the 14% 23% Bonding 18% (n=4) 45% (n=10) 4 street after dark (n=3) (n=5) I do not know many people in 25% 40% 25% Bonding 10% (n=2) 5 this community (n=5) (n=8) (n=5)
If we work together as a Bonding, 52% 48% 6 community we can make a 0% 0% difference Bridging (n=12) (n=11) My local member of 50% 25% 10% parliament cares about my Linking 15% (n=3) 7 (n=10) (n=5) (n=2) community 118
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
My local Councillor cares 47% 21% 21% Linking 11% (n=2) 8 about my community (n=9) (n=4) (n=4) (Source: Ellen Grove Resident Survey, 2017)
The results in Table 18 indicate that the majority of respondents have a strong sense of belonging, a desire to stay in the area and have pride in the community, with over 82% either strongly agreeing or agreeing to statements related to these statements. This could reflect the nature of the respondents, as they are longer term residents. Respondents were invited to attend the August dinner, based on their existing engagement with the Ellen Grove community, the EG2020 community connectors network and the local community centre, Elorac Place. Residents assisted me in generating the invitation list. Invitees were asked to bring a neighbour. (The invitation letter is Appendix C).
The respondents were long-term residents with most (70%) being resident for more than five years, and 60% for more than ten years. This could account for the strong sense of belonging and attachment to the suburb. Consistent with this result is the high percentage of respondents who knew more than nine or more people in Ellen Grove. 55% knew nine or more, and a further 23% knew seven or eight people in the suburb, outside of the people living in their home.
5.12.4 Transport Use The respondents were asked to identify how often they use ten different types of transport, as shown in Table 19.
Table 19 Frequency of Use, Transport Modes, 2017 Mode Often Sometimes Rarely Never 10% 30% 30% 30% Bus (n=2) (n=6) (n=6) (n=6) 75% 5% 5% 15% Car as driver (n=15) (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) 45% 30% 20% 5% Car as passenger (n=9) (n=6) (n=4) (n=1) 11% 89% Council cabs 0 0 (n=2) (n=17) 11% 89% UBER 0 0 (n=2) (n=16) 5% 11% 11% 73% Taxi (n=1) (n=2) (n=2) (n=14) 50% 25% 10% 15% Walking (n=10) (n=5) (n=2) (n=3) 119
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Mode Often Sometimes Rarely Never Club buses 6% 22% 72% 0 (Blue Fin or Lions bus) (n=1) (n=4) (n=13) 10% 40% 25% 25% Train (n=2) (n=8) (n=5) (n=5) 11% 6% 11% 72% Bicycle (n=2) (n=1) (n=2) (n=13)
The results in Table 19 indicate that ride sharing transport modes (such as taxi and UBER) are not popular with these residents; this is most likely to be a factor of the high cost of these services. Giving each other lifts in their own cars (presumably at no or low cost) is preferred to commercial share riding. The high rate of walking could reflect the number of destinations within walking distance to homes, including a modest local shopping centre (post office, grocery store, second hand clothing shop, café and post office); a community centre (food shed, computer access and other free programs); and local primary school and a public swimming pool. There are sealed footpaths on one side of most local roads are local roads are quiet with traffic calming in place to discourage through-traffic in local streets.
5.12.5 Transport Poverty Residents were asked if the cost and availability of transport plays any role in constraining them from ‘doing something’. The results indicate that availability of transport is more of an inhibiting factor than the cost of transport; although, both constrain access. Respondents were asked to reflect on their own behaviour and that of ‘other people you know in Ellen Grove’. In each case, the responses show that transport availability and transport cost play a role in constraining travel. This is not surprising given the profile of the community and the availability and cost of transport in the area. Table 20 combines the results for the questions about the role of transport availability and transport cost in ‘stopping you from doing something you want to’. Transport affordability and availability are two key factors identified in Lucas’ transport poverty framework (Lucas et al., 2016a).
120
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 20 Constrained Travel due to Transport Costs and Availability
Transport Transport Transport Transport Cost: Other Availability: Frequency Availability: Cost: You residents Other residents You you know you know 20% 70% 35% 30% Often (n=3) (n=9) (n=7) (n=12) 47% 15% 10% 60% Sometimes (n=7) (n=2) (n=2) (n=6) 13% 15% 25% 10% Rarely (n=2) (n=2) (n=5) (n=2) 20% 30% Never 0% 0% (n=3) (n=6)
From Table 20 it is clear transport cost often or sometimes inhibits almost 70% of the respondents from doing something they want to do and transport availability often inhibits over a third of respondents (35%) from doing something they want to do. There is evidence there is a perception held by the respondents that other people they know are more constrained from doing something they want to do due to the cost of transport.
5.12.6 Open-ended responses The questionnaire asked respondents if there is anything that they would like to add about transport in Ellen Grove. Nine respondents provided an open-ended response. Figure 12 is a ‘word cloud5’ of the responses that also provides a simple, although effective, summary of the key issue.
Figure 10 Word cloud of Open-Ended Survey Response, 2017
5 A word or tag cloud is an electronic image that shows words used in a particular piece of electronic text or series of texts; according to how often they are used in the text, the words have different sizes.
121
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
While the area is serviced with two scheduled public bus services, the issues are described in the open-ended response relate to the quality of the services. Table 21 illustrates the specific concerns with the bus services.
Table 21 Open-Ended Survey Responses
Frequency Response 3 “Need a bus from Ellen Grove to Inala”. “Being able to have more buses running around school times as the 1 buses are too packed and students and passengers’ area at risk of being injured”. 1 “Buses should travel on time and more buses”. “I would like city buses to be available from Ellen Grove. I would 1 also like the Westside bus services to be 30-minute interval instead of hourly services”. “Change the bus route to go to where the elderly live. Put seats and 1 shelters at the bus stops for the elderly”. 1 “Need better bus services”. 1 “We need Brisbane City Council buses”.
5.12.7 Transport Sharing Survey respondents were asked about their transport sharing. The results indicate a high level of private transport sharing among the respondents. A significant 70% of the respondents said that they often (50%) or sometimes (20%) give other residents lifts in their cars or that they share cars. This is a surprisingly high rate of private transport sharing. The high rate could be explained by the relative spatial isolation of the community and the long-term residency of many of the survey respondents. These factors might also explain the responses to the bonding social capital statements. The results are just as high (70%) when respondents were asked how often ‘people they know in Ellen Grove’ give lifts to others, and share cars.
5.12.8 Who Shares Transport? Although the sample is small (n=23), it is interesting to investigate the characteristics and attitudes of those respondents who report a propensity to share transport resources in terms of ‘giving people lifts and sharing cars’. The cross-tabulation function in SPSS Statistics 25 software was deployed to investigate the significance of the relationship between sharing transport (dependent variable) and all other factors 122
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
(independent variables). This is primarily an inquiry into the relationship between the propensity to share transport and social capital measures. This analysis was designed to test the hypothesis that those with higher levels of social capital are more likely to share transport resources. The Pearson Chi-Square test was conducted to assess the ‘fit’ between the variables. The significant relationships were those with an Alpha value of <0.05. While no relationships were identified with a probability of <0.05, some relationships were close to that score.
In the resident sample, the variables with the most statistically significant relationship to transport sharing include the desire to remain resident in Ellen Grove in the future I would like to be living in this community in three-years’ time (0.051) and community pride I am proud to live in this community (0.053). These are important measures of bonding social capital.
5.12.9 Social Capital and Transport Sharing The transport-sharing tendency is demonstrated in the response to Question 4. Respondents were asked if they ever offer lifts or share cars; specifically, How often do you or people you know in Ellen Grove give each other lifts in their cars or share cars? Respondents could answer often, sometimes, rarely and never in relation to themselves and to ‘people you know in Ellen Grove’.
5.12.10 Resident Focus Groups There were six focus groups conducted with residents at one event in October 2017. Each group had between five and seven participants. The groups were made up of residents with a range of ages, from younger children (under 15 years) to older adults (over 70) and many ethnicities, including Pacific Islanders, Somali, Aboriginal Australians, English and Anglo-Australians.
In this section I discuss the results of the focus groups. Each of the focus groups was facilitated by a member of the EG2020 Forum with some knowledge of the area. The facilitators were briefed by me before the event and I visited each of the focus groups as they progressed, to ensure consistency. The facilitators were provided with large aerial photographs of the area that acted as ‘table clothes’ at each focus group table, pre-printed sheets to record transport challenges and transport solutions and guidance notes for conducting the focus groups.
123
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 22 is a summary of the transport challenge and transport solution themes and the number of focus group responses that align with that theme, across the six focus groups. The themes were identified from an analysis of the total responses and they are presented in the table from the most to the least frequently identified in the focus groups. There is a total of 57 challenges and 32 solutions identified in the six focus groups. Select quotes from focus group members are presented in the table to exemplify the themes.
Table 22 Thematic Analysis of Focus Group Results, 2017
Frequency Transport Challenge Select Quotes (n=57) Bus and train destinations: no direct service to Inala (7kms 19% - Cannot get to Inala straight from Ellen Grove away), the city or Richlands n=11 - 2 buses to get to Inala can take an hour. railway station (5kms away) - Access to health care (doctors), schools, sporting facilities, pharmacy, hospitals- no bus goes there. - Getting to church on a Sunday, first bus Access to services and facilities 18% doesn’t come along until 9 am. (medical, family), sport and n=10 - Have cars but big families. Constantly driving friends, church to Inala for shopping centre to buy basics like milk, bread, take kids to school, go to park with facilities/toilets. Live in Ellen Grove but need to keep going to Inala. - Bus not frequent enough (hourly too long) especially at peak time (work hours/school) Bus frequency, scheduling and - A lot of students travelling to Forest Lake or 11% reliability- not on time, one per Glenala (high schools), not enough seats. n=6 hour Students are sometimes late for school. - Boys need to go to shift work in Ipswich and Goodna at 4am. - When not working, the cost of transport was really difficult Affordability (high cost) of - Need more support to get licences, very transport- learning to drive, 9% expensive and hard to get the hours. Need getting to hospital, community n=5 members of the Somali community to help buses people to learn to drive, but Ellen Grove too far for them to come- they sometimes cancel. - Community buses are expensive - Important for Somali community to meet regularly but Ellen Grove resident often miss out because it is too difficult to get there. Six families with 10-12 in each family. One older 9% Liveability in Ellen Grove woman with a disability at home. When her n=5 son goes to work she is isolated/stuck at home- lives just with her son so is alone when he isn’t there. Two older people - Licence required to live in Ellen Grove
124
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Frequency Transport Challenge Select Quotes (n=57) Transport infrastructure- bus - Larger buses are not being used to their 9% stops and bus shelters, bus size, capacity n=5 petrol station - No bus shelters - Ellen Grove to Collingwood Park (14km to Challenge employment) takes 1 hour and 3 buses 7% Travel time by public transport - Walk to Wacol station is 30 to 40 minutes n=4 - 2 buses to get to Inala can take an hour - Over 2 hours to see husband at Algester- takes three buses 5% Smart Card (Go Card) system - Go Card can be confusing for families n=3 3% - Bus stop signs need to be in different Language n=2 languages. This is a multicultural community - Transport has been the issue for over 45 Waiting for transport 3% years improvements n=2 - Forest Lake train station (A new station) - Buses are super packed with school students. People can get hurt from standing 3% up – there was an accident previously where Safety- in bus and at crossing n=2 someone got flung into the front of the bus while standing- safety issues. There are not enough seats. Other- disability, feasibility of any 3%
new service n=2 Frequency Transport Solution Select Quotes (n=32) - Community bus to take people to the shops (Inala, Forest Lake) on pension day to pick up and drop off - More frequent buses and on time Improve Public Transport - The 100 city bus should come here to Carole 31% Services- timing, frequency, ease Park end of Ellen Grove every 30 minutes all n=10 of boarding day – not just at peak times - We are not saying that we have to have a ‘new bus service’, rather we need the current services to work better and to be more serviceable to the community - Need buses straight to Inala Change Public Transport 19% - Community bus to take people to the shops Destinations n=6 (Inala, Forest Lake) on pension day to pick up and drop off - Build bus shelters, extend the bus stops Improve Transport 19 (more of them) Infrastructure n=6 - Need a bike path from Julie Road to Forest Lake - A free service loop that people can hop on 13% More Affordable Transport and hop off n=4 - Car pooling - Need a public forum with local and State government representatives and discuss Advocacy for Transport 9% transport, but have a proposal or a solution Improvements n=3 for them - Lobby action
125
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Frequency Transport Challenge Select Quotes (n=57) - Current buses need to go to these services, 6% in the correct direction Improve Access to Services n=2 - Previously provided a service to pick up kids to access activities Improve Smart Card (Go Card) 3% - (Need) stops where you can go and top up system n=1 your Go Card
Destinations and related access issues dominate the transport challenges identified in the focus groups with proposed solutions including direct buses to Inala and improved public transport scheduling.
5.12.11 Paper Figure Exercise Blank cut-out paper figures were distributed to participants. Participants were provided with coloured pens and they were invited to write and draw on the figures, noting transport ‘challenges’ and ‘solutions’ for Ellen Grove. This exercise was directed at younger adults and children, although some adults also participated. Thirteen figures were collected from ten different respondents, and those paper figures captured 33 ideas in total. The issues identified in this exercise were consistent with the survey and focus group results, though with rich details that were not captured in either. The results are presented in Table 23, which lists the challenges and solutions. Figures 13 and 14 show two of the 13 completed paper figures.
126
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 11 Paper Figure Result, Older Resident, 2017 Figure 12 Paper Figure Result, Young Resident, 2017
Table 23 Paper Figure Results, 2017
Responses written on the paper dolls - Not enough buses, Fares on the buses are too costly, Most of the time, not a lot of people on the bus - Bus gets too packed around school time - Fuel expenses - Need to be at station early for parking - Buses run down the wrong road, It doesn’t service the other streets - Go Cards are not on sale in Ellen Grove and they should be. Seems Challenges short-sighted in not distributing the Go Card system down to the very identified people who need it. - No doctor, chemist, fruit shop in the suburb, no transport so have to pay more expensive prices for things. Have to travel to them. - Took my bus shelter away - Not enough parking at railway station or at buses at shopping centres - Prices of buses and trains are high - Buses should be better spaced so both buses don’t run directly after each other - Too many potholes
127
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- Better guttering along the roads - Availability (having a car) - If you have a car, you don’t have to wait for your transportation - Reasonably cheap (short distances) - Being able to drive from one place to another - Could have smaller buses and run more often - Need Ellen Grove railway station as many more people have moved into the area - Research Sherut services (Israel model). 10 seat mini-van runs on certain routes for keeping costs down and offering more frequent services at a lower costs than large buses. We need similar services Solutions in the community, perhaps a local contract, saving costs and smaller proposed capacity vehicle and a Go Card friendly service with disability access, evaluate the age groups and what they need. - We need a community centre in Elorac Place- a place to connect and support our community - Need more help for pensioners/those with disabilities. I have lots of pain and find it difficult to get around even after driving to shopping centre. - Go Card recharge facility in Ellen Grove will support local business - Need cheaper public transport - Need better road markings
128
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
5.13 Consistent Findings, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Table 24 compares the transport challenge themes identified in resident focus groups in 2005 and the 2017 resident survey. The table shows unresolved, and new transport challenges identified by residents.
Table 24 Summary, Resident Identified Challenges, 2005 and 2017 Convenience/ Year Cost Mode Destination Comfort Wait Times Integration 2005 X X X 2017 X X X X
The themes in Table 24 indicate ongoing transport challenges, though with some changes in the character of the transport disadvantage in the case study community between 2005 and 2017. Destination and cost of travel are issues for residents in 2017. Inquiry into the costs of travel is presented at Section 6.5. A new composite travel cost index developed in this research and presented in Figure 15 indicates that many travellers in the case study community pay more for public transit than travellers in the balance of the metropolitan area. That composite index presents travel costs in the context of the relative socio-economic status of resident travellers.
5.14 Conclusion As a result of analysing the data in Tables 19 to 23, following is a summary of the Stage 2 primary research findings:
Transport disadvantage constrains access to essential goods and services and social networks for residents in the case study community.
Residents identified the highest priority need as a direct bus service to Inala. The bus to the local high school is often crowded with children sitting on the floor of the bus.
Cost of transport often or sometimes constrains the majority (70%) of the surveyed residents.
129
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Share ride services such as taxis and UBER are not well used by the case study residents with most (89%) of those surveyed indicating they had never used UBER and 73% had never used a taxi.
The subsidised Council Cabs are not well used by the residents with 89% indicating they had never used the service. The service has restrictive eligibility criteria and requires pre-booking and this may account for its low use.
A significant 50% of surveyed residents often give other residents a lift in their own vehicle.
The residents with higher bonding social capital expressed as a desire to stay living in the area and community pride are more likely to share their vehicles with other residents.
These result show that residents in the case study area experience transport disadvantage despite considerable investment in transport infrastructure and services.
As a result of these findings, in Chapter 6 I apply quantitative indexes and deploy transport poverty and social capital theories to better understand this outcome.
130
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 6 The Intervening Years Analysis
6.1 Introduction As well as comparing the data from Stages 1 and 2, the intervening years analysis in this chapter explores and describes the many transport, community and governance related activities that occurred in the case study community during the research period. An inquiry into these activities furnishes the research with explanations as to why transport and other changes have reduced or not reduced transport disadvantage.
The chapter commences with a presentation of transport-related investments in the case study area during the research timeline. This audit highlights the scale and type of transport investment. Following this audit, the quantitative analysis utilises three accepted indexes of transport disadvantage and introduces a new composite measure of relative travel cost.
A transport audit was undertaken to identify the transport investments made in and around the community in the research period. Three approaches are then utilised to support an investigation of the influence of these investments on transport disadvantage; namely:
1. Quantitative indexes that measure transport disadvantage are applied to ascertain any quantifiable change in transport disadvantage in the case study area in the research period. 2. The four notions of transport poverty (Section 2.8) are deployed as a way of describing and understanding the multiple forms of transport disadvantage and how they have been reduced (or not) by the transport and other investments. 3. Social capital theory (Section 2.10) is utilised to investigate the relationship between community-related activity and reduced transport disadvantage in this place.
The intervening years analysis utilises quantitative and qualitative data, transport poverty and social capital theories to understand the many factors that influence transport disadvantage.
131
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
6.2 Transport Audit The transport audit identified transport related investments and service enhancements from 2005 to 2018. The transport investment audit was undertaken to highlight the types and scale of transport investment in and around the case study area. Resident members of the EG2020 Community Connectors working group clarified and verified the results of this audit of transport investment and transport service activity. Transport investment information from 2005 to 2018 was collected from a review of Queensland Government budget and Hansard records, web searches and other sources, such as media releases and media articles from the research period. The audit is presented in two time periods that approximate the population and housing census periods.
The results of this audit are presented in Table 25. As the table shows, the investments range in scale from local bus stop and path infrastructure to major passenger railway and highway infrastructure.
6.2.1 Transport Investment There has been considerable investment in transport in the area and much of this investment occurred during my research timeline, including:
- a new Springfield passenger railway line through the community; - a ramp over the Ipswich motorway to Gailes railway station to the west on the Ipswich passenger railway line; - extended hours and days for public bus services; - additional bus service with changed bus routes; - the introduction of ‘ride share’ schemes to the area, such as UBER; - new active transport paths in the area connecting to railway stations; - a heavily discounted taxi service known as Council Cabs; and - bus shelter, path and lighting improvements.
Despite this, and other investment, the area remains socially and transport disadvantaged. According to the State Government’s analysis, after most of the new major transport infrastructure and service changes were delivered, the area is still highly ranked for relative mobility disadvantage.
132
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The investment in transport in and around the Carole Park/Ellen Grove community since 2005 has been substantial. In the 2009 State budget, the State provided $414.6 million towards the Centenary Highway duplication between Springfield and Darra and the Darra to Springfield rail extension (Queensland Government, 2009). These transport infrastructure projects traverse the case study area, but there is no direct access to either the highway or the railway at the case study area.
Table 25 illustrates the scale and type of transport investment within the timeline of the current research, and shows investments and developments in two time periods that approximate the five-yearly census intervals. In Section 6.10, I consider these transport investments in association with social capital initiatives in the case study areas.
Table 25 demonstrates the substantial level and variety of transport infrastructure and service investment that has occurred in and around the case study community during the research timeline. The table also highlights the important metropolitan scale investments. In 2005, the residents identified the opportunity to leverage local transport advantages from the planned metropolitan railway infrastructure that would traverse their community. These advantages were not forthcoming as there is no local station and no public bus service from the case study area to the nearby station on the new line.
133
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 25 Transport Related Investments and Changes, Case Study Area, 2005 to 2018
2005-2011 2011-2018 Local o Pre-booked discounted Council Cabs for o In 2018, EG2020 Community disability pensioners introduced in the case Connectors working group initiates a study area to travel to local shops on fixed free shuttle bus service from Ellen days/times. Grove to Inala in response to local need. Volunteer drivers operate the o Bicycle Boxes installed at Wacol and Gailes service two days a week. railway stations. o Sinclair Drive link to Centenary o Footpath constructed on one-side of shared pedestrian/bikeway connects Southampton Road, Ellen Grove. This is a case study area to the north. significant local road. Connects cyclists to the Richlands o Bins installed at some Ellen Grove bus railway station and district bikeway. shelters. o Bicycle Awareness Zone (BAZ) o New bus shelters at most stops, disability symbols painted on the road every compliant modifications at all stops. 75 to 100 m along Roxwell Street o Timetables placed on posts at most bus stops connecting Forest Lake to the case in the area. study area. o Local cycle/walking path constructed from o Julie Road footpath built and case study area to Gailes railway station. connected to the district Centenary Highway cycle/walking path. District o New daily public bus service from Goodna o New daily public bus service from railway station, past Gailes and Wacol stations to Springfield to Browns Plains, travelling Forest Lake (return) travelling through the case through the case study area (return study area. Includes more frequent buses than service). previous and service extended to weekends. o Public buses no longer travel directly to
Inala. o Gailes railway station- disability access constructed over the Ipswich Motorway o Planned bikeway from the case study connecting the east to the west (long ramp area to Springfield replaced by extra installed). vehicle lanes on the Centenary Highway to Springfield. o Centenary Highway shared cycle/walking path constructed. Bikeway terminates at the case o New railway station at Springfield. study area with no access to the south. o New railway station at Springfield o New Richlands passenger railway station opens, Central. 2km north of Ellen Grove. Metropolitan
134
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
o Centenary Highway extension completed from Darra to Ellen Grove. No exit or entrance ramps from that Highway to Ellen Grove. o Passenger railway line constructed to Springfield to the east of Carole Park, severing the western and eastern parts of the area. No railway station at Ellen Grove, although proposed by the State Government in 2009. o Smartcard public transport travel system introduced in the region, known as GoCard. (Source: Information derived from Queensland Government Hansard documents, media articles and Government media releases. Resident members of the EG2020 Community Connectors working group verified the information).
6.3 Quantitative Measures of Transport Disadvantage The indexes (described in Section 2.7) are three generally accepted transport disadvantage indexes used in Queensland by the State Government and researchers and a new, composite measure of transport disadvantage. The indexes are the MDI, LUPTAI and the VAMPIRE index. According to the quantitative results (the indexes), the transport investments presented in Table 25 did not reduce transport disadvantage and some measures have even worsened during the research timeline.
The three indexes are compiled from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing data and other sources. The indexes were applied at statistical local area level 1 to enable case study analysis. The results of the indexes are unpacked and analysed to identify the reasons for changes (if any) in these transport disadvantage measures.
As shown later in Section 6.5, the research generates a new, composite measure of transport disadvantage comprised of paper ticket purchase travel data combined with the SEIFA index for relative socio-economic disadvantage. This index will be called the Travel Cost Index.
6.3.1 Mobility Disadvantage Index (MDI) 2011, 2016 The mobility disadvantage index (MDI) is comprised of five variables derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census data. The transport disadvantage literature associates these variables with transport disadvantage (see Section 2.4). The five variables in the MDI are:
- no motor vehicle at the dwelling;
135
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- a low household income (less than $600.00 per week); - need for assistance with core activities; - high number of dependants in the family; and - the portion of the labour force that is unemployed.
These five variables combine to indicate the relative mobility disadvantage of an area. This simple index views mobility as physical and material. The index combines the results for the five variables for an area to generate a rank for the area on a scale of one to ten. The higher the score, the higher the mobility disadvantage, according to the five variables that make up the index. Table 26 shows the results of the MDI applied to the case study area in 2011 and 2016.
Table 26 Mobility Disadvantage Index Rating, Statistical Areas, Case Study Community, 2011, 2016
Statistical Area 2011 2016
3127601 10 10
3127609 9 10
3127610 10 10
3127611 10 10
The case study area’s performance on the MDI slightly worsened between 2011 and 2016. The rankings of the four statistical areas (SAs) that make up the case study area were 10, 9, 10 and 10 in 2011, and each of the four SAs scored 10 (the highest possible score) in 2016. That is, the area performed slightly worse on the five variables that make up the index in 2016, than in 2011.
An investigation of the component variables at 2011 and 2016 shows that the reason for the change is an increase during the inter-census period of residents who need assistance with core activities. The 3127609 statistical area is the most populace in the case study area. The change in the result for need with core assistance is likely the result of the narrowing of eligibility criteria for social housing in favour of people with complex needs, such as a disability. The case study area has a strong
136
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
representation of social housing tenancies and these tenants are more likely to be living with a disability than the tenants in 2011.
This change in the MDI does not mean a worsening transport situation, but it suggests that the transport need in the case study area remains urgent and is likely to worsen given the Government’s social housing eligibility criteria. The five variables that comprise the MDI are a basic measure of transport disadvantage. When it is considered with the LUPTAI, the MDI measure for an area is more meaningful as the simple MDI variables are then combined with access scores (in the LUPTAI) for a range of destinations, such as education, employment, medical services and others.
6.3.2 Land use Urban Planning and Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) 2011, 2016 For the purposes of temporal comparison, and as with the MDI, the LUPTAI was applied in the case study area at two points in time: 2011 and 2016. The LUPTAI is a composite index and a comparative measure of transport disadvantage, based on the accessibility of local areas to destinations for education, employment, medical, recreation and community services. Accessibility is measured for public transport and walking access to these key destination types. As it is a public transport measure, driving is not included in the index. The LUPTAI is an innovative accessibility measure that focuses on destinations. Development of the LUPTAI index reflects the Queensland State Government’s policy interest in the integration of land use (particularly activity centres) and public and active transport services.
Accessibility is determined by both physical access (distance to transit stops and destinations) and the frequency of public transport services. As noted in Section 2.7, the index includes destination groups including education, employment, medical, recreation and community services. The LUPTAI applies rules, then assigns scores to local places, depending on the performance of that local place against the rules, such as distance to public transport stops and the time it takes to travel to the nominated destination group. Similar to the MDI, the LUPTAI gives rankings to local statistical areas.
The accessibility ranking is the average travel time (in seconds) to get to the destination groups. The Queensland Government overlays the LUPTAI and MDI
137
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
indexes to investigate unmet transport need in most urban areas of the State (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011; Pitot, et al., 2006).
LUPTAI composite results were interrogated at 2011 and 2016 for the four statistical local areas that comprise the case study area. Table 27 is the result for the LUPTAI at 2011 and 2016 for each of the four statistical areas that make up the case study. The results are the median composite travel time (in seconds) to get from the statistical area to the destination groups by public transport or walking.
Table 27 LUPTAI Median Composite Results (seconds), Statistical Areas, Case Study Community, 2011, 2016
Statistical Area 2011 2016
3127601 1827.91 1827.91
3127609 1826.46 1826.46
3127610 1948.07 1948.07
3127611 2022.3 2022.3
The results in Table 27 show there is no change in the accessibility of the case study area between 2011 and 2016. The results are identical at 2011 and 2016 for each of the four statistical local areas. The results show that the median time to get to the five destination groups from the case study area is about 30 minutes by public transport or walking. The case study area has a primary school and it is likely that walkability to that school, and the bus service that travels to shopping centres, factor in the results.
What is interesting is that the ‘no change’ occurred despite the construction of the new passenger railway station to the north and a passenger railway line constructed through the case study area in 2011. The walking distance to the new passenger railway station is beyond 1km and, despite its proximity, the two bus services do not travel from the case study area to the new railway station as that station is located in Brisbane City, which is outside of the catchment for the bus service areas.
138
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
6.3.3 VAMPIRE Index 2006, 2016 As discussed in Section 2.7, the VAMPIRE Index is a measure of a local area’s relative vulnerability to increases in petrol price and mortgage interest rates. The VAMPIRE results are analysed for the case study area in 2006, 2011 and 2016. When the VAMPIRE index is applied, the case study area shows comparatively moderate to high vulnerability in 2006, 2011 and 2016 with some variability in the results over the ten- year period. The 2006 VAMPIRE results are based on three collector districts and not four statistical local areas, though the results are comparable as both geographic categories represent the same case study area. In 2006, there were three collector districts that made up the case study area. For the three collector districts, the VAMPIRE results were 17, 15 and 16. The highest possible VAMPIRE result in 2006 in Brisbane was 30 and the range was 0 to 30.
In 2016, the highest VAMPIRE result in the Brisbane urban area was 25 and the range of possible results is six (least vulnerable) to 25 (most vulnerable). In that year, the four statistical areas that made up the case study area were located at the higher end of the vulnerability range at 17, 17, 15 and 17.
Table 28 is the results of the index for 2011 and 2016 when the following four variables were weighted and combined for the statistical areas in the case study area:
- number of motor vehicles; - mortgage exposure; - household income; and - method of travel to work.
Table 28 VAMPIRE Score, Statistical Areas, Case Study Community, 2011, 2016
Statistical Area 2011 2016
3127601 14 17
3127609 15 17
3127610 16 15
3127611 15 17 (Source: https://map.aurin.org.au/).
139
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Interrogation of the data that underpins the results in Table 28 show that, of the four comprising variables, the case study area is particularly disadvantaged due to the journey to work by private vehicle and low average household income. This makes the working residents of the area vulnerable to petrol price increases.
This result is what might be expected in a transport and socially disadvantaged area. In each of the 2006, 2011 and 2016 census years, over 80% of journeys to work from the case study area were undertaken by car, truck or motorcycle. This is typical for a transport disadvantaged area in Brisbane and is comparable with other outer areas of the metropolis that are located at the urban edge and have limited and less affordable public transport (Delbosc & Currie, 2011b; Li et al., 2015; Dodson & Sipe, 2008).
The proximity of the area to the major industrial corridor to the south east seems to have a negligible influence on walking and cycling to work; this is because the motorways that traverse the area effectively separate the industrial parts from the residential. This means that to get to a job in the nearby factory requires driving, as it is not possible to walk or cycle safely across the Logan Motorway or Centenary Highway and the bus service does not include service to the industrial area. Further, the district cycle/walking path terminates at the case study area; it does not extend to the industrial areas to the south.
While it does not perform well on motor vehicle dependence and household income, overall, the area’s low exposure to mortgage rate increases mean it is less vulnerable to mortgage rate increases than other areas of the city. The case study area has comparatively high rates of social and private rental housing, meaning that the residents are not as exposed to the risk of mortgage (interest) rate rises as other areas.
6.4 Comparing the Three Quantitative Indexes The analysis of the three indexes of transport disadvantage illustrate Lucas’s point that the measurement of transport disadvantage is dependent on the perspective and motivation of the measuring agent (Lucas et al., 2016b). The three indexes provide quantitative evidence of transport disadvantage in the case study community with little change in the results at 2011 and 2016, despite significant transport investment in and around the area.
140
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The conclusion is that the case study community is either moderately high or highly transport disadvantaged according to a number of accepted measures. Indexes are useful to highlight issues and areas of transport disadvantage in the city that need further investigation. To investigate the causal factors of transport disadvantage, it is important to unpack the quantitative indexes and review the variables that comprise them. To optimise their value in local area analysis, indexes should be used in conjunction with qualitative data, particularly the knowledge and experiences of local travellers and residents of transport disadvantaged places.
6.5 Travel Cost and Social Disadvantage This research introduces a new way to investigate the relationship between travel cost and comparative socio-economic disadvantage in the city. This approach also demonstrates the iterative potential of qualitative and quantitative analysis. In the Stage 2 survey and focus groups, residents indicated there is no GoCard purchase or top-up facility in the case study area and, consequently, many travellers use paper tickets, particularly for bus travel. The GoCard travel data shows there is higher than usual use of paper tickets for bus travel in the area, compared with the rest of Brisbane. In the case study area, paper tickets are purchased from the driver, when on board the bus.
To extend the quantitative inquiry, paper ticket travel data is combined with the SEIFA index for relative socio-economic disadvantage to explore the relationship between travel cost and socio-economic disadvantage in the metropolitan area. The results are concerning. The case study community is a standout for both socio-economic disadvantage and high rates of paper ticket use for bus travel. Paper ticket travel is up to 50% more expensive than GoCard travel. Without Internet access and a credit card, the traveller needs to top-up the GoCard balance at GoCard facilities (machines) that are located around the city or at outlets, such as service stations and other retailers. There is no GoCard facility in the case study area.
This use of data is an example of the iteration that is possible in qualitative-dominant mixed methods research. In this example, the local travellers’ insights (no local GoCard facility) were gathered during the qualitative inquiry and the result guided the selection and analysis of quantitative data (paper ticket travel and socio-economic
141
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
disadvantage) to generate a new composite measure of travel cost and social disadvantage.
This socio-spatial analysis indicates comparatively high rates of paper ticket use (indicated in orange and red) in areas of relatively high socio-economic disadvantage. In summary, this analysis indicates that those who are least able to afford it, pay more for public transport travel in south east Queensland.
Figure 15 presents the results of the composite measure of travel cost and social disadvantage. The darker blue colour represents relatively high socio-economic disadvantage and the red dots are relatively high rates of paper ticket travel in the region. The map indicates a worrying trend in the south-west and southern areas of the Greater Brisbane metropolitan area. Note the coincidence of relative socio- economic disadvantage and high public transport travel cost at the metropolitan edges. The case study area is within the dark circle on the map (and the inset) where high socio-economic disadvantage coincides with over 20% of travel by paper ticket purchase from many bus stops in the area.
142
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 13 Travel Cost and Socio-Economic Disadvantage, Great Brisbane (Source: Open access GoCard data and ABS Census of Population and Housing, 2016).
6.6 Framing the Intervening Years: transport poverty and social capital The three quantitative indexes and the new composite travel cost measure highlight areas of transport disadvantage and they provide local area contextualisation. The qualitative findings in the research enrich the investigation by reflecting the traveller’s experience and my observations. To make sense of the quantitative and qualitative results, the research deploys two theories to frame and organise the analysis: Lucas’ concept of transport poverty and social capital theory are applied to hone the intervening years analysis. In this way, the findings are considered within theoretical frameworks that explore the nature of transport disadvantage and elicit strategies to 143
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
reduce transport disadvantage. Descriptive data elucidates the activities that reduce transport disadvantage in the case study location.
Applying theory assists in explaining the causes, outcomes and possible resolution of transport disadvantage. The research applies Lucas’ four notions of transport poverty to assist the conceptualisation and compartmentalisation of transport disadvantage in the case study. The value of a compartmentalised analysis is that the approach acknowledges the multi-dimensional nature of the phenomenon. This minimises the risk of over simplifying transport disadvantage and reducing it to a single issue, such as affordability or public transport frequency (Lucas et al., 2016a). Lucas, through her transport poverty approach, provides a comprehensive analytical framework that is based on the experience and impact of transport disadvantage for the individual and the community (Lucas et al., 2016a).
6.6.1 Transport Poverty The empirical interest is analysis of the case study over time to interrogate transport investment and community, service, governance and any other changes and their effect on reducing transport disadvantage. Transport poverty theory brings order to the analysis. The investigation is a compilation of selected data that address each of the four notions of transport poverty from 2005 to 2018.
As outlined in Section 2.8, transport poverty has no single definition but, according to Lucas et al. (2016a) it has four underpinning notions:
1. transport affordability; 2. mobility poverty; 3. accessibility poverty; and 4. exposure to transport externalities).
Lucas is clear that, if transport poverty is partially understood through analysis of just one or two of these notions, then that partial understanding will limit the policy solutions that emerge to reduce transport disadvantage (Lucas et al., 2016a).
The performance of the case study area is assessed according to the four notions of transport poverty. Lucas identifies measures for each of the four notions that are derived from her review of the International literature. In my analysis, the measures
144
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
are applied or modified to fit the case study context and the available data. The assessment is supported by evidence derived from:
- the transport service and infrastructure audits; - resident surveys; - resident focus groups; - resident and stakeholder interviews; - GoCard travel data; - Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data; and - my observation of the case study area over the timeline of the research.
6.6.1.1 Notion 1: Transport Affordability Transport affordability is the ability of the traveller to pay for the cost of transport. This section is a compilation of data relevant to transport affordability in the case study area. Broad patterns of household expenditure in Queensland, the resident survey results and travel cost information combine to illustrate the transport affordability challenge for residents in the case study community.
Household Expenditure, Queensland Lucas identifies a transport affordability benchmark at 10% of household income. In 2016, the lowest income Queensland households spent 14% of their household expenditure on transport. Table 29 shows the top four household expenditure items for the lowest and highest income and all households in the State in 2016. The ‘all households’ column represents the average households spends.
Interestingly, the highest earning households spent more of their household income on transport (18%) than the lowest (14%). This is consistent with other jurisdictions such as the United States (Blumenberg & Weinstein Agrawal, 2014). In the Queensland case, household expenditure on transport includes all transport related expenses such as motor vehicles, public transport and airfares (other than for holidays).
145
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 29 Selected Household Expenditure, Queensland, 2016
Expenditure Lowest Income Highest Income All Households Item Households Households Rounded Rounded Rounded Rounded Rounded Rounded to nearest to nearest to nearest to nearest to nearest to nearest dollar percent dollar percent dollar percent Housing $165 26% $359 15% $274 20% Food $106 16% $361 15% $218 16% Transport $90 14% $430 18% $205 15% Recreation $64 10% $334 14% $163 12% (Source: This data sourced from 65300DO016_201516 Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Summary of Results, 2015–16).
Table 29 illustrates the relatively high proportion of transport expenditure for lower income households. The Queensland data shows a higher than 10% average household investment in transport for all households, across the earning spectrum.
Latent Transport Demand In the survey of residents undertaken in the later stage of the research, 70% of respondents reported they ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ do not participate in activities due to the costs of transport. The remaining 30% of respondents ‘often’ drive a vehicle. Those residents with access to a vehicle feel less constrained by the costs of travel than residents who rely on public transport.
Older Vehicles and Longer Distances Research in Brisbane identified that a combination of longer trip distances and older vehicles are typical features of outer suburban locations. This combination increases the costs of driving for outer suburban residents, compared with residents in other locations in the city (Li, et al., 2015). My observation is that there are a high number of older vehicles parked in driveways in the case study area. Walks argues there are inherent costs associated with living in car dependant areas of the city, such as the case study area (Walks, 2018). The results of the VAMPIRE Index 2016 are high levels of vulnerability to rises in petrol prices in the case study area due to motor vehicle dependence, as over 82% of journeys to work are by car.
146
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Public Transport Costs Public transport costs are high for many travellers in the case study area due to the significant use of paper ticket travel. The paper ticket is purchased on the bus from the bus driver. According to the GoCard data for the case study community in 2017, 14% of trips that commenced in the area from the most frequented bus stop were undertaken using paper tickets, and not a GoCard. At another local bus stop, 35% of the travel was undertaken using paper tickets. This is important as, of the 664,368 bus users who commenced their journey at the popular King George Square bus interchange in the centre of Brisbane city in the same year (2017), only 1.6% used a paper ticket. There is a much higher use of paper tickets for travel from the case study area and a paper ticket is up to 50% more expensive. There is a cost penalty for buying a paper ticket and not using a GoCard. The difference between the paper ticket price and the GoCard prices in the case study area is presented below to show the cost disparity.
In the case study area, a one-zone, one-way GoCard journey costs an adult $3.25 and a concession cardholder $1.63; however, the paper ticket cost for the same journey is $4.70 (45% more expensive) and $2.40 (47% more expensive) respectively. The higher use of paper tickets in the case study community could be because there is no GoCard top-up facility in the community and it may also be associated with socio- economic disadvantage. The GoCard on-line top-up function requires reliable Internet access and a credit card. Credit cards may not be available to some of the residents of the case study community due to low or unstable income.
6.6.1.2 Notion 2: Mobility Poverty This section investigates mobility poverty in the case study community during the research period. Mobility poverty results when there is a lack of transport options. Mobility poverty pertains to the availability of public transport services to key destinations, including the timing of the public transport services. The mobility poverty in 2005 was due to the lack of bus service early on weekdays and the absence of a week day evening and or Sunday bus service that constrained access to local and other metropolitan destinations. The focus groups in 2005 identified the highest level of resident concern was the frequency and reliability of the single bus service at that
147
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
time. The route appeared to suit the residents, but the frequency of the bus service was an issue.
Public Buses There has been some improvement with more frequent and weekend bus services introduced in the research period; however, the bus services now travel different routes. From 2014, two different bus companies serve the case study area. Each company operates an in-bound and an out-bound service through the area. One of the companies is based in Wacol and services the south west area of the region; the other service is in Park Ridge and services the south east area of the region. The case study area is at the edge of both company’s contracted service areas. The case study area is a through-route and the destinations at either end of the routes are not in Brisbane city. The preferred destination, according to residents (sourced from the 2017 survey and focus groups), is Inala Civic Centre that is located in Brisbane City. To access the Inala civic centre by bus, Ellen Grove residents must change bus at Forest Lake and wait for a Brisbane Transport bus service that travels from Forest Lake to Inala on its way to the Brisbane city centre. The timetables of the private bus companies and Brisbane Transport are not integrated and the timing of arrival and departure at Forest Lake is not reliable. A resident in the 2017 focus group said that, “you get used to waiting”.
Passenger Railway From 2011, two passenger railway lines- the Ipswich line and the Springfield line, bound the case study area. The Springfield line is a spur line off the Ipswich railway line and it terminates at Springfield Central. The Springfield line has less frequent services than the Ipswich line. The closest railway stations to the case study area are just over 1km to the West (Gailes station on the Ipswich line) or up to 2km to the north (Richlands station on the Springfield line). Sealed shared paths (2007 path constructed to Gailes railway station) and (2015 path constructed to Richlands station) connect both of the railway stations with the case study area.
Both paths are isolated in places and are off-road paths that are shared by walkers and cyclists. The Ipswich railway line access to Gailes station is a path through bushland and an industrial estate. The Springfield railway line access is beside the
148
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Centenary Highway, although partially obscured from the view of highway drivers. The train services are relatively frequent with 45 weekday inbound services from 5.20 am to 11.30 pm. On the weekends, the service on the Springfield line is 6.20 am to 11.00 pm at about half hourly intervals, although less frequent in the morning.
The Ipswich railway line has frequent trains during the week, with 50 inbound services from Gailes and Wacol stations. The service is at least each half hour, with a more frequent service during peak times for commuters. On the week-ends, there are trains from 5.30 am, each half hour to 11.00 pm. If a resident at Ellen Grove wants to travel to the city of Brisbane (20km away) by train, they can travel to Richlands railway station by car (although the car park is full by 7.30 am) and catch the Springfield-Brisbane train or catch a bus to the Wacol station and catch the Ipswich-Brisbane train or walk to the Gailes station (over 1km away) and catch the Ipswich-Brisbane train.
Council Cabs The Brisbane City Council in association with Yellow Cabs operate a discounted taxi service to fixed destinations, such as shopping centres. The eligibility for use of the council cabs is strict, and includes disability and low income. There were 48 council cab bookings in the case study area from four residents in the year from July 2016 to June 2017. The restrictive eligibility criteria is the possible reason for the low number of users. One resident suggested that the need to pre-book the service a day ahead of travel may dissuade some eligible residents from using the service. There was one respondent to the resident survey who uses the Council Cab service, although their use seems to be rare.
Elorac Place Community Centre Bus The Elorac Place community centre had a small 12-seater bus until 2016, when it was considered by Wesley Mission Brisbane (WMB) to be unviable. The WMB had taken over operation of the Elorac Place Community Centre in 2015 and made the decision to dispose of the community centre bus. The bus transported local people to events and activities outside of the local area. It was also available for hire to local groups.
During the later stage of the research in 2018, the neighbouring Forest Lake Uniting Church commenced a free shuttle service to connect the case study area to Inala Civic Centre and the Richlands railway station. This new 12-seater community bus operates 149
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
in a loop on a few weekdays from the local area to the Inala Civic Centre and Richlands railway station, and return. This service fills a gap in the current public transport system and responds to the major transport challenge identified in the 2017 resident focus groups and survey. The community bus is an initiative of the EG2020 Community Connectors working group in response to the 2017 findings of my research.
Ride Sharing and ‘Last Mile’ Innovations The ride sharing company UBER has operated legally in the area since 2016; however, he up-take appears to be slow. There are many reasons for this. First, as one resident informant noted “people here don’t give their credit card details to anyone” (Informant K, April 2018). This resident had used UBER from the train station to home and she said she would use it again, although her neighbours and friends in the community indicated otherwise. In the survey conducted in October 2017, of the 23 respondents, three said they had used the service, and those three residents used the service ‘rarely’.
Electric bikes, scooters and fold-up bikes and other personalised transport are unlikely to appeal to the residents of the case study area. The main reasons for this are cost, the age of residents, physical disability and the number of children likely to be travelling with a parent or carer inhibit the use of personalised transport. More futuristic transport options, such as shared autonomous vehicles and others, are unlikely to appeal or be available to this market and location due to cost.
The 2017 focus groups identified the timetabling and destination of the two bus services as a major concern. The buses no longer travel to the key activity centre of Inala. Getting a bus service to Inala was the most frequent transport challenge identified by focus group residents in 2017. There is also no direct bus service to the Richlands railway station.
The most costly transport investment in the case study area is the new passenger railway line from Darra to Springfield that traverses the area, and the associated construction of the new Richlands railway station. At the time of the announcement of the new railway line from Darra to Springfield, provision was made for future stations at Ellen Grove and Springfield Lakes. While the Springfield Lakes station has been
150
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
built, the Ellen Grove railway station had not been built at the time of my research. It is unlikely to be built in the future unless the Ellen Grove population increases.
A shared walking/bicycle path was constructed in 2012 and this connects residents of the case study area to the Richlands railway station. The distance to the station is approximately 2km. There is no bus service to connect the case study area to the Richlands railway station.
Figure 16 shows the transport corridor with rail, road and district walk/bicycle path. The path from the case study area is located at the western edge of the corridor. The options for a resident in the case study area are to cycle or walk the 2km to the station or ‘park n ride’. The large lot ‘park n ride’ at the Richlands railway station is useful to the commuter to the central business district, but of less value to the traveller whose travel needs are dispersed throughout the day and who can’t walk or cycle the 2km to the station (Mees, 2000).
Figure 14 Three Mode Transport Corridor: car, rail, bike/walking, Case Study Area
(Source: Retrieved from Google images, 12 November, 2019 https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://backontrack.org/images/darra_rich/).
151
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
The State’s transport priority for the area from 2007 was to develop public transport infrastructure and services for the growth area of Greater Springfield, 13km to the south of the case study area. At that time, the prioritisation of a public transport corridor from Brisbane to Springfield was an opportunity to improve public transport services in the transport disadvantaged case study area. Unfortunately, this opportunity was not realised. The then Minister for Transport Hon Paul Lucas reported that serving the projected transport demand generated by the high growth area of Springfield was important to the Government (Informant P, May, 2018). At the time of the planning and delivery of the Darra to Springfield public transport corridor (railway line) residents of the case study community, led by the Community Reference Group lobbied for a local railway station. They produced a 60-signature petition to the State Government requesting an Ellen Grove passenger railway station.
There is limited reduction in transport disadvantage in the case study area as a result of the new passenger railway infrastructure, although the railway line traverses the area. Figure 17 shows the railway infrastructure as it passes through the case study area to the new growth area of Springfield.
Figure 15 Springfield passenger railway line traverses the case study area (September 2018)
152
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Ipswich Motorway Accessibility Ramp The other significant investment in passenger railway access is a ramp for walkers and cyclists to traverse the Ipswich Motorway and access the Gailes passenger railway station to the west. The Gailes railway station is closer to the case study area than the Richlands railway station at just over 1km away. Unfortunately, the new ramp that traverses the six-lane motorway leads to stairs at the final part of the journey to the railway station platforms. This means that those walking with a pram, a bike or with a mobility impairment, need to use stairs to get to the platform to catch the train. Figure 18 shows the stairs at the Gailes railway station. It seems that a major investment in pedestrian infrastructure to safely cross the Ipswich Motorway and access the Gailes railway station leads to a set of stairs. This possibly indicates a demarcation issue between Department of Transport (responsible for access across the road) and Queensland Rail (responsible for access at the station).
153
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 16 Stairs to access the platform, Gailes railway station, 2017 (March 2017)
6.6.1.3 Notion 3: Accessibility Poverty Accessibility poverty results from a lack of convenient and comfortable access. This includes wait times, quality of paths and comfort at transit stops. At the time of the first stage of the research in 2005, the key issues in accessibility poverty were acute. They related to:
- unformed pathways; - the limited number and generally poor condition of the bus stops and public transport wait areas; - poor inter-modal timetable integration, with regard to bus/train services; and
154
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- the isolated and inaccessible nature of the bus/train interchanges.
In the later stage of the research, the local accessibility issues relate to bus waiting areas, stairs and paths.
Following the 2005 research, Community Renewal funded a non-Government training organisation to engage local unemployed people to build a shared walking/bicycle path from the case study area to Gailes railway station. The path improved local accessibility to the Gailes railway station. Figures 8a and 8b (see Section 5.4) show the old and new paths to the Gailes railway station.
Figures 19 and 20 illustrate the standard of bus stop infrastructure in 2005. The bus shelters have improved with some new bus shelters provided and the inclusion of timetables and even bins at some bus stops. The disability compliance requirements have resulted in investment in bus shelters and stops. One resident in a 2017 focus group described the area as having “good bus stops that are easy to see”.
Figure 21 is a renewed bus stop with timetable, concrete platform and Braille tactile writing system. Of the 14 bus stops in the case study area, over half are now of this quality, or near.
Figures 17 and Figure 20 Bus stops, Carole Park, 2005
155
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 18 Disability compliant bus stop, with Braille and flat concrete pad, in case study area, 2018 (March 2018)
Despite transport investment in the interim period including an additional bus service, accessibility poverty is evident in 2018. The bus services do not travel directly to the preferred destination of Inala that has the Indigenous and community health service, Centrelink and housing area office and other necessary services.
Figure 22 illustrates the abrupt end of the district shared cycle/walking path in the case study area. The red arrow indicates the end of the path at a wall.
156
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 19 Centenary Highway district bicycle/walk path terminates in the case study area at the red arrow (March 2018)
157
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 20 Isolated walking path, Carole Park to Forest Lake, 2005 (March 2005)
The pathway connection to Forest Lake from the case study area remains problematic. A 2005 Homework Club member said of the pathway: “I’m scared of walking along Roxwell Street to and from Carole Park to Forest Lake as there’s no footpath and no lighting and a boy was taken from there”. Figure 23 shows this section of the walking path to Forest Lake in 2005.
Figure 21 Walking path Carole Park to Forest Lake, 2018 (March 2018)
158
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 24 is a section of walking path to Forest Lake in 2018. The EG2020 Community Connectors working group reported the state of the path to the local Councillor and the path was cleared.
Figure 24 shows the path after it was cleared. The walking path is to the left of the concrete rampart in the image. Residents report they walk on the road at this section. Forest Lake has a range of shops and two State primary schools at its western edge at Grand Avenue that are within walking distance from the case study area. The poor quality of the path constrains walking between the communities.
6.6.1.4 Notion 4: Exposure to Transport Externalities Exposure of residents to the noise and air pollution impacts of transport infrastructure are evident in 2005 and 2018. In 2005, noise pollution was an issue identified by residents. At that time, the sound barriers were timber. With the construction of the elevated Springfield passenger railway line, concrete barriers replaced the timber ones. The State constructed the elevated Springfield passenger railway line through the case study area in 2011. A passenger railway line and major Highway and Motorway infrastructure surround the case study area and compound the noise pollution issues.
Brisbane City Council includes transport noise and air quality overlays in the CityPlan 2014. Figure 25 shows the transport noise quality. The darker the colour, the higher the exposure to transport noise. The air pollution overlay map for Ellen Grove (Figure 26) illustrates the impact of the major transport infrastructure on the surrounding air quality in the case study area. The darker purple colour indicates the poorest air quality that results from the nearby roads.
159
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 22 Transport Corridor Noise Quality (Source: Brisbane CityPlan2014. Retrieved 8 December, 2019).
Figure 23 Transport Corridor Air Quality (Source: Brisbane CityPlan2014. Retrieved 8 December, 2019).
Figures 25 and 26 provide evidence of the combined impacts of transport noise and air pollution in the case study community. The high rates of exposure in the area are consistent with the resident commentary at both stages of the research.
6.7 Transport Poverty Findings The transport poverty analysis identifies that, during the research timeline, there is evidence of the four notions in the case study are, as follows.
160
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
6.7.1 Mobility Poverty: summary - A new Richlands railway station was constructed between 1.2 and 2 km from the case study area and the buses do not travel to that station; - Shared paths to the Gailes and Richlands stations have been constructed during the research period, although both are relatively hidden from view, making them safety risks; - There have been local improvements in mobility (a Sunday bus service and new free community bus service) and local accessibility (improved paths and bus shelters); and - The community bus was sold and then replaced in the community in 2018.
6.7.2 Accessibility Poverty: summary - No GoCard purchase or top-up facility in the case study area may be a factor in the high rate of purchase of on-board paper tickets; - There are more frequent bus services, including a new bus service, although these services do not travel directly to key local and resident preferred destinations (Inala Civic Centre and Richlands railway station) due to contracted service area constraints; and - There has been major investment in the construction of a local accessibility ramp across the Ipswich Motorway that enables access to the Gailes railway station from the east; unfortunately, the ramp leads travellers to a set of stairs to access the platforms once at the station.
6.7.3 Transport Affordability: summary - There are resident reports of high levels of suppressed travel due to transport costs; - There is relatively high use of paper tickets (more expensive than GoCard travel) for bus travel from the case study area; and - There is high use of the car for journeys to work and relatively high rate of motor vehicle ownership, which underpins vulnerability to petrol prices increases.
6.7.4 Exposure to Transport Externalities: summary - There are less transport noise concerns than in 2005 due to construction of concrete noise barriers, although air and noise pollution remain issues due to the proximity of major transport corridors to homes. 161
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
6.8 Social Capital and Transport Disadvantage This section examines the roles of social capital in reducing transport disadvantage during the research timeline. Bonding social capital is evident in private transport sharing and bridging social capital in the recruitment of volunteer bus drivers. Linking social capital is evident in the leveraging of local governance arrangements for transport advocacy and transport service delivery. The research finds that bonding social capital and linking social capital were the most potent types in reducing transport disadvantage in the case study area.
6.8.1 Community Organisation for Transport Improvements There were changes in community organisation in the case study community during the research timeline that influence linking social capital. Specifically, the existence of local governance arrangements at key points in time (TAG in 2005 and EG2020 Community Connectors in 2017) helped to reduce transport disadvantage through transport advocacy for new transport services. In 1990, the community formed an incorporated organisation called Carole Park Community in Action. The Elorac Place Community Centre opened in 2009 and, until 2015, Carole Park Community in Action managed the Centre and its programs, including funded community development. In 2005, the Carole Park Transport Action Group (TAG) formed. The TAG was an initiative of the Carole Park Community in Action organisation and strongly supported by the funded community development officer.
TAG was active in the 2005 stage of the research and in the Carole Park Community Renewal program from 2005 to 2007. The Community Renewal program funded a shared pedestrian/cycle path from the case study area to the nearby Gailes railway station. The construction of the path was a direct result of the advocacy of the TAG and the local governance arrangements of the Carole Park Community Renewal program that identified resident priorities for public investment including local access improvements.
The Wesley Mission Brisbane (WMB) acquired the Elorac Place Community Centre and its programs in 2015. At that time, the Elorac Place community development officer established the EG2020 Forum. As noted in Section 5.8, the EG2020 Forum had a number of working groups, including the EG2020 Community Connectors
162
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
working group. That working group identified transport as a priority issue and guided and supported Stage 2 of the current research.
Following analysis of the 2017 primary data, the EG2020 Community Connectors group persuaded the Forest Lake Uniting Church (the reverend is a member of the working group) to initiate a free community bus to transport residents from the case study area to Inala Civic Centre and the Richlands railway station. The new service commenced in July 2018. The service travels directly to the preferred activity centre of Inala Civic Centre that houses the community and Aboriginal health services, the State’s social housing office, Centrelink (for social security), higher order medical testing, library, the free south west legal service and other important low-cost services. (Appendix D is the flyer promoting the free shuttle bus).
6.9 Kindness Capital and Mobility May6 is a resident in the case study community who has a chronic illness and needs regular medical treatment at a hospital that is 27km from her home. May does not drive. Many residents know May as she has been a stable and active community volunteer and community leader for many years. Seven residents have created a volunteer driver roster and they transport May in their cars to and from in-hospital treatment, three times a week; this roster has operated for many years.
A resident who is an active community service and local event volunteer, coordinates the roster. One volunteer resident will drive May to the hospital and leave her there to undergo treatment and another will drive to the hospital to bring her home following treatment. The drivers are not paid. May’s bonded social capital is leveraged and a resident driver roster has been transporting her to urgent medical treatment for years. May’s alternative to the resident roster is a community transport provider that costs $60.00 return for each trip. May cannot afford $180.00 per week to access the hospital treatment she needs. When interviewed in 2018, May expressed her gratitude and she described the local resident volunteer transport effort for her to access medical treatment as “a lifesaver” (Resident M Interview, April 2018).
6 Not her real name. 163
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Resident survey respondents identified giving lifts to others as a significant local travel activity in the case study area. Of the 23 survey respondents, 70% indicated that they often (50%) or sometimes (20%) give lifts to others and 50% indicated that they know someone in the local community that often gives lifts to others.
The resident driver roster and sharing private transport extend the idea of reciprocity that is at the centre of social capital theory. Kindness motivates neighbours to drive each other in their vehicles and to drive the community bus. Kindness is a moral act driven by compassion. Kind actors do not expect the rewards of reciprocity that underpin social capital theory. In Section 7.3 I consider the idea of kindness capital as an extension of social capital theory.
6.10 Community Organisation and Transport Advocacy Figure 27 shows key transport activity and social capital activity in the case study area, on a timeline. The milestones above the line are transport related. The milestones below the timeline are social capital related, such as changes in local governance and community organisation. The changes in local governance represent shifts in the strength of linking social capital. The diagram shows the scale and type of transport investment and social capital milestones in the case study area from 2000 to 2018.
What is noteworthy is the collapse of community-based and local transport advocacy between 2009 and 2015, when the major metropolitan transport infrastructure (highway extension and passenger railway line and stations) was delivered in the area. That infrastructure could have been leveraged to reduce local transport disadvantage, but it compounded that disadvantage by further severing the community from its surrounds. In 2005, the residents identified the planned railway infrastructure as an opportunity to improve local access. Unfortunately, after the collapse of the Carole Park Transport Action Group in 2007, there was no mechanism to advocate to the State to leverage the opportunity for a local railway station. The railway line was constructed through the community in 2011 and there is no local station.
There is a dynamic relationship between the changes in social capital, local governance, transport advocacy and transport outcomes in this case study. In Chapter 7, I examine this relationship and other research findings.
164
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Figure 24 Timeline of Transport and Social Capital Activity
6.11 Conclusion and summary of Intervening Years Inquiry Following are key findings of the intervening years inquiry specific to this case study.
- New large-scale metropolitan transport infrastructure and service investments traverse the case study area to serve the growing communities to the south, although they do little to reduce transport disadvantage or shift the transport poverty experienced in the case study area.
- There have been improvements in local mobility and local accessibility such as walkability enhancements from new paths and these are underpinned by bonding and linking social capital.
- Kindness capital expressed as the sharing of private transport, a resident roster for medical transport and volunteer community bus drivers reduces transport disadvantage for some residents.
- The Elorac Place Community Centre (under the auspice of WMB) sold the community bus and no longer advocates for the case study community; this weakens the linking social capital needed to engage with agents, such as the State Department of Transport.
165
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
While the results are particular to the case study area, some of the findings are transferable, beyond this case.
- There is a dynamic relationship between social capital, local governance for transport advocacy and reduced transport disadvantage.
- Transport poverty is a meaningful way to frame an investigation of transport disadvantage, as it distils the features of transport disadvantage to clarify the challenges, the impact of changes and potential solutions.
- There is currently no transport investment priority given to the case study area or any other transport disadvantaged place, although they perform poorly on the State’s transport disadvantage indexes.
- Local governance with links to powerful agents, transport advocacy and the kindness of neighbours work together to reduce transport disadvantage.
In Chapter 7 I discuss the research findings holistically.
166
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 7 Discussion of Research Findings
7.1 Introduction In this chapter I identify the research findings, which have implications for theory, policy and transport disadvantage research methods. I then discuss each of these implications in more detail. Following this I consider the transferability of the case study findings to other locations.
The implications are:
Transport poverty theory should be extended to revisit the notion of locational disadvantage. Social capital theory can be expanded to consider the role of kindness capital in mobilising action for community benefit, including reduced transport disadvantage. A value-driven transport policy that seeks distributive justice would ensure that areas of transport disadvantage are targeted for local-scale intervention and that new transport infrastructure and services reduce existing transport disadvantage. Transformative research that is qualitative-dominant mixed methods, iterative, participatory and long-term can help to understand transport disadvantage and harness the resources of the community and the university to potentially reduce transport disadvantage.
7.2 Additional Notions of Transport Poverty The four notions of transport poverty are evident in the case study area, although an additional notion constrains effective transport and compounds transport disadvantage in this place: locational disadvantage. Locational disadvantage is an additional notion of transport poverty that emerges from the current research. Investigation of this additional notion can enrich the transport poverty framework. In this case study, locational disadvantage results from a multi-faceted ‘edge effect’. It is those locations at the edge of the metropolitan area that are vulnerable to transport disadvantage, in particular, poorer standards and higher costs of public transport.
7.2.1 Locational Disadvantage Locations such as rural and regional areas and outer suburban communities are spatially vulnerable to transport disadvantage, as they have high car dependence and 167
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
low levels and high costs of public transport service (Dodson & Sipe, 2008). The case study’s locational disadvantage manifests primarily from what I identify as an ‘edge effect’. The edge effect manifests in this case study area in three ways:
1. The case study community is located at the edge of a residential area. It is in an industrial corridor and interfaces with industrial areas to the south, north and east. This spatial edge effect inhibits the operation of a public transport service, as major highways surround the industrial areas and the industrial areas comprise large lots with sprawling buildings. The low-density development and major highways inhibit public bus services around industrial areas. The case study area is spatially vulnerable to transport disadvantage as it is located at the outer residential edge of the city, proximate to industrial areas. 2. This edge effect is administrative. The case study area is at the administrative edge of the Brisbane Transport bus contract area. Brisbane Transport has the biggest fleet of buses in the metropolitan area and their services connect Brisbane residents to the city. There are two different private bus companies contracted to service the location and neither travels to Brisbane, although the case study area is part of Brisbane. 3. The third edge effect results in fractured political representation. Two different Councillors represent the case study area. The area is divided between two representative Council wards and is located at the edge of the wards. This fractured representation constrains transport advocacy as neither Councillor is fully engaged in the area. Ward boundaries change (as they did in this area in 2016) and Councillors are less likely to invest in areas at the edge of the ward as they may not be their responsibility in the future. In the context of fractured representation, the community voice and resident traveller perspective is obscured and silenced in the planning of the transport system.
7.3 Social Capital in Transport Disadvantage Each of the three types of social capital can reduce transport disadvantage. Bonding social capital facilitates mobility for some residents. In the case study area, bonded social capital is associated with sharing private transport and participation in transport advocacy. Bridging social capital is also important. The bridge to others ‘not like me’
168
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
is an expression of trust and mutual support. The bridge to others is important in a diverse and small community like Ellen Grove where there is reliance on neighbours for mobility, and for resources outside the area on a community bus and volunteer drivers.
Linking social capital underpins effective transport advocacy and local governance to reduce transport disadvantage. A critical difference between 2005 and 2018 is the linking social capital for transport advocacy. In 2005, the community-managed Elorac Place Community Centre formed the Carole Park Transport Action Group (TAG). The TAG membership included the Department of Transport and TAG achieved local mobility improvements through enhances walking access to public transport to reduce transport disadvantage. TAG disbanded in 2007 at a time when major transport infrastructure and service investments accelerated. There was no local mechanism for transport advocacy in the case study area during the State’s major transport investment period. This is important and resonates with other research that finds that non-local ties may be the most effective form of social capital to generate changes in disadvantage communities (Healy, Hampshire and Ayres, 2014).
In 2015, the Wesley Mission Brisbane (WMB) took over the management of the Elorac Place Community Centre. WMB, like other large non-Government organisations, does not undertake advocacy. WMB’s role at the Elorac Place Community Centre is to build capacity in the community, rather than work to advocate for change. This is partly because of the contractual and taxation constraints imposed on non-Government organisations (NGOs) by successive conservative State and Commonwealth Governments that threaten the funding of NGOs that are perceived to act in political ways. The changes in the advocacy role of the local community centre during the research period are reflective of wider political and policy changes for the non- Government sector including threats to Government funding for those organisations that criticise the Government. As a result, WMB does not advocate or agitate for change in the case study area. The implication of this shift away from advocacy at the Elorac Place Community Centre is weakened social capital to link the community to powerful and resourced agents, such as the Department of Transport.
169
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 30 presents three types of social capital and overviews the role of each in reducing transport disadvantage in the case study location.
170
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Table 30 Roles of Social Capital in Reducing Transport Disadvantage
Social Capital Role in Transport Key Findings Type Disadvantage - Resident survey respondents with high levels of bonded social capital are more likely to share private transport (give lifts to - Facilitates transport sharing others). for some transport Bonding disadvantaged individuals. - Residents with bonded social capital organise to support mobility for others in the bonded group. - Facilitates transport services such as community buses and volunteer drivers. - The engagement of multiple - Bridging capital needs trusted age, ability and ethnic relationships and access to groups in transport ‘other’ individuals and groups. disadvantage research
enriches and extends the - Social occasions (such as findings and possible community dinners) with multiple Bridging solutions. attendees are appropriate Demonstrating the bridging - bridging activities for data of social groups in the collection and solution research strengthens the generation in transport transport advocacy in disadvantaged places. communities by ensuring representation of multiple and diverse perspectives in transport disadvantage. - Best expressed in local, enduring and in situ governance - Enables transport advocacy arrangements that include Linking and local governance for residents, decision makers, transport solutions. research and mobilised resources to target actions that reduce transport disadvantage.
Kindness is a form of social capital that is evident in this research. Unlike social capital, kindness capital is not derived from reciprocity as there is arguably less (or no) expectation of a benefit in return for acting out of kindness towards another. Kindness capital delivers direct mobility to many in the case study community who would otherwise not have access to medical and other important services. In my research, kindness is an extension of social capital theory to take account of the contribution of this moral, altruistic endeavour in reducing transport disadvantage. There is emergent
171
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
interest in kindness as a policy objective and the identification of the multiple ways to facilitate the development of kindness in communities (Anderson & Brownlie, 2019).
My research extends theory and posits four forms of social capital and five notions of transport poverty. Table 31 considers social capital in its multiple forms in relation to transport poverty in my research. Bonding, bridging and linking social capital and kindness each play a role in transport disadvantage in the area and the association is iterative and not all positive.
Table 31 summarises the relationship between social capital and transport poverty that are evident in my research. A ‘+’ indicates a positive and ‘-‘ indicates a negative relationship. Where there is neither ‘+’ or ‘-‘ in the table cell, there is no identifiable relationship.
Table 31 Relating Transport Poverty and Social Capital
Transport Bonding Bridging Linking Kindness Poverty Affordability (cost) + - - + Availability + - + - Convenience (accessibility) + + Externalities + - - Locational Disadvantage + - +
Locational disadvantage is positively associated with bonded social capital and kindness capital as isolated communities (such as rural areas) and others similar to the case study area can facilitate strong community bonds due to their spatial isolation, edge location and subsequent local containment (Putnam, 2000).
7.4 Transport Justice in the Suburbs Martens proposes that transport policy be premised on distributive justice rather than distributive demand (Martens, 2006). This conceptualisation is relevant to my research, as it highlights considerable transport expenditure (almost AUD$500 million) 172
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
in and around the case study area to meet projected travel demand from new populations. That investment overlooked existing and localised need in an area of transport disadvantage. Large-scale new transport infrastructure (road and rail) and services traverse the case study area generating localised negative externalities, but limited metropolitan access or a reduction in transport disadvantage. The considerable public investment in transport did not reduce transport disadvantage.
The area’s poor performance on the State’s measures of transport disadvantage has not compelled the State to act. This is consistent with findings by Lucas (2004) that evidence and measurement of transport disadvantage does not necessitate action to reduce disadvantage. Martens proposes a system of transport planning that moves from measurement and modelling to the allocation of funds based on distributive justice (Martens, 2016). A policy shift to distributive justice for transport planning and investment would reduce transport disadvantage in transport disadvantaged places.
7.5 Activities that Reduce Transport Disadvantage A key research finding is that the most effective way to alleviate transport disadvantage may be the least obvious. Without the authentic voice of the transport disadvantaged, policies risk being path-dependent (Bednar & Page, 2018); that is, policy, program and service responses to transport disadvantage based on modelled solutions and standard practice will not reduce transport disadvantage.
For example, more bus services will not reduce transport disadvantage if the buses go the wrong way or travel at the wrong time to meet local traveller needs. Expensive mobility ramps that lead to stairs do not reduce transport disadvantage and they arguably waste public funds. Clearly, the investing transport agents should ‘walk the path’ and/or speak with locals who tread these paths when designing transport solutions to reduce transport disadvantage.
7.5.1 Local-Scale Transport Improvements Local scale improvements in accessibility, particularly walking and cycling connections had the most impact on reducing transport disadvantage in the case study community during the research period. The local initiatives with most impact are:
- the new cycle/walking path to the Gailes railway station (2007), - new bus shelters with timetables at some bus stops, and 173
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
- a free shuttle bus to the Richlands railway station and Inala Civic centre (2018).
The larger scale metropolitan transport infrastructure investments (the extension of the Centenary Highway, new passenger railway line and stations and the Centenary Highway district shared cycle/walking path) only marginally improve metropolitan accessibility and they introduced new negative externalities in the case study area. These large-scale transport investments serve the growing areas to the south of the case study community. There is little advantage provided to the case study area from these large-scale transport investments, although they traverse the area.
7.5.2 Strategies to Reduce Transport Disadvantage A number of strategies to reduce transport disadvantage emerge from this research. The research found that the most influential actions in the case study area are local governance for transport advocacy. Local governance is underpinned by a local collaborative forum of residents, service providers and decision makers that activate linking social capital and resources for targeted interventions to reduce transport disadvantage at the locations of transport disadvantage. The activities of the local governance arrangement had more direct influence on transport disadvantage than the large-scale, multi-million dollar transport projects that were constructed through and around the case study community during the research period.
In this case study, local governance arrangements for transport improvement is the factor that compelled targeted activity to address resident identified transport challenges and reduce transport disadvantage. The earlier iteration of this local governance, in the form of the Carole Park Transport Action Group (TAG), included the Department of Transport as an active participant. The latter iteration of the EG2020 Community Connectors working group achieved a free shuttle bus service to resident preferred destinations not serviced by the two scheduled public bus services.
There were a number of activities that positively impact the transport situation in Ellen Grove over the thirteen-year research period. Notably, these are strategies for reducing transport disadvantage. The ‘power with’ approach, whereby government, university and service providers work with residents to reduce local, acute transport disadvantage was the most effective in alleviating that disadvantage. Table 32 shows
174
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
the type of activity, and an example of the respective actions, to reduce transport disadvantage.
Table 32 Activities to Reduce Transport Disadvantage
Type of Activity Activities - An enduring resident, Government and non- Government collaborative forum that meets in Local Governance situ with power and resources for targeted local investment in transport infrastructure and services. - Empower and encourage local community Advocacy organisations to organise and sustain advocacy to address local transport needs. - Tell and distribute the story of local transport disadvantage through visual and creative communication of transport challenges and Qualitative-dominant mixed resident solutions. method, transformative research - Use participatory research to inform the sequence between quantitative and qualitative data at the site of transport disadvantage. - Collect, analyse and communicate comprehensive evidence of local transport Comprehensive evidence of disadvantage utilising both quantitative and transport poverty qualitative data in an iterative explanatory sequence. - Attach powers and resources to transport Promote distributive justice and disadvantaged areas including cross-agency target transport disadvantaged planning and actions in areas of transport areas disadvantage. - Engage transport disadvantaged groups such as young people, people with disabilities, Engagement carers, older people, new migrants, the under and unemployed and others to identify local transport challenges and solutions. - Encourage the university to use its influence and commit to enduring and transformative relationships with transport disadvantaged Enduring research relationships locations, build trust, investigate and report the research evidence of transport disadvantage in these places.
7.6 Transformative Research Transport disadvantage research is transformative if a policy objective or a critical theory drive the research; that is, the starting point is an explicit theory, such as
175
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
distributive justice. Transport disadvantage is best measured using explanatory mixed methods that investigate multiple citywide variables, including socio-spatial data, and travel behaviour data, and focus on transport-disadvantaged places utilising local area knowledge from resident travellers in an iterative research sequence. Participatory research methods, such as community mapping, add value to transport disadvantage research as they value the voice of multiple local travellers for identification of collective challenges and solutions. If the research does not engage with transport disadvantaged individuals and places, the understanding of transport disadvantage and its resolution is incomplete. The measurement of transport disadvantage should commit to local engagement and to transformative actions to reduce transport disadvantage.
The longitudinal feature of my research enables exploration of the local dynamics in a community that influence transport disadvantage over time. Longitudinal research makes it possible to investigate activity that underpins enduring and sustained improvements in mobility, access (local and metropolitan) and affordability in transport-disadvantaged places.
The investigation of transport disadvantage should interrogate the role of linking social capital in connecting disadvantaged individuals and communities to powerful agents. Matters, such as enduring local governance models and fair electoral representation that give voice to the transport disadvantaged need more attention in transport disadvantage research.
Big data sets are important for citywide context and to identify transport disadvantaged places; however, an over reliance on big data can overlook qualitative local area data and the local traveller’s knowledge of transport challenges and solutions (Byers, 2011).
7.6.1 The Transformative role of the Researcher In this study, a researcher played a role in activating linking social capital for transformation. At both stages of the research, the involvement of the university researcher had a direct impact on local transport improvements. This is a contested role for university research and support for this activism is highly dependent on the research paradigm and the individual academic’s perception of their role. 176
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
7.7 Transferability of Research Findings Some of the case study findings are immediately transferable to those areas of the city that experience the duality of transport disadvantage and major transport infrastructure planning, such as Ripley Valley, Greater Flagstone and Yarrabilba, three new cities planned to help manage growth in south-east Queensland.
When distributive transport justice guides transport plans and provision, then new transport investment will reduce transport disadvantage; thus, when servicing new projected transport demand there is an opportunity to reduce transport disadvantage in these older, established and nearby communities. There is a risk that new investments can exacerbate transport disadvantage, particularly the negative transport externalities and the locational disadvantage of places at the edge. The State’s MDI and LUPTAI indexes are effective in highlighting areas, although engagement with transport disadvantaged communities in the line of sight of new growth areas can leverage major public investment in transport, to reduce existing transport disadvantage.
7.8 Conclusion In this chapter I presented the range of activities that reduced transport disadvantage in the case study location and considered their transferability to other transport disadvantaged places. I also raised ethical issues related to transformative research conducted by Universities in transport disadvantaged communities.
Chapter 8, the concluding chapter, summarises the research and presents the answers to the research questions as well as recommendations for policy and areas for future research.
177
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Chapter 8 Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions
8.1 Introduction The problem of transport disadvantage still exists for many communities, despite new transport infrastructure, service innovations and transport investments. Transport disadvantage is closely associated with social disadvantage and wellbeing. This makes the investigation of transport disadvantage a major concern for urban researchers, government and non-government agents. If an individual is transport- disadvantaged, then their access to the city’s resources are constrained, which in turn influences their quality of everyday life, and opportunities.
The problem has been well-studied; most transport disadvantage research identifies transport disadvantaged areas, then investigates the relationship between transport disadvantage and social disadvantage. While there is much research about its causal relationship to social disadvantage, there is limited research focus on how to actually and realistically reduce transport disadvantage.
Often the ability to effectively reduce transport disadvantage is inhibited by a lack of detailed and local qualitative research. In my research on transport disadvantage I undertook a qualitatively-dominant, local and longitudinal study.
I aimed to improve understanding of transport disadvantage and the activities that reduce transport disadvantage. The method is a longitudinal case study of a transport disadvantaged urban community in Brisbane, Australia. The aim was to investigate this case of transport disadvantage in 2005, and again over ten years later, to identify and explain the strategies, activities and investments of the intervening years that reduced and did not reduce transport disadvantage.
In my research, the theories of social capital and governance and community organisation are used to explore how they might improve an understanding of transport disadvantage. As noted, I had two key objectives:
- To identify and explain the factors that reduce transport disadvantage; and - To develop and apply a research framework to better understand transport disadvantage. 178
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
I devised three Research Questions to guide the research process and address the two key objectives:
1. Which strategies reduce transport disadvantage? 2. What role does social capital play in reducing transport disadvantage? 3. How can a qualitative-dominant mixed method research approach help researchers to better understand transport disadvantage? In this chapter I summarise key research findings in the form of responses to the three Research Questions. Then I discuss the contributions of the research to the field, describe how this research addressed the identified gaps in knowledge (Section 8.3), and make recommendations for future research. Finally, I make recommendations for policy change. Table 33 summarises the responses, generated by my findings, to the three Research Questions.
Table 33 Research Questions and Summary Responses
Research Question Response - Targeted place-based funding that leverages social Which strategies reduce capital to address transport disadvantage with transport disadvantage? residents in a local governance forum. - The kindness of mobilised neighbours. - Bonding social capital for direct mobility for some through ride sharing; What role does social - Bridging social capital for volunteer efforts and capital play in reducing resources such as volunteer drivers for community bus; transport disadvantage? and - Linking social capital to advocate for direct transport infrastructure and service improvements. - Enables the researcher to be guided by traveller and resident experiences while also drawing on big data, including open source travel behaviour data and population and census information. How can a qualitative- - Combines qualitative and quantitative data in an dominant mixed method iterative sequence to triangulate findings and thereby research approach help strengthen the analysis. researchers to better - The combined data is valuable beyond the research, as understand transport it provides persuasive multi-sourced information for disadvantage? powerful agents to act upon. - The participation of the resident travellers is pivotal to engaging powerful agents to act to reduce transport disadvantage. - Introduces an agility that allows the identification of unexpected issues in reducing transport disadvantage,
179
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Research Question Response such as the transport advocacy of the local community centre and the kindness of neighbours.
8.2 Addressing Gaps in Knowledge As noted in Chapter 1, there are knowledge gaps in the investigation of transport disadvantage: there is very limited focus on strategies and initiatives that reduce transport disadvantage for people and places.
My research addresses this limitation and extends the theoretical link between social capital and transport disadvantage. Further, by applying and extending two theories, my research responds to calls from urban and transport researchers for more theoretical depth to complement the extensive body of empirical research in the field.
Although there is a body of research that investigates the mediating influence of social capital (bonding and bridging) on transport disadvantage and social disadvantage, my research builds on this lineage and, specifically, the contribution of the three types of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking) to reduce transport disadvantage.
8.3 Recommendations for Future Research There are two sets of recommendations from this research. The first is directed to future research. The second set of recommendations is intended for policy makers (Section 8.4). Table 34 presents themes and actions for future research.
Table 34 Recommended themes and actions for future research
Theme Action/s - Refine this theme to identify measures so that locational disadvantage can be an additional notion in the transport poverty framework. - Based on my research, ideas for spatial indicators of Locational locational disadvantage include: distance to major disadvantage activity centre; proximity to industrial area; location at the edge of residential development areas; location at the edge of an administrative and representative boundary such as a Local Government area or electoral district. - Assess the relationship between linking social capital, Transport advocacy transport advocacy and transport outcomes in other transport disadvantaged places and investigate
180
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Theme Action/s transport advocacy as a potential notion of transport poverty. - For example, interrogate the relationship between residents and community organisations, elected representatives and other powerful links. - Inquire into how these agents perceive their role in transport advocacy. - Investigate the contribution of kindness capital for mobility for individuals in transport disadvantaged Kindness capital places and the associated moral and ethical questions that emerge when kindness supplements public transport failure. - Explore the ethics for public university researchers acting as linking social capital to transform socially Role of the researcher disadvantaged places and/or reduce transport disadvantage? - Although not reported in the current research, the role of gendered social capital in transport-disadvantaged places is a KEY area for future research. - Women in the case study community are active in Gender transport advocacy and shared transport activity although (typically) men make decisions about transport planning and investment. Is this common to other transport-disadvantaged locations? This is worth investigating. - Embark on transformative transport disadvantage Value-driven research research that is underpinned by an explicit critical theory such as distributive justice.
8.4 Policy Recommendations Policy recommendations taken from the findings, as ways to reduce transport disadvantage, include:
- Queensland Government should target areas of combined socio-economic and transport disadvantage that are sites of major transport investment, such as Ripley Valley and Greater Flagstone, and leverage that investment to reduce the transport disadvantage in those existing places of transport disadvantage. - Transport disadvantaged places should be identified and targeted for enduring local governance arrangements that link transport disadvantaged communities to transport agencies and other powerful agents. These local governance groupings must meet in-situ in the local community and they must 181
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
‘walk the local paths’ that residents walk and experience the local transport challenges to increase awareness and garner empathy for actions that reduce transport disadvantage. - Translink should reduce the price of paper tickets to parity with GoCard travel in areas of the city that rank highly for socio-economic advantage, particularly where there is no GoCard top-up or purchase facility in the local area.
8.5 Conclusion My research identified a number of themes in transport disadvantage in the case study community. Those themes both affirm and extend the transport poverty framework. Some themes in transport poverty that are worth revisiting are locational disadvantage and transport advocacy, particularly for those urban locations at the city edge.
Transport advocacy is necessary for disadvantaged communities to achieve transport improvements and maintain a voice in transport infrastructure and network planning. Locational disadvantage is a common feature of transport-disadvantaged areas with high car dependence, remoteness from services and limited public transport. The inclusion of locational disadvantage as a notion of transport poverty extends that theory.
As well as identifying themes in transport disadvantage, my research investigated the roles of social capital in reducing transport disadvantage. In this case study, the association between social capital and transport disadvantage is multi-dimensional. The research reveals that high levels of bonded social capital can lead to mobility in the form of lifts from neighbours and other volunteer efforts. The concept of kindness capital extends social capital investigation in transport-disadvantage and other research fields.
Linking social capital seems to be the most potent vehicle for reducing transport disadvantage through new transport infrastructure and transport services whose design is guided by resident travellers. In this case, university research played a role to link a transport disadvantaged community to transport and other powerful agents. A university has power to transform places through its influence on policy. This is an important social responsibility for university-based transport disadvantage research.
182
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Finally, my hope is that the citizens of the case study area continue to have a voice in decisions about their transport-related health, quality of life and opportunities. This is only achievable if the transport agency preferences distributive justice and participatory processes in its transport planning and delivery practices.
8.5.1 COVID Pandemic Conditions While the COVID pandemic impacted Australia after the thesis research was finalised, there are some implications for travellers in the case study community that are worth noting. The impacts are twofold. First, the free community bus was suspended for four months, though it recommenced at the time of writing (July 2020). Second, the lock down period (February to July 2020) meant that while public transport continued to operate, patronage significantly reduced. This meant that for those travellers who are public transport reliant, the service has been more comfortable (more seats available) with social distance and cleaning practices on-board and the railway station car parks (normally saturated early on weekday mornings) have availability. In some ways, the public transport experience improved.
183
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
References Anderson, S., & Brownlie, J. (2019). Public Policy and the infrastructure of kindness in Scotland. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). Census Household Form. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). (2010). Life Around Here. Canberra: Australian Government. Building Better Cities (BBC). (1994). Community Action Plan for Carole Park. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Banister, D. (2018). Inequality in Transport. Oxfordshire: Alexandrine Press. Beall, J. (1997). Social capital in waste- a solid investment? Journal of International Development 9: 10. Bednar, J., & Page, S. E. (2018). When Order Affects Performance: Culture, Behavioral Spillovers, and Institutional Path Dependence. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 82-98. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000466 Blumenberg, E., & Smart, M. (2010). Getting by with a little help from my friends…and family: immigrants and carpooling, Transportation, 37: 429-446 Blumenberg, E., & Weinstein Agrawal, A. (2014). Getting around when you’re just getting by: Transportation survival strategies of the poor, Journal of Poverty, 18(4): 355-378. Bouton, S., Knupfer, S. M., Mihov, I., & Swartz, S. (2015). Urban Mobility at a Tipping Point. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our- insights/urban-mobility-at-a-tipping-point, March 2018. Bradbury, A. (2006). Transport, mobility and social capital in developing countries. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability 159(2): 79-86. Burke, T., & Stone, J. (2014). Transport Disadvantage and low-income rental housing, AHURI Positioning Paper No. 157. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Research Institute. Burton, P. & Johnson, L. (2010). Getting On and Getting Around in B. Gleeson & W. Steele (Eds.), A Climate for Growth (pp. 220-237). Brisbane: University of Queensland Press. Butler, C. (2012). Henri Lefebvre spatial politics, everyday life and the right to the city. New York: Routledge. Byers, W. (2011). The blind spot science and the crisis of uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Carole Park Community in Action Inc. (CPCiA). (1998). Getting Outta Here. Brisbane: CPCiA. Carruthers, R., Dick, M., & Saurkar, A. (2005). Affordability of Public Transport in Developing Countries. In: Group WB (ed). World Bank: 1-27. Community Renewal Program. (2007). Living Stories from the Forgotten Suburb. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Community Renewal Program. (2007a). Carole Park Community Renewal Survey. Brisbane: Queensland Government. 184
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Charles, K.K., & Kline, P. (2006). Relational Costs and the Production of Social Capital: Evidence from carpooling, The Economic Journal, 116(511): 581-604 Chung, Y., Choi, K., Park, J., & Litman, T. (2014). Social exclusion and transportation services: A case study of unskilled migrant workers in South Korea. Habitat International. 44: 482-490. Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000). Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy, 7(3): 195-205. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, & Mixed Methods Approaches. (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications. Currie, G. (2009). Australian Urban Transport and Social Disadvantage. Australian Economic Review 42: 201-208. Currie, G.; & Delbosc, A. (2010). Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport disadvantage. Planning - Policy - Research - Practice 37: 953-966. Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P. G., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., & Stanley, J. (2009). Investigating transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in metropolitan, regional and rural Victoria. Transport Policy, 16(3): 97-105. Currie, G., Richardson, T., Smyth, P., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hine, J., Lucas, K., & Stanley, J. (2010). Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well- being in Melbourne – Updated results. Research in Transportation Economics, 29(1): 287-295. Currie, G., Stanley, J., & Stanley, J. (2007). No way to go: transport and social disadvantage in Australian communities / edited by Graham Currie, Janet Stanley and John Stanley, Clayton, Vic.: Monash University ePress. Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011). Exploring the relative influences of transport disadvantage and social exclusion on well-being. Transport Policy 18(4): 555-562. Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011). The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being. Journal of Transport Geography 19(6): 1130-1137. Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011c). Transport problems that matter – social and psychological links to transport disadvantage. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(1): 170-178. Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2011). Mobility Disadvantage Index: technical documentation of the development of the MDI. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Dodson, J., Buchanan, N., & Gleeson, B. (2006). Investigating the Social Dimensions of Transport Disadvantage: Towards New Concepts and Methods 1. Urban Policy and Research 24(4): 433-453. Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., & Evans, R. (2007). Investigating the Social Dimensions of Transport Disadvantage II: From Concepts to Methods through an Empirical Case Study. Urban Policy and Research 25: 63-89. Dodson, J., & Sipe, N. (2006). Shocking the suburbs: urban location, housing debt and oil vulnerability in the Australian. Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Dodson, J., & Sipe, N. (2008). Shocking the Suburbs: Urban Location, Homeownership and Oil Vulnerability in the Australian City. Housing Studies 23(3): 377-401. Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2020) What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Studies. 57(1): 93-108. Fainstein, S. (2010). The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 185
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Gholamhosseini, R., Pojani, D., Mateo Babiano, I., Johnson, L., & Minnery, J. (2018). The place of public space in the lives of Middle Eastern women migrants in Australia. Journal of Urban Design: 1-21. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1498293 Gillott, C. (2016). Elorac Place Community Mapping and Strategic Directions Report. Brisbane: Wesley Mission Brisbane. Grant-Smith, D., Edwards, P., & Johnson, L. (2018). Putting Children in their Place on Public Transit: Managing Mobilities in the Child-Friendly City in C. Demaziere, R. Freestone, & C. Silver (Eds.), Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning 6. New York: Routledge. Grant-Smith, D., & Johnson, L. (2012). Mapping Local Solutions to Entrenched Transport Problems: key lessons regarding the use of geographical information technologies in community mapping with disadvantaged communities. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 52(1): 1-17. Grant-Smith, D., Osborne, N., & Johnson, L. (2016). Managing the challenges of combining mobilities of care and commuting: an Australian perspective. Community, Work & Family: 1-10. Gravem, S. A., Bachhuber, S. M., Fulton-Bennett, H. K., Randell, Z. H., Rickborn, A. J., Sullivan, J. M., & Menge, B. A. (2017). Transformative Research Is Not Easily Predicted. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32(11): 825-834. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.08.012 Hamilton, K., & Jenkins, L. (2000). A gender audit for public transport: a new policy tool in the tackling of social exclusion. Urban Studies, 37(10): 107. doi:10.1080/00420980020080411 Harvey, D. (2008). Right to the city. New Left Review 53: 23-42. Healy, K., Hampshire, A., & Ayres, E. (2004). Beyond the Local: Extending the Social Capital Discourse. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(3): 329-342 Hine, J. (2004). Transport disadvantage and social exclusion in urban Scotland. Built Environment, 30(2): 161-171. Hine, J., & Mitchell, F. (2003). Transport Disadvantage and Social Exclusion: Exclusionary Mechanisms in transport in Urban Scotland. England: Aldershot. Hipp, J., Corcoran, J., Wickes, R., & Li, T. (2014). Examining the Social Porosity of Environmental Features on Neighbourhood Sociability and Attachment. PLoS ONE, 9(1): 13. Hodgkin, S. (2008) Telling It All, A Story of Women’s Social Capital Using a Mixed Methods Approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2: 296-316. Holman, N., & Rydin, Y. (2013). What Can Social Capital Tell Us About Planning Under Localism? Local Government Studies, 39(1): 71-88. Hutchinson, J. & Vidal, A. (2004). Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research and practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2): 142-192 Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2): 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224 Johnson, L. (2005). Still Waiting: Report of the Carole Park community mapping for transport improvements study. Brisbane: Griffith University.
186
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Johnson, L., & Herath, S. (2005). Big Roads, No Transport: Community mapping for transport improvements. Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Kaufmann, V., Bergman, M., & Joye, D. (2004). Motility: mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28: 745-756. Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 10: 207-219. Lefebvre, H. (2014). The Urban Revolution, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Legacy, C. (2017). Transport Planning in the Urban Age. Planning Theory and Practice 18(2): 177-180 Legacy, C., Ashmore, D., Scheurer, J., Stone, J., and Curtis, C. (2019) Planning the driverless city. Transport Reviews, 39(1): 84-102 Li, T., Dodson, J., & Sipe, N. (2015). Differentiating metropolitan transport disadvantage by mode: Household expenditure on private vehicle fuel and public transport fares in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography. 49: 16-25. Li, T., Sipe, N., & Dodson, J. (2017). Social and spatial effects of transforming the private vehicle fleet in Brisbane, Australia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 51: 43-52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.12.010 Lovejoy, K., & Handy, S. (2011). Social networks as a source of private-vehicle transportation: The practice of getting rides and borrowing vehicles among Mexican immigrants in California, Transportation Research A, 45: 248-257 Lucas, K. (2011). Making the connections between transport disadvantage and the social exclusion of low income populations in the Tshwane Region of South Africa. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 1320-1334. Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy 20: 105-113. Lucas, K. (Ed.) (2004). Running on empty : transport, social exclusion and environmental justice. Bristol: Policy Press. Lucas K, Mattioli G, Verlinghieri E., & Guzman, A. (2016a). Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences. 353-365. ISSN 0965-0092X. Lucas, K., Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2016b). A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Planning - Policy - Research - Practice 43: 473-490. Maher, C. A., Whitelaw, J., McAllister, A., Francis, R., Palmer, J., Chee, E., & Taylor, P. (1992). Mobility and locational disadvantage within Australian cities: social justice implications of household relocation. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Martens, K. (2006). Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Social Justice. Berkeley Planning Journal, 19(1): 17. Martens, K. (2016). Transport Justice : Designing Fair Transportation Systems. London: Routledge. Mattioli, G., Lucas, K., & Marsden, G. (2016). The affordability of household transport costs: quantifying the incidence of car-related economic stress in Great Britain. In
187
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Universities’ Transport Study Group. 48th Annual Universities’ Transport Study Group 06-08. Jan 2016. Bristol. Mees, P. (2000). A very public solution: transport in the dispersed city. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Mees, P. (2010). Transport for suburbia: beyond the automobile age. London: Routledge. Mees, P. (2010). Public Transport Policy in Australia: a density delusion? World Transport Policy and Practice.16(3): 35-42. Mees, P. (2014). TOD and Multi-modal Public Transport. Planning Practice & Research, 29(5): 461-470. Menard, S. (2011). Longitudinal Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford Press. Milligan, L. (2016). Insider-outsider-inbetweener? Researcher positioning, participative methods and cross-cultural educational research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46(2): 235-250. Moore, J., Lucas, K., & Bates, J. (2013) Social disadvantage and transport in the UK: a trip- based approach. Working Paper Series. Transport Studies Unit. Oxford: University of Oxford. Morris, E.A., & Pfeiffer, D. (2017). Who Really Bowl Alone? Cities, Suburbs and Social Time in the United States. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 37(2): 207-222 Murray, A. T., Davis, R., Stimson, R. J., & Ferreira, L. (1998). Public Transportation Access. Transportation Research Part D, 3(5): 319-328. Mynott, V. (2009). 150 years: Richlands, Inala & neighbouring suburbs in Brisbane’s South West. Brisbane: RIHG. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1999). Sustainability and cities: overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Pereira, R., Schwanen, T., & Banister, D. (2017). Distributive Justice and Equity in transportation. Transport Reviews 37(2): 170-191. Pitot, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Sipe, N., & Evans, R. (2006). Land Use & Public Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) Tool - The development and pilot application of LUPTAI for the Gold Coast. Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF). ATRF06 Forum Papers. (1-18). Perth: Planning and Transport Research Centre (PATREC). Power, A. (2001). Social Exclusion and Urban Sprawl: Is the Rescue of Cities Possible? Regional Studies, 35(8): 731-742. Preston, J., & Raje, F. (2007). Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 15: 151-160. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community: New York : Simon & Schuster. Putnam, R., Light, I., de Souza Briggs, X., Rohe, W., Vidal, A., Hutchinson, J., Gress, J. & Woolcock, M., (2004). Using Social Capital to Help Integrate Planning Theory, Research, and Practice: Preface. Journal of the American Planning Association 70: 142-192. Queensland Audit Office. (QOA). (2017). Integrated Transport Planning: Report 4. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
188
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works (DHPW). (2008). Department of Housing Annual Report. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Retrieved from www.hpw.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuements/DoHAnnualReport2008.pdf Queensland Government. (2009). State Budget 2009-2010. Retrieved from https://s3.treasury.qld.gov.au/files/bp3-2009-10.pdf Rachele, J., Learnihan, V., Badland, H; Mavoa, S., Turrell, G., & Giles-Corti, B. (2017). Neighbourhood socio-economic and transport disadvantage: The potential to reduce social inequities in health through transport. Journal of Transport & Health 7: 256- 263. Randolph, B., & Tice, A. (2014). Suburbanizing Disadvantage in Australian Cities: Sociospatial Change in an Era of Neoliberalism. Journal of Urban Affairs 36(sup1): 384-399. Randolph, B., & Tice, A. (2017). Relocating Disadvantage in Five Australian Cities: Socio- spatial Polarisation under Neo-liberalism. Urban Policy and Research 35(2): 103-121. Rydin, Y., & Holman, N. (2004). Re‐evaluating the Contribution of Social Capital in Achieving Sustainable Development. Local Environment 9(2): 117-133. Schwanen, T., Lucas, K., & Akyelken, N. (2015). Rethinking the links between social exclusion and transport disadvantage through the lens of social capital. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 74: 123-135. Shevellar, L., Johnson, L., & Lyons, K. (2015). Re-imagining the practices of town, social and community planning in Australia: opportunities for planning in neoliberal policy settings. Australian Planner: 1-11. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: Thousand Oaks. Stancliffe, R. J. (2014). Inclusion of adults with disability in Australia: outcomes, legislation and issues. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10): 1053-1063. Stanley, J., Stanley, J., & Hensher, D. (2012). Mobility, Social Capital and Sense of Community: What Value? Urban Studies 49(16): 3595-3609. Stanley, J., & Stanley, J. (2017). The Importance of Transport for Social Inclusion. Social Inclusion 5(4): 7. Steele, W., & Legacy, C. (2017). Criticial Urban Infrastructure. Urban Policy and Research 35 (1): 1-6. Stimson, R., Baum, S., Mullins, P., & O'Connor, K. (2001). Australia's regional cities and towns: Modelling community opportunity and vulnerability. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 7(1): 23-62. Stone W. (2004) Social capital at work. The economic and labour relations review: ELRR 14: 235-255. Social Exclusion Unit. (SEU). (2003). Making the Connections: Final report on Transport and Social Exclusion. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Government of the United Kingdom. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity. Urry, J. (2012). Social networks, mobile lives and social inequalities. Journal of Transport Geography 21: 24-30.
189
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
United States Department of Transportation. (USDT). (2017). Beyond Traffic 2045. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. Walks, A. (2018) Driving the poor into debt? Automobile loans, transport disadvantage, and automobile dependence. Transport Policy, 65: 137-149. Wickes, R., Homel, R., McBroom, J., Sargeant, E., & Zahnow, R. (2011). Community Variations in Crime: a spatial and eco-metrics analysis- wave 2. Technical Report No. 1. Brisbane. University of Queensland. Woolcock, M. (2010) The Rise and Routinization of Social Capital, 1988–2008. Annual Review of Political Science 13: 469-487. Wu, B. M., & Hine, J. P. (2003). A PTAL approach to measuring changes in bus service accessibility. Transport Policy, 10(4): 307-320. Yin, R. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3): 321-332.
190
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Appendix A Ethics Documentation, Research Stages 1 and 2
191
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
192
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
193
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
194
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Appendix B Resident Questionnaire, Stage 2 Research
195
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
196
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
197
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
198
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Appendix C Invitation Letter for Transport Research Dinner, Stage 2 research
You are warmly invited to the next Ellen Grove 2020 dinner gathering of local residents.
When : 6pm on Tuesday, 22 August 2017
Where: Amazing Grace Café, 247 Waterford Road, Ellen Grove
Members of Ellen Grove 2020 (EG2020) are keen to ensure the interests and needs of local community are well represented. Following a wonderful first dinner in February this year, we would like to continue to share regular meals with a mix of local residents who can share their experiences of living in Ellen Grove and their ideas to support positive community life.
Over dinner, we would like to continue to get to know everyone better and for you to meet and connect with other Ellen Grove residents.
At this dinner, we would especially like to explore the transport needs of local residents, and how Ellen Grove 2020 can work with you all to improve how you ‘get around’.
Amazing Grace Café has offered to share traditional New Zealand Māori culture with us. We will be sharing a delicious Hāngi - a traditional New Zealand Māori method of cooking food using heated rocks buried in a pit oven.
This gathering is by invitation only and aims to bring a range of Ellen Grove residents from all walks of life together to support Ellen Grove 2020.
We have included a complimentary invitation for you to give to another Ellen Grove resident you think can represent the local community’s interests and/or plays an active role in local community life.
199
Transport Justice in the Suburbs, 2020
Appendix D Ellen Grove-Inala Community Bus Promotional Flyer
200