Local Transport Plan

• Transport Forum
• Submit a Comment
• Local Transport Plan 2006-2010
  • Executive Summary
  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Challenges and Opportunities
  • 3 Delivering Value for Money
  • 4 Local Programmes
  • 5 Major Scheme Proposals
  • 6 Performance Management
  • Appendix A Regional Transport Strategy Objectives
  • Appendix B Regional Economic Strategy
  • Appendix C Ambition Lancashire and LTP Objectives
  • Appendix D Links to the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan
  • Appendix E SEA Non-technical Summary
  • Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
  • Index
  • 7 Delivering Accessibility
  • 8 Tackling Congestion
  • 9 Better Air Quality
  • 10 Safer Roads
  • 11 Other Quality of Life Issues
  • 12 Managing our Transport Assets
  • Appendix F Review of Partner Documents
  • Appendix G Strategic Accessibility Analysis
  • Appendix H Accessibility Questionnaire
  • Appendix I Making the Connections in Lancashire
  • Appendix J Traffic Flow Level Analysis
  • List of Annexes
  • Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
  • Index
  • Scheme Delivery and LTP Spending
  • Appendix A: Maintenance Information
  • Appendix B: Finance Forms
  • Appendix C: Road Traffic Report
  • National Transport Targets
• Supporting Documents
• Annual Progress Report 2005
• LTP Delivery Report 2001-2006
• Contact Us

IMD 2004 Domain Indices

Table 5:- Cumulative Percentages for IMD in Lancashire 2004

To bear down on social exclusion problems, we will look to identify those areas where deprivation is at its greatest. Those areas of Lancashire with at least one SOA in the worst 1% in England are shown below. The two identified SOAs are in Harbour ward (Lancaster), ranked 296 and Ribbleton (Preston) ranked 318 out of 32,482 in England.

By analysing each of the seven domains separately, we can see which type of deprivation affects the population of Lancashire.

This domain shows the proportion of an area's population that are experiencing income deprivation and contains five indicators, including the number of adults and children in households claiming Income Support and Income Based Job Seekers Allowance and number of National Asylum Support Service (NASS) supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence only and accommodation support.

An SOA in Tanhouse, West Lancashire is ranked 202 of 32482 in England for this domain, which puts it into the top 1% of most income deprived SOAs in England. Other SOAs in Lancashire at this level are in Skerton, (Lancaster), Ribbleton (Preston) and Digmoor (West Lancashire). In each of these SOAs, more than 50% of that population are living in households that are considered to be income deprived.

Looking in isolation at both the sub domain of Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and that of Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI), it is possible to identify the areas where actions should be concentrated to aid each of these disadvantaged groups.

Income deprivation affecting children (IDAC)

This is defined as the percentage of an SOA's children under 16 who live in families that are in receipt of Income Support and Job Seeker's Allowance or in families in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit / Disabled Person's Tax Credit, whose income is below 60% of national median income, before housing costs.

Children in families receiving benefits are disadvantaged two ways with respect to accessibility.  First, young children are dependent upon parents and family to transport them around. Second, as members of income deprived families that are not as able to afford a car, they may struggle with bus or train fares to access services. Higher levels of income deprivation in children are visible throughout the county in both the traditional 'hotspots' of deprivation and in other areas such as Scorton, St Michaels-on-Wyre, Kirkham and Appley Bridge.

To challenge accessibility problems for these children affected by poverty, we need to help the adults, as it is they who provide either the transport for the children or the financial resources for public transport. Transport barriers are particularly significant to people in deprived areas. Parents from lower socio-economic groups are more likely to cite reasons associated with transport convenience and transport costs as important in their school choice decisions.

Income deprivation affecting older people (IDAOP)

This is defined as the percentage of an SOA's population aged 60 and over who are Job Seeker's Allowance (income based) claimants aged 60 and over and their partners (if also aged 60 or over).

All over 60s in Lancashire are now eligible for a NoWcard which gives them concessionary travel throughout Lancashire. NoWcards can also be used on all Community Transport.

Transport choices are greater for this group of people who live in urban areas with good PT provision.  It is those in more rural areas as identified by this indicator who do not have access to conventional transport whom we need to concentrate on in our accessibility studies.

Some examples of these areas are in parts of Haslingden, Rawtenstall and outlying areas of Skelmersdale where some SOAs have more than 25% of older people receiving this benefit.

Employment deprivation domain

This domain measures employment deprivation as 'involuntary exclusion of the working age population from the world of work' and contains six indicators, including the unemployment claimant count of women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64, Incapacity Benefit claimants women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 and participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over.

As with the income score, the employment deprivation score shows the percentage of the SOA's population considered to be employment deprived. High levels of employment deprivation can exist for many reasons. Poor education, inability to find affordable childcare and insufficient training in the skills required for employment are just a few examples.

The areas with the worst employment deprivation are shown below.

By identifying the problems areas, and looking at accessibility to schools, colleges, and childcare for these people, we can discover if accessibility to these services is a contributory reason to the high levels of unemployment.

Health deprivation and disability domain

This domain identifies areas with relatively high numbers of people who die prematurely,  whose quality of life is impaired by poor health or who are disabled. It contains four indicators, including years of potential life lost and measures of emergency admissions to hospital.

Individuals in low-income households are more likely to report poor health, or having a child with a health problem, that restricts their ability to work. Poor health lowers people's ability to get and retain jobs.

It can be seen from the figure that the areas with the highest proportion of health deprivation and disability are mainly in Lancashire's urban areas with much of Hyndburn, Rossendale and Burnley in Quintile 2. Also in this quintile are areas such as Freckleton, Carnforth, Coppull, Burscough and Thornton-Cleveleys. These more rural areas may have higher levels of health deprivation because of their greater proportion of older people who require more hospital care.

Education, Skills and Training

This domain captures the extent of deprivation in education, skills and training in a local area and is split into two sub domains - one relating to a lack of attainment among children and young people and the other to lack of qualifications in terms of skills.

The sub domain focusing on skills contains one indicator, which is the proportion of working age adults in the area with no or low qualifications. This sub domain is the most useful in terms of plotting problems with accessibility.  As with the employment deprivation indices, there may be problems with accessing learning opportunities.

The areas with the worst education deprivation are shown below. Both Burnley and Preston have 1 SOA in the worst 1%. They are in Ribbleton ward (Preston) and Trinity ward (Burnley), ranked 83 and 297 out of 32482 in England.