TRANSPORT DISADVANTAGE AND URBAN REGENERATION

Transport Disadvantage and Urban Regeneration

Abstract

At both national and international scales there is increasing policy debate regarding the relationships between disadvantages of transport investment and regeneration. Little detailed empirical work has been undertaken at the local level. Sheffield, an English provincial city, witnessed substantial transport investment in the early to mid 1990s: notably the U.K and Northern Ireland and extensive new improved roads. A longitudinal study undertaken between 1992 and 1997 examined the effects of this investment on investors and external agents, the local development industry, existing businesses, and households. Few positive findings emerged partly because of the lack of integration amongst, and between, transport providers and development agencies.

Table of Contents

Abstract2

Table of Contents3

CHAPTER I4

1. Introduction4

1.1. Background of the Study6

1.2. Purpose of the Study7

CHAPTER II8

2. Literature Review8

2.1. Northern Irland12

2.1.1 Settlement Structure And Accessibility To Infrastructure18

2.1.2 Diversification Of The Economy In Wider Rural-Urban Context20

2.2. Home and School Transport planning in Northern Irland21

2.2.1 School travel patterns22

2.2.2. School transport provision24

CHAPTER III31

3. Methodology and data collection31

CHAPTER IV36

4. Research findings36

4.1. Investors and agents external to the city37

4.2. The local development industry39

4.3. Existing business44

4.4. Households46

CHAPTER V49

5. Implications and Conclusion49

References55

CHAPTER I

1. Introduction

There has been a formal urban policy in Britain since the publication in 1977 of the White Paper, Policy for the Inner Cities (Department of the Environment, 1977). From that time both the Labour government towards the end of the 1970s and Conservative governments elected in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 instigated a series of urban regeneration initiatives. During the 1980s, priority was placed on the reclamation of derelict land and property through urban development corporations, enterprise zones, and urban development grants. During the 1990s, the emphasis has moved somewhat. Partly in response to the results and recommendations of a major evaluation of the impact of urban policy as a whole (Department of the Environment, 1994), the then Conservative government introduced area-based programmes integrating the powers and resources available to a number of relevant partners. This was most obviously evident in the City Challenge initiative and the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB).

Although the emphasis may have changed in the 1990s, one consistent theme which has characterised urban policy as a whole is its limited engagement with transport issues. This conclusion emerges from any review of urban policy evaluations and bidding guidance documents. The 1994 assessment of inner-city programmes used 27 indicators to identify the impact of urban policy: just one had any direct bearing on transport (Department of the Environment, 1994). Similarly, the mid-term evaluation of City Challenge explored projects and initiatives within 14 case study areas. Not one of almost 50 targeted initiatives could primarily be classified as a `transport' innovation (Department of the Environment, 1996a). Similarly, the 1996 Bidding Guidance listed 35 potential outputs from SRB funding; only two had any implications for transport (Department of the Environment, 1996b).

However, although urban policy has had only a limited direct relationship with transport issues, it has not ignored it. Urban policy resources have been used to support transport ...