Social impacts of road traffic: perceptions and priorities of local residents

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed route for the Sizewell C construction traffic. Source of base maps: © Copyrights and Database Right 2016. Ordnance Survey (Digimap License).

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

		%
Type	Residents	97
	Businesses	3
Parish	Middleton	19
	Theberton	41
	Yoxford	37
Distance to road	Near (<100m or <1 min walk)	59
	Far (>100 m and >1 min walk)	41
Gender	Male	49
	Female	51
Age	16–35	2
	35–45	5
	45–55	21
	55–65	30
	65–75	36
	>75	7
Household type	Without children (single adult)	15
	Without children (2 or more adults)	71
	With children aged 0–10	9
	With children aged 11–17 (and without children aged 0–10)	5
Employment status	Full-time employment	33
	Part-time employment	11
	Other	55
Income per person	Not stated	10
	<£7,500/year	13
	£7,500–£12,500/year	21
	£12,500–£17,500/year	28
	£17,500–£25,000/year	20
	>£25,000/year	9

Note: Income per person was derived from answers to questions on household income and composition.

Table 2. Traffic impacts.

Name	Description
Airpol	Worsening of the local air quality
Noise	Greater traffic noise
Vibration	Greater vibration from traffic
Visual	The sight of all the extra traffic
Risk	Increased risk of being involved in an accident
Walktriptime	Increased journey time when walking due to it taking longer to cross the road
Carbustriptime	Extra time added to car or bus journeys, in particular exiting properties or at junctions
Walkavoid	Not making walking trips that you would have otherwise made
Caravoid	Not making driving trips that you would have otherwise made
Bikeavoid	Not making cycling trips that you would have otherwise made
Gardenavoid	Less time spent outside in garden
Roomsavoid	Make some rooms in the house unusable
Sleeping	Make sleeping more difficult
Stress	Increased stress
Health	Affect health
Community	Loss of community cohesion or character

Figure 2. Choices of traffic impacts: example of question.

Table 3. Model of choices of traffic impacts.

Variable (options)	Coefficient	Std. error	Variable (interactions)	Coefficient	Std. error
Airpol	1.068	0.260^***	Airpol_child	1.425	0.539^***
Noise	2.173	0.270^***	Airpol_lowinc	−1.780	0.672^***
Vibration	2.135	0.277^***	Vibration_far	−1.930	0.398^***
Visual	0.596	0.241^**	Risk_child	1.475	0.634^**
Risk	1.314	0.241^***	Risk_highinc	0.713	0.407^*
Walktriptime	–	–	Walkavoid_ftwork	0.614	0.334^*
Carbustriptime	1.782	0.269^***	Caravoid_female	−0.736	0.324^**
Walkavoid	0.031	0.236	Caravoid_lowinc	1.100	0.402^***
Caravoid	0.877	0.273^***	Bikeavoid_far	0.766	0.437^*
Bikeavoid	−0.397	0.262	Bikeavoid_child	1.055	0.461^**
Stress	1.205	0.259^***	Gardenavoid_older	−1.145	0.367^***
Health	0.587	0.231^**	Gardenavoid_lowinc	−1.208	0.618^*
Sleeping	0.106	0.247	Roomsavoid_far	−1.609	0.512^***
Gardenavoid	1.168	0.256^***	Community_ftwork	0.769	0.384^**
Roomsavoid	−0.104	0.329	None_far	1.345	0.795^*
Community	0.100	0.341
None	−1.393	0.677^**

Note: Observations: 5480; Groups: 104; Initial log-likelihood: −1504; final log-likelihood: −1475; Pseudo R²: 0.190.

* Indicates significance at 10%

** Indicates significance at 5%

*** Indicates significance at 1%.

Omitted impact: walktriptime. Interactions: far (>100 m and >1 min from road), female, older (age > 65), child (household with children aged 0–10), ftwork (full-time employment), highinc (income per person > £25,000/year); lowinc (income per person < £7,500/year).

Table 4. Odds ratios of traffic impacts.

Name	Base	Far	Female	Older	With children	Full-time work	High income	Low income
Noise	1.00
Vibration	0.96	0.14
Carbustriptime	0.68
Risk	0.42				1.85		0.86
Stress	0.38
Gardenavoid	0.37			0.12				0.11
Airpol	0.33				1.38			0.06
Caravoid	0.27		0.13					0.82
Visual	0.21
Health	0.20
Sleeping	0.13
Community	0.13					0.27
Walkavoid	0.12					0.22
Walktriptime	0.11
Roomsavoid	0.10	0.02
Bikeavoid	0.08	0.16			0.22

Table 5. Mitigation measures.

Name	Description
Quick	Construction completed as quickly as possible, but with higher daily traffic flows
Peak_lgv	Peak hour restrictions on movements of LGVs
Weekend_lgv	Weekend restrictions on movements of LGVs
Night_lgv	Night-time restrictions on movements of LGVs
Peak_hgv	Peak hour restrictions on movements of HGVs
Weekend_hgv	Weekend restrictions on movements of HGVs
Night_hgv	Night-time restrictions on movements of HGVs
Route_lgv	Requiring light goods vehicles to take particular routes to site
Route_car	Requiring car drivers who live east of the A12 to take particular routes to site
Speed	Strict enforcement of speed limits
Parking	Less onsite parking resulting in fewer cars, but more buses, travelling direct to site
Safe_walk	Provision of safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists
Safe_car	Provision of safety measures for private accesses to properties
Airpol	Maintenance of current air quality standards
Noise	Provision of noise reduction measures for properties
Lighting	Provision of street lighting

Figure 3. Choices of mitigation measures: example of question.

Table 6. Model of choices of mitigation measures.

Variable	Coefficient	Std. error	Variable	Coefficient	Std. error
Quick	1.127	0.452^**	Quick_far	1.292	0.382^***
Peak_lgv	1.741	0.436^***	Quick_older	0.982	0.402^**
Weekend_lgv	2.390	0.377^***	Quick_child	1.509	0.620^**
Night_lgv	3.107	0.350^***	Peak_lgv_female	0.998	0.369^***
Peak_hgv	2.317	0.416^***	Peak_lgv_child	1.448	0.625^**
Weekend_hgv	2.837	0.440^***	Weekend_lgv_ftwork	0.797	0.327^**
Night_hgv	3.844	0.391^***	Peak_hgv_female	0.722	0.354^**
Parking	3.639	0.351^***	Peak_hgv_ftwork	0.639	0.369^*
Route_lgv	2.871	0.357^***	Weekend_hgv_female	1.040	0.390^***
Route_car	2.702	0.424^***	Weekend_hgv_ftwork	1.144	0.366^***
Speed	3.051	0.452^***	Speed_older	1.008	0.422^**
Noise	1.845	0.402^***	Noise_female	0.854	0.446^*
Safe_walk	3.409	0.347^***	Noise_child	1.265	0.499^**
Safe_car	1.688	0.435^***	Safe_car_female	1.614	0.502^***
Air	2.239	0.418^***	Safe_car_child	1.690	0.868^*
Light	–	–	Air_female	0.817	0.435^*
None	0.381	0.440	Route_car_yoxford	−0.550	0.327^*

Note: Observations: 5410; Groups: 101; Initial log-likelihood: −1420; final log-likelihood: −1394; Pseudo R²: 0.226.

* Indicates significance at 10%

** Indicates significance at 5%

*** Indicates significance at 1%.

Omitted measure: light. Interactions: as in Table 3.

Table 7. Odds ratios of mitigation measures.

Name	Base	Far	Yoxford	Female	Older	With children	Full-time work
Night_hgv	1.00
Parking	0.81
Safe_walk	0.65
Night_lgv	0.48
Speed	0.45				1.24
Route_lgv	0.38
Weekend_hgv	0.37			1.03			1.15
Route_car	0.32		0.18
Weekend_lgv	0.23						0.52
Peak_hgv	0.22			0.45			0.41
Air	0.20			0.45
Noise	0.14			0.32		0.48
Peak_lgv	0.12			0.33		0.52
Safe_car	0.12			0.58		0.63
Quick	0.07	0.24			0.18	0.30
Light	0.02