Transport for all

Inequality is one topic that is not widely discussed in the transport literature, and this reflects society’s wider views on fairness and justice. There is an argument that in times of economic growth, inequality is not an important issue as everyone gains and all society is better off. But when recession or financial meltdown takes place (as in 2008), a different set of issues emerge. There is a greater concentration of wealth (and income) with the rich getting richer and the poor becoming poorer. Those in the middle also get poorer, and their aspirations are thwarted as their quality of life slips. The widening inequality leads to instability and fragmentation within society, and this affects not just the poorest 10%, but it may extend to the bottom 40% (Atkinson, 2015; Piketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2013). Such a narrative not only relates to wealth and income, but it also reinforces and is added to by global instability, migration, fundamentalism, populism, and climate change, and all these factors lead to unsustainable pathways, short term solutions, and a growth in nationalism (Dorling, 2015).

The question raised in this editorial is whether the same thinking and pressures can be found within transport. All societies (and people) need transport to get around, to access everyday opportunities, to see the world, and to visit friends and relatives. These requirements change over one’s lifetime and vary according to where one lives. So it is accepted that there will be inequalities in transport, and that not everyone requires the same level of provision. But it is also important that we understand the nature and scale of these transport inequalities and how they impact on people’s quality of life, and whether a lack of transport results in exclusion from engagement in suitable opportunities. It is also important that decisions (particularly those on investment and subsidy) are fair, and to assess whether they reinforce inequality or redress the balance.

Society today is much more mobile, and the average distance travelled has increased by about 5 times in the richer countries – in the UK the level has risen from about 10 km/person/day in the 1960s to about 50 km/person/day today (including air travel). This increase reflects on the increased availability and affordability of transport, but it also relates to the changes in the organisation of everyday life and the growth in international travel – transport networks are truly global. However, the wider social and environmental costs are also rising. These include the numbers of road deaths (1.2 million globally), perceived safety, congestion, security and community severance, as well as climate change, local pollution, health effects, amenity and open space. Society accepts both the huge benefits from high levels of mobility and the considerable external costs associated with this growth in travel. In terms of inequality, the debate must be over whether both the benefits and costs are evenly spread or whether the costs (in particular) fall disproportionately on the poor. There is strong evidence that the poor make fewer trips, travel less far, and tend to use the bus, walk and cycle, and taxi as their main means of transport (Banister, 2018). They also use the car both as a driver and passenger, but to a much lesser extent than the rich. In addition, the poor are also impacted more by the actions of the rich in terms of both the social and environmental costs identified above. This situation is seen as a double injustice, where the poor contribute less to the problem (through lower levels of mobility) but they are impacted more than the rich from the external costs (through higher road death rates and higher levels of pollution) (Gough, 2017).

Transport policies have consistently given priority to the car to such an extent that it dominates the urban environment. This approach is consistent with the libertarian views that favour the rights of the individual over those of society as a whole, and this thinking results in the current patterns of inequality being reinforced. In Rawlsian terms, the rich have gained many new freedoms, but at the expense of the poor. This is against his First Principle of Equal Liberty, where each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all (Egalitarianism).

Transport inequality can best be addressed through the concept of wellbeing. This combines the ability to achieve valued functionings or the activities engaged in, as constrained by the opportunities available (capability) and the satisfaction with those activities (freedoms). These three dimensions form the self-determined essence of the Capability Approach to the understanding of wellbeing (Sen, 2010). However, such an approach is extremely difficult to operationalise within the transport context, with Sen tending to frame it as an ideal, leaving it to others to take a more pragmatic approach to measurement (e.g. Alkire, 2015; Nussbaum, 2000). Within the transport literature, the concept of motility comes closest as it addresses the ability to organise everyday life through access rights to opportunities, individual competences (skills, knowledge and general abilities), and appropriation that provides an evaluation of suitability. As with the Capability Approach, motility provides a eudaimonic approach to wellbeing that is based on the self-realisation of individually attributed values (Flamm & Kaufmann, 2006).

These approaches to inequality in transport contrast with the commonly used measures of accessibility that focus on travel time reduction (or thresholds), and treat time as a commodity rather than as a resource. There is often limited concern over the destination suitability, or the characteristics of the traveller, or the travel experience. This approach to wellbeing is embedded in the traditional rationality paradigm, and as such only addresses part of the narrative. It tends to frame wellbeing in terms of what should happen given the assumptions made, rather than an understanding of the actual situations that individuals encounter. Substantive new thinking is required to embrace the concepts of wellbeing into transport so that the fundamental issues relating to inequality can be addressed.

Transport provides an excellent example of how the underlying imperative of economic growth has resulted in greater inequality. Investment and subsidy have allowed the rich to make more and longer trips by energy intensive forms of transport. Transport policy should be directed at improving social wellbeing. This means assessment of what people actually do (travel), as well as their capabilities and experiences. This means that the distributional effects of decisions should be made explicit, particularly as it relates to decisions made on public investment and subsidy in transport. For example, in the UK public expenditure on transport is heavily weighted to rail travel (52%), where the rich (top 5% of income) travel 5 times further than the poor (bottom 5%). Only 9% of public expenditure is allocated to bus services where the poor make nearly 4 times as many trips as the rich. The top income decile makes 6 times as many flights as those in the lowest income decile, with about 10% of air passengers accounting for 60% of all air travel in the UK. For High Speed rail, the difference is even greater as those in the top income decile make 10 times as many trips as those in the lowest income decile, and even in France where there is a much more extensive High Speed rail network there is a 9.5 times difference. The same arithmetic can be used for transport subsidy where the average household receives £173 (2016/17), but the richest 10% receive three times as much as much as the poorest 10% (Banister, 2018).

The car provides the most ubiquitous form of motorised transport, as it is available to about 70% of the adult population in the UK, and it is overwhelmingly the most important form of motorised transport for all sections of society, and it is relatively affordable. But it should be remembered that even with high levels of car ownership, there will always be a substantial number of people who cannot drive a car. These people are dependent on others to “chauffeur” them around. Pricing strategies on parking and access to city centres (e.g. congestion charging) are targeted at the marginal car users, as would increases in the costs of using the car (e.g. tax and insurance). One of the basic difficulties within a market economy is that, by definition, pricing has a greater impact on the marginal user, and although pricing might achieve some policy objectives, such as limiting the need for parking spaces or for controlling congestion, there are always social costs. This is particularly true where inequality is seen in terms of fairness or equal rights to use the car. Alternatives here need to consider more socially-oriented policies that favour those who are least able to respond to the market economy.

There is a huge potential for increasing the efficiency of transport through new forms of sharing and access, principally based on new technology and the use of “empty space” within vehicles. But this opportunity will be mainly available (at least initially) to those people with access to smart phones. Technology offers the means to provide more opportunities for all travellers, and probably at a lower price than currently, but there is a long way to go before the poor have equivalent levels of access through technology as the rich currently have. As with many innovations that have huge potential to benefit all society, it is the rich and those with the necessary knowledge and supporting infrastructure who are the main gainers. However, if the objectives of transport policy are to reduce levels of relative and absolute inequality, then priority needs to be given to providing the means by which all members of society can benefit from innovation.

The present policy-making discourse has become too focused on the car and car dependence, as this is seen as being the only means of transport that can satisfy transport needs. Over the last 30 years, it has become an equalising agent, as more low-income people can now drive. But this can also be interpreted as forced car ownership, as people living in certain situations or locations have to own a car in order to carry out their everyday activities, as the only alternative would be to relocate. Such a situation may be prevalent in peripheral locations where there are limited (or no) alternatives. This means that the car is not the solution, yet it has become institutionalised as such.

The premise here is that society needs to move away from the primary focus of transport policy on choice and the mobility concerns of the “rich” to one that takes a broader perspective on opening up opportunities and giving greater independence to all people. This means that a “softer” approach to transport policy is needed that addresses issues of inequality, not just in terms of what people do (travel behaviour), but also in terms of their preferences, experiences and capabilities, so that the physical aspects of travel are matched by the more social aspects (social wellbeing). Such thinking begins to address issues of preferences (ownership and endowments), memory and experiences, trust and a broader more altruistic sense of responsibility to others, and it moves away from the almost exclusive focus on the materialistic and functional aspects of travel. There is an impression that politics is controlled by the wealthy elite pursuing their own interests, and not those of society as a whole. This perception needs to change and transport would be a good place to start.

Those interested in this Editorial should look at my book website: www.inequalityintransport.org.uk