Equity Evaluation
Perspectives and Methods for Evaluating the Equity Impacts of Transportation Decisions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
23 July 2008
This chapter discusses general concepts of transportation equity, ways to evaluate it, and describes the specific criteria this Encyclopedia uses to rate the equity impacts of individual TDM strategies. For more detailed information on this issue see the report “Evaluating Transportation Equity” at www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
Equity refers to the distribution of resources and opportunities. Transportation decisions can have significant equity impacts. Transportation represents a major portion of consumer, business and government expenditures. It consumes a significant portion of public resources, including taxes and public land. Transportation activities have external impacts (noise and air pollution, crash risk and barrier effects) that affect the quality of community and natural environments, and personal safety. Transport determines where people can live, shop, work, go to school and recreate, and their opportunities in life. Adequate mobility is essential for people to participate in society as citizens, employees, consumers and community members. It affects people’s ability to obtain education, employment, medical service and other critical goods.
The demand for mobility, and for motorized travel in particular, has increased over the last century. In previous generations, most communities were organized to allow residents to walk or bicycle to neighborhood stores, schools and recreational activities. Work trips tended to be relatively short and centralized. Now, transportation systems and land use patterns are more automobile dependent, increasing the need to travel and reducing travel choices, particularly for non-drivers (Sanches and Brenman, 2007).
“For those too young, too old, too poor or too
infirm to drive, the paucity of mobility alternatives severely limits their
opportunity for education and their ability to share in other essential
everyday activities. Moreover, as more employers have moved to the suburbs,
more jobs require car mobility.” (Johnson, 1993)
As the need for mobility increases and communities become more Automobile Dependent, transportation financial costs tend to increase. This may be affordable to higher income households, but it tends to impose significant financial burdens on lower income households (Affordability). A Transportation Research Board (TRB, 2001) document states,
“The burden of owning and operating vehicles is
increasing for the lowest-income families.
Transportation was the third-highest household expense in the 1970s; today it is the second highest. For affluent households, this change reflects personal preferences. For families with lower incomes, however, particularly those living in automobile-dominated metropolitan areas, costs for transportation compete in magnitude with those for housing. In many low-income households in low-density suburbs, 25 percent of household income is spent on transportation.”
Equity impacts can be difficult to evaluate, in part because the word “equity” has several meaning, each with different implications. There are four general types of equity related to transportation:
1. Egalitarianism
This refers to treating everybody the same, regardless of who they are.
Egalitarianism implies that everybody should receive the same quality of
services, pay the same price, and bear the same costs. In practice, this can be
arbitrary and unfair, because it depends on how impacts are measured, and does
not take into account differences in abilities and needs. For example,
egalitarianism might be used to justify charging every passenger pay the same
fare (regardless of trip length), that each transit rider receive the same
subsidy (regardless of income or need), that each resident pays the same amount
or tax support transportation services (regardless of income or use), or that
roads are unpriced (so everybody is stuck in traffic equally). Although each of
these may seem fair and equitable from a particular perspective, they are
contradictory and can increase inequity from other perspectives.
2. Horizontal Equity (also called “fairness”)
This is concerned with the fairness of impact
allocation between individuals and groups considered comparable in ability and
need. Horizontal equity implies that consumers should “get what they pay for
and pay for what they get,” unless a subsidy is specifically justified. It is
often cited when communities compete for transportation resources, such as
state or federal funding, and is the basis for cost allocation studies that
compare how the costs imposed by different vehicle classes compare with their
user payments (FHWA, 1997).
3. Vertical Equity With Regard to Income and Social Class
This focuses on the allocation of costs between
income and social classes. According to this definition, transport is most
equitable if it provides the greatest benefit at the least cost to
disadvantaged groups, therefore compensating for overall social inequity.
Policies that provide a proportionally greater benefit to lower-income groups
are called “progressive,” while those that make lower-income people relatively
worse off are called “regressive.” For example, a tax or fee that represents a
greater portion of annual expenditures for lower-income households than for
higher-income households is considered regressive, while a discount that
targets lower-income households is considered progressive. This definition is
often used to support transport subsidies and oppose price increases.
4. Vertical Equity With Regard to Mobility Need and Ability
This is a measure of how well an individual’s
transportation needs are met compared with others in their community. It
assumes that everyone should enjoy at least a basic level of access, even if
people with special needs require extra resources and subsidies (BTS, 1997).
Applying this concept requires establishing a standard of Basic
Access. This tends to focus on two issues: access for people with
disabilities, and support for transit and special mobility services.
Because of these different definitions it is important to specify which perspective is being used when evaluating transportation equity. For example, it may be unclear to simply say that a particular transportation policy or project increases or decreases equity, without indicating which type of equity is being considered.
Equity evaluation is affected by how people are grouped. Below are some categories that may be important for equity analysis:
·
Income class (with special attention to very low income).
·
Travel mode (walker, cyclist, transit rider, rideshare passenger,
motorist, etc.).
·
Gender and age.
·
Ability to drive (i.e., whether or not people have access to an
automobile) and type of driver (i.e., high- and low-mileage, high- and
low-risk).
·
Geographic location (urban, suburban or rural resident, resident within
or outside a particular jurisdiction).
·
Physical ability (able-bodied, people with various types and degrees of
disability).
·
Travel need (employed, parents with children, people with special
medical needs).
·
Cost bearer (i.e., degree to which a group pays taxes and fees, or
bears other costs such as noise pollution or crash risk).
For example, when evaluating the equity impacts of a particular Road Pricing program it may be important to determine whether it is regressive (lower-income people pay a relatively large portion of their income); how it affects low-income workers, very low income households and people with disabilities; how it affects people who use alternative modes; which types of travelers are likely to reduce their automobile travel, what types of changes they make and what burden this imposes on them, how it affects residents of various neighborhoods, what portion of the fee is paid by people from other jurisdictions, whether the people who pay the fee benefit from better roads or reduced traffic congestion delay, and how revenues are used (Pricing Evaluation).
These factors often overlap. For example, residents of certain areas tend to be lower income or ride transit more than residents of other areas. Since politics tends to be based on geography (politicians represent residents of a particular jurisdiction), equity analysis often focuses on geographic conditions, but this is not optimal, since people’s need vary within a jurisdiction. For example, even suburban communities with high levels of automobile use and low levels of transit ridership, some residents are non-driver, while even city residents use automobiles and benefit from highways. It is therefore a mistake to assume that transit improvements are only a concern in cities, or highway improvements do not benefit urban residents.
|
Examples
of Common Transportation Equity Issues Horizontal
Equity Access Management – Should businesses that lose direct
driveway access on busy arterials be compensated? Transportation Planning – Are alternative modes given
adequate priority in transport planning, investment and management? Road Space Allocation – Is an adequate portion of public
road space allocated to alternative modes, providing a fair share of benefits
to non-drivers? Geographic Impacts – Federal, state and regional
policies may favor some areas over others in terms of transportation
investments and policies. What perspective should be used when evaluating
these impacts? Road Pricing – Should residents who bear a greater
financial burden to drive, or experience greater congestion because they live
along parallel unpriced roads be compensated? Market Reforms – Changing transport fees and taxes may
benefit some people, but disadvantage others. What changes are fair? Measuring Transportation – How transportation is
measured (per vehicle-mile, passenger-mile, per capita) often affects how
equity is evaluated. Highway Cost Allocation – The ratio between costs
imposed and user taxes paid varies for different types of vehicles. Traffic Safety –
Traffic policies and practices impose different risks and responsibilities
on different types of road users (pedestrians, cyclists, passengers in small
cars). Transit Funding – Should public transit service be
subsidized? How much, and which type of services? HOV Priority – Is it fair to allocate certain types of
vehicles extra road space? Is it more fair than general purpose lanes, where
HOV passengers are delayed by congestion as much as other vehicles, although
they require less road space (and therefore contribute less to congestion)
than SOV passengers. Nonmotorized Planning – Do nondrivers receive a fair
share of road space and consideration in safety planning? Sustainable Transportation – Are impacts on future
generations and distant populations given adequate consideration? Vehicle Costs – Should vehicle charges (fuel taxes, road
tolls, parking fees) be minimized to make driving more affordable to
low-income motorists? Vertical
Equity With Respect to Income Transportation Affordability – Are Transportation
Options affordable to lower-income people. Pricing – Should low-income people receive discounts for
road and parking fees? Environmental
Justice – Are negative impacts such as traffic pollution and risk imposed
excessively on lower-income populations? Economic Development – Are lower-income groups given
adequate transportation to access education and employment opportunities?
Should economically disadvantaged areas receive extra transportation
investments (roads, transit, etc.)? Vertical
Equity With Respect to Need and Ability Transportation Evaluation – Should transportation
resources be allocated equally per capita, or based on some measure of need? Universal Access – Does the transportation system
adequately accommodate people with physical disabilities or other special
needs, such as parents pushing a stroller and pedestrians pushing a handcart?
Are there adequate Parking facilities for people with
disabilities. Transit –Does transit adequately provide Basic Accessibility to people who are transportation
disadvantaged? Planning Process – Are planning practices biased in
favor of automobile travel and undervalue alternative modes used by
disadvantaged populations? Do current transportation planning practices
provide adequate public participation? Automobile Dependency – Do current policies and
practices create transportation and land use patterns that excessively
disadvantage people who for any reason cannot drive an automobile? |
Different types of equity objectives often conflict. For example, some people argue that roadway user fees (fuel taxes, road tolls, parking fees) should only be used for roadway improvements, on horizontal equity grounds (“consumers should get what they pay for”), but this may contradict horizontal equity objectives of providing mobility for disadvantaged people, including non-drivers, which can be achieved if a portion of user fees are spent on improving alternative modes.
Transport equity is often evaluated in terms of a transportation system’s ability to provide Basic Access to people who are transportation disadvantaged. This section discusses these concepts. Also see Accessibility and Evaluating Transportation Choice.
Basic Access (or Basic Mobility) means that people can obtain goods, services and activities that are considered valuable to society, such as emergency services, medical care, education, employment, food and clothing, and some recreational activities. Basic Access can also apply to services and commercial activities that support social and economic development goals. This concept has many implications for transport planning. For example, it suggests:
Transportation Disadvantaged refers to people who have significant unmet transportation needs. The six attributes listed in the table below can contribute to a person being Transportation Disadvantaged. Somebody with just one or two of these attributes is not necessarily Transportation Disadvantaged. For example, a non-driver may have adequate transportation choices if they are physically able, live in a community with good walking and transit services, and can afford taxi and delivery services when necessary. Similarly, a wheelchair user may have adequate transportation choices if they can drive or afford a chauffeur, and live in a community that accommodates wheelchairs. However, adding one or two more attributes (for example, if a non-driver goes to an automobile-dependent community, or if a wheelchair user loses their ability to drive) can make them significantly Transportation Disadvantaged.
Table 1 Attributes That Contribute to Transportation Disadvantage
|
Transportation Ability |
Transportation Need |
|
·
Non-drivers. People
who cannot drive or do not have access to a motor vehicle. ·
Low Income. Drivers
and non-drivers whose mobility is significantly constrained by financial
limitations. ·
Disabled. People
with disabilities that limit their mobility. |
·
Commuter.
People who must make daily trips to work or school. ·
Caregiving Responsibilities. Primary caregiver to non-driving dependents (children, elderly relatives, etc.). ·
Automobile Dependency. Lives in a community with automobile-dependent
transportation and land use patterns. |
This table indicates factors that contribute to a person being transportation disadvantaged.
Below are indicators that people are transportation disadvantage. Not everybody in each category is transportation disadvantaged under all circumstances, but these groups tend to face transportation problems.
· Households that do not own an automobile (sometimes called 0-vehicle households).
· People with significant physical disabilities.
· Low-income households.
· Low-income single-parents.
· People who are too young or old to drive.
· Recent immigrants from developing countries.
The term Social Exclusion is used to describe inadequate Basic Access (DETR, 2000). This can include:
· Spatially - people have no means of access.
· Temporally - people cannot get to their destination at the appropriate time.
· Financially - people cannot afford to make the journey.
· Personally - people lack physical or mental capabilities to handle a means of transport.
Transportation adequacy can be evaluated in terms of:
· Affordability – Whether transportation options have financial costs within the targeted users’ budget.
· Availability – Whether transportation options exist at the location and time users require.
· Accessibility – Whether transportation options accommodate users’ physical and mental abilities, including the total journey experience (i.e., door-to-door).
· Acceptability – Whether transportation options are considered suitable to users.
Both Basic Access and Transportation Disadvantage reflect qualitative factors that may be difficult to measure, and values that may vary from one individual or community to another. For example, different people may have different ideas as to how far physically-able transit users should be expected walk to access a bus, or how many shopping and recreation trips people need for basic access. For this reason it is important to community members and users be involved in determining how to evaluate transportation choice (Evaluating Transportation Choice).
Transportation equity can be difficult to evaluate. There is no practical way to measure with precision the transportation needs and abilities of everybody in a community, or to predict how a particular policy or program will affect transportation equity.
Bailey (2004) uses the portion of residents who do not travel on a given day as reported in travel surveys as an indication of the number of people who are significantly transportation disadvantaged in a community. This study focused on elderly residents, the but same indicator could be used for other populations. It found that the portion of residents age 65+ who do not travel on an average day ranges from 44% up to 69%, and is affected by their ability to own an automobile, ability to drive, quality of walking conditions and transit services, and community design factors.
The relative degree to which non-drivers are disadvantaged relative to drivers can be measured using mobility gap analysis. A mobility gap is the different in motorized travel (automobile, public transit, taxi travel, etc.) between households that do not own an automobile (zero-vehicle households) and automobile-owning households. This can be determined using travel survey data to compare the average daily trips generated by different types of households. Since zero-vehicle households tend to be smaller and have lower employment rates than automobile-owing households, these differences should be taken into account in order to compare motor vehicle trip generation rates between comparable households with and without vehicles. After taking these factors into account, zero-vehicle households are generally found to generate 30-50% fewer personal trips. This is the mobility gap. This information can be used to calculate the additional transport services needed to provide non-drivers with comparable mobility as drivers (LSC, 2001).
This approach may exaggerate real transportation “needs” to some degree, since many automobile trips are non-essential, so it may be acceptable to society that people who do not have an automobile travel significantly less than those who do. On the other hand, this methodology understates real transportation needs by assuming that households which own an automobile have no unmet mobility needs, which ignores the mobility problems facing non-drivers in vehicle-owing households. For example, a household that owns one vehicle that must be shared by two or three adults who commute to work or school, or households with an employed adult who cannot drive due to disabilities or other problems, may face a mobility gap similar to zero-vehicle households.
In many situations the most practical approach is to use indicators that represent various transportation equity objectives. This Encyclopedia uses the five indicators described below to evaluate the equity impacts of TDM strategies. Of course, they represent general trends and may not apply in all situations. Planners and decision makers can choose which of these indicators to use, and adjust ratings assigned to a particular TDM strategy, to meet the conditions and priorities of a particular planning process.
Horizontal Equity
This
indicator assumes that public policies and resources should be applied equally
unless there is a specific reason for favoring a particular individual, group
or activity. A policy or practice that favors one group over others of equal
need and ability is considered inequitable.
This
indicator assumes that individuals should bear the costs they impose. TDM
strategies that make prices more accurately reflect costs (such as charging
users directly for using parking facilities), or that have smaller external
costs than the same trip made by automobile are considered to support this
criteria, while those that require increased subsidies or impose greater
external costs than the same trip made by automobile are considered to
contradict this criteria.
Vertical Equity
This
indicator assumes that public policies should benefit lower-income people. A
strategy that tends to make lower-income people better off overall, either
absolutely or relatively to higher income people, is considered to support this
criterion.
This
indicator assumes that public policies should provide adequate transportation
to people who are transportation disadvantaged. Strategies that tend to improve
mobility and access for transportation disadvantaged groups (e.g., non-drivers,
people with disabilities, people who cannot afford a personal automobile,
children, etc.) are considered to support this criteria.
This
indicator assumes that public policies should insure basic access, and favor
travel that has high social value over travel with lower social value. For
example, it suggests that emergency vehicles should have priority over general
traffic, and that special efforts may be justified to insure that everybody can
access critical services, education and employment, and that freight traffic
and service vehicles are given priority if needed to achieve economic
objectives.
A summary table such as the one below is used to evaluate the equity impacts of each TDM strategy according to the five criteria described above. The rating system ranges from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts. Of course, these ratings represent very general trends and may not apply in all situations so users should use their own judgment when applying these values.
Table 2 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
|
This reflects whether a
strategy treats each group or individually equally. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
|
This reflects whether a
strategy makes individual consumers bear the costs they impose, meaning that
subsidies are less than they would be with automobile travel. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
|
This reflects whether a
strategy makes lower-income households better or worse off. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
|
This reflects whether a
strategy makes people who are transportation disadvantaged better off by increasing
their travel options or providing financial savings. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
|
This reflects whether a
strategy favors more important transport (emergency response, commuting,
basic shopping) over less important transport. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
|
Measurement
Units How
transportation is Measured, the units used for
comparison in Evaluation (such as costs per
lane-mile, vehicle-mile, passenger-mile, incremental peak-period trip, etc.),
and the scope of analysis can have a significant impact on equity analysis. For
example, although they seem contradictory, all of the statements below can be
considered true. They reflect different perspectives and measurement units. ·
Motorists pay special taxes that primarily fund the road system and
transit services, and so unfairly subsidize other modes of transportation. ·
Motor vehicle travel imposes the greatest external costs of all modes
overall, so motorists are unfairly subsidized by non-drivers. ·
Transit travel is the most subsidized transport mode per
passenger-mile. ·
Motorists receive more subsidy than transit users per capita. ·
Rural drivers subsidize urban transportation by funding expensive
urban roadways and urban transit services. ·
Urban drivers subsidize rural residents by funding rural roads that
receive little traffic, and therefore little fuel tax revenue. ·
Higher-income people pay more taxes per capita that fund
transportation facilities and services, and so subsidize lower-income people. ·
Lower-income people pay more transportation taxes as a portion of
their income, and travel less, and so bear an unfair portion of the costs of
transportation facilities and services. ·
Motorists subsidize facilities for nonmotorized modes, such as
sidewalks and bicycle paths. ·
Sidewalks and paths are needed because motorized traffic makes roads
unsuitable for nonmotorized travel (people walk and cycle on roadways without
problem in areas with minimal automobile traffic). There
is no single correct perspective or measurement unit for evaluating
transportation equity, although it is often best to use per capita impacts,
rather than per vehicle-mile or passenger-mile. |
Most TDM help achieve equity objectives. For example, some TDM strategies:
· Increase horizontal equity
(fairness) by reducing unnecessary and arbitrary policies that favor automobile
transportation over other travel modes.
· Increase horizontal equity
by making transportation prices more accurately reflect costs.
· Benefit lower-income people
by providing direct financial savings and improving affordable transport
choices.
· Benefit transportation
disadvantaged people by improving transport choices and reducing the automobile
external costs they must bear (such as road and parking subsidies, and
uncompensated crash risk and pollution costs).
· Improve basic access by
increasing transport choices and giving priority to higher value trips.
Not all TDM strategies provide all of these equity benefits, but many do, and a comprehensive TDM program that includes a suitable combination of strategies will usually help achieve most equity objectives. Table 3 lists TDM strategies that tend to help achieve specific TDM objectives (Increasing Equity).
Table 3 TDM Strategies That Tend To Help Achieve Equity Objectives
|
Treats Everybody Equally |
User-Pays |
Benefits Lower Income |
Benefits Transport Disadvantaged |
Basic Mobility and Access |
|
Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators |
|
Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements |
Location Efficient Development Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements |
Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements |
This table lists TDM strategies that help achieve various equity objectives.
Although some TDM programs require subsidies, these can only be considered unfair if they are greater than subsidies for comparable automobile travel. Expenditures on alternative modes may simply represent an alternative way for non-drivers to receive their share of transportation resources. Even if subsidies are greater than that for automobile travel per passenger-mile, non-drivers only travel about a third as much as distance as motorists each year, and so per capita annual subsidies may be much small. Total annual per capita transportation external costs and subsidies tend to be much greater for motorists than for transit riders (Social Benefits of Public Transit).
On the other hand, there are some strategies for achieving transportation equity objectives that contradict other TDM objectives. Equity requires that lower-income people have access to affordable transportation, which in many communities means automobile transportation. For example, Raphael and Stoll (2000) and Sullivan (2003) show that in many situations automobile transportation increases employment rates and incomes among lower-income and minority workers, which justifies policies that make automobile ownership and use more affordable, including targeted loans, Carsharing, and Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance. Such programs may increase total vehicle travel by a small amount.
Automobile-oriented strategies to achieve transportation equity objectives may create new problems. For example, providing basic mobility to transportation-disadvantaged people in automobile-dependent communities tends to be expensive, requiring significant subsidies. With conventional vehicle insurance, making coveage affordable to high-risk motorists requires large, unfair cross-subsidies from lower-risk motorists. Free parking and low road users charges, intended to make driving more affordable, results in unfair cross-subsidies from households that drive less than average to those that drive more than average. TDM strategies can help avoid these problems, resulting in more effective solutions, financial savings, and fewer unintended consequences.
These equity benefits can be particularly large for comprehensive TDM programs that reduce market distortions, increase transportation choices, and create more balanced transportation and land use systems. This can provide significant financial savings that particularly benefit lower-income households and people who are transportation disadvantaged (McCann, 2000). Many TDM strategies help achieve equity objectives in addition to economic and social objectives (Win-Win Transportation Solutions). Implementing such “no regrets” solutions helps achieve more Sustainable Transportation.
Various
reports and guides described below indicate effective ways to incorporate
equity objectives in transport planning. Below are some best practice
recommendations:
· Evaluate the distribution of transportation policy and program impacts by income, need, driving ability and geographic location to determine if any groups will bear an excessive burden (see methodologies in ECONorthwest and PBQD, 2002).
· Consider the distribution of impacts such as the crash risk, noise and air pollution, neighborhood quality, and the barrier effect (i.e., impacts on nonmotorized travel) when evaluating transportation equity.
· Use Accessibility Measures, such as the total time and financial costs to reach desired services and destinations, when evaluating transportation equity. Give consideration to the total journey experience, including walking to transit stops and destinations.
· Consider all modes when evaluating transportation equity impacts and addressing transportation equity objectives, including transit, paratransit, taxi, and nonmotorized modes. Use Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators to evaluate impacts on alternative modes.
· Audit public transport demand and supply to insure that resources are deployed where they are most needed.
· In general, equity analysis should be based on per capita measurement units, rather than per vehicle or per vehicle-mile, which tends to give greater weight to higher income people who travel more, and gives far less consideration to people who are transportation disadvantaged.
· Include land use decisions, such as the location of public facilities, in transportation equity evaluation and planning.
· Consult with transportation disadvantaged people to identify their access needs, barriers and preferences.
· Involve affected communities in transportation decisions.
The
FHWA, Toolbox for Regional Policy Analysis provides information on
various methods for evaluating the equity impacts of transportation decisions.
The case studies listed below demonstrate their application.
A
consumer welfare model is used to estimate per-trip user benefits by income
group under alternative scenarios.
Accessibility
of residents to employment is compared for "disadvantaged" versus
"non-disadvantaged" neighborhoods for the Regional Transportation
Plan versus the no-plan alternative. Statistical tests are applied to measure
the significance of differences.
Transportation-related
emissions and noise data are disaggregated within a GIS raster (grid cell)
environment and their coincidence with population is measured. Exposure is
measured by socioeconomic group to develop indicators of equity.
Accessibility
is compared by mode (automobile, rail transit, and bus) and across five income
groups to analyze the equity impacts of the Tren Urbano rail transit project.
GIS
is used in conjunction with emissions and noise models to plot emissions and
noise contours around transportation facilities. These are then overlaid on
minority and low-income population data to develop measures of environmental
justice.
The
Atlanta Regional Commission transportation model provides analysis to show how
the current system and proposed alternatives serves households in different
income classes. It also calculates the percentage of employment and households
accessible to transit service (within 0.4-mile of a transit route). This
information is used to evaluate the existing mobility system and various
alternative plans.
The
results show that with the current system, 48% of total employment and 28% of
all households are within walk distance of transit (0.4 mile). For the lowest
income level (less than $20,000 annual income), 38% of households have
accessible transit service, the most of any income class. In 2020, if no
additional changes are made to the transit system, the transit accessible
employment percentage declines to 39% and the portion of homes within walking
distance of transit decreases to 26% the percent. However, if planned
improvements are implemented, the percent of transit-accessible employment is
57% and the portion of homes with transit access increases 46%.
There
is a long history of incorporating vertical equity objectives into transportation
policies (i.e., insuring that lower income people have basic mobility). Adam
Smith, the founder of modern economics, wrote that, “When the toll upon
carriages of luxury coaches, post chaises, etc. is made somewhat higher in
proportion to their weight than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts,
wagons, and the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a
very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the
transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country.”
(Smith, 1776, chapter 5)
Thakuriah and Tang (2008) find
that having transportation problems during adolescence and young adulthood
reduces annual income after two decades by approximately $2,500 compared to
those who don’t have such problems. They conclude that this evidence supports
governmental subsidies of transportation services targeting economically and
mobility disadvantaged youth (such as teenagers and young adults in carless,
low-income households) because of the resulting long-term economic and social
benefits. These economic benefits will also enable these individuals without
the means for personal mobility to avoid dependence on public assistance,
unemployment benefits and other forms of governmental assistance in the long
run.
Analysis by Lehner-Lierz (2004) indicates that women, children and elderly people tend to take many shorter trips (e.g., shopping and other local errands, chauffeuring children to school, etc.), and often lack use of an automobile, and so tend to depend more on non-motorized modes and public transit. She argues that current transportation planning practices tend to favor automobile travel over alternative modes, which harms more vulnerable populations, stating that "car travel steals women's space and time" by dominating street space and dispersing destinations. She recommends more support for cycling transportation on equity grounds.
|
Years
ago my grandmother worked hard as a waitress in a downtown restaurant, but
with the low wages she had trouble making ends meet. She rode the bus to work
each day, and toward the end of the month when money was tight she would save
her transfers from one day until the next. Often the bus driver wouldn’t
notice, but sometimes they would stop her, and say, “Lady, this is from
yesterday.” She
would reply, “You see how long I’ve been waiting for this bus!” Sometimes
they would let her on with it with a laugh. |
For more information on issues related to transportation equity analysis see Increasing Equity, Transportation Affordability, Evaluating TDM, Market Principles, Evaluating Pricing Strategies, Evaluating Transportation Choice, Community Livability, Sustainable Transportation and TDM, TDM Planning, Comprehensive TDM Evaluation, Measuring Transportation, TDM and Economic Development, Transportation Costs, Transportation Statistics, TDM in Developing Regions. See Khisty (1997) and Litman (1999) for more discussion of transportation equity. For more detailed information on this issue see the report “Evaluating Transportation Equity” at www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
Stephanos
Anastasiadis (2002), Transport And Society: Sustainability's Poor Cousin,
European Federation for
Transport and Environment (www.t-e.nu).
David Anderson and Gerard McCullough (2003), The Distribution of Transportation Costs in the Twin Cities Region, Transportation and Regional Growth Study, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Report 15 (www.umn.edu/cts).
Battelle (2000), Travel Patterns of People of Color, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trvpatns.pdf).
Linda Bailey
(2004), Aging Americans:
Stranded Without Options, Surface Transportation Policy Project (www.stpp.org).
Rahman Paul Barter and Tamim Raad (2000), Taking Steps: A Community Action Guide to People-Centered, Equitable and Sustainable Urban Transport, SUSTRAN Network (www.geocities.com/sustrannet/actionguide/outline.htm).
Evelyn Blumenberg and Margy Waller (2003), The Long Journey to Work: A Federal Transportation Policy for Working Families, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu), Transportation Reform Series.
BTS (1997), Mobility and Access; Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1997, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov), pp. 173-192.
Robert D. Bullard, Glenn S. Johnson and Angel O.
Torres (2000), Race, Equity, and Smart Growth: Why People of Color Must
Speak for Themselves,
Shannon
CDOT (2003), Environmental Justice In Colorado’s Statewide and Regional Planning Process Guidebook, Colorado Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.co.us/publications/EnvironmentalJustice/Environmentaljustice2.pdf).
Children and Mobility (www.flux.teksam.ruc.dk/FLUX_UK/ChildrenMob/index_uk_ChildrenMob.htm)
contains information about children and mobility issues.
Community Impact Assessment Website (www.ciatrans.net) provides information for considering impacts on human environments in transportation planning.
Coordination Council for Access and Mobility (www.ccamweb.org) is supported by the US Department of Transportation and the Department of Health and Human Services works to increase the cost-effectiveness of resources used for human service transportation.
DETR (2000), Social Exclusion and the Provision
and Availability of Public Transport, Mobility and Inclusion Unit,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
DFID (2003), Social Benefits in Transport Planning, UK Department for International Development (www.transport-links.org); available at (www.transport-links.org/transport_links/projects/projects_document_page.asp?projectid=322), describes methodologies for more comprehensive transportation project evaluation.
ECONorthwest and PBQD (2002), Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects, TCRP Report 78, TRB (www.trb.org); available at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp78/index.htm.
EJRC (2001), “Race, Disability and Transportation,” Transportation
Equity, Vol. 4, No. 1;
EWG (2004), Gas Tax Losers: Why Congress Must Insure A Fair Share of Gas Tax
Revenues For Urban America, Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org).
FHWA (1997), 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, USDOT (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/final).
FHWA, Environmental Justice Website (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm) provides reports, publications, and links to other websites concerning environmental justice, community impact assessment, public involvement in transportation planning.
FHWA, Toolbox for Regional Policy Analysis; Distribution of Impacts Case Studies, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/toolbox).
FHWA and FTA (2002), Transportation & Environmental Justice: Effective Practices, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA-EP-02-016 (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm).
FHWA and FTA (2002), “Establishing Meaningful Performance Measures for Benefits and Burden Assessments,” Transportation & Environmental Justice: Effective Practices, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, FHWA-EP-02-016 (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2.htm).
David Forkenbrock and Lisa Schweitzer (1997), Environmental Justice and Transportation
Investment Policy,
David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press (www.trb.org).
David Forkenbrock and Jason Sheeley (2004), Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 532, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_532.pdf.
Mayer Hillman (1993), Children, Transport and the Quality of Life, Policy Studies Institute (www.psi.org.uk).
David Hodge (1986), “Social Impacts of Urban
Transportation Decisions: Equity Impacts,” in The Geography of Urban Transportation, Susan Hanson (Ed.)
Jobs Access Project (http://povertycenter.cwru.edu) is a
multi-faceted project by the Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change at
Elmer Johnson (1993), Avoiding the Collision of Cities and Cars,
Joseph Jones and Fred Nix (1995), Survey of the Use of Highway Cost Allocation in Road Pricing Decisions, Transportation Association of Canada (www.tac-atc.org).
C. Jotin Khisty (1997), “Operationalizing Concepts of Equity for Public Project Investment,” Transportation Research Record 1559, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 94-99.
Ursula Lehner-Lierz (2003), “The Role of Cycling For Women,” Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling In Urban Environments (Rodney Tolley Ed.), Woodhead Publishing (www.woodhead-publishing.com), pp. 123-143.
Todd Litman (2003), Social Inclusion As A Transport Planning Issue in Canada, VTPI (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2005), Evaluating Transportation Equity, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2007), Community Cohesion As A Transport Planning Objective, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); and www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf.
LSC (2001), Montana Rural Passenger Needs Study, Montana Department of Transportation (www.mdt.state.mt.us).
Karen Lucas, Tim Grosvenor and Roona Simpson (2001), Transport,
the Environment and Social Exclusion, Joseph Roundtree Foundation, (www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/721.asp).
Karen Lucas (2004), Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and Environmental Justice, Policy Press (www.bris.ac.uk/Publications/TPP/tpp.htm).
I. Mayeres (2001), Equity and Transport
Policy Reform, Club of Jules Dupuit,
Barbara McCann
(2000), Driven to
Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, STPP (www.transact.org).
Harvey J. Miller (2003), Travel Chances and Social
Exclusion,
Milligan & Company (2007), Transportation Equity in Emergencies: A Review of the Practices of State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Transit Agencies in 20 Metropolitan Areas, Office of Civil Rights, The Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/civil_rights_6343.html)
Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy (1999), Sustainability and Cities; Overcoming Automobile Dependency, Island Press (www.islandpress.org).
OTM, Transportation Performance Measures, Office of Transportation Management, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/toolbox).
Race Poverty and the Environment Journal (www.urbanhabitat.rpejournal.org) is a biannual national publication that provides analysis and solutions to environmental justice issues, including transportation equity issues.
Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll (2000), Can
Boosting Minority Car-ownership Rates Narrow Inter-Racial Employment Gaps?
Working Paper W00-002, Program on Housing and Urban Policy,
Lorien Rice (2004), Transportation Spending by
Low-Income California Households: Lessons for the San Francisco Bay Area, Public Policy
Institute of
Sandra Rosenbloom (2003), The Mobility Needs of Older Americans: Implications for Transportation Reauthorization, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu), Transportation Reform Series.
Thomas W. Sanches, Richard Stolz and Jacinta S. Ma (2003), Moving to Equity: Addressing Inequitable Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities, The Harvard University Civil Rights Project (www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu) and the Center for Community Change (www.communitychange.org).
Thomas W. Sanches and Marc Brenman (2007), The Right To Transportation: Moving To Equity, Planners Press (www.planning.org).
K.H. Schaeffer and Elliot
Sclar (1980), Access for All,
Lisa Schweitzer and Abel Valenzuela Jr. (2004), “Environmental Injustice and Transportation: The Claims and the Evidence,” Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2004, pp. 383-398.
Adam Smith (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations, The Adam Smith Institute (www.adamsmith.org.uk).
Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2001), Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy Society (www.progress.org/geonomy), also available at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf.
Social Exclusion & Transport website, (www.geocities.com/transport_research/socexclu0.htm).
Social Exclusion Unit (2002), Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/published.htm).
Kerri Sullivan
(2003), Transportation
& Work: Exploring Car Uage and Employment Outcomes in the LSAL Data,
NCSALL Occasional Paper (http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~ncsall).
Surface Transportation Policy Project (www.transact.org) provides information and advocacy for more balanced transportation policies.
Ian Taylor and Lynn Sloman
(2008), Towards Transport Justice:
Transport and Social Justice in an Oil-Scarce Future, Sustrans (www.sustrans.org.uk); at www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/Info%20sheets/Sustrans_report_towards_transport_justice_april08.pdf.
Piyushimita (Vonu) Thakuriah and Lei Tang (2008), Longitudinal
Analysis of Effect of Transportation Difficulties on Earnings Among Young
Adults From Disadvantaged Families, Transportation Research Board 87th Annual
Meeting (www.trb.org).
TRB (2001), “Critical Issues in Transportation 2002,” TR News 217, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), Nov./Dec. 2001, p. 4-11.
TRL, Strategic Environmental Assessment Newsletter, Transportation Research Laboratory (www.trl.co.uk/env_sea_newsletter.htm) provides information on international efforts to develop more integrated transportation planning, including consideration of transport equity issues.
Transportation Equity (www.ejrc.cau.edu/transequnews.htm),
a newsletter of the
TSG (2005), Measuring Accessibility as Experienced
by Different Socially Disadvantaged Groups, Transport Studies Group –
Jeff Turner, Transport and Social Exclusion
Toolkit, University of
University de Valladolid (2005), The Right to Mobility (El Derecho a la Movilidad), Escuela de Arquitectura, Universidad de Valladolid (www.uva.es/arquitec); available at www.ciudad-derechos.org/eindex.html.
U.S. Department of Transportation has Environmental Justice information at www.dot.gov/ost/docr/EJ.HTM, www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment and www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenters/eastern/egb/index.htm.
World Bank (2004), Background Resource Materials on Transport and Poverty, World Bank (www.worldbank.org/transport/pov&tra_resources.htm).
World Bank Transport Website (www.worldbank.org/transport) includes information on various equity issues.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#13