Increasing Equity
Strategies that Are Particularly Helpful for Achieving Equity Objectives
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport
Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 4 November 2008
This chapter describes transportation management strategies that tend to be particularly effective at achieving various equity objectives. For more information on equity issues see Evaluating Transportation Equity.
Equity refers to the distribution of costs and benefits. There are three general categories of equity related to transportation:
1. Horizontal Equity (also called fairness) is concerned with whether each individual or group is treated equally, assuming that their needs and abilities are comparable. It suggests that people with comparable incomes and needs should receive an equal share of public resources and benefits, and bear an equal burden of public costs. It implies that costs should be borne by users unless a subsidy is specifically justified (i.e., the “user pays principle”).
2. Vertical Equity With Regard to Income considers the allocation of costs between different income classes, assuming that public policies should favor people who are economically disadvantaged. 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.
3. Vertical Equity With Regard to Mobility Need and Ability considers whether a transportation system provides adequate service to people who have special transportation needs (i.e., they are transportation disadvantaged). It justifies facility design features and special mobility services that provide access to people with disabilities. It suggests that public subsidies should be used to provide Basic Access to transportation disadvantaged people.
This Encyclopedia uses the five objectives described in Table 1 to evaluate the equity impacts of specific transportation policies and programs.
Table 1 Transportation
Equity Objectives (Evaluating TDM Equity)
|
Objective |
Description |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
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. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
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 criterion. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
This indicator assumes that public policies should increase Transportation Affordability and benefit lower-income people. A strategy that tends to make lower-income people better off overall, absolutely and relatively to higher income people, is considered to support this criteria. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
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 criterion. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
This indicator assumes that public policies should insure basic access, and favor travel that has high social value over travel with lower social value. |
Transportation Demand Management can help achieve various transportation equity objectives. Strategies that are particularly effective at achieving these objectives are listed below.
Many TDM strategies correct current market distortions that favor automobile use, and so tends to increase horizontal equity.
This strategy can reduce current practices by transportation planning and funding agencies that favor automobile-oriented improvements over other modes and demand management solutions.
This strategy can reduce current transportation planning and funding practices that favor automobile-oriented improvements over other modes and demand management solutions.
This strategy means that financial institutions recognize vehicle savings from reduced automobile ownership. It allows households the option of saving money and obtaining more flexible residential mortgages if they choose a more Accessible, less Automobile Dependent home location.
Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators
Multi-Modal Level-of-Service (LOS) rating systems evaluate the quality of various transport modes from a users perspective. This helps create a more neutral planning decisions compared with current practices which apply roadway LOS ratings but no comparable indictors for other modes.
This strategy gives higher value trips and lower cost modes priority over lower value, higher cost trips. This tends to increase horizontal equity by allowing travelers who use space-efficient modes (transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking) and therefore impose less congestion on others to bear less congestion delay.
Many TDM Strategies result in more direct user charges (i.e., reflects a user-pays principle).
This strategy involves correcting a number of existing market distortions that underprice automobile use.
This strategy can make vehicle charges more accurately reflect the roadway, crash and pollution costs imposed by driving.
This strategy can make fuel costs better incorporate roadway and environmental costs that result from motor vehicle use.
This strategy can reduce parking requirements that force consumers to pay for parking regardless of whether they use it.
This strategy can make vehicle insurance costs more accurately reflect insurance claim costs of each vehicle.
This strategy involves charging motorists directly for the parking facilities they use.
This strategy involves charging motorists directly for the road facilities they use.
This strategy can include charging more accurately for location-related costs, such as the additional utility costs associated with lower-density, urban fringe development.
Many TDM strategies benefit lower-income people by improving their Transportation Options, increasing Transportation Affordability, or providing additional financial benefits to lower-income people.
This strategy gives employees more flexibility in their work hours, which tends to benefit lower-income employees (many higher-income employees already have such flexibility).
This strategy provides an affordable option for occasional use of an automobile.
This strategy includes Parking Cash Out and Transit Benefits, which provide financial benefits to employees who use alternative commute modes.
This strategy gives employees who use alternative modes special services to address occasional transportation problems.
This strategy gives transit and rideshare vehicles priority in traffic to increase their travel speed and reliability.
This strategy addresses the security concerns of people who use alternative transportation modes, which benefits lower-income people who use these modes.
This strategy allows households the option of saving money and obtaining a more flexible residential mortgage if they choose a more Accessible, less Automobile Dependent home location. It tends to increase housing and transportation affordability.
This strategy can make vehicle insurance more affordable, which tends to particularly benefit lower-income motorists.
Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements
These strategies tend to improve transportation options available to low-income people.
This strategy tends to improve transportation options available to low-income people.
This strategy tends to improve transportation options available to low-income people.
This strategy tends to improve transportation options available to low-income people.
This strategy can improve housing and transportation options available to low-income people.
This strategy can provide information and support that improves transportation options for low-income people.
This strategy tends to improve transportation options available to low-income people.
This strategy can improve transportation and housing options available to low-income people.
In some cases it may be appropriate to provide loans to help lower-income households afford vehicle purchases, such as the Ways to Work program (www.alliance1.org/Programs/Waystowork.htm).
Many TDM strategies can benefit disadvantaged people by improving their Transportation Options and increasing transportation affordability for those with physical disabilities or other special mobility needs.
This strategy tends to improve mobility options for people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy tends to improve Accessibility for people who are transportation disadvantaged and depend on walking, cycling and transit.
This strategy includes Parking Cash Out and Transit Benefits, which provide financial benefits to employees who use alternative commute modes.
This strategy can reduce existing financial subsidies from people who rely on alternative modes to motorists.
This strategy gives employees who use alternative modes special services to address occasional transportation problems.
This strategy gives transit and rideshare vehicles priority in traffic to increase their travel speed and reliability.
This strategy can improve parking options and reduce total parking costs.
This strategy addresses the security concerns of people who use alternative transportation modes.
Location Efficient Development
This strategy increases land use Accessibility, which tends to benefit nondrivers and others who rely on walking, cycling and public transit.
This strategy includes a variety of design features that can improve transportation and housing options.
Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements
These strategies improve transportation options and tend to benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to benefit households that are transportation disadvantaged.
This involves various strategies that improve transportation options in lower-density, rural communities.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy can improve land use Accessibility, and the housing and Transportation Options available to people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy can create pedestrian friendly communities.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy can provide information and support that improves transportation options for people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to benefit people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy can create pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities.
This strategy can improve land use Accessibility, and the housing and transportation options available to people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy reduces the mobility barriers facing many people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy can create street environments that are more accessible by walking, cycling and transit.
Many TDM strategies help provide Basic Access and Basic Mobility by favoring higher value travel and by providing for people who are transportation disadvantaged.
This strategy can create more Accessible land use and control vehicle traffic.
This strategy can include prioritizing traffic to favor freight transport.
This strategy gives employees who use alternative modes special services to address occasional transportation problems.
This strategy gives transit and rideshare vehicles priority in traffic to increase their travel speed and reliability.
This strategy improves transportation options and tends to help insure Basic Access.
Transportation Resilience Planning
This strategy can include efforts to prioritize travel in order to insure Basic Access.
This strategy can include prioritizing the use of parking facilities to favor certain types of trips and users.
Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements
This strategy can improve nonmotorized transport, which tends to be critical for Basic Access.
This strategy tends to be critical for Basic Access.
This strategy tends to be critical for Basic Access.
This strategy can involve prioritizing vehicle traffic to favor higher value trips.
|
A guy walks into a bar and orders a beer. After a few minutes he says
to the bartender, “If I show you the most amazing thing you’ve ever seen,
will you give me another beer on the house? “OK,” says the bartender, “but it better be good, because I’ve seen a
lot of pretty amazing things in my day.” So the man pulls a hamster and a tiny piano out of his briefcase and
puts them onto the bar. The hamster begins playing beautifully. “Not bad,” says the bartender, “but you’ll need to do even better
than that if you want a free drink.” So the customer takes a frog out of his briefcase and it begins
singing show tunes along with the piano in a beautiful rich voice. Another patron sitting nearby comes over to see what’s going on and
says, “That’s amazing! I’ll give you $1,000 for that frog.” The man agrees and hands over the frog for the cash. After the
purchaser leaves, the bartender says to the man, “It’s none of my business,
but I think you just gave away a real fortune in that frog.” “Not really,” says the man, “the hamster is also a ventriloquist.” |
Economic
development benefits are often cited as a justification for transportation
investments. For a variety of reasons, federal transportation funds go mainly
to large, regional-scale projects with identified regional economic benefits.
Local benefits to low-income communities—when they exist—are usually
incidental. The transportation and economic development needs of such
communities generally get overlooked in transportation project planning. This
may lead to distributive inequity. A review of state- and regional-level
transportation programs found few that target transportation investments to
local economic development in disadvantaged communities, either in effect or in
stated purpose. The Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI)
program administered by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
(DVRPC) is one of the small number of such programs. While the DVRPC’s
municipal eligibility criteria for the TCDI now go beyond strictly
disadvantaged communities to serve other goals such as regional growth
management, the intended economic development benefits are still aimed
primarily at disadvantaged communities. This program can point to some
impressive results in local economic revitalization of disadvantaged
neighborhoods that probably would not have occurred without the impetus the
TCDI provided. On balance, the TCDI program is a good model for integrating
transportation and economic development planning for the purpose of reviving
disadvantaged communities. However, even TCDI’s emphasis on revitalization of
such communities is no guarantee that their inhabitants will benefit from
economic development that might be generated by the program’s projects.
For almost thirty years the Knoxville Transit Authority's K-Trans buses
and the local supermarkets have tried to help ease the costs of transportation
for those in a lower income bracket. Customers who spend $10 or more at any of
the region's Kroger,
Costs of the program are minimal. The transit authority prints coupons,
collects the used ones, and turns them over to the store management for reimbursement.
Both the supermarkets and the transit Authority agree on the success of the
program. The coupons have boosted transit ridership and increased sales in the
inner-city markets. The success of the program is largely a result of strong
partnerships between advocacy groups, the private sector, and the transit
authority.
AARP (2005), Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide, AARP Public Policy Institute (http://assets.aarp.org).
Heather Allen (2008), Sit Next To
Someone Different Every Day - How Public Transport Contributes To Inclusive
Communities, Thredbo Conference (www.thredbo.itls.usyd.edu.au);
at www.thredbo.itls.usyd.edu.au/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-plenary-Allen.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).
Scott Bernstein, Carrie Makarewicz and Kevin McCarty (2005), Driven to Spend: Pumping Dollars Out Of Our Households And Communities, STPP (www.transact.org).
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
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,
EJRC (2001),
“Race, Disability and Transportation,” Transportation Equity, Vol. 4,
No. 1;
FHWA (1997), 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, USDOT (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/final).
FHWA, Environmental Justice Library (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/lib) 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).
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).
Gender
and Transport website and Social Exclusion & Transport
website, Dept. of Planning,
David Hodge (1986), “Social Impacts
of Urban Transportation Decisions: Equity Impacts,” in The Geography of Urban Transportation, Susan Hanson (Ed.)
Walter Hook (2003), Appraising the Social Costs and Benefits of Road Projects, Transport For Development Thematic Network; at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy website (www.itdp.org/read/Social%20Benefits.pdf).
ICMA (2005),
Active Living and Social Equity: Creating
Healthy Communities for All Residents, International City/County
Management Association (www.icma.org)
and Active Living By Design (www.activelivingleadership.org).
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 (
C. Jotin Khisty (1997), “Operationalizing Concepts of Equity for Public Project Investment,” Transportation Research Record 1559, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 94-99.
Todd Litman (2005), Evaluating Transportation
Equity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), You CAN Get There From Here: Evaluating Transportation Diversity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf; originally published as, “You Can Get There From Here: Evaluating Transportation Choice,” Transportation Research Record 1756, TRB (www.trb.org), 2001, pp. 32-41
Shirley M.
Loveless (2006), “Sharing the
Wealth: Case Study of Targeting Transportation Funding to Economic Development
in Low-Income Communities,” Transportation
Research Record 1960, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 23-31.
Barbara McCann (2000), Driven to Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation
Expenses, STPP (www.transact.org).
Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy (1999), Sustainability and Cities; Overcoming Automobile Dependency, Island Press (www.islandpress.org).
Lorien Rice (2004), Transportation
Spending by Low-Income California Households: Lessons for the San Francisco Bay
Area, Public Policy Institute of
K.H Schaeffer
and Elliot Sclar (1998), Access for All,
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.
TRL, Strategic Environmental Assessment Newsletter, Transportation Research Laboratory (http://www.trl.co.uk/env_sea_newsletter.htm) provides information on international efforts to develop more integrated transportation planning, including consideration of transportation equity issues.
Jeff Turner, Transport and Social
Exclusion Toolkit, University of
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.
Eduardo Vasconcellos (2003), Inclusion Of Social Benefits In Transport Planning, Transport For Development Thematic Network (www.transport-links.org).
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
#99