Increasing Equity
Strategies that Are Particularly Helpful for Achieving Equity Objectives
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 23 April 2018
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, and whether that is considered fair and appropriate. 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 equal shares of public resources and benefits, and bear equal cost burdens. It implies that user should “get what they pay for and pay for what they get” (i.e., the “user pays principle”) unless a subsidy is specifically justified.
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 considers whether a transport system provides adequate service to people with mobility impairments and other special needs. This justifies Universal Design (facilities designed to accommodate all users, including people with impairments), and policies that provide Basic Access to disadvantaged people even if this requires subsidies.
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.
Complete Streets refers to roadway design and operating practices intended to safely accommodate diverse users and activities including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, public transport users, people with disabilities, plus adjacent businesses and residents. Complete Streets planning helps ensure that public roads serve all users, not just motorist, and are designed to minimize negative impacts on local businesses and residents.
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.
Complete Streets refers to roadway design and operating practices intended to safely accommodate diverse users and activities including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, public transport users, people with disabilities, plus adjacent businesses and residents. Complete Streets planning helps improve affordable transportation options for non-drivers.
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.” |
The Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project (BREJTP) is developing a better process for systematically integrating environmental justice into regional transportation planning and decision-making. Their website provides a list of the different projects taking place and other useful information. Collectively these projects are concerned with, public participation, access to quality public transit service, pedestrian safety, air pollution and congestion impacts, and equity in the planning process. The project is structured in three phases:
Phase I - Community Outreach: Determine the key Environmental Justice transportation (EJT) issues affecting regional subgroups and identify methods for reaching the correct segments.
Phase II - Environmental Justice in Transportation Tool Kit: Develop an EJ planning guide that supports interactive exchanges between transportation agencies, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and community residents.
Phase III - Dissemination of Findings and New Tools: Encourage the propagation and dissemination of improved procedures through academic curriculum, technology transfer and peer exchange.
Analysis by Ewing and Hamidi (2014) indicates that more compact, multi-modal smart growth development patterns tend to increase integration (poor and racial minorities are less geographically isolated), economic opportunity (disadvantaged people’s ability to access education and employment opportunities), and economic mobility (children born in low-income families are more likely to achieve higher incomes). As the compactness index doubles (increases by 100%), the probability that a child born to a family in the bottom quintile of the national income distribution will reach the top quintile of the national income distribution by age 30 increases by about 41%.
The FIA Foundation funded independent research which has looked at the patterns of women’s use of public transport in cities in South Africa, Ecuador, Argentina and Chile. The new ‘Ella se mueve segura’ (‘Women move safely’) project identified four reasons why public transport personal security is particularly important for women:
1. Women need safe public transport to support economic development.
Women make a vital and growing economic contribution globally. CAF estimates that improving women’s participation in the work force in Latin America could add an additional 34% to the region's GDP, and that their role in the Latin American so called ‘economic miracle’ with average growth rates of around 5% between 2002 and 2008 was crucial. Increasingly women are sole breadwinners in some of the poorest families.
2. Women need safe public transport options to make good health and education choices for their families & communities.
Women shape communities. They access healthcare for themselves and their families which is essential to ensure healthy communities, and they choose the education which will enable children to grow to be skilled and fulfilled people. They will miss health checks, and use the easiest and not necessarily the best schools if transport links are poor.
3. Women need to experience safe public transport options because unless they feel safe on public transport they won’t recommend it to their families, and we won’t make any progress.
Linked to this women also influence the transport choices of the next generation of transport users. They share their experiences of sustainable transport options with their families, and like anyone they will only recommend what they like.
4. Women have a right to be safe.
Finally, and most fundamentally; women have personal rights to be safe, to be respected, and to achieve their potential, yet currently traditional systems of public transportation delivery and management ‘are a nightmare for women everywhere’ as the New York Post recently opined.
Creating safe public spaces is challenging, but it is vital that this is taken forward. Public transport options which address women’s concerns are at the heart of our ability to achieve sustainable development and sustainable mobility. A system which fails women, undermines ambitions for sustainable mobility and sustainable development.
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, Food City or Cox & Wright groceries or Watson's department store are entitled to a free bus ride home. The program was originally developed in the 1970s as a way to lure customers out of the suburbs and improve dwindling downtown businesses. Although the suburban supermarkets may appear more convenient, their prices are often higher than city stores and they require the use of the automobile. Thus the users of the program not only gain access to groceries, but save money too.
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.
Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project (www.brejtp.com) is developing a better process for systematically integrating environmental justice into the regional transportation planning and decision-making.
Judith Bell and Larry Cohen (2009), The Transportation Prescription: Bold New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform in America, PolicyLink and the Prevention Institute Convergence Partnership (www.convergencepartnership.org/transportationhealthandequity).
Daniel Carlson and Zachary Howard (2010), Impacts Of VMT Reduction Strategies On Selected Areas and Groups, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov); at www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/751.1.pdf.
Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development (www.sustainable.doe.gov) is a US Department of Energy program that supports more resource efficient development.
Cities for All (www.citiesforall.org) provides practical information to help create more equal and inclusive cities.
Hana Creger, Joel Espino and Alvaro S. Sanchez (2018), Mobility Equity Framework: How to Make Transportation Work for People, The Greenlining Institute (http://greenlining.org); at http://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Mobility-Equity-Framework-Final.pdf.
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.
Environmental Justice Resource Center (www.ejrc.cau.edu) at Clark Atlanta University serves as a major resource center on environmental justice and transportation equity issues. Publishes quarterly Transportation Equity newsletter.
Environmental Justice And Transportation Website (www.brejtp.org) is developing tools to incorporate equity analysis into regional transportation planning.
Reid Ewing and Shima Hamidi (2014), Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures, Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah for the National Cancer Institute, the Brookings Institution and Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org); at www.arch.utah.edu/cgi-bin/wordpress-metroresearch.
FHWA, Environmental Justice Library (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/resources/index.cfm) 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).
FIA (2017), Building Sustainable Mobility for Women, FIA Foundation (www.fiafoundation.org); at www.fiafoundation.org/blog/2017/november/building-sustainable-mobility-for-women.
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); at www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/1997.
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).
IMR (2009), Sprawl vs Transit Villages: Environment Justice Implications, Innovative Mobility (www.innovativemobility.org); at www.innovativemobility.org/sprawl/Sprawl_vs_Transit_Villages_Environmental_Justice.shtml.
Joseph Jones and Fred Nix (1995), Survey of the Use of Highway Cost Allocation in Road Pricing Decisions, Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; 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.
LCEF (2011), Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity, Leadership Conference Education Fund, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (www.civilrights.org); at www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/docs/transportation/52846576-Where-We-Need-to-Go-A-Civil-Rights-Roadmap-for-Transportation-Equity.pdf
Todd Litman (2002), “Evaluating Transportation Equity,” World Transport Policy & Practice (http://ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm), Volume 8, No. 2, Summer, pp. 50-65; revised version 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), 20401, pp. 32-41.
Todd Litman (2003), Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf.
Todd Litman (2004a), Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf.
Todd Litman (2004b), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), Understanding Smart Growth Saving, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Smart Growth Reforms, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/smart_growth_reforms.pdf.
Todd Litman (2007), Transportation Affordability: Evaluation and Improvement Strategies, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/affordability.pdf.
Todd Litman (2008), Celebrate (Transportation) Diversity!, Planetizen Blogs (www.planetizen.com); at www.planetizen.com/node/30539.
Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/access.pdf .
Todd Litman (2009), Where We Want To Be: Home Location Preferences And Their Implications For Smart Growth, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sgcp.pdf.
Todd Litman (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis Guidebook, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/tca).
Todd Litman (2010), Raise My Taxes, Please! Evaluating Household Savings From High Quality Public Transit Service, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/raisetaxes.pdf.
Todd Litman (2010), Affordable-Accessible Housing In A Dynamic City: Why and How To Support Development of More Affordable Housing In Accessible Locations, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/aff_acc_hou.pdf.
Todd Litman and Marc Brenman (2011), A New Social Equity Agenda For Sustainable Transportation, Paper 12-3916, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at www.vtpi.org/equityagenda.pdf.
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.
Lorien Rice (2004), Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households: Lessons for the San Francisco Bay Area, Public Policy Institute of California (www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_704LRR.pdf).
Caroline Rodier, John E. Abraham, Brenda N. Dix and John D. Hunt (2010), Equity Analysis of Land Use and Transport Plans Using an Integrated Spatial Model, Report 09-08, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Equity%20Analysis%20of%20Land%20Use%20(with%20Covers).pdf.
K.H Schaeffer and Elliot Sclar (1998), Access for All, Columbia University Press (New York).
Lisa Schweitzer and Brian Taylor (2008), “Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects Of Congestion Pricing And Sales Taxes,” Transportation, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 797–812; summary at www.springerlink.com/content/l168327363227298; summarized in “Just Road Pricing,” Access 36 (www.uctc.net/access); Spring 2010, pp. 2-7; at www.uctc.net/access/36/access36.pdf.
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 Manchester (www.art.man.ac.uk/transres/socexclu0.htm).
UPH (2011), Transportation Health Equity Principles, Upstream Public Health (www.upstreampublichealth.org); at www.upstreampublichealth.org/currentwork/transportation/THEprincples.
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.
USEPA (2013), Creating Equitable, Healthy, And Sustainable Communities: Strategies For Advancing Smart Growth, Environmental Justice, And Equitable Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/equitable-dev/equitable-development-report-508-011713b.pdf.
Eduardo Vasconcellos (2003), Inclusion Of Social Benefits In Transport Planning, Transport For Development Thematic Network (www.transport-links.org).
Martin Wachs (2003), Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/es/urban).
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
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#99