Transportation Justice

This white paper provides guidance for how planning, policy, and advocacy may better account for complex sociocultural forces, including gender, class, and race. The authors reviewed a large body of sociocultural research on bicycling with complex models capable of addressing an intersectional understanding of identity, the innerworkings of power in society, and the nature of inequity. These findings coalesced into four recommendations for those promoting bicycling as a mode of everyday transportation: (1) Extend what it means to embrace difference; (2) Recognize that the streets are not equally safe for all; (3) Engage in a meaningful way with marginalized communities and share decision-making power; and (4) Understand how local and national histories of injustice influence and relate to current bicycling planning processes. Integrating these recommendations into advocacy, policy, and planning can lead to greater equity in representation, distribution of resources, and decision-mak...

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

In July of 2022, the University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Geographic Alliance hosted a three-week summer institute funded by the National Endowment for Humanities. Eighteen K-12 educators from across the country came to Knoxville to explore “The Role of Geographic Mobility in the African American Freedom Struggle.” The institute focused on Movement as one of geography’s five fundamental themes and highlighted the central role that migration, transportation, and travel and tourism have played in maintaining structural racism and facilitating Black antiracist resistance, self-determination, and world-making across multiple scales and historical periods. In support of a critical study of the civil rights implications of geographic mobility, participating educators discussed assigned readings, podcasts, and documentary films; attended lectures and lab exercises; analyzed maps and archival resources; participated in a three-day field trip of Black geographies of Tennessee; and learned about case studies, methodologies, and classroom activities from curriculum and content experts. A direct engagement with the Black mobility experience led the Institute to develop four conceptual frameworks that the wider geographic education community might consider incorporating more universally into its curriculum and classroom teaching: (1) sense of movement, (2) right to mobility, (3) bodily work of mobility, and (4) consequences of movement on wellbeing.

In July of 2022, the University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Geographic Alliance hosted a three-week summer institute funded by the National Endowment for Humanities. Eighteen K-12 educators from across the country came to Knoxville to explore “The Role of Geographic Mobility in the African American Freedom Struggle.” The institute focused on Movement as one of geography’s five fundamental themes and highlighted the central role that migration, transportation, and travel and tourism have played in maintaining structural racism and facilitating Black antiracist resistance, self-determination, and world-making across multiple scales and historical periods. In support of a critical study of the civil rights implications of geographic mobility, participating educators discussed assigned readings, podcasts, and documentary films; attended lectures and lab exercises; analyzed maps and archival resources; participated in a three-day field trip of Black geographies of Tennessee; and learned about case studies, methodologies, and classroom activities from curriculum and content experts. A direct engagement with the Black mobility experience led the Institute to develop four conceptual frameworks that the wider geographic education community might consider incorporating more universally into its curriculum and classroom teaching: (1) sense of movement, (2) right to mobility, (3) bodily work of mobility, and (4) consequences of movement on wellbeing.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Every day, many women struggle to access essential opportunities such as jobs, education, shops and friends. Failing to provide them with adequate transport services can eventually lead to an undesirable situation of social disadvantage and exacerbate the gender gap between men and women. This chapter explains how being a woman has a significant influence on mobility characteristics and travel behaviour. It also goes deeper into the main challenges and issues that need to be overcome to reduce inequalities of access and movement opportunities between genders. Properly addressing these challenges plays a crucial role in providing women with empowerment, access to opportunities and independence.

This white paper provides guidance for how planning, policy, and advocacy may better account for complex sociocultural forces, including gender, class, and race. The authors reviewed a large body of sociocultural research on bicycling with complex models capable of addressing an intersectional understanding of identity, the innerworkings of power in society, and the nature of inequity. These findings coalesced into four recommendations for those promoting bicycling as a mode of everyday transportation: (1) Extend what it means to embrace difference; (2) Recognize that the streets are not equally safe for all; (3) Engage in a meaningful way with marginalized communities and share decision-making power; and (4) Understand how local and national histories of injustice influence and relate to current bicycling planning processes. Integrating these recommendations into advocacy, policy, and planning can lead to greater equity in representation, distribution of resources, and decision-mak...

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

This white paper provides guidance for how planning, policy, and advocacy may better account for complex sociocultural forces, including gender, class, and race. The authors reviewed a large body of sociocultural research on bicycling with complex models capable of addressing an intersectional understanding of identity, the innerworkings of power in society, and the nature of inequity. These findings coalesced into four recommendations for those promoting bicycling as a mode of everyday transportation: (1) Extend what it means to embrace difference; (2) Recognize that the streets are not equally safe for all; (3) Engage in a meaningful way with marginalized communities and share decision-making power; and (4) Understand how local and national histories of injustice influence and relate to current bicycling planning processes. Integrating these recommendations into advocacy, policy, and planning can lead to greater equity in representation, distribution of resources, and decision-mak...

Over the past decades, transport researchers and policymakers have devoted increasing attention to questions about justice and equity. Nonetheless, there is still little engagement with theories in political philosophy to frame what justice means in the context of transport policies. This paper reviews key theories of justice (utilitarianism, libertarianism, intuitionism, Rawls' egalitarianism, and Capability Approaches), and critically evaluates the insights they generate when applied to transport. Based on a dialogue between Rawlsian and Capability Approaches, we propose that distributive justice concerns over transport disadvantage and social exclusion should focus primarily on accessibility as a human capability. This means that, in policy evaluation, a detailed analysis of distributional effects of transport policies should consider minimum standards of accessibility to key destinations and the extent of which these policies respect individuals' rights and prioritize disadvantaged groups, reduce inequalities of opportunities and mitigate transport externalities. A full account of justice in transportation requires a more complete understanding of accessibility than traditional approaches have been able to deliver to date.

This is the pre-publication version of: Martens, K., Singer, M.E., and Cohen-Zada, A.L. (2022). Equity in Accessibility: Moving From Disparity to Insufficiency Analyses. Journal of the American Planning Association: 1-16.
Problem, research strategy, and findings
Many studies on transport equity have analyzed disparities in access to destinations between different population groups. In this study, we challenge this disparity approach and propose an alternative: analyzing accessibility insufficiencies. We argue that disparity analyses fall short on two accounts. First, they are based on group averages that inherently hide in-group variation. Second, they compare accessibility levels between groups without addressing whether these levels actually allow people to engage in daily activities. The proposed sufficiency approach avoids the former and addresses the latter by setting an explicit sufficiency threshold for accessibility. Empirical analyses for 49 of the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas confirmed the problematic nature of disparity analyses. In line with most literature, our disparity analyses show that disadvantaged groups are virtually always better served by transit than their more advantaged counterparts. Yet a systematic sufficiency analysis reveals large inequities in accessibility, regardless of the exact sufficiency threshold employed.
Takeaway for practice
Our outcomes underscore the need for researchers and planning practitioners to move away from seemingly neutral disparity analyses toward equity analyses of insufficiencies. Though this move implies inevitably normative, and thus politically difficult, decisions, such analyses enable professionals to systematically identify transport inequities as input for regional transport plans. They may also be used to prioritize already proposed interventions based on their contribution to a reduction in accessibility insufficiencies.

Deliverable D2.1 presents an extensive analysis of the social and spatial elements associated with transport poverty. In particular it assesses its characteristics in terms of spatial factors, demographics, and mobility patterns.
The deliverable is the outcome of an extensive desk research performed in the first step of the project. It offers a substantial contribution in the identification and definition of transport poverty and addresses mobility and accessibility needs of different social groups vulnerable to social exclusion: low income and unemployed, elderly people, people with
reduced mobility, women, migrants and ethnic minorities, children and young people, people living in rural and deprived areas.

The deliverable D2.2 presents the results obtained from stakeholders’ interviews and focus groups with vulnerable users in 6 EU study regions: Counties of Esslingen and Göppingen (Germany), Naxos and Small Cyclades (Greece), Inner Area Southern Salento (Italy), Guarda and Torres Vedras (Portugal), Buzau (Romania), North and South-East
Luxembourg.
These activities are targeted to identify the mobility needs of different vulnerable groups (low income and unemployed, elderly people, people with reduced mobility, women, migrants and ethnic minorities, children and young people, people living in rural and deprived areas) and compare them with the results from the desktop research on transport poverty presented in D2.1.
The scope of the deliverable is to provide the foundation for the project’s next activities: the identification and development of new mobility options and business models in the HiReach project areas of study.

This article traces the social and political aspects of cycling mobility in the Boston area. For some, attracting a certain desirable demographic by investing in bicycle infrastructure is problematic because it could lead to gentrification. Not investing in low-income neighborhoods, however, could be seen as a perpetuation of an unjust distribution of resources. While the bicycle is a common cost-efficient choice among low-income residents, it also symbolizes a privilege for new urban elites, although for very different reasons. Drawing on interview data gathered between 2015 and 2016 with city officials, cycling associations, and transportation planners, the article details the different narratives that unfold in the construction of bicycling infrastructure: First, bicycling has often been conceptualized in the rhetoric of Boston city officials in terms of economic growth. The promotion of cycling helps satisfy the city’s ostensible need to attract or retain a well-educated, young ...

Il saggio offre una ricostruzione delle riflessioni e dei contributi offerti dai Mobilities studies nel reinterpretare la mobilità come pratica socio-spazio-temporale per poi confrontarsi con i temi di mobility justice a partire dalle riflesioni offerte nel recente libro di  Mimi Sheller  e nell’ottica di ripensare approcci e strumenti per la pianificazione urbana e le politiche per la mobilità.

The expansion of investments in bicycling infrastructure has been on the increase across the United States. However, there is a lack of research examining if the historic investments have been installed in geographically equitable manner. If not equitable designed, these new investments may amplify the inequalities of the past.

To create a Bike Equity Index (BEI) model for San Francisco we assessed two key studies. First, the study Reconnecting Milwaukee—A BikeAble™ Study of Opportunity, Equity and Connectivity which found that the neighborhoods in Milwaukee that disproportionately lacked access to biking and walking facilities were also areas with concentrations of poverty, unemployment, high school degree obtainment, and carless households. Second, the study Equity of Access to Bicycle Infrastructure from the League of American Bicyclist which examines access to the current bike infrastructure in Chicago and how expansion could intentionally serve communities with concentrations of transit dependent populations, including communities of color, elderly, carless, impoverished and youth.

We took the models built in these studies and looked to improve them as we examined the current inequalities in the bicycling infrastructure of the City of San Francisco. Our group of geographic scientists found that it is very difficult to create a bike equity index that summarizes a number of variables into one comprehensive number on which to base a strategic plan. Furthermore, it takes a nuanced approach to interpret the results of the index. However, we found that the process of intentionally analyzing inequitable distribution should be part of the future investments in bicycling infrastructure.

This article considers how migrant deaths -particularly in the borderlands of Europe and the United States -relate to the speed at which migrants travel. It argues that the most dangerous boundaries for migrants, and the most difficult ones to traverse, are those which embody the sharpest divides in energy consumption, divides reflected in the vulnerability of migrants who typically move at relatively slow speeds and have insufficient access to safe modes of travel. Thus, migrant deaths and the boundaries that produce them embody the injustices associated with grossly unequal levels of access to, control over, and consumption of environmental resources.

As the average cost of owning a car, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), has risen to nearly $9,000 per year (see Table 1)  in contrast the annual cost of public transit in the City and County of San Francisco is between about $1,200 and $850 (see Table 2), while the annual bike ownership cost is about $300.  Due to the high cost of car ownership many low-income individuals and families turn to less costly alternatives for their transportation needs.

Given the realities of the prohibitive cost of car ownership the City of San Francisco has been profoundly committed to increasing the infrastructure for less expensive transportation options.  The City has invested substantial time, money, and material resources on infrastructure projects that ensure that cycling is a safe and viable mode of transit for both visitors and residents and in doing so have become an international leader in bicycle ridership.  However, the good intentions of the City and bicycle advocates have lacked certain cultural, socio-economic, and racial competences to address the bike issues facing residents in District 11 and more specifically the Excelsior neighborhood.