Transport for all

Inequality is one topic that is not widely discussed in the transport literature, and this reflects society’s wider views on fairness and justice. There is an argument that in times of economic growth, inequality is not an important issue as everyone gains and all society is better off. But when recession or financial meltdown takes place (as in 2008), a different set of issues emerge. There is a greater concentration of wealth (and income) with the rich getting richer and the poor becoming poorer. Those in the middle also get poorer, and their aspirations are thwarted as their quality of life slips. The widening inequality leads to instability and fragmentation within society, and this affects not just the poorest 10%, but it may extend to the bottom 40% (Atkinson, 2015; Piketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2013). Such a narrative not only relates to wealth and income, but it also reinforces and is added to by global instability, migration, fundamentalism, populism, and climate change, and all these factors lead to unsustainable pathways, short term solutions, and a growth in nationalism (Dorling, 2015). The question raised in this editorial is whether the same thinking and pressures can be found within transport. All societies (and people) need transport to get around, to access everyday opportunities, to see the world, and to visit friends and relatives. These requirements change over one’s lifetime and vary according to where one lives. So it is accepted that there will be inequalities in transport, and that not everyone requires the same level of provision. But it is also important that we understand the nature and scale of these transport inequalities and how they impact on people’s quality of life, and whether a lack of transport results in exclusion from engagement in suitable opportunities. It is also important that decisions (particularly those on investment and subsidy) are fair, and to assess whether they reinforce inequality or redress the balance. Society today is much more mobile, and the average distance travelled has increased by about 5 times in the richer countries – in the UK the level has risen from about 10 km/ person/day in the 1960s to about 50 km/person/day today (including air travel). This increase reflects on the increased availability and affordability of transport, but it also relates to the changes in the organisation of everyday life and the growth in international travel – transport networks are truly global. However, the wider social and environmental costs are also rising. These include the numbers of road deaths (1.2 million globally), perceived safety, congestion, security and community severance, as well as climate change, local pollution, health effects, amenity and open space. Society accepts both the huge benefits from high levels of mobility and the considerable external costs associated with this growth in travel. In terms of inequality, the debate must be over whether both the benefits and costs are evenly spread or whether the costs (in particular) fall disproportionately on the poor. There is strong evidence that the poor make fewer trips, travel less far, and tend to use the bus, walk and cycle, and taxi as their main means of transport (Banister, 2018). They also use the car both as a driver and passenger, but to a much lesser extent than the rich. In addition, the poor are also impacted more by the actions of the rich in terms of both the social and environmental costs identified above. This situation is seen as a double injustice, where the poor contribute less to the problem (through lower levels of mobility) but they are impacted more than the rich from the external costs (through higher road death rates and higher levels of pollution) (Gough, 2017).