On fairness in the domain of transportation

Karel Martens

A different perspective The condition for a real transition in the mobility policy and thus the mobility is , in my view , the recognition that mobility is a prerequisite for full participation in society and that everyone participate fully in society deserves. This claim is certainly not new and seem , superficially , an open door . But a careful analysis of this claim makes clear that here an upper and a lower limit can be derived for government intervention in this area , leading to a radically different perspective on the role of government . And that is , ultimately , a crucial condition for a mobility transition . Which implies the following lower bound . The recognition that mobility is a prerequisite for full participation in society means that a lack of mobility can lead to the exclusion of that society . There is an extensive literature , especially in England, France and the United States shows that it transport poverty in highly mobile societies and transport - related social exclusion lurk . The leading study in this area , conducted by the Social Exclusion Unit in the UK , has shown that the lack of a car and inadequate public transportation for two to five job seekers is a major barrier to getting a job . Recent research in Flanders shows that , despite the substantial investment in public transport following the decree Basic mobility , nearly seven in ten jobseekers with low incomes hard getting work because of movement restrictions . The notion of transport poverty can be further formalized by recognizing that there is a relationship between the level of mobility , accessibility that people experience , and level of activity participation. A higher mobility , for example because they have access to a faster mode of transport , will be at a constant spatial structure lead to a higher level of accessibility . A higher level of accessibility , in turn, operates at a higher level of activity participation in the hand (Figure 1) .

Ondergrens

Bovengrens

Activiteiten participatie

Bereikbaarheid
can we English this?

Figure 1 The relationship between accessibility and activity participation. The black dots indicate the level of activity participation of a particular person again , the solid line the average level of activity participation at a certain level of accessibility . The relationship between accessibility and activity participation is obviously not linear . At a high level of accessibility activity participation among persons differ significantly , will depend on , among other personal preferences and life . May be that a decrease in the average number of access operations involving also will decrease expected. This is not a problem , as long as it does not materially affect the quality of life . However, in a further decrease in the accessibility mobility system can create a barrier to full participation in society. At this level there is transport poverty . A level of accessibility below this limit is unacceptable , given the social goal to participate in society . Every something missing here? Government intervention new style The first responsibility of government lies in ensuring that a minimum level of accessibility . Deviations from this principle may be acceptable , especially if the size of the group with a low level of accessibility is small and the cost of improving accessibility , which should be borne by the whole community are disproportionately high. Derogations under ' personal responsibility' or 'choice' - for example, the argument that households have opted for a particular residential area itself - are undesirable because ascribing personal responsibility is very problematic . The point is the assumption that households are really free in their choice of residential location and therefore assumes that the housing market a sufficient range of options for all types of households , regardless of income or household size . Of this , even in the Netherlands with its excellent housing , rarely observed.

The upper limit is less obvious . The relationship between mobility , accessibility and activity participation demarceert does not directly an upper limit . At the same time it can be seen that the marginal benefits of additional mobility or accessibility decrease as the initial level of mobility and accessibility increase. The additional contribution to the activities participation will become increasingly smaller. Earlier citizens , will be at a further increase in the accessibility , make different choices , serving or types of activity , without a substantial increase in the level of activity participation. In such an accessibility level of additional investment is required under the social ambition to guarantee . Participate fully in society This is , in other words, the upper limit : government intervention is no longer necessary . This does not mean that additional investments are excluded . Above this level , by definition, As citizens attach great importance to accessibility level above the reasonable level , they must be given the space to realize that self without it coming social agents involved. The infrastructure must be self-financing in other words. The upper limit also allows for additional public investment where it would be , such as improving the economy and protect the environment . Desirable on other grounds There is , however, no mobility policy , but of economic or environmental interventions in the transport system as a policy tool . Mobility policy itself should focus on the requirement for activity participation by securing the lower limit and avoiding ' excessive ' public investment where the availability of a sufficient level . No wipes for bleeding In practice this would mean that we no longer guided by the length of the files. The fact that motorists every day to queue just proves that the transport system is of sufficient quality to make . Possible participation activities The real problem is in the latent demand for travel. There where people do not make movements not meet the mobility system and that is where interventions are therefore in place . So late in Rotterdam study shows that low-skilled job seekers can find because there is no public transport to industrial estates on the highway a job. Precisely those missing links would be achieved . And if we do smart, with a high quality service , it can also take people out of the car so that the files may be slightly shorter . But those are just additional benefits . The core of the policy is to ensure the conditions for participation activities for everyone . A mobility policy with justice as a framework composed not of wipes for bleeding , such as volunteers or near transport vans . It actually means a radical change in priorities, the bulk of the funds are used to set the lower limit. Safely Concretely means that a substantial shift in investment in asphalt , to investments in high quality regional public transport . As a bus per hour not put us anywhere , priorities must be set . Who have to go to the areas where many people live who depend on public transport and where maximum benefits can be generated in terms of increase in activity participation. That means more high frequency connections to and from areas south of Rotterdam , where many low- income groups live, an occasional bus to every rural core. Also, a justice policy will effectively have to deal . With the resources available after all Setting priorities does require adopting the proposed upper and lower fixed. That obviously will not be easy. There is little or no systematic research on the relationship between accessibility and activity participation. Given the variety in the intensity of activity participation among individuals , it will moreover not be easy to make connections between the two variables . Direct relationship Nevertheless, it can be expected that a systematic analysis , for example based on the Mobility Research Netherlands combined with bereikbaarheidskaart.nl , indeed a good indication can bring to both limits .

Normalization The use of the lower and upper limits as criteria for government intervention actually means releasing the much criticized following question mobility policy . This would be a radical break with the past mean, but at the same time would lead to a normalization of mobility policy . After all , in a few areas the government sees it as its responsibility to meet unrestrained demand. Setting limits is an inevitable task in policy areas such as health and education . Just as in the field of mobility , there has been a seemingly endless demand. The need for better education and a comprehensive health care does not assuage . In none of these areas is the 'demand ' is seen as the only guiding principle . Indeed , the term 'demand' as it is used by economists plays only a minor role . Both policy It is not the question , but budgetary constraints that define the upper and lower limits of government intervention . The egalitarian nature of the two policies means that both limits actually very close to each other . Greater bandwidth between the upper and lower limit is inevitable in the mobility policy , not least because , by definition, differences in accessibility between center and periphery . That does not mean that the question should be leading. It is obvious to even just as in health and education , to establish the responsibility of the government to operate. Ever- increasing demand limits the mobility policy , Therefore, I am calling for a transition in the mobility policy with social justice in mind. This transition recognizes that mobility and accessibility conditions for full participation in society . Accepting this premise as a basis for policy would lead to a radical change in the responsibility of the government in the mobility domain and policy priorities . It would finally bring the mobility policy in line with the principles underlying government intervention in the areas of health and education . It is this similarity that gives me the belief that a transition based on principles of justice are much more likely to succeed for the long term , then a transition based on concerns about the environment alone .