Dr Floridea di Ciommo met with Portal in Žilina, Slovakia, to discuss some of the equity considerations in the field of intelligent transport systems
There is, it seems, quite a significant lack of understanding of equity implications when it comes to the assessment and appraisal of transport projects and policies. When Portal travelled to the ‘Intelligent Transport Systems: a Tool or a Toy?’ event in Žilina, Slovakia – a conference co-hosted by the COST Association and the University of Žilina, the latter as European Research Area (ERA) Chair (ERAdiate project) on International Transport Systems (ITS) – Floridea di Ciommo, chair of COST Action TU1209 designed to address some of these issues, explained that this lack of understanding is preventing, or at least delaying, a shift from older planning frameworks.
Di Ciommo’s Action – Transport Equity Analysis: assessment and integration of equity criteria in transportation planning (TEA) – holds that understanding the equity implications of transport policies and investments is becoming increasingly important, as underscored by social movements around the world. She told Portal that the lack of understanding mentioned above is “a key question for equity and transport because, traditionally, transport planning assessments have been based on a cost/benefit analysis concerning the amount of time that can be saved. Now, however, with the emergence and evolution of intelligent transport systems, this needs to change – to take autonomous vehicles as an example: a traveller’s time can now be used for other things while they complete their journey. Similarly, many buses and trains now offer Wi-Fi, meaning that the time spent on-board is no longer time spent out of contact with the work or social environments. As such, time should no longer be used as the key variable for funding transport projects.”
This, Di Ciommo added, will also come to have a significant impact on how we see cities evolving and new cities emerging, as the emphasis will be taken away from roads and cars and placed on ITS with a view to helping to foster a more profound shift towards mobility as a service (MaaS).
Utilitarianism paradigm
Alongside this, Di Ciommo explained, public transport system appraisals are still based on a utilitarianism paradigm, in which everyone, regardless of age, gender, ability/disability and so on, pay the same to travel between the same two points. “This,” she said, “fails to recognise that there are many sub-populations who perhaps cannot afford that cost, or who have mobility issues preventing them from using a particular service.” Furthermore, she also highlighted the fact that research has shown that those people in higher income brackets make more trips than their lower paid counterparts. Their weight within the utilitarianism appraisal is therefore higher, with a consequent higher probability to choose the best transport system for them.
Her Action is thus aiming to include social and spatial factors in social welfare assessment by introducing the concept of gains of accessibility to key social activities. Specifically, the aim is to replace the traditional measure of time savings that favour better-off societal groups with accessibility gains that cater to the needs of more vulnerable social groups. In this way, the social welfare function will be more equitable.
In addition to a shift away from the utilitarianism paradigm, or perhaps as a part of it, it is important to understand the needs of people in terms of transport. For Di Ciommo, a bottom-up approach can be taken by utilising the mobility data from local satisfaction surveys and so on to better understand the needs of this population. She added: “These needs will, at this level, differ from person to person and trip to trip, but a more generalised picture will then begin to emerge with the needs of specific groups of people.”
Horizontal versus social
What becomes clear, according to Di Ciommo, is that the horizontal equity currently being employed is fallible. That is, charging everyone the same price for the same service – and in the transport sector this is perhaps seen as a result of the privatisation of public transport and utilities in cities – in the same way that everyone is charged the same for a product in a supermarket, is marginalising various societal groups.
In stark contrast, a vertical model of equity, also known as ‘social equity’, looks to provide services to those who need them but may not be able to access or afford them; one way in which this can be achieved is via subsidies – although, as Di Ciommo pointed out, when this approach is taken, there tends to also be a lack of transparency. Yet, a shift to a paradigm which puts ‘needs’ over ‘preferences’ is favourable as it will fill the transparency lack by respecting, at the same time, the social equity.
Di Ciommo also told Portal that “a comprehensive equity system” will be something of a Holy Grail, in that it would enable equity for everyone. She explained: “If services are designed for the impaired – whether mentally or physically – the benefits they bestow (perhaps ease of access or a much simpler explanation of information) will be of use for all. The idea is to design a system for a specific group, but to also make it a universal system that all people can use.”
Gender bias
Inadequate transport sometimes contributes to social exclusion, particularly for people who live in an automobile-dependent community and are physically disabled, have a low income, or are unable to own and drive a personal automobile. This is also true for women, with a quite pronounced gender bias existing in transport systems.
Di Ciommo said: “In a typical household, it is quite normal for the man to take the car and for the woman to use public transport, and while there may well be arguments calling for women to share the privately owned transport more equally, the sociological evidence shows that women are more oriented towards ecologically friendly behaviour, such as using public transport and eco-friendly modes of transport, than their male counterparts.
“As such, it is important now for public transport providers to recognise that the majority of their customers are women, and so provide services that are more gender oriented. Of course, any such services will also be usable by men.”
When arguing for one system over another, particularly for a new system, it is crucial to be able to show that it is cheaper, or at least no more expensive, than the one already in place, and the same is true for the example provided by Di Ciommo.
Moreover, it is similarly crucial to ensure that equity issues are taken into consideration at the planning stage, and the last Transportation Research Board (TRB) workshop on Equity in Transportation: Guidelines for Stakeholders and Practitioners at the TRB 96th Annual Meeting on 8 January 2017 in Washington DC looked at the issue of transportation equity with regard to gender. The idea here was to show the importance of equity consideration in planning. Di Ciommo said: “Once you integrate the equity consideration, the system as a whole becomes better for everyone.”
Policy and planning
While there may be concerns that, until this can be achieved, current systems will require a retrofitting approach that may meet with resistance on the part of service providers, there is, Di Ciommo explained, a more pressing issue: the fact that many policy makers are still not realising the value of including service users in planning activities from the outset.
She continued: “It is, of course, easier to follow the well-trodden path, but governments and policy makers are also in place in order to effect change for the better, and it is therefore vital that they understand just how important the service users and their needs are to the formulation and implementation of transport and mobility solutions of the future. There are many parts of cities which remain segregated because they are not connected, and while this raises many challenges across a wealth of sectors, transport can certainly play a role.
“When it comes to the cities of the future, they must also understand that these must not be planned and built with the private car at their heart; even when autonomous vehicles become widely available, it is doubtful that they will come to entirely replace public transport systems (for a variety of reasons), and so with less investment, these environments could be better tailored towards the idea of MaaS, and so, for instance, encourage people to walk a short distance before using public transport, with this combination of transport modes being neither more expensive nor more time-consuming than using a private car.”
According to Di Ciommo, a survey of attitudes in Barcelona, Spain, has revealed that just 25% of people remain committed to owning and using their on automobile; but, she said, should the other 75% receive adequate incentives from local government to utilise public transport and MaaS more generally, then there is a very real chance to change the behaviour – particularly given that, in the long term, a reduction in investments for car-related infrastructure may also guide this smaller population towards more sustainable transport modes.
Of course, there is also the argument around the environmental impact of the ever-increasing number of cars on the world’s roads, as well as the often severe health impacts that this has. Indeed, Di Ciommo told Portal that, recently, Spain’s capital Madrid had seen unacceptable pollution levels and, as a result, people had been required to use transport solutions other than their cars. She added: “People need to look at this in the same way as, for instance, conditions caused by severe snowfall – they are unable to use their cars for a time, so have to have a ‘Plan B’. Once the air quality has returned to normal, they can once again go back to their vehicles.”
There is also the argument that, once people have seen how easy it is to use MaaS – once the relevant ITS have been implemented, that is – then they may not go back to their cars, but decide instead to travel by public transport or other shared services. Of course, this will also have direct economic benefits.
Ambition
The ambition for change in Europe is there, and a lot of the credit for that can perhaps be taken by Di Ciommo’s COST Action, which has made phenomenal progress in creating the necessary critical mass for this to happen. Indeed, the European Commission’s DG MOVE is now taking equity into account, and there has been a call for proposals under Horizon 2020’s Societal Challenges pillar for ‘Improving accessibility, inclusive mobility and equity: new tools and business models for public transport in prioritised areas’.
Additionally, the COST Action has enabled the establishment of a cross-disciplinary network of researchers – bridging spheres such as ICT, economics, psychology, health, education, transport, civil engineering, sociology and so on – who all bring different background knowledge, forward-looking ideas, and theoretical approaches. As Di Ciommo said, it is often the intangibles which are more important than some of the measurable results.
Beyond the Action, Di Ciommo and her team hope to be able to establish what she termed an ‘open access university’, which will begin with freely available videos on transport, including ITS and MaaS, with regard to equity. This will, she hopes, begin to attract additional funding in order for it to grow and, indeed, will help to attract young researchers/planners who have an interest in these issues, thus ensuring that the field will continue to be manned in the years to come.
Dr Floridea di Ciommo
Chair
Transport and Equity Assessment COST Action TU 1209
http://www.teacost.eu/
http://www.cost.eu/
This article first appeared in issue 13 of Horizon 2020 Projects: Portal, which is now available here.
