There is significant evidence across countries that lower-income populations tend to suffer more from restricted transport options, have lower quality transport services available to them and travel under worse conditions (safety, security, reliability, comfort). Broad evidence also suggests that the lack of, or poor access to, transport options is central to limitations on access to jobs, educational institutions, health facilities, social networks, etc., which in turn generates a “poverty trap”. The ITF Roundtable Report “Income Inequality, Social Inclusion and Mobility” examines mobility policies with a focus on evaluating their capacity to address transport-related exclusion of lower income groups. The document was prepared by the ITF Secretariat following an event that brought together a number of international experts, academics and policy makers, and includes input papers developed for the event and a synthesis of the debate, developed to embed conclusions in the relevant research literature. This work is part of the OECD’s Centre for Opportunity and Equality, which is a platform initiated in 2015 for promoting and conducting policy-oriented research on the trends, causes and consequences of inequalities. Despite cross-country and cross-city differences, the following priorities were identified as universal for advancing the inclusive transport agenda. These include a) developing policies that are driven by improved data and analysis; b) co-ordinating housing and transport policies because of their indissociable relationship and their central role in peoples’ livelihood; and c) setting coherent pricing policies for each transport mode that support both sustainable mobility and social inclusion goals. In line with these overarching principles, the following actions are recognised as necessary. Improving data and developing effective performance indicators: Authorities need to develop better performance indicators for quantifying and better understanding the nature of exclusion. Multimodal location-based accessibility indices and housing plus transport affordability indices have proven to be valuable tools. They improve understanding of transport poverty and its effects on social exclusion spatially and across population segments. They also have important potential for enabling land use, housing and transport authorities to set common goals and co-ordinate planning. While various programmes have started incorporating such indicators, going beyond occasional use to their systematic inclusion in transport, housing and land use policy frameworks will be vital. Rethinking housing policies: Housing, urban development and transport authorities need to assess decisions with a comprehensive view of the impact of location, housing quality and transport options on livelihoods. Incorporating transport-related indicators (travel times and costs), particularly for reaching jobs, into housing quality definitions used in the design and evaluation of social and affordable housing programmes is particularly important. Readjusting urban renewal and transit-oriented development strategies: Urban renewal strategies need to shift away from clearing slums to a strong focus on seizing opportunities for rehabilitation, and offering the population the opportunity to choose between their present and alternative locations. Where TOD principles are central to urban renewal, these principles need to be adapted to the size, mobility characteristics and purchasing power of residents, especially low income residents. In particular, city planners should acknowledge how informal settlements have naturally yielded TOD characteristics adapted to the wants and needs of lower income residents. They also need to acknowledge that, while TOD principles can make urban renewal more inclusive - notably by focusing on improving public transport and non-motorised mobility - the effect of increasing land and property values displaces the poor even where eviction is not part of the urban renewal strategy. To address this, it is essential to design and measure the performance of TOD projects in terms of equity and social inclusion. Mobilising increases in land value to deliver objectives for social inclusion: Methods of financing that incorporate land value capture mechanisms have demonstrated significant potential for reducing the social inclusion challenge of TOD and urban renewal. But authorities need to ensure that land value capture mechanisms channel part of future increases in the value of property directly to meeting policy objectives, including social inclusion goals. Where this is not the case, the measures could, on the contrary, accelerate the displacement of low-income populations. Making public transport subsidies efficient and financially sustainable: Given competing needs for public funds and the limited resources, public transport subsidy schemes need to put as little strain as possible on public finances. They need to ensure efficient resource allocation and make sure subsidies are effectively translated into livelihood improvements (which go beyond travel time savings). Targeted subsidies, as opposed to generalised support, are a better way of striking a balance between financial sustainability and service affordability. An increasing number of cities are building on the adoption of new technology, including smart cards, to put targeted subsidy schemes into effect. Participants also identified core issues for future discussion: * Understanding the role, potential and limitations of shared vehicles for contributing to the reduction of social exclusion – in particular, analysing whether gains in productivity from this vehicle sharing through technology would allow provision of affordable services for lower income residents, or if subsidies would still be needed. * Correcting policy biases and market distortions that favour car travel over more affordable modes. * Attracting investment to programmes for the reduction of transport-related exclusion – in particular, exploring ways to a) improve and complement appraisal tools; b) calculate and add co-benefits to financial assessments; and c) shift financial and institutional resources from silo-structured to multi-sector programmes and projects. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting