No abstract

PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014015448.

In this paper, we present the case that traditional transport appraisal methods do not sufficiently capture the social dimensions of mobility and accessibility. However, understanding this is highly relevant for policymakers to understand the impacts of their transport decisions. These dimensions include the distribution of mobility and accessibility levels over particular areas or for specific population groups, as well as how this may affect various social outcomes, including their levels of participation, social inclusion and community cohesion. In response, we propose a method to assess the socially relevant accessibility impacts (SRAIs) of policies in some of these key dimensions. The method combines the use of underlying ethics principles, more specifically the theories of egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, in combination with accessibility-based analysis and the Lorenz curve and Gini index. We then demonstrate the method in a case study example. Our suggestion is that policymakers can use these ethical perspectives to determine the equity of their policies decisions and to set minimum standards for local transport delivery. This will help them to become more confident in the development and adoption of new decision frameworks that promote accessibility over mobility and which also disaggregate the costs and benefits of transport policies over particular areas or for specific under-served population groups.

Transport poverty is an issue that has never fully captured the interests of the transport engineering profession in either the 'global north' or 'global south' and yet it is a problem that adversely affects the daily lives of millions of people across the globe. What precisely constitutes transport poverty is not adequately articulated within academic, policy or infrastructure design literature. This paper aims to demonstrate how the different ways that academic studies and policy programmes have defined and recorded the problem of transport poverty is directly related to the ways in which it has been subsequently addressed in practice. The overall impression is one of inadequacy, fragmentation, inconsistency and tokenistic treatment of an issue that potentially affects anywhere between 10 to 90% of all households, depending on which definition is used and which country is being considered. This suggests that it is a far greater problem than the transport profession has previously been prepared to recognise and one that requires its urgent attention given the continuing trends for mass migration, urbanisation and wealth concentration within and between the 'global north' and 'global south'.

This paper provides a critical review of the progress in understanding the linkages between transport disadvantage and social exclusion. It follows earlier work in proposing social capital as a concept that mediates those linkages but argues that transport researchers must not confine themselves to conceptualisations of social capital as predominantly benign and capable of reducing transport disadvantage and social exclusion. A range of hypothetical pathways is discussed, highlighting the Janus-faced character of social capital as a medium for both the effectuation of progressive social change and the perpetuation and creation of social inequalities. An analysis is provided of the extent to which the recent transport-related literature supports or rejects the hypothesised pathways, and key avenues for future research are identified.Key words: social exclusion, transport disadvantage, social capital, literature review, social network 1 1| IntroductionThere is a long tradition in transport studies, urban studies and human geography of research that examines the connections of mobility with social inequality and deprivation (Kain, 1968;Wachs and Kumagai, 1973;Hanson and Hanson, 1980;Kwan, 1999;Neutens et al., 2010), and a range of papers on those connections have recently been published in TransportationResearch Part A (Stanley et al., 2011;Martens et al., 2012;Mullen et al., 2014). Within that tradition researchers have suggested direct causal links between transport and social exclusion (Church et al., 2000;Hine and Mitchell, 2001;Lucas et al., 2001;Kenyon et al., 2002; Lucas, 2004Lucas, , 2012Cass et al., 2005;Gray et al., 2006;Preston and Rajé, 2007;Stanley et al., 2011). Scholarship on these links flourished in the early 21 st century, in part because of the interest the Labour government under Tony Blair took in reducing social exclusion in the UK. Yet, this flourishing also reflects more general concerns over the effects of neoliberal urban and transport policies on the less privileged segments of urban and rural populations in the UK and elsewhere.The intimate connections of academic work on mobility and exclusion with the realms of policy-making and -less frequently -grassroots activism imply that research on transport and social exclusion ticks many of the 'impact' and 'knowledge valorisation' boxes that are increasingly important in research evaluations. However, the flipside of this orientation on policy and practice is that theoretical development has not always been the highest priority among researchers. Past studies have significantly expanded our understanding of concepts, such as mobility-related exclusion (Kenyon et al., 2002), access (Cass et al., 2005 or network capital (Urry, 2007(Urry, , 2012, but research has to a considerable degree progressed through cumulative broadening of empirical research.2 Therefore, the current paper draws upon various theoretical perspectives on social capital and explores how they can strengthen the theoretical basis of research about transport and social ...

a b s t r a c tTo date, the majority of studies which consider transport from a social exclusion perspective have been conducted in the context of the developed world where both income poverty and lack of transport are relative rather absolute states. In a unique departure from these previous studies, this paper explores the relationship between transport and social disadvantage in the development context, the key difference being that income poverty is absolute and where there is much lower access to both private and public transportation generally. Thus, it seeks to explore whether the concept of social exclusion remains valid, when it is the majority of the population that is experiencing transport and income poverty compared with the minority who do so in advanced economies.The paper is based on a scoping study for the Republic of South Africa Department of Transport (RSA DOT), which primarily involved focus group discussions with a range of socially deprived urban and peri-urban population groups living in the Tshwane region of South Africa. In a second departure from previous studies which consider transport and social disadvantage in the development context, the study takes a primarily urban focus. The rationale for this is that theoretically low income urban settlements do not suffer from the lack of transport infrastructure and motorised transport services in the way that more remote rural areas do. The policy issue is therefore less a question of addressing a deficit in supply and more one of addressing particular aspects of public transit service failure, which are more readily amenable to relatively low cost, manageable, small-scale national and local policy interventions.A primary aim for the study was to reinvigorate cross-government debate of these issues in the hope of breaking South African government's long-standing and persistent policy inertia in the delivery of equitable and socially sustainable urban transport systems.

No abstract

This paper examines emerging trends in transport policy in the UK, as identified by the 2004 Transport White Paper and the supporting policy guidance to local transport authorities for addressing social exclusion through local transport provision; accessibility planning. It moves on to identify potential barriers to delivery at the local level and more fundamental challenges, risks and policy tensions. In this context, it critiques UK policies to deliver social equity through transport programmes in light of its Climate Change Agenda and the identified need to significantly reduce traffic levels on UK roads. It identifies the potential synergy between these two policy ambitions, but argues that currently there is a serious policy conflicts between these agendas within the UK policy framework. In the light of this conclusion, it offers some key recommendations on the best way forward, which it recommends must be based on the synergistic and integrated delivery of policies for social and environmental equity within the transport sector. It concludes by identifying the key challenges this implies for applied research in this area.