James Wickham: The National Transport Authority (NTA) has just closed the
consultation period for its draft transport strategy for the Greater Dublin
Area. Consultation on the Dublin City Development
Plan closes on 11 December 2015. Both
consultations are an opportunity to discuss the relationship between transport
issues and social equality. Here is an
abbreviated and amended version of my submission to the NTA.
Social exclusion, transport exclusion and accessibility
Social exclusion refers to the way in which some members of society are excluded from participation in the normal life of society, in particular by lack of financial resources. Transport-related social exclusion has been defined as:
The process by which people are prevented from
participating in the economic, political and social life of the community
because of reduced accessibility to opportunities, services and social
networks, due in whole or part to insufficient mobility in a society and
environment built around the assumption of high mobility (Kenyon et al 2003).
The ‘assumption of high mobility’ means the assumption
that everyone has access to car. While car ownership has increased, a significant number of households, in
particular those in the lower end of the income distribution, remain without a
car. Within car-owning households not all adult members will have access to the
car and of course many members are too young (or too old) to use a car
independently. Those who cannot access a car and for whom transport
destinations cannot easily be reached on foot or by cycle face
transport-related exclusion. In
particular:
- They will have difficulty in getting a job or have more restricted job opportunities, thus consolidating areas of low employment;
- They will have difficulty accessing learning especially third level, further exacerbating educational inequalities within the city
- They will have restricted access to shopping, thus expanding ‘food deserts’ and narrowing their range of food;
- They will have more difficulty accessing healthcare, in particular hospitals;
- They will have less access to social, cultural and sporting activities and may have reduced social networks and lower social capital (Social Exclusion Unit 2003; also Sustainable Development Commission, 2011)
In many European countries access to public transport has
for some time been an indicator of social inclusion. By contrast the Strategy appears to make no
consideration of how public transport access can be improved in the more
excluded areas of the city.
Constrained car dependency
If car ownership is desirable or even essential in order to participate in the normal activities of a society, then car dependency is constrained. This also has implications for social inclusion, since the costs of car ownership may take a disproportionate share of income for those on lower incomes (e.g. Froud et al 2002). Indeed, given that public transport facilities are in general worse in deprived areas and that transport destinations from these areas are more dispersed, low incomes tend to be associated with compulsory car usage.
International
comparisons suggest that the Greater Dublin Area is a relatively extreme case
of such constrained car dependency. One
earlier European research project published by tasc examined car ownership and
use in different areas of four European cities (Athens, Bologna, Dublin,
Helsinki). Comparing working class
suburban areas of these cities the Dublin area had the lowest level of car
ownership, but in the same Dublin area the relatively few car owners were more likely to use their car to travel
to work than were car owners in other areas of other cities (See Chart). In Dublin, more so than elsewhere, whether or
not you have a car makes a dramatic difference to your employment chances
(Wickham 2006).
Four cities: Normal mode of travel to work, all
employed aged 25-64, car owners
City
areas: (I) Inner city affluent (M) Middle class suburb (W) Working class suburb
Source: SceneSusTech survey. Base: All aged 25-64 and at work who
own cars, N=212
Planning and integration
The major investment projects identified in the strategy are
based on the level of demand. This results in a list of projects which
essentially replicate existing travel patterns.
There is no consideration for projects which would change existing
travel patterns, even though a reduction of travel-related exclusion would
probably have such a consequence.
Equally, projects that aim to integrate the existing network (and thus
also change travel patterns) are given little or no consideration. For example, any cost-benefit analysis in
terms of social equity would probably prioritise transport to the new western
areas of the city, in particular the proposed East-West Luas line rather than
Metro North. This would begin to tackle
the transport deficits created by the unsustainable housing construction of the
Celtic Tiger boom (Caulfield and Aherne 2014).
From a social equity perspective the most appropriate
investments tend to be those that integrate the system as a whole, allowing all citizens to travel around their
city. This is potentially the most
important cultural contribution of
transport investment. By contrast,
projects that replicate existing patterns by definition can only benefit
specific areas. From this perspective
the clear priority would be DART Underground, since it potentially ties
together the entire network. Whereas
this crucial project has received very little national interest, it has been
identified as an absolute priority by at least one external evaluation (Smyth
et al 2010).
At a fundamental level the draft strategy is
regrettably only a shopping list of individual projects. Given that transport
decisions for Dublin are made entirely at national level, the result will be
that governments will pick and choose projects to fund based on short term
financial and indeed electoral considerations.
Prof James Wickham is Lead Researcher for TASC's Working Conditions in Ireland Project.
References
Caulfield, Brian and Aoife Aherne (2014). The green fields of Ireland: The legacy of
Dublin's housing boom and the impact on commuting. Case
Studies on Transport Policy 2: 20-27
Kenyon, K., Lyons, G., Rafferty, J. (2003) Transport and
social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting social exclusion
through virtual mobility. Journal of
Transport Geography 10: 207-219.
Smyth, Austin; E. Humphreys and S. Wood (2010) T21
Midterm Review. Dublin: Chartered
Institute of Logistics and Transport.
Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Sustainable Development Commission (2011). Fairness
in a car dependent society. London:
Sustainable Development Commission.
Wickham, J. (2006) Gridlock: Dublin's transport crisis and the
future of the city. Dublin: tasc at
New Island.
No comments:
Post a Comment