1. Dr Karen Lucas Professor of Transport and Social Analysis
Future of mobility: exploring potential mobility and accessibility inequalities outcomes in the UK
Dr Karen Lucas
Professor of Transport
and Social Analysis

2. Outline Background of transport poverty in the UK?
Who is affected and why does it matter?
Are proposed solutions and meeting people’s current & future travel needs?
Evidence review for GO Science on Future of Mobility
Methodology, scope, aims, outputs
Key findings
Recommendations
Moving beyond mobility to a livelihoods approach

3. Definition of transport poverty
There is no transport option available that is suited to the individual’s physical condition and capabilities.
The existing transport options do not reach destinations where the individual can fulfil his/her daily activity needs, in order to maintain a reasonable quality of life.
The necessary weekly amount spent on transport leaves the household with a residual income below the official poverty line.
The individual needs to spend an excessive amount of time travelling, leading to time poverty or social isolation.
The prevailing travel conditions are dangerous, unsafe or unhealthy for the individual.
(Lucas et al, 2016: 356)

4. Interactions with social disadvantage

5. Who is most affected?
Transport poverty is in roughly line with income poverty because:
¼ of all UK households still do not have regular access to a car – 60% in 2 lowest income quintiles
½ UK population (45 million) cannot/don’t drive (67% of all job seekers)
Women, children, old people, young people and minority populations are most affected
People rural and peripheral areas and in deprived areas are worst affected

6. Study methodology A rapid synthesis review:
Published literatures current mobility and accessibility inequalities
Scenario-based literatures & pilot studies of transport innovations
2. Basic trend analysis:
National Travel Survey
Living Costs and Food Survey
Department for Transport Accessibility Index
3. Qualitative expert evaluation of the likely impacts of different future scenarios on the distributions of mobility and accessibility in the UK to 2040.
4. Recommendations based on evidence of good practices from elsewhere.

7. Are state of the art transport solutions …

8. Meeting the needs of society?

9. Key findings systematic literature reviews
150 relevant articles identified on social impacts of transport innovations
Many US studies focusing on the current uptake of AVs and Uber/LIFT services – mostly young, white, educated
Most UK-focused articles are speculative and there is little empirical evidence
Two camps – Utopian and Dystopian narratives
+/- effects on access, public transport use, health and well-being (reduce pollution), physical activity (e-bikes), reduced cost of travel (smart mobility), distrust of technologies by some groups
Positive narratives around older people and people with disabilities (assistive technologies & reduced social isolation), women (participation & inclusion), young people (MaaS & Shared Mobility Services)
Positive narratives around rural areas – AV services could improve accessibility

10. Job accessibility
Map of accessibility to jobs within 45 minutes by public transport
57% of working age population live in areas with low public transport access to jobs (5000+) and 24% are also in areas of high deprivation
Source: Analysis by Jeroen Bastiaanssen 2018 – for GOS Future of Mobility Report

11. And so does governance!
Based on a composite indicator of i) expenditure on fuel, ii) income levels, iii) walking and public transport accessibility to key services
Great London
West Midlands
Greater Manchester
West Yorkshire
Source: Analysis of MOT data by Giulio Mattioli and Ian Phillips, 2018

12. Car-related economic stress
ESRC funded research by Giulio Mattioli, 2017
A LIHC indicator of Car-Related Economic Stress (UK) 9%
14%
11%
66%
In the LILC group, 60% have no car – that means the large majority of “LI” households with car is in CRES
57%-66% of LI (AHC) households with cars are CRES
Data: Living Costs and Food Survey 2014
Source: Mattioli et al. (2017)

13. Future population and travel trends
Overall population growth – from 65.6 million to 72.9 million by 2041
Ageing population - aged 85 double over the next 25 years to 3.2 million by 2041
Increased ethnic diversity - inwards migration will account for 77% of the projected UK population growth
Poverty suburbanises – poor people increasingly move to urban periphery – increases the need to travel but poorer public transport services
Income & wage inequalities and child poverty increase – up 4-6%

14. Equity evaluation of other Evidence reviews
Mode
Overall predicted trends
Likely social distributional impacts (often based on subjective analysis of the evidence)
Gender
Age
Disability
Ethnicity
Income
SEG
Rural
Urban
Walking
Current baseline analysis
Government reports
Spending reviews
Evidence from pilot studies
Modelled predictions
Expert opinions
Speculation
Cycling (e- bikes)
Buses and coaches
Rail
MaaS
Roads
AVs
EVs
Domestic aviation
Freight
Data & ICT
Policy & planning

15. 10 Shared Principles for Inclusive & Equitable Future Mobility
Planning cities and mobility together – with particular attention to the provision of low cost accommodation in areas with high levels of walking and public transport access to employment and other key activities.
Focus on people not cars – especially thinking about the needs of already disadvantaged and vulnerable social groups.
Make efficient use of space and assets – and evaluate the distribution of these assets across of different social groups, with attention to green and public spaces.
Engage stakeholders in decision-making – and ensure that everyone has a voice in the decision-making process.
Design for equitable access – and recognise that some population sectors may need additional support to be able to secure access to facilities and services.

16. 10 Shared Principles (cont)
6. Seek fair user fees – based on clear standards for assessing affordability and offering subsidies to people who cannot afford mobility services. 7. Transition towards zero emissions – but ensure that people who are unable to afford new low carbon technologies are not disadvantaged by this transition. 8. Deliver public benefits through open data – and ensure that all population groups have the resources and skills to access these data resources. 9. Provide integrated and seamless connectivity – but also first ensure that everyone has the basic level of mobility needed to access their livelihoods and everyday activity needs. 10. AVs must be shared – inclusive access to these shared vehicles should be ensured, and their use should be heavily restricted in areas where they may pose a threat to vulnerable road users.

17. One step beyond: a livelihoods approach
Housing – increase the supply of low cost housing within ‘easy reach’ of local activity centres
Walkability – increase the % of residents within a 15 minute ‘safe walk’ to local facilities (e.g. schools, clinics, local shops)
Public transport – ensure that low income residential areas have regular and affordable public transport connectivity with key strategic destinations (e.g. hospitals,
Pollution and safety – significantly reduce exposure to traffic-related pollution and road traffic accidents
Governance – involve local communities in the planning of new transport infrastructures and transport services

18. References
Banister, D. and Hickman, R. (2013). Transport futures: Thinking the unthinkable. Transport Policy, 29, Cohen, T., Jones, P. and Cavoli, C Social and-behavioural questions associated with automated vehicles. Scoping study by UCL Transport Institute. Final report - January [Online]. London. Hubers, C. and Lyons, G. (2013). New technologies for the old: potential implications of living in later life for travel demand. Transport Policy 30, Jeekel, H. (2015). The Future of Car Mobility : Material for a Debate on Framing Smart Mobility. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 3(3), Litman, T. ed Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions. Implications for Transport Planning. Mattioli, G Transport needs in a climate-constrained world. A novel framework to reconcile social and environmental sustainability in transport. Energy Research & Social Science. 18, pp Mattioli, J., Philips, I., Anable, J. & Chatterton, T. (2017). Developing an index of vulnerability to motor fuel price increases in England. In: 49th University Transport Studies Group Conference, Dublin, Eire, 4–6 January Palmer, K., Tate, J.E., Wadud, Z. and Nellthorp, J Total cost of ownership and market share for hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK, US and Japan. Applied Energy. 209, pp Shaw, J., and Stokes, G., 2016, How will rural people be travelling in 2030? – Scenarios and implications for transport policy. [online] Shergold, I., Lyons, G. & Hubers, C. (2015). Future mobility in an ageing society – Where are we heading? Journal of Transport & Health, 2(1), 86-94

19. New edited book
Written by a collection of top researchers and upcoming scholars in the transport field.
Shows how to apply transport equity measurement ideas in the real world through case study examples.
Covers emerging transport topics, including the use of advanced measures of inequality.
Includes learning aids, such as methodology, application, policy relevance, and further reading

20. Thanks and further information
Co-authors: Gordon Stokes, Jeroen Bastiaanssen, Julian Burkinshaw
ITS Researchers: Giulio Mattioli, Ian Philips, Lamprini Papafoti, John Nellthorp
Experts: ITS Social & Political Sciences Research Group
Government Office for Science Team
Further information:
Future of Mobility Evidence Reviews
FoM Evidence Review – Inequalities in Mobility and Accessibility
My contact details