Social equity in urban transportation planning
![](/channels/files/channels/styles/fullwidth_breakpoints_theme_moriarty_small_1x/public/channels/image/transit2-resized.jpg?itok=3Sk4soDS×tamp=1420649724)
During the 20th century, urban transportation planning in North America was mainly concerned with easing traffic congestion, improving safety and saving time for motorists. These days, most cities鈥 transportation plans evoke a more complex blend of environmental, economic, and social-equity goals 鈥 all aimed at promoting 鈥渟ustainability.鈥 Yet, many fail to include meaningful measurements of social-equity objectives, such as helping disadvantaged neighborhoods access essential services, according to researchers at 平特五不中.
In a study published recently in the journal Transport Policy, the researchers analyze the transportation plans of 18 metropolitan areas across the U.S. and Canada 鈥 from San Diego to Montreal -- and find that many plans focus largely on local environmental and congestion-reduction goals.
鈥淢any of the plans talk a lot about social-equity goals, but these goals are not translated into clearly specified objectives 鈥 and it鈥檚 not at all clear how the goals are incorporated into decision-making,鈥 says Kevin Manaugh, lead author of the paper and an assistant professor in 平特五不中鈥檚 Department of Geography and School of Environment.
That鈥檚 partly because traffic speed and certain environmental effects are easier to measure than social-justice considerations, such as access to job opportunities or health care for low-income groups, or balancing the interests of pedestrians and cyclists with those of motorists. (The transportation plans cover the gamut of infrastructure projects, from sidewalks to highways and bicycle paths to suburban rail systems.)
At the same time, a few cities 鈥 notably Boston, San Francisco, San Diego and Chicago -- have managed to build in clear, measurable indicators for achieving social-equity goals, says Prof. Manaugh, who co-authored the study with professors Madhav Badami and Ahmed El-Geneidy of 平特五不中鈥檚 School of Urban Planning.
Building such considerations into the process is important, because 鈥渢hese are very long-term decisions,鈥 Manaugh notes. 鈥淥nce you build a highway, it鈥檚 there for many decades.鈥
The researchers suggest several specific measures or indicators that cities can use to guide social-equity objectives:
-听听听听听听听听听听 Changes in accessibility to desired destinations, particularly for disadvantaged groups;
-听听听听听听听听听听 Difference in travel times, to work and to essential services, between car and public transit;
-听听听听听听听听听听 Difference between top and bottom income quintiles in the proportion of household expenditures spent on transportation;
-听听听听听听听听听听 Difference between car users and pedestrians or cyclists in traffic injuries and deaths, on a per-trip basis.
These indicators are 鈥渞elatively straightforward to capture with a combination of census data, regional travel surveys, and on-board (commuter) surveys,鈥 the researchers write. 鈥淎 plan with these kinds of indicators could potentially go a long way toward making social equity a less 鈥榠ntangible鈥 aspect of transportation planning.鈥
Funding for the research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Fonds de recherche du Qu茅bec -听Soci茅t茅 et听culture.
鈥淚ntegrating social equity into urban transportation planning: A critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in transportation plans in North America鈥. K. Manaugh, M. Badami, A. El-Geneidy, Transport Policy, published online 25 Nov. 2014.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.013
听
听