Equity

Stop subsidising fares. Start subsidising people.

I have frequently criticised free or very low fares, partly because of their cost and their lack of effectiveness in getting people to switch from cars. However, they are often defended on the basis of the benefits they provide to low-income households.

Are there better ways to support low-income households, such as with more targeted support? This research looked at the impacts of the Los Angeles (CA) Mobility Wallet Pilot Program, which provided low-income recipients with resources to spend flexibly on a variety of shared transportation services.

Key Takeaways

• The program provided 1,000 residents in South Los Angeles with a prepaid debit card of $150 per month for 1 year to spend on select shared transportation modes.
• The money could be spent on public transit, on-demand rideshare, carshare, e-scooters and bikes, taxi and ridehail, regional transportation, and merchandise purchases at local bike shops.
• Participants increased their mobility and activity participation using new modes, undertaking new trips and reaching new destinations and reducing their travel time.
• Once participants received their mobility wallet, many used it on ridehail services.
• Participants would often use transit to the nearest node and then switch to ridehail for the last leg of their journey.
• The mobility wallet opened doors to bikes and scooters for program participants, many of whom never had a chance or a reason to use them with their own money.
• Participants reported improved quality of life: increased feelings of independence and freedom, decreased stress, and increased social connectedness.
• After the program ended, the most common reactions centred on the return of both financial and transportation insecurity.
• The results suggest an important role for flexible, demand-side transportation subsidies in meeting the diverse transportation needs of low-income travellers.
• The findings suggest that programs such as the mobility wallet enable low-income travellers to access resources that help them select transportation modes that best suit their needs.

Comment

Given my criticisms of free or very low fares, I certainly believe a mobility wallet is a significantly better policy for meeting the needs of low-income households.

However, I do have a concern about ring-fencing money to low-income households for transport. If you are struggling to pay an electricity bill, then transport support may not be much help. It might be better to look at households' income more holistically.

What Next?

Do you understand how poverty is impacting transport choices?

Cycling

E-bike trials: Another Success

There are interesting pilots, trials, and research underway on the potential of e-bikes to improve transport systems. This research provided 42 participants with eight weeks of subsidised e-bike access, combined with structured training, guided rides and peer support.

Key Takeaways

• The results:
  • 92% of participants increased their confidence riding
  • 88% would recommend the program
  • 59% reduced their car use
  • 71% said travel became more enjoyable
  • 75% rode more for everyday transport
• Participants used e-bikes frequently and flexibly, completing 459 trips covering over 3,000 km during the trial for commuting, shopping, recreation and social activities.
• Participants reported improvements in:
  • Quality of life and health satisfaction
  • Mental wellbeing and enjoyment
  • Social connection and community belonging
• Participants consistently identified training, guided rides and peer support as the foundation of their success.

Recommendations:

• Pair funding with capability. Subsidies should be combined with:
  • Practical skills training
  • Guided rides and real-world learning
  • Ongoing support for new riders
  • Culturally inclusive outreach
• Continue to invest in safe, connected infrastructure.
• Enable long-term affordability: While most participants wanted to continue, many could not purchase an e-bike without ongoing support.

Comment

In terms of behaviour change, the results are very encouraging.

However, this is a relatively intensive and therefore expensive program. It is not clear that it could be scaled successfully and affordably.

It is interesting that participants said they could not afford an e-bike but did have access to a car. This might be because the e-bike was seen as an additional transport option, whilst the car remained a priority.

What Next?

Expand the size of this program by 10x to see if it scales accordingly.

Urban Planning

Distance beats density in reducing car commuting

Transport and urban planning are integrally linked. This research examined the links between urban structure and car commuting in Berlin, Boston, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Rio de Janeiro, and Bogotá.

Key Takeaways

• Using 10 million mobility data points, the research team revealed direct links between urban structure and car commuting.
• Understanding direct and indirect drivers of car-based work trip distance enables effective urban interventions.
• Destination accessibility, density, and design are directly linked to the distance of work trips by car.
• Geographic access to the city centre and employment matter more than density or connectivity, yet the magnitude of these effects and their spatial distribution vary with a city’s size and centrality.
• Compact central development appears most effective at reducing car commuting.
• There are suburban corridors up to 40 km from the centre where densification offers additional mitigation potential.
• In more polycentric cities, subcenter development provides further leverage.
• City-wide population density and transport links are of secondary importance.
• In more monocentric metropolitan regions, the most valuable sites for infill development are neighbourhoods arranged in a ring around the centre. The area here is less densely built-up, yet the city centre remains easily accessible.
• In polycentric cities, emissions could be reduced by further densification of areas with a high concentration of job opportunities.
• Income only has an indirect influence on driving behaviour, mainly through the choice of residential location.
• For neighbourhoods farther from employment centres, urban planning measures alone are insufficient. Transit-oriented urban development, restrictions on new developments in greenfield areas, carpooling and home-working arrangements could be helpful.

Comment

It is good to have a more refined understanding of where city densification should occur to reduce car commuting. However, densification is often highly political, and I do not expect this research to have a significant impact on where it occurs.

What Next?

Are you densifying in the right places in your city?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​Curbing the car or charging at the curb? - research looking at whether EVs, and the expansion of curbside charging infrastructure, undermine efforts to reduce vehicle travel.
• ​How cities fail at night transport - and why it's important - an article discussing the importance of night-time transport.
• ​The prospects and challenges of implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems in Ghana - a policy brief on the potential for BRT in Ghana.

Innovation

​

The world’s first commercial vertiport has been approved for air taxi operations in Dubai.