[sustran] Re: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share your Beijing +10 views and resources on Siyanda

[Paul Barter]

Dear sustran-discuss folks

Maybe some here will be interested in this posting i just sent to the
Gender and Transport list.

Paul

 

 

Dear gatnet folks

 

This concept of mobility as a human right is very interesting but
slightly troubling. I think i would agree that some notion of transport
as a human right could be a powerful argument. However may i beg to
differ on the terminology. Can i suggest instead 'basic accessibility'
as a human right? (or just 'accessibility' as a human right), NOT
'mobility'.

 

The distinction between accessibility and mobility is important. I am
following some of Todd Litman's ideas here. He identifies three
perspectives on "defining success" in transport policy:

 

1.  'Traffic': in this perspective vehicle movement and speed are
beneficial; congestion or inadequate roads are seen as the problem. The
old roads-focussed approaches in rural transport could be seen as
analogous to a traffic focus.

 

2.  'Mobility': in this perspective it is the efficient movement of
people and goods that is seen as beneficial or as they key aim of
policy. This is much wiser than a traffic focus because at least it
helps move attention to more efficient ways of moving people and goods.
This would put a high priority on collective modes of transport (eg
buses, rail).

 

3. 'Accessibility' or an 'access focus': In this perspective it is the
ability to REACH opportunities that is beneficial, not movement itself.
In remote rural contexts gaining access to services, goods and contacts
will often require a lot of mobility. However, in many urban contexts
accessibility might involve very short trips. And in places like
suburban USA policy to enhance accessibility might actually require that
we reduce traffic or even reduce the need to travel (or reduce
mobility). 

 

In the rural transport context, an example would be non-transport
interventions such as efforts to bring water supply and fuel supply to
houses (instead of forcing people - especially women - to walk long
distances for them). This is an excellent example of an effort to
increase accessibility of services without the need to increase
mobility.

 

With an accessibility perspective, both traffic and mobility are
obviously still important. But they are seen as 'means' not 'ends in
themselves'. Other ways to enhance accessibility would include planning
for proximity, improved communications systems, bringing services
closer, etc.  

 

So maybe we could instead push for a 'right to accessibility' of goods,
services and contacts. I would strongly oppose any suggestion that we
have a 'right to mobility'. 

 

Unfortunately part of the problem is confusion over the terminology. I
notice that some people mean the same thing as my 'accessibility' when
they say 'mobility'. In Europe especially, 'mobility' seems to often be
used in a way that suggests it includes accessibility thinking.  I think
it important to make the distinction.

 

Please note that I am not saying that it is bad to increase mobility for
low-income people, especially low-income women. What I am saying is that
mobility is only one of the means for people to achieve the more
fundamental end of gaining access to things. In many cases it is an
important means, and we certainly should be helping people living in
poverty to increase their mobility, in order to increase their
accessibility. In rural contexts this will indeed be the main way to do
so. 

 

Sorry to be so long-winded and argumentative on my very first posting to
the list. A wonderful list by the way!!

 

All the best,

 

Paul

 

Dr Paul A. Barter 
Assistant Professor, LKY School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore, 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Singapore
119620
Tel: +65-6874 3324;  Fax: +65-6778 1020
Email:  paulbarter at nus.edu.sg 
I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. 

Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then
consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, an email discussion and
announcements list devoted to people-centred, equitable and sustainable
transport with a focus on developing countries. Visit
http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join or
http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ for more background information.

 

  _____  

	From: Kate Czuczman [mailto:p3_22981 at ifrtd.org] 
	Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2005 6:52 PM
	To: Gender and Transport
	Subject: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share your
Beijing +10 views and resources on Siyanda
	
	

	It would be good to submit a piece on mobility as a human right.
Coudou and Pri wrote something for the IFRTD website which could be
adapted. 

	
	 
	Kate Czuczman
	Editor & Communications Coordinator
	IFRTD Secretariat
	Web: www.ifrtd.org and www.ruralwaterways.org
	Email: kate.czuczman at ifrtd.org
	
	"The IFRTD is a global network of individuals and organisations
working together towards improved access and mobility for the rural poor
in developing countries"
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050217/1c2970eb/attachment.html