[sustran] Re: mobility as a right

[Todd Alexander Litman]

Dear Sustran Colleagues,

Related to this issue, I've recently updated my paper "Evaluating 
Transportation Equity" (http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf). It is intended to 
provide an overview of transportation equity concepts and practical 
guidance on how to incorporate equity objectives into transportation planning.

It uses a somewhat different approach to addressing the issue of whether 
mobility and accessibility is a "right". It defines certain types of 
transport activity to be "basic access", that is, transport that reflects 
society's priorities. This typically includes access for medical care and 
other essential services, transport to school and work, public service and 
freight transport, and HOVs. Basic access is often given priority over 
other transport activities (which is why emergency vehicles with sirens 
have priority over other traffic, and some lanes and parking space are 
reserved for HOV and delivery vehicles), and deserves more public support, 
including subsidies, than more discretionary and luxury travel.

I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this paper. Once I'm satisfied 
with it I plan to submit a shorter version to the Institute of 
Transportation Engineers Journal.


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman



At 11:58 AM 2/25/2005 +0100, matthias mueth wrote:

>Dear Sustran-Discuss members,
>
>accessibility as an aspect of gender-equality is doubtless of great 
>importance and needs to be proclaimed.
>
>Nevertheless, doing so should distinguish between mobility and 
>accessibility, as pointed out by Paul Barter.
>
>Apart from this, accessibility, i.e. the opportunity to reach 
>opportunities, ought to be declared a fundamental need and possibly a 
>right. I am strongly opposed to declaring it a "human right", because this 
>term ought not to be used in an inflatory way, but solely be applied in 
>its original meaning of the first generation of human rights. Otherwise it 
>is deemed to lose its force.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Matthias Mueth / Hamburg
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Paul Barter" <paulbarter at nus.edu.sg>
> >Reply-To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport 
> <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> >To: "sustran discuss" <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> >Subject: [sustran] Re: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share 
> yourBeijing +10 views and resources on Siyanda
> >Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:32:38 +0800
> >
> >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"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >================================================================
> >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries 
> (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus 
> is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries 
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus 
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.


Sincerely,
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
Email: litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org