Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Current Urban Studies, 2022, 10, 575-592
https://www.scirp.org/journal/cus
ISSN Online: 2328-4919
ISSN Print: 2328-4900
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 Nov. 15, 2022 575
Current Urban Studies
Transportation Equity Quantification and
Related Issues and Challenges
Ardeshir Faghri, Hunter Withers
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA
Abstract
The main purpose of this article is to explore the different challenges that
planners, engineers and policy makers face in quantifying transportation eq-
uity for design and implementation purposes. The first section—
quantifying
equity
is a critical review of the most recent literature as well as some existing
tools for quantifying transportation equity. The second part—
implementing
equity to design
identifies several different methods that attempt to integrate
equity in the planning and design processes. The third section—
prioritizing
alternate forms of transportation presents an overview of t
he challenges of
vehicle ownership for many disadvantaged groups and how alternate forms of
transportation may be able to help alleviate this problem. The fourth sec-
tion—cost deterrents to driving
discusses the advantages and disadvantages
of congestion pricing and other cost deterrent methods. The fifth section—
barriers to addressing equity
presents some of the most challenging policy,
planning, design and implementation issues for integrating equity into the
transportation sector. Although much stride ha
s been made in the last few
years to address the important issue of social equity in transportation, more
work and action are needed to make sure all people benefit equally from a
safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system.
Keywords
Transportat
ion Equity, Quantification, Alternate Transportation, Congestion
Pricing, Auto-Centered, Environment
1. Introduction
The issues of transportation equity and environmental justice are broad subjects.
Transportation equity has been simply defined as fairness in mobility and acces-
sibility for all community members. This means accessible and affordable trans-
How to cite this paper:
Faghri, A., & With-
ers
, H. (2022). Transportation Equity Quan-
tification and Related Issues and Cha
llenges
.
Current Urban Studies
, 10,
575-592.
https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2022.104034
Received:
September 26, 2022
Accepted:
November 12, 2022
Published:
November 15, 2022
Copyright © 20
22 by author(s) and
Scientific
Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons
Attribution International
License (CC BY
4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Open Access
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 576
Current Urban Studies
portation for everyone in the community resulting in fair distribution of trans-
portation resources, benefits, costs, programs and services based upon differ-
ences in income, ability and other factors affecting transportation choice and
impact. Most organizations strive to achieve transportation equity and environ-
mental justice in one form or another (California Transportation Commission,
2021). But, there is no standard process for how this can be achieved. In this ar-
ticle, based on existing literature, the authors have attempted to present a few
topics that point to the obstacles that agencies face for quantifying and imple-
menting transportation equity and environmental justice. These topics include
quantifying equity which describes topics of horizontal equity, vertical equity,
and the way Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) quantify equity. Other
topics covered include progressive and regressive policies for quantifying equity
and the advantages and disadvantages associated with each. In the prioritizing
alternate forms of transportation, nonmotorized forms of transportation including
walking and bicycling and the importance of this particular mode, along with reli-
able mass transit system, especially for lower income neighborhoods who cannot
afford a car are discussed. The cost deterrents to driving section of this article cov-
er how congestion pricing has been implemented in many major urban areas and
what the income generated by this method has been spent. The pros and cons of
congestion pricing are discussed in this section. Many legal, policy, planning, de-
sign and policy issues surrounding transportation equity and environmental jus-
tice are discussed at the end of the article.
2. Transportation Equity
While equality is an even distribution of resources, equity is adjusting the level
and types of resources so that different solutions are appropriate for different
groups’ needs and preferences. As such, for the first time, the United States De-
partment of Transportation (USDOT) has centered Equity as a Department-wide
strategic goal via its FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. This is an important step to in-
stitutionalizing equity across all policies and programs, with the aim of reducing
inequities within the transportation systems and the communities.
The main objectives and strategies laid out in the USDOT Strategic Plan will
help support and engage people and communities to promote safe, affordable,
accessible, and multimodal access to opportunities and services (such as health,
education, employment, and others) while reducing transportation-related dis-
parities, adverse community impacts, and health effects. They will also help pro-
mote USDOT as a model of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
But, integrating Equity into transportation systems planning and design has
been challenging. Research is on-going and different opinions are expressed
with regards to how best to implement transportation equity. The following
sections present an overview of some of the latest research detailing such chal-
lenges.
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 577 Current Urban
Studies
2.1. Quantifying Equity
As it is, there are a wide variety of ways in which equity is quantified with regard
to design. Horizontal equity refers to the concept of considering how the costs
and benefits will be shared equally throughout communities based on usage.
Vertical equity considers how systems affect users differently with regard to va-
rying levels of income, disabilities, or other special needs. The disadvantaged
have historically been left behind by transportation design and have suffered the
consequences as a result. Various communities have been underserved as a whole
as well which only makes these disadvantages within society starker. Exactly how
to quantify equity though is much more complicated than it seems however as
various groups have different priorities and disproportionate power to affect the
change. In addition, many organizations lack the resources required to provide a
detailed analysis of equity and are forced to use only existing public resources
(Litman, 2022). Many powerful groups explicitly seek to discriminate against
others and use design to further existing inequities but plans which seek to bene-
fit everyone equally or even better serve the disadvantaged may also fall victim to
implicit bias or the law of unintended consequences. Therefore, more effective
ways of both identifying inequity and solving it are needed which can hopefully
minimize this bias and implement a more equitable and successful solution.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) tend to break down equity by
proximity to communities of concern, the benefits and burdens of a project, ac-
cessibility of projects, quantity of underserved people who will be served by a
new project, and/or how integrated a community is into the process of designing
a project. This analysis is often a points-based system using geographic and de-
mographic data with points awarded by benefit or taken away in the event that
they instead cause burdens. The community engagement access is more complex
however and requires good faith input and listening on both sides, a considera-
tion that project sponsors may be less than forthcoming about, and many or-
ganizations do not even consider. The extent, weight of, and exact variables used
vary per MPO (Krapp et al., 2021).
Defining which groups are disadvantaged varies between organizations as
more universal groups such as low-income populations and people of color are
also sometimes supplemented by considerations of people with disabilities and
elderly populations (Krapp et al., 2021; Ferenchak & Marshall, 2020; Loukai-
tou-Sideris & Wachs, 2018; Ogunniran & Happiness, 2019). One method for
quantifying equity is by using a comparative city-based approach which can use
a wide variety of cities to identify and model the extent to which various factors
impact a system (Pareekh et al., 2017). Many of the models surveyed used some
variation of this approach though always with different considerations and
drawbacks.
While it is impossible for transportation engineers to change the political side
of the equation, they can at least try to derive models which identify existing lo-
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 578
Current Urban Studies
cations and areas of concern. One such proposed method is the Transit Eco-
nomic Equity Index (TEEI). This particular method was developed specifically
to use public data in an effort to make a practical and accessible analysis and a
case study was conducted in six areas: Austin, Chicago, Houston, Lansing, New
Orleans, and Seattle. Specifically, the National Historic Geographic Information
System portal, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Workplace Area
Characteristics data, and the Open Mobility Data portal for general transit pro-
vide specification (GTFS) feeds.
The equations developed by Lyons and Choi for Disadvantage Index and Tran-
sit Service Convenience Score choose only a few variables in order to keep the
analysis simple, but as discussed elsewhere, simplifying the variables will inhe-
rently affect the usefulness (Lyons & Choi, 2021).
In addition, these were compared with calculated transit service convenience
score, non-peak hour service score, and system access score to analyze the effec-
tiveness of the existing systems in the test sites (Lyons & Choi, 2021). These me-
thods both prove that certain existing transit systems demonstrate inequities as
well as offer a path forward. The comparisons are able to identify weaknesses
that could be rectified in a given system, such as Houston’s in the example, while
also identifying areas that could use more attention. The limits come to the fore
however as the analysis is mostly focused on employment centers which do not
represent the full picture of a city’s infrastructure. As discussed below, access to
other points by users is also a necessity for proper equity. The information is al-
so limited by incomplete data for certain municipalities and the fact that reality
is more complex than the demographic blocks chosen for modeling. The data is
also blind to whether the transit is any good, just whether it is equitable between
groups which pose a problem since disadvantaged communities are dispropor-
tionately affected by substandard traffic than advantaged groups which are better
suited to choose alternate methods. Still, it is both useful going forward and im-
portant for indicating the intricacies and difficulties of implementing equity
even with the best intentions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a tool that can
help to calculate the Environmental Justice Index based on environmental indi-
cators and demographic indexes (which is based on Person of Color and Low-
Income Populations compared to national averages). This tool is able to quickly
map areas and is used in project consideration to achieve greater equity in pro-
tection from environmental and health hazards (EPA, 2021, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c;
DOJ, 2022). Like many other indexes, it is necessarily limited by the scope of
considered variables in its attempt to simplify the issue, but it is still a valuable
visual and data-oriented consideration.
Another method using GTFS data seeks to assess the gaps in a transit system.
This method developed by Fan and Li could be effective in covering the issues of
disadvantaged groups which do not visibly show up on demographic data. Tra-
ditionally, the analysis looks at the transit supply and dependency of each area,
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 579 Current Urban
Studies
calculating each using different variables. Where the supply falls short of the de-
pendency is where a gap occurs and can be used over an area to measure the
system’s equity. This approach uses something similar with an emphasis on the
ratio to better model the intricacies of an area and mapping in GIS to illustrate
the distribution (Fan & Li, 2019).
One of the biggest strengths of GTFS data is its popularity as a standard in the
industry which allows for a commonality between various applications and the
efficiency in which it can be used. Its effectiveness is only increased when com-
bined with other data sources such as demographic data. It is a complicated sys-
tem that may be beyond the capabilities of many organizations and therefore, it
is key to invest in developing broad use applications which can be more us-
er-friendly for these organizations to use (Fan & Li, 2019). The Transit Gap In-
dex offers some version of a streamlined approach to feeding in area-specific
data to determine an actual model, but further steps could be done to make the
process even simpler to allow it to be used in conjunction with other models.
What is needed most is a nationwide system which minimizes the required input
needed (especially since the accessibility of certain bits of data is scattershot de-
pending on locale), effort time required, and required use knowledge, but such a
system would require far more research, building, and better tools to obtain data
for an area to be developed.
2.2. Implementing Equity to Design
While defining and identifying equity and gaps thereof is essential, such infor-
mation is useless if it is not implemented into the design. As discussed else-
where, agreeing to the definition of equity and how to implement it is a crucial
first step and one of which there is no agreement on. Progressive policy refers to
design that favors lower income people while regressive favor those with a high-
er income level (Litman, 2022).
McCullough and Erasmus identify the four key goals of equity as:
1) Redistribution of resources to the most under-invested and historically
disinvested communities
2) Redistribution of decision-making power to the most under-invested and
historically disinvested communities
3) Achieving parity in transportation access for the most under-invested and
historically disinvested communities
4) Assertion of dignity for people’s humanity as a core value (McCullough &
Erasmus, 2021).
These goals would be an example of vertical equity and would help affect more
systematic change than is currently in practice. While historically transportation
has both affirmed and caused inequality, the societal causes are complex. Only
so much can be done strictly from the transportation side and as a result, it is
essential the field be integrated into wider measures and analyses (Krapp et al.,
2021). Fields such as housing, environmental justice, and labor are all important
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 580
Current Urban Studies
to understanding transportation equity and are interconnected. Flexibility in
spending is both essential to solving issues in equity and something that is not a
reality as funding is dictated from a top-down model. Money is also needed for
more than just projects, but also the expertise to implement them (McCullough
& Erasmus, 2021).
The Supreme Court decision in 1896 for Plessy v. Ferguson enabled the Jim
Crow laws of a significant portion of the 1900s which both codified numerous
racial discriminations, including and very notably in the transportation sector,
and further imbalances that continue to this day. These were furthered by many
of the big transportation projects of the past century including the Interstate
Highway System which tore apart communities through the process of redlining
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021).
According to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, changes in service which
have a disparate impact on populations disadvantaged by race or equality are con-
sidered to be inequitable. As a result, any agency that serves a population greater
than 200,000 people and receives federal funding is required to provide an anal-
ysis of this change on equity. These changes result from routes being eliminated,
transit headways being substantially reduced, or a change in fare prices. This is
specifically to prevent spending from flowing more heavily to groups that are al-
ready considered advantaged (Lyons & Choi, 2021). There is no requirement by
the US Department of Transportation, however, to consider equity (Krapp et al.,
2021). The American Disabilities Act of 1990 implemented new policies which
seek to ensure more equitable access for disabled persons. These policies are be-
ing continuously updated and mandate very strict standards in cases of new
construction (Coppola et al., 2021). These policy measures are imperfect but hav-
ing them on the books is essential to ensuring they are implemented. It is also
essential that they are considered from an early standpoint so that they are better
integrated into the design and more effective.
2.3. Prioritizing Alternate Forms of Transportation
For much of the 20th century, the main priority with regards to transportation
engineering was the automobile. Auto traffic was, and still is, the driver for deci-
sions on how to invest money and whose needs were to be met first. The issue
with such a decision is that car traffic is implicitly biased towards certain groups
of people. The expenses of owning and being able to use a car are substantial and
as a result, lower-income people may struggle to keep up with the costs or be
unable to even afford one (Litman, 2022). Lower-income persons who can pur-
chase a vehicle (or who are left with no other option) are usually forced into
purchasing older, less reliable, and more expensive to maintain cars. As a whole,
those with a lower income and people of color encounter higher vehicle prices,
financing costs, and insurance (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine, 2021). Having multiple modes available is essential for those with
different needs to ensure their mobility. In fact, if one mode disappears, many
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 581 Current Urban
Studies
would be stranded from being able to reach their essential destinations as they
lack the financial or physical access to any alternatives. There is a direct link be-
tween access to transit, especially a car, and overall life outcomes including em-
ployment, education, and health care which only seek to reaffirm and create
starker class contrasts (Palm et al., 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engi-
neering, and Medicine, 2021).
Therefore, our bias towards supporting the auto industry is also implicitly bi-
ased against the taxpayer and those who live in the community, even discount-
ing the safety and health concerns raised by that specific mode (which were dis-
cussed earlier) and even more complex financial and societal impacts.
The pandemic offered a chance to see a modified form of transportation as
people stayed home to a far greater extent and ridership was restricted in many
areas by government decisions. The effect on transit was especially severe with
ridership decreasing up to 85% and being slow to recover. These changes had a
significant effect on mobility and individual cost for many of the users. The us-
ers who suffered the most were invariably people who were already disadvan-
taged (Palm et al., 2021). Various programs such as bike share, scooter share,
open streets, and continued efforts toward Vision Zero (which seeks to eliminate
traffic deaths and injuries) were implemented and/or accelerated to help combat
some of these COVID-19-imposed difficulties, but their effectiveness in addressing
equity is unclear (McCullough & Erasmus, 2021; Palm et al., 2021; Caspi et al.,
2020). While these decisions serve a public good, they also show the criticality of
public transit for serving these communities and the value that could be pro-
vided to those who did not have the option before.
One of the major difficulties in assessing the equability and extent of sidewalk
infrastructure is a lack of data. Only a small number of cities offer a sufficient
amount of data, and it can often be very difficult to both obtain and make usa-
ble. These standards also vary from locale to locale and make a standardized
model more difficult to develop. Pedestrian level of service is historically subjec-
tive and therefore not as useful as concrete data in a thorough analysis (Coppola
et al., 2021).
GIS software can be used to generate an existing sidewalk network, but to this
point, the technology is still simplistic in this regard. Still, these strategies can be
used to an extent to determine the extensiveness of existing systems and identify
the gaps. It also offers the benefit of easy integration with demographic and city
data in the program to better analyze the equability concerns. In Coppola’s study
area, 47.5% of road length has an available sidewalk, and of them, only 60.8% are
at least four feet, 28.8% at least five feet, and 13.5% at least six feet (Coppola et
al., 2021). This means that plenty of the sidewalks are insufficient to meet vari-
ous recommendations and even more importantly, there exist major gaps in
creating an adequate sidewalk system. While sidewalks are not required to allow
for accessibility by walking, they (especially wider and better maintained side-
walks) provide both greater safety and greater encouragement for residents to use.
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 582
Current Urban Studies
Encouraging walking is ideal from a cost perspective and health perspective as
well as a financial perspective, but there are significant barriers in the way. Re-
quired travel distance and physical difficulties prevent certain users from using
even the most walkable areas (Palm et al., 2021). The sprawling nature of the
United States does walk mode no favors in many areas and is not a problem that
can be built out of especially in rural areas. The research is conflicting on side-
walk availability with some saying that areas with a greater white population
have more sidewalks while others find the reverse to be true (along with wider
sidewalks) or even no trend at all. The data is especially hard to parse because it
may point more to the characteristics of white neighborhoods being the main
driving point and less because of any equability considerations. Other studies
show that richer and whiter populations have far better maintained sidewalks.
Despite these complexities, race is rarely even considered in sidewalk design. Ci-
ties with older buildings and younger residents tend toward greater sidewalk
access, but none of these studies indicate whether correlation equals causation or
if (and how much) walkability affects living choice (Coppola et al., 2021).
While bicycles afford reduced travel times and greater range in comparison to
walking, they also have many of the same downsides as walking. Bikes have a
much more limited range in comparison to mass transit and car traffic. It is also
not an option for those without places to store their bikes whether out of lack of
security or infrastructure, those with physical difficulties from disability to ina-
bility to carry groceries or children to varying degrees (Palm et al., 2021). In gener-
al, bike users tend to be white, male, younger, and well off, all groups which are
served by regressive policies (Ursaki & Aultman-Hall, 2015).
Separated bike paths, intersection bike boxes, and other bicycle infrastructure
has proven to increase bicycle use (Ursaki & Aultman-Hall, 2015). Support for
these methods of infrastructure is growing as there exists more political pressure
for design firms to consider them and the impact their developments will have
on existing bicycle accessibility from the jump. This still varies from place to
place, but the progress is encouraging.
One of the deterrents to bicycle use is access to one. As a result, one of the
most popular ways currently to encourage bicycle use is through the use of
bike-share services (Ursaki & Aultman-Hall, 2015). As indicated by the typical
bike users, the prime beneficiaries of these services are environmental equity as
underserved groups do not see the same benefits currently. Docking stations are
placed less where they are needed due to health and income issues and more in
areas that can maximize use and income. Providing financial assistance to low-
income users, placing more docking stations in these areas, allowing for alterna-
tive payment options, and increased outreach are all options to combat these,
but there is little indication that the companies responsible are doing this and
are instead claiming funding issues. This can especially be an issue in circums-
tances where businesses are sponsoring the bike-share programs and have their
own thoughts about placement that do not necessarily consider equity (Ursaki &
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 583 Current Urban
Studies
Aultman-Hall, 2015).
Users of mass transit tend to have low income, low car ownership, and younger
age. In addition, those that are most reliant on transit, as seen during the current
COVID-19 pandemic, are disproportionately people of color (National Acade-
mies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021). Increasing access to mass
transit can allow for these groups to better access different jobs, participate in
more activities, and maintain their needed social situations better and can elim-
inate the gap between those with and without cars with proper coverage (Zhang
et al., 2020; Palm et al., 2021). It can also increase the overall income of those
car-less in an area with proper mass transit. Lack of sufficient public transit acts
as a major cause in the isolation of the poor (Fan & Li, 2019).
Maintaining this proper mass transit system can get expensive fast however
when considering the case of an area that has low density or at off-peak times
(Zhang et al., 2020). In addition, a thorough mass transit system will often be
placed in more well-off areas or will increase the property values of the area as
the neighborhood is gentrified, forcing out those that would benefit most from it
(Palm et al., 2021). Ensuring affordable housing in these areas is essential to
maximizing the equity gained from these situations or they will just serve as
another way to drive the poor out of their homes (National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2021).
On-demand transit takes a cue from the modern rideshare economy by using
technology to allow for online request systems and mobile ride-hailing. These
use existing transit, but to a more affordable and efficient degree than the
car-based rideshare services. The implementation of such a method in Belleville,
Canada has seen mixed success, however. While there has been increased rider-
ship in these transit services, there were also significant issues. Some of these,
such as the inability to give riders accurate arrival information and better me-
thods to add riders who are waiting at a stop but did not hail a stop could be
improved with technology, but others such as riders booking stops that they
then did not use or changing arrival times based on the additions of additional
passengers may be harder to deal with. It is essential for these services to create a
standard level of reliability to encourage people to continue using them. As it is,
wait time is highly variable and in some cases significantly more so than a simple
fixed bus route (Zhang et al., 2020). Sufficient vehicles and improvements in im-
plementation will determine just how successful and how equitable to users any
ride-hailing program is.
Another option to increase equity and encourage transit use is to provide
transit passes to those who are receiving public assistance such as through vari-
ous social services (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
2021). Other methods for encouraging and easing costs for transit use among
lower-income persons are to adjust prices based on time of day and distance,
smart cards which calculate more appropriate fares per person, and free feeder
transit lines. Direct subsidies have been proven to be the most effective at bene-
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 584
Current Urban Studies
fiting those who rely on transit, but these are not necessarily given to those who
need it most. Only 34% of the largest transit agencies target low-income riders
with direct subsidies, but there is a clear value to implementing such a program
and especially tailoring it to the poorest of users as the effect is substantially
more noticeable with them (Darling et al., 2021).
High-speed rail has never quite taken hold in the US the way it has in other
countries, but it remains an option for mass transit. While these would offer a
more environmentally efficient way of moving people, they also may be socially
inequitable. Their higher fares appear to drive out many more traditional low-
er-income and disadvantaged users. This equity is of concern since the high-speed
rail is both traditionally subsidized by the public and would be a major expense
to bring to the US with minimal financial return. Public data on ridership how-
ever is hard to come by and analyzing the equity as Dobruszkes et al. did re-
quires more lateral thinking. Usage is restricted more to business trips and the
few high-speed rail areas that offer lower fare trips tend to skip the very areas
that could use the service (Dobruszkes et al., 2022). At most, studies seem to ad-
vocate for the proven ineffective trickle-down economics in trying to justify the
usage of high-speed rail which remains out of reach for most.
Perhaps the newest micromobility alternative is the dockless e-scooter. First
brought to the US in 2017, they are rapidly expanding and increasingly popular,
perhaps more so than bike-share programs in many areas (Caspi et al., 2020). For
example, in Baltimore, there are currently four companies (Spin, Lime, Jump,
and Link) that operate scooters in the city with prices around only $1 plus $.25 a
minute (Streicher, 2021). Anecdotally, they are a fairly common sight speeding
down sidewalks, through red lights and weaving randomly across roads. Still,
they offer a more affordable (with discounts for low-income residents) alterna-
tive and are much quicker than walking (Streicher, 2021). Perhaps their biggest
benefit is that, unlike bike-shares, they do not require docking stations, can be
left wherever, require no physical effort, and require no special equipment. Also,
unlike bike-shares, they are used less as a means of commuting and more as a
recreational activity (Caspi et al., 2020).
Their flexibility in where they can be left allows them to serve the city without
regard to the financial viability of an area or any other concerns that bike-share
companies must contend with when deciding where to place their stands. As a
result, their usage skews much less white. They also tend to see more use in areas
with a bike lane or near bus stops, but there is no real correlation between
e-scooters and bus usage. Equitability concerns come to the fold when consider-
ing how e-scooters are redistributed by the companies as there is no direct evi-
dence, but there are certainly signs that they redeploy them in specific markets
such as colleges or downtown (Caspi et al., 2020).
2.4. Cost Deterrents to Driving
Beyond encouraging the usage of and providing access to other forms of trans-
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 585 Current Urban
Studies
portation, cost deterrents can be deployed to discourage people from driving.
These can tip the scales in a mode choice decision for drivers to the more equit-
able forms of transit. Congestion pricing is a system that has been instituted
around the world, including in North American cities such as Vancouver, Seat-
tle, and New York City. At its best, this system can reduce vehicle miles traveled,
congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions while also increasing the amount of
money that can be generated and put back into the system for maintaining and
investing in new transportation improvements (Cohen D’Agostino et al., 2020),
(Axsen & Wolinetz, 2020). That last issue is not always maintained (such as in
Singapore and Gothenburg), but it is perhaps the most essential to maintaining
equity for low-income users (Cohen D’Agostino et al., 2020). Transparency in
spending this money is also key for inspiring confidence in toll structures
(Weinreich, 2021). This system can very easily lead to inequities, however. While
discounts for those using electric vehicles are encouraging from an environmen-
tal standpoint, those who can afford such vehicles tend to be well off. As a result,
the people who can better afford to contribute to the system are forced to con-
tribute less. These discounts and exemptions can reduce the effectiveness of the
changes in reducing congestion and in generating income that could be rein-
vested and can lead to unintentional consequences such as encouraging more
people to use more expensive and no less polluting rideshare services that may
be exempt. Likewise, lower-income users can sometimes struggle to pay the fees
without always having an option to take an alternative. Like other measures, CP
pricing tends to raise the housing costs inside the city which can again price out
low-income residents and force them to commute further and pay more in the
very costs that drove them out (Cohen D’Agostino et al., 2020).
Implementing discounts for transit use and subsidizing bike-share and car-
share (through the program) and allowing for exemptions for disabled users and
off-peak hour usage can better benefit low-income users while maintaining the
integrity of the system. Variable fees are more equitable as they target more fre-
quent drivers who tend to be higher income and more. There also needs to be a
consideration on where users are coming from as the system can be set up, such
as in Gothenburg, where drivers coming from the direction of lower-income
areas are forced to pay more on average (Cohen D’Agostino et al., 2020). These
systems are also rarely popular with users regardless of efficacy which makes
implementing them a struggle. Maintaining the system can be just as hard as
changes in government can lead to changes in implementation and additional
fights, while the pandemic led to mass changes in the systems (usually disabling
them). It also allows for the process to become political and affect the amount of
money going to more equitable measures instead of just benefiting the rich.
Proper communication is needed as well as a trial period to build confidence in
the system (Axsen & Wolinetz, 2020). In addition, the most effective or efficient
systems tend to be the least equitable, but as of yet, there are not enough studies
on CP pricing with regard to equity or reliability (Cohen D’Agostino et al., 2020),
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 586
Current Urban Studies
(Fakhrmoosavi et al., 2021).
Vehicle Kilometers Traveled/Vehicle Miles Traveled (VKT/VMT), fuel, and
carbon taxing can make for an even larger impact on greenhouse gas emissions
than strictly congestion pricing. Fuel and carbon taxes increase the price per unit
of fuel while VKT/VMT pricing charges per distance traveled. Besides being
more effective, they are also easier to implement as they do not require any new
infrastructure to be constructed. However, these are likely to be less popular
among freight users as they are more negatively impacted. A combination of ap-
proaches however has the greatest reduction and can allow for more nuanced
and equitable solutions while keeping the solutions and pricing simple tend to
help with acceptance (Axsen & Wolinetz, 2020). Optimizing the price of each of
the modes becomes more crucial to equity the more congested a road (Ortega et
al., 2021).
Low traffic areas are an option that has gained new prominence due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, but they have existed before primarily in Europe. These
roads restrict or remove motor traffic from certain roads allowing for greater use
by bikes, pedestrians, and or as usable space. These can be temporary (as in the
case of many which were instituted in 2020 during the height of the pandemic)
or more permanent fixtures. Like other solutions proposed here, they tend to
more affluent regions, but other research indicates that these differences and any
negative effects are minimally inequitable. A case study in London indicated that
the areas implementing them at first were based less on equity than ease of in-
stall, but over time, more diverse neighborhoods started to adopt them in greater
proportion (Aldred et al., 2021). This study can prove helpful for both proving
that this can be an effective method for improving the health and safety benefits
that come with limiting traffic in certain regions and that equity is possible with
both a considered approach and continued applications over time.
2.5. Barriers to Addressing Equity
Now that we are learning new ways to identify and address equity, logic would
dictate that this is a problem that can be fixed. Addressing equity is not as easy
as that for many reasons, however. Many studies and proposed solutions are fo-
cused less on fixing historical issues and instead are focused more on ensuring
that the issues do not get worse (Krapp et al., 2021). As currently practiced, eq-
uity is primarily a concern for individual projects and routes and is not consi-
dered for the system as a whole. In fact, considering the system as a whole is
disadvantageous to planners as it only opens up a project to more questions
about equity and requires much more effort (Lyons & Choi, 2021). State DOTs
may be constrained based on how their funding is tied directly to certain types of
infrastructure which prevents them from providing the most equitable solution
(Krapp et al., 2021).
Determining the ideal mode choice of a population is incredibly difficult as
the only effective way to determine the usage of alternative transportation modes
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 587 Current Urban
Studies
is to have an extensive system in place. It is only then that users can make their
choices known (Pareekh et al., 2017). It can be hard to tell if, for example, bikes
or transit are not being used because of insufficient facilities or because the pop-
ulation would rather drive. Since many of these transportation projects are huge
investments and one project usually means that another project(s) is left behind
due to limited funding, a seemingly equitable solution could prove ineffective,
counterproductive, or a missed opportunity.
It is also difficult to get any group of people to agree with just how equity
should look and how much it should be prioritized in comparison to other issues
(Krapp et al., 2021). Equity lacks a clear and consensus definition which can
make it difficult to identify tangible goals for a project. Even the acknowledg-
ment of their being historical or present inequities is a controversial subject and
one which features a shifting discourse in relation to ongoing events (McCullough
& Erasmus, 2021). Addressing equity can also run up against legal complexities
such as tribal governments and various interest groups (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021).
As private business takes over many mobility services, the opportunity by the
government to implement equitable versions for the public good is undercut by
businesses that only care about their share price and economic concerns (Ditmore
& Miller, 2021). Various private companies such as Uber and Lyft have used legal
loopholes in order to dodge responsibilities with accessibility which shows how
equity is viewed as a burden by businesses in a capitalist economy (Wang et al.,
2021). Their rise has coincided with a decrease in transit ridership (Steiner et al.,
2021). Dealing with this is a concern as there is a large contingent who views
private industry driving with minimal regulation to be the ideal. There have
been efforts to use partnerships between transit agencies and these companies to
reach disadvantaged groups and makeup budget shortfalls, but there are signifi-
cant challenges to this and the very real concern that they are merely replacing
cheaper forms of transit and driving them out (Steiner et al., 2021).
Equity can also be mutually exclusive in regard to the type of equity. For ex-
ample, a program that seeks to promote the use of more environmentally sus-
tainable vehicles and modes may instead succeed in giving additional benefits to
already advantaged populations (Cohen D’Agostino et al., 2020). There are con-
cerns that focus on accessibility may come at the expense of mobility (and vice
versa) while even the current concept of accessibility is a very limited one (Krapp
et al., 2021). As it is, so many of the equity considerations (such as car-sharing
and bike-sharing) which may target reducing dependence on vehicle transport
have proven to be inequitable when it comes to underserved groups (Ursaki &
Aultman-Hall, 2015). Therefore, it is important to balance many forms of equity
solutions in order to help combat our issues. There is no simple solution or sin-
gular focus that can fix equity issues. It is a difficult and complex process that
needs continued support, research, and evaluation.
The ongoing pandemic has also further exposed both issues involving equity
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 588
Current Urban Studies
and in implementing it now and going forward. During the early stages of the
pandemic, public transit usage was decimated and those left using it tended to-
wards the most disadvantaged who were unable to seek any alternatives. While
encouraging the use of public transportation is a key to the implementation of
equity, during a public health crisis it also puts these already disadvantaged
groups at a greater risk of exposure (Palm et al., 2021).
Smaller organizations lack the staff and ability to properly assess what is an
extremely complicated issue with wide-ranging implications. Certain variables
can be subjective, particularly when reaching out to the community or for some
of the more qualitative measures (Krapp et al., 2021). While better data is com-
ing out all the time, it is also heavily reliant on data collection which requires
sensitive handling of user privacy (Cohen D’Agostino et al., 2020). These privacy
concerns are a major public issue and developing an adequate solution for these
in an environmentally sustainable way is essential. As stated previously, model-
ing traffic and transit can be difficult as so many trips are not simple Point A to
Point B or regular employment traffic. To properly analyze the mobility of a
network, non-recurring traffic and complex origin-destinations need to be con-
sidered. This data can be difficult to accurately gauge and often requires com-
munity input and thorough consideration in order to minimize accessibility
gaps.
While many organizations presently award a project point for geographic
proximity to disadvantaged areas, they do not always consider the ability of these
areas to use their new improvements (Krapp et al., 2021). Also, the points me-
thod does not fully reflect the complexities of different communities. Two
communities may be historically underserved or disadvantaged, but they may be
so in different ways depending on the nature of that community. Weighting needs
to be more strongly considered by organizations, but again this allows subjectiv-
ity to creep in. In addition, not every group can be graphically charted in the way
income and race often can with disabled people, in particular, is generally spaced
out through all populations (Krapp et al., 2021). The existing points-based
structure also makes equity more of a checklist instead of an integrated problem
that needs to be solved. Outreach, especially when it is done from a token me-
thod cannot be the only effort made by a team in design (McCullough & Eras-
mus, 2021).
In general, the sense is given that equity may be a growing field of considera-
tion and analysis, the issue remains academic in too many cases and has not
made enough of an impact on actual analysis. In addition, the quantity of the
equity analysis that is being written can be overwhelming to consider and makes
the design process significantly more complicated because just how equitable a
design is considered is a moving target. This “performative equity work” ties in-
to the earlier point that equity in current efforts toward equity are not made to-
wards fixing any issues in transportation (McCullough & Erasmus, 2021). Any
changes must also deal with justified suspicions from underserved communities
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 589 Current Urban
Studies
which have decades and centuries of experience in dealing with discrimination,
false promises, and tokenism. There is widespread racism in the power struc-
tures making these decisions which complicates the intentions of those that
mean well. Certain groups are barely considered, such as Native Americans, if at
all (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021).
In addition, the efforts of equity efforts will always be undermined by the ef-
forts of the police who have their own idea of how to create “safety” and under-
cut efforts to improve equitable transportation for BIPOC communities in all
forms of transportation. They and the communities who loudly or quietly sup-
port their efforts are an obstacle to be overcome in design as they will dispropor-
tionally target, incarcerate, and murder BIPOC citizens (McCullough & Erasmus
2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021).
In the aftermath of the year 2020, where equity was pushed to the forefront of
many Americans’ minds, many agencies have hired equity experts. These experts
must also include those from marginalized groups whose voices provide valuable in-
sight and are essential for achieving equity (McCullough & Erasmus, 2021). Anec-
dotally, agencies such as MDOT have engaged with studies that seek to analyze this
issue and how to move forward, but many of these are early on and not necessarily
run by anyone from said marginalized groups. Nor is there any clear indication of
how such studies would be used practically in implementation to design.
During the pandemic, new efforts were implemented to benefit equity in terms of
mode of transportation, but this was not always done with consideration of oth-
er forms of equity which were regarded merely as an impediment to the imple-
mentation of these alternatives (McCullough & Erasmus, 2021). Most of the
current attempts to expand micromobility services that seek to provide greater
equity and move away from car transit are applied inequitably to the low-income
and BIPOC communities which need them the most (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021). These communities are left behind
and technological gates, technologies that could theoretically help disabled per-
sons but are too often left unconsidered, are put up which prevent many from
using them (Wang et al., 2021). This can even be done by design as transit groups
and services which are specifically targeting a higher-income clientele (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021).
The current model which regularly implements a policy and then tries to re-
troactively figure out why disadvantaged communities do not take advantage of
these changes is counterproductive and only reaffirms inequities. The most ef-
fective policies are those which start out considering equity and carry it through-
out the design. There is little evidence that reaching out to affected communities
as part of the transportation planning process has made any impact on envi-
ronmental equity or justice. It exists merely as a procedural process (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021). Despite the policies
on the books relating to disabilities, governments and cities are consistently fail-
ing to meet these standards in various regards which have led to numerous court
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 590
Current Urban Studies
cases (Wang et al., 2021).
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
While there currently exists much in the way of research, there is a lot that re-
mains to be done. The authors have identified a number of gaps in the literature
which could stand for more and continuing research in the area of transporta-
tion equity. Data such as that on the extensiveness of sidewalk coverage and im-
pact studies such as the impact of demographic factors on said coverage are es-
sential for identifying points of inequity and how to best solve them. Most im-
portantly, however, is to develop a method for streamlining the equity determi-
nation process to allow organizations to have access to the fruits of all this re-
search and apply it without excessive human resources, time, and/or knowledge
base. Tools such as GTFS and GIS can be used to aggregate this information and
to present it in a more user-friendly form, but that jump needs to be made. Eq-
uity research is important, but evidence points to it being more of a talking point
than a thoughtfully considered action item.
There is so much more we can do to fight inequity, but it is a constant fight
without an easy or proven effective solution or even a consensus on the topic.
Many factors affecting the issue include age, income inequality, population den-
sity, and race, and it is our responsibility to ensure that each group is serviced to
the best of our abilities and not left behind in favor of other groups. Equity af-
fects us all from our ability to be healthy to our ability to live a positive life. The
best we can do as engineers and planners are to advocate for it always and do
our part to consider and research the topic before applying it to design.
Acknowledgements
The authors express sincere gratitude to all professional staff members of the
State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) and the Wilmington
Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO) who graciously provided important in-
formation for this project.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.
References
Aldred, R., Verlinghieri, E., Sharkey, M., Itova, I., & Goodman, A. (2021). Equity in New
Active Travel Infrastructure: A Spatial Analysis of London’s New Low Traffic Neigh-
bourhoods.
Journal of Transport Geography, 96,
Article ID: 103194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103194
Axsen, J., & Wolinetz, M. (2020).
Pricing It Right for Climate: Using Mobility Pricing to
Drive down Transport Emissions in Metro Vancouver and Montreal
(pp. 1-56). David
Suzuki Foundation.
California Transportation Commission (January 2021).
Racial Equity Statement
. Gov-
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 591 Current Urban
Studies
ernment of the State of California.
Caspi, O., Smart, M., & Noland, R. (2020). Spatial Associations of Dockless Shared E-Scooter
Usage.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 86,
Article ID:
102396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102396
Cohen D’Agostino, M., Pellaton, P., & White, B. (2020).
Equitable Congestion Pricing
.
University of California Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Office of the President.
Coppola, N., Marshall, W., & Janson, B. (2021).
Where the Sidewalks End: Evaluating
Pedestrian Infrastructure and Equality
. North Dakota State University, Upper Great
Plains Transportation Institute.
Darling, W., Carpenter, E. et al. (2021). Comparison of Reduced-Fare Programs for
Low-Income Transit Riders.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, 2675,
335-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211017900
Ditmore, C., & Miller, A. (2021). Mobility as a Service Operating Model to Enable Public
Policy.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2675,
141-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211026664
Dobruszkes, F., Chen, C.-L., & Moyano, A. (2022). Is High-Speed Rail Socially Exclusive?
An Evidence-Based Worldwide Analysis.
Travel Behaviour and Society, 26,
96-107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.09.009
Fakhrmoosavi, F., Zockaie, A., & Abdelghany, K. (2021). Incorporating Travel Time Re-
liability in Equitable Congestion Pricing Schemes for Heterogeneous Users and Bi-
modal Networks.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Re-
search Board, 2675,
754-768. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211019737
Fan, W., & Li, Y. (2019).
Using General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) Data as a Basis
for Evaluating and Improving Public Transit Equity
. Center for Advanced Multimodal
Mobility Solutions and Education, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
Ferenchak, N., & Marshall, W. (2020). Validation of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress and
Perceived Safety for Children.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board,
2674,
397-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120909833
Krapp, A., Barajas, J., & Wennink, A. (2021). Equity-Oriented Criteria for Project Priori-
tization in Regional Transportation Planning.
Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, 2675,
1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211001072
Litman, T. (2022).
Evaluating Transportation Equity
. Guidance for Incorporating Distri-
butional Impacts in Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Wachs, M. (2018).
Transportation for an Aging Population:
Promoting Mobility and Equity for Low-Income Seniors
. Mineta Transportation Insti-
tute Publications, San Jose State University.
Lyons, T., & Choi, D. (2021). Transit Economic Equity Index: Developing a Comprehen-
sive Measure of Transit Service Equity.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2675,
1-30.
McCullough, S. R., & Erasmus, S. (2021).
Assessing the Impact of Equity Work in Trans-
portation
. University of California Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021).
Racial Equity Ad-
dendum to Critical Issues in Transportation
. Transportation Research Board.
Ogunniran, B., & Happiness, R. (2019). Implication of Global Climate Change on Human
Health and Its Environment: Possible Adaptation Strategies.
International Journal of
Ecology and Ecosolution, 6,
37-43.
Ortega, A., Vassallo, J., & Perez, J. (2021). Modelling Some Equality and Social Welfare
A. Faghri, H. Withers
DOI:
10.4236/cus.2022.104034 592
Current Urban Studies
Impacts of Road Tolling Under Conditions of Traffic Uncertainty.
Research in Trans-
portation Economics, 88,
Article ID: 101110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101110
Palm, M., Allen, J. et al. (2021). Riders Who Avoided Public Transit during COVID-19.
Personal Burdens and Implications for Social Equity.
Journal of American Planning
Association, 87,
455-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2021.1886974
Pareekh, P., Mitra, S., & Majumdar, B. (2017). Quantifying Dimensions of Transportation
Diversity: A City-Based Comparative Approach.
Transportation Research Procedia, 25,
3174-3187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.359
Steiner, R., Bai, X. et al. (2021). Partnerships between Agencies and Transportation Net-
work Companies for Transportation-Disadvantage Populations: Benefits, Problems
and Challenges.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Re-
search Board, 2675,
1260-1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211032629
Streicher, S. (July 17, 2021).
E-Scooter Service Aims to Link Residents and Affordable
Transportation
. CBS News Baltimore.
United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division (2022).
Information and
Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act
.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2021).
Climate Change and
Children’s Health
.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2022a).
Climate Change and the
Health of People with Disabilities
.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2022b).
Climate Change and the
Health of Older Adults
.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2022c).
EJScreen: Environmental
Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
.
Ursaki, J., & Aultman-Hall, L. (2015).
Quantifying the Equity of Bikeshare Access in US
Cities
. TRC Report 15-011, University of Vermont Transportation Research Center.
Wang, C., Steinfeld, E., Maisel, J. L., & Kang, B. (2021). Is Your Smart City Inclusive?
Evaluating Proposals from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Smart City Chal-
lenge.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 74,
Article ID: 103148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103148
Weinreich, D. (2021). Bridging the Gap: A National Study Analyzing the Process of Toll
Road Governance, Finance and Revenue Allocation.
Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2675,
130-141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211028597
Zhang, Y., Farber, S., & Young, M. (2020).
The Benefits of On-Demand Transit in Belle-
ville: Findings from a User Survey
. TSPACE Policy Report, University of Toronto.
