Conclusions from the UK experience

This chapter describes how for some time researchers have been highlighting inequalities in the transport system for certain groups and communities. Equally, some local transport authorities have attempted to address social equity issues in their delivery of public transport services and where mainstream public transport has failed, community and voluntary transport organizations have been working to meet the transport of minority and marginalized groups. Until the advent of the 2003 Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report and its new policies for accessibility planning, these efforts have been fragmented and piecemeal. The United Kingdom (UK) government is openly acknowledging for the first time that people’s inability to access key services because of poor transport is a factor in their social exclusion. More than this, it has put in place a comprehensive cross-departmental policy framework in order to address this problem. This requires not only that transport policy makers consider the impact of their decisions on the social welfare of citizens, but also that those concerned with the delivery of the welfare agenda consider transport and accessibility as a vital element in encouraging people from welfare to work, thereby reducing health inequalities, improving educational attainment and achieving neighborhood renewal. The UK case studies, which were presented earlier in the book, demonstrate a lot of good practice happening “on the ground” and, for transport authorities like Merseytravel that have been championing a social equity agenda in transport for more than ten years, the SEU policies will simply help to reinforce the good work that is already going on. Despite these promising signs, however, there are still some significant barriers and risks that could undermine the delivery of the new agenda. Most notably these include (1) short termism and over-simplification of the problem; (2) under-resourcing and competing funding priorities; (3) legislative and institutional barriers; and (4) reconciling social concerns about transport.