Policy

Why Giving Cash Directly To Those Who Need It Beats Cheap Fares

I have written a blog on why I believe offering cheap or free fares is a bad idea. People often come back to me and say what about people on low incomes, forgetting that it is far more expensive to make people car-dependent because instead of providing good public transport coverage, you are providing cheap or free fares instead. I also believe that the way to help people on low incomes is not by giving everyone too cheap public transport, but by directly funding them. Therefore, I was very interested to see this study, when they did exactly that in Los Angeles (L.A.).

Key Takeaways

• The Mobility Wallet Program gave 1,000 low-income residents in South L.A. a $150 monthly stipend on a pre-paid debit card to pay for transport services.
• The money could be used on local public transit like Metro rail and buses, long-haul services, ride-hailing apps, at bicycle shops or scooter rental apps.
• From May 2023 to April 2024, participants used the monthly cards to pay for transport.
• Participants said the program improved their lives by allowing them to use funds normally reserved for transport on everyday essentials.
• Many participants reported that they were able to catch up on past-due bills or even add to their savings thanks to the program.
• In addition to financial stress, the program also eased participants' minds about getting to places they needed to be in a timely way, thanks to multiple options.
• Women who participated in the program reported a sense of relief being able to use rideshare on nights and weekends rather than relying on late-night public transit.
• Participants experienced an increase in quality of life due to reduced stress, deeper connections with friends and families, and a sense of independence.
• The Mobility Wallet Program is being researched over multiple phases. The pilot was part of Phase One. Phase Two is currently underway, involving 2,000 people.

Comment

The results confirm my priors. Giving people cash is a more effective way to make transport accessible to those on low incomes than providing cheap fares to everyone at a substantial cost. The flexibility to use other services was also a significant benefit. One of the questions I have is whether this type of funding should come from transport budgets (as this pilot program has) or if it would sit better as part of a wider welfare program. I am inclined towards the latter, as I think we should consider people's welfare needs holistically, rather than in a fragmented way.

What next?

Would a transport stipend pilot program make sense in your local area?

Policy

Winning Hearts and Minds: Reducing Resistance to Transport Change

Our transport systems need significant change. However, change is hard and often meets significant resistance. For example, this recent research from the UK highlighted the abuse Councillors face in transport debates. This article looked at what we can do to reduce resistance to 'Urban Transport System Change', a significant transformation in the structure, operation, or policies of transport.

Key Takeaways

• The car is interlinked with personal identities. Strategies that do not consider this risk can alienate drivers, create opposition, and potentially fail.
• Successful campaigns, such as Copenhagen’s ambition to become the “world’s best city for bicycling”, have not argued against the car, instead highlighting the benefits of cycling.
• The trick is to approach the challenge in ways that can gain political traction while also being transformative and not merely provide incremental improvements.
• The paper presents a “5Cs" framework: communication, cost, commons, census, and counterfactual.
• Cost – a change in transport systems that is economically meaningful, whether by reducing private costs (e.g., congestion delays) or social costs (e.g., air pollution, climate change);
• Commons – a change that contributes to societal goals such as accessibility, effectiveness, or equity;
• Census – the use of majority votes, referenda, or other statistics to distinguish small, vocal opposition groups from larger, silent majorities in favour of change;
• Counterfactual – confronting opponents of change with alternatives to controversial policies, or reversing the burden of proof by challenging them to propose better solutions to a clearly defined problem.

These arguments are embedded in the design of communication strategies to inform, influence, or motivate an audience:

• It is difficult to reach out to individuals who may primarily rely on information sources, such as social media channels of their choosing.
• Arguments need to be persuasive, which often may mean that the best case scenario is that opponents to change will find it difficult to argue against these.
• Communicating abstract values such as improved health, reduced social inequities, and enhanced liveability may not be sufficient to garner support, let alone sway opinion.
• Given attachment to the car, it is important to never argue against vehicles, and to present positive aspects of change and visions that focus on benefits.
• Where appeals are directed at drivers, communication should primarily focus on the benefits. For example, campaigns should highlight that increasing cycling helps reduce congestion.
• Many “controversial” policies can expect growing support after implementation.

Comment

There is a lot of good advice in this article. One thing I would emphasise first is the immense value of 'rolling the pitch' in preparation for these types of changes. That is, explaining the problems to people well in advance of suggesting solutions. When people understand the issues and have them framed in a way that resonates with them, they are much more amenable to changes.

What next?

Do you need to review your communications strategy for changes in transport?

Leadership

From Silos to Synergy: Integrating Transport and Land Use Planning

Anyone who has heard my views on transport knows that I am a big believer in the need to integrate transport and land use planning. However, in many jurisdictions, transport planners and urban planners do not work together effectively, and we see transport and land use plans that do not align with the result that we get poorer transport and urban outcomes. If you are a leader in either discipline, here are six ideas to fix that:

1. Establish Joint Strategic Visioning Sessions​
Bring together transport and urban planners for regular workshops to co-create a shared vision for places, focusing on accessibility - the ease with which people can reach desired destinations or opportunities, such as work, shopping, and recreation.

2. Create Cross-Disciplinary Working Groups​
Form interdepartmental teams or intergovernmental working groups that include both transport and urban planning professionals, ensuring joint ownership of projects and policies from inception to implementation.

3. Align Planning Frameworks and Policy Objectives​
Develop integrated planning guidelines and statutory provisions that explicitly require land use and transport planning to be considered together, ensuring that both disciplines are aligned in their objectives and regulatory frameworks.

4. Implement Vision-Led, Not Demand-Led, Planning​
Shift from reactive, demand-forecast-based planning to proactive, vision-led approaches that prioritise long-term goals, such as reducing car dependency and promoting sustainable mobility

5. Share Data and Analysis

It is common for urban and transport planners to use different sets of data, assumptions and analysis, such as future population growth or demographics.

6. Jointly Educate Political Decision Makers

Few politicians have a good understanding of either land use or transport planning, and even less about the need to integrate the two. This requires both disciplines to jointly educate the political decision-makers responsible for urban planning and transport.

What Next?

Could you invite a counterpart from the other discipline for a coffee and a chat?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

​

Interesting articles, podcasts and papers that sent me down the transport rabbit hole this week:

• ​How AI images can help citizens to visualise placemaking proposals​
• ​Germany tests self-driving cars for public transport​
• ​China enters the flying taxis era​

Blog

How to Get Transport Right: 10 Lessons for Local Government

This week, my blog reflected on when I was elected as a Councillor nearly twenty years ago and what I wish I had known then about how to make transport work.

Innovation

Harnessing Energy from Passing Traffic and Trains

​This startup is placing wind turbines next to roads and rail lines and using the wind generated from trains and traffic to generate energy.

You can listen to a discussion with the founder on the Freewheeling Podcast.

Tool

NACTO's Urban Street Design Guide

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has produced this urban street design guide.