As the UK transitions to net zero and shifts to low carbon transport, policymakers are faced with the challenge of ensuring that a push for greener transport makes travel fairer and more accessible for those on low incomes. In this article, Professor Karen Lucas explores the detrimental impact of poor public transport connectivity and makes policy recommendations for socially necessary services and improvements to bus and rail access.

• Low income households are disproportionately and adversely affected by limitations on public transport and policy strategies that prioritise motorists.
• Electric vehicles are an integral component of the transition to net zero – but this approach leaves many behind.
• Investment in buses and rail are steps that would benefit many groups, reconnect communities and ultimately bring about both environmental and economic benefits.

The impact of transport policy on low-income households

Research repeatedly shows that transport resources, within the UK and globally, are unequally distributed across the various dimensions of car ownership, public transport services, cycling, walking, home deliveries and in-home services. We also know that poorer households, and especially children, older people and people with disabilities and long-term illnesses, are more exposed to the negative effects of road traffic such as pedestrian deaths and casualties, air and noise pollution and community severance by road and rail infrastructures.

A key problem is that private cars and promoting the freedom of the motorist are still at the forefront of local, regional and national transport strategies. Electric vehicle (EV) adoption is core to the current green transition agenda, but EVs will mostly benefit richer and middle-income households who can afford to buy them, leaving behind the almost 50% of households who still don’t own or have regular access to a vehicle.

Smaller, local walking and cycling projects and traffic calming measures could benefit the poorest households – but grassroots innovations and social enterprises are rarely funded.

The importance of public and community-based transport

Buses are a crucial transport mode for people on low incomes. Community transport services, many provided by the voluntary sector, are also vital for the social inclusion of people unable to use mainstream public transport.

Unfortunately, public transport use is declining. Since the COVID pandemic it has dropped worldwide; some countries record levels of only 30% compared with pre-COVID figures. These trends are not as severe in the UK; passenger numbers returned to about 80% of their pre-COVID ridership. Nevertheless, rather than increasing investments, bus companies have made severe cuts, especially to many non-commercial (but socially necessary) services.

Part of the problem is that bus provision in the UK is predominantly delivered through commercially driven companies.

In London, the public transport system is owned and regulated by Transport for London; this means they can cross-subsidise less profitable routes, set fare levels and determine the coverage and frequency of services. That means, there is far less transport-related social exclusion compared with other parts of the UK.

Transport for Greater Manchester has also adopted this franchising approach; it is consulting local communities to find ways for its Bee Network to better serve unmet transport needs.

Low-income car ownership

There are cultural divides in how car ownership and use are viewed; many populations, both in the UK and abroad, still consider cars an important status symbol and signifier of social success. Our research in Greater Manchester found that some communities said they need cars on cultural grounds, and some women for their personal ​​​​​​safety.

Many parts of the UK have very limited alternative transport options, so understandably, many low-income households often aspire to own a car.

But it is not a practical policy solution to simply to give all car-aspirant low-income households a free EV – or at least access to one through local shared car schemes.

Even ignoring the financial and administrative costs associated with providing such a scheme, and that many people cannot drive and so would not benefit from it, the wider global resource and social welfare costs of EV production are enormous. The environmental consequences and social injustices of EV battery production (such as children cobalt mining in Congo, to lithium factories in the Attacca desert, to battery disposal in Africa) are not considered in the UK’s green transport policies.

Policy direction – transport poverty, low-income households and the green transition

The green transition in transport is not happening in isolation; it must be viewed alongside debates about fairness in other areas of social and environmental change. Transport also inherently interacts with the cost-of-living crisis. We need to bring these wider poverty challenges to the fore when engaging those already experiencing multiple forms of deprivation in discussions about the green transition.

Some practical steps decision makers should consider are:

More buses operating in the evenings, at weekends, in urban peripheries (where many low-income communities are situated), and in rural areas. But buses running empty in these low-demand areas are criticised as a waste of public money. There are barriers to implementation here – some suggest offering free bus fares to encourage more people onto public transport, but subsidy costs would be enormous. The public is resistant to increased taxation and local authorities often operate on stretched budgets. Local authorities must develop new ways to subsidise services, with Transport for London and the Greater Manchester Bee Network being possible templates.

Speeding up traditional rail services between Northern cities and with Scotland. This would have environmental benefits, if it could persuade people out of their cars for these trips. It could also help to stimulate the economy in the North, creating new jobs and training opportunities for people living there. This is a workable alternative to promoting high-speed rail which can be an unaffordable option for low income commuters.

Government departments with transport and planning remits need to consider reducing people’s overall mobility by retrofitting neighbourhoods and increasing access to key activities within walking/cycling distance. How we positively affirm, reward or incentivise communities for low-carbon behaviour is an ongoing question and it is important that as the green transition moves forward, that transport poverty does not cause communities and individuals to struggle to access jobs, education, and essential services due to limited choices.