Mapping Transport Poverty: How the Bicycle Makes a Difference

Many people in the mobility world focus only on how fast we can travel from A to B. But speed is not everything. We also need to make sure everyone has the chance to use transport at all. When combined with public transit, the bicycle becomes a powerful tool to improve access for everyone.

Hans Voerknecht is the founder of Een Nieuwe Kijk (A New Perspective), an organisation that develops new ways to look at accessibility. He has developed a method for assessing if all groups in society have equitable transport access to reach work, education, care and social contacts. This method is developed together with a group of expert scientists. The method is called IKOB (Integrale Kijk Op Bereikbaarheid or Integrated Perspective on Accessibility). One of the experts on this topic, Karel Martens, has named this transport justice. It takes into account time and costs of traveling, spatial planning and the difference between different groups in accessibility. The method is now owned by CROW and is available as an Open Source Tool.

The method can be used also the enormous value of a cycle inclusive policy in terms of equitable accessibility and preventing transport poverty.

How did you get involved with the Dutch Cycling Embassy?

I’m actually one of the founding fathers. Around 2007, I worked at CROW. They needed an international ambassador on cycling policy, and I took on that role. At the time, there was already a Danish Cycling Embassy, and I organized a large meeting with many stakeholders to discuss establishing a Dutch version. From there, the Dutch Cycling Embassy was created.

Over the years, I stayed connected while also working on other projects, mainly focusing on equitable accessibility. I realized many people lack access to society because of poor transport options, especially those with lower incomes.

To address this, I developed a method and software, together with other experts. This approach has been applied in over 20 projects, across different cities and contexts. It provides insights into issues like transport poverty.

Can you explain what equitable access means to you?

Traditionally, we look at mobility in a utilitarian way: if a measure benefits society overall, it’s considered good, even if it disadvantages some groups. But I noticed these policies often improve accessibility for people who already have it, while neglecting those who don’t.

Many lower-income people don’t own a car, yet most measures are car-oriented. An alternative approach, sufficiency-oriented thinking, asks: Does everyone have enough accessibility to participate in society? Equitable access means everyone has fair chances to reach essential places such as work, education, healthcare, shops, and social contacts. Making sure that everyone has this should come before improving transport for people who already have ample access.

For example, in many rural areas, people are very car-dependent. We tend to assume everyone there owns a car. But in every municipality, at least 30% of low-income households don’t. This puts these people at a bigger disadvantage. Areas where many destinations can be reached by bike show far less inequality.

How can we map these inequalities?

We look at the daily urban system: where people live, where jobs and services are, and how long and costly it is to reach them. We also consider income, car ownership, and preferences for each transport mode.
For each neighbourhood, we calculate how many jobs are realistically accessible, factoring in time and cost. For low-income people, €1 in travel costs weighs more heavily than for higher-income people. For example, €1 equals 12 minutes of perceived travel time for low-income households, compared to 4 minutes for high-income ones.

I created a method to estimate the risk of transport poverty. This is where people struggle to reach essential services. For example, in Eindhoven, we analysed what would happen if no one cycled. The model clearly showed a rise in transport poverty.

In other countries, this reality is even clearer because cycling is a less viable option. During a workshop, I spoke with people from Toronto. They mentioned that there were neighbourhoods where more than 80–90% of households had no car access. To make a big impact with sustainable mobility plans, municipalities should focus on these communities. Transport poverty should always be addressed.

What trends did you notice?

Preferences vary by area. In rural areas, 90–95% of people prefer cars because other options are limited or non-existent. This is especially true for public transport. In urban areas, fewer people prefer cars. More often, they choose the bike or public transport because these are good alternatives, and cars are less practical in cities.

We also need to remember that the bicycle has a smaller radius than the car. This matters for distance and time. For people who prefer the car, if the destination is more than a 20-minute cycle away, they will mostly choose the car. This increases to 45 minutes for people with a strong preference for the bike. Further, using an electric bike the radius enlarges very much. With IKOB we can show the extra value of using a bike in providing better accessibility for people with a low income.

How could this data inform policy?

To address transport poverty, we look at what holds people back from choosing certain modes. Public transport can cover a large area well, but if it is too expensive, people will make other choices. In Amsterdam, a monthly subscription from North Amsterdam to Schiphol costs over €150. This is unaffordable for many. A capped monthly rate of €40–€50 would make jobs at Schiphol accessible to more people.

In other cases, lowering prices and speeding up transport only solves part of the issue. In some cities, people walk 20–25 minutes during the last leg of their journey. This makes fewer people willing to commute. The first step is to improve accessibility there and for instance offer a bike for the last leg of the journey. When the combination of public transport and the bike offers reasonable door-to-door-travel times, comes the second step, making public transportation cheaper.

What’s your advice for cities looking to invest in cycling infrastructure?

Investing in cycling infrastructure and affordable bikes doesn’t just improve mobility. It reduces inequality. Car infrastructure mainly benefits the well-off. Cycling and public transport can benefit everyone, as well as improve existing systems.

Furthermore, there is a big focus on sustainable transport, which is of course valuable. But most measures that are taken to improve sustainable transport turn out to be quite unfair for a lot of lower income people, especially in rural areas. A lot of people observe that if measures are not fair than there will be no support for these measures. So, in my opinion, fair and equitable accessibility comes first, creating support for measures. And, surprisingly, all fair and equitable measures turn out to be very sustainable, which is not true the other way around.

Now I am involved in a POLIS-initiative to have alle the SUMPs (Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans) include also an assessment on fair and equitable accessibility. POLIS has found out that IKOB fills an essential gap in the set of instruments, so it is advisable to:
1. Assess the distributional effects of measures for various group and if this is fair and equitable;
2. Use IKOB to do the calculations.

It’s also important to provide bikes in places where people don’t cycle because they can’t afford one. Other schemes, such as kilometre-based reimbursements, also help to expand access to jobs.
Cycling helps people take part in society and access opportunities. Unfortunately, current policies often deepen inequality by focusing too much on cars.

Interested in learning more?

Contact Hans at hans@eennieuwekijk.nl
www.eennieuwekijk.nl