Fairness in transport is more than just fares: it is a political choice

The tricky process of organising how people get around cities ultimately comes down to allocating scarce resources: land for the transport network and space on the road or within the vehicle. This will lead to some sort of rationing which is why many interventions lead to a cry of “unfair”.

Whether the intervention is keeping old, polluting vehicles off the road, charging for road use, allowing (genuinely) safe cycle lanes or restricting the times when older people can use the bus for free will annoy some people while leading others to see the restriction as a fair decision in a crowded but democratic city.

Even a decision such as London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s decision to freeze some bus and tube fares for six of the last 10 years means finding money from some taxpayers or other budgets. And the impact of all these moves is accentuated by a consensus against embarking on more road building with London that might — at least temporarily — open up space for motorists.

These are ultimately political decisions so the final arbiter will or should be the ballot box, but it raises questions about what people see as fair and whether perceptions that a government is punishing certain groups or stepping beyond its powers undermines their strategy.

With this in mind, academics at the London School of Economics looked at policies aimed at making London more environmentally sustainable from a transport perspective. In particular it used a representative survey of Londoners, citizens’ juries with nine participants and a behavioural experiment with 19 car drivers to explore how much car use is enough and how to fairly share driving privileges as part of transport planning.

The headline finding was that the survey of some 1,200 people found firm opinions about who should bear greater responsibility for cutting local transport emissions. Almost six out of 10 respondents (57 per cent) believed that wealthy Londoners with access to quality public transport should take on the primary responsibility, while fewer than 15 per cent thought older residents who travel less frequently should be held accountable.

Asked who should get an exemption from having to reduce their emissions as much as others, the same majority (57%) would exempt the disabled with half would do so for older people, those without any alternative to a car, and carers. Fewer than one in 17 would give an exemption for wealthy residents and people with excellent public transport (surprisingly high unless that reflected that same group within the survey).

The idea of giving everyone a "budget" for how much they can drive (like having a limit on car trips) was generally well-received. People found it easier to understand big environmental goals when they were broken down into personal budgets. But this is linked to the idea of how much use of these scarce resources – road space and clean air – is sufficient for each group to have.

Fairness matters

So, what does this tell us about fairness? Most importantly, fairness matters: people care deeply about equity when it comes to transport policies. When policies seem fair, people are more willing to accept changes. Fairness served as a valuable focal point that guided discussions and deliberations between members of the citizens' jury, they found. People want transport to be fair, but making it work in practice requires careful attention to how policies are designed and explained.

While that research looked at car travel, private transport makes up a third of daily trips in London with the rest split roughly evenly between public transport and walking and cycling. In 2024 Transport for London rolled out “Equity in Motion”, its strategy to ensure the city’s public transport system is more equitable, secure, welcoming, and accessible for all residents and visitors. Many initiatives in its first year were aimed at helping the elderly and infirm including more step-free access and ramps, priority seating and moves to reduce the number of slips and falls.

Swiss Cottage is not accessible to mobility impaired Londoners due to about 60 steps between platform and street level

But as well as accessibility, the strategy acknowledges goals of making transport more available — mapping with the idea of sufficiency in the LSE research — more affordable (such as fare caps) and a more “available” way to travel such as making it comfortable and not overcrowded.

There are clearly different meanings of fairness: the study of people’s views on car use and budgets is about distributional fairness of scarce resource. TfL is looking to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to participate and are treated fairly (i.e., are not excluded).

While some decisions such as ensuring step-free access comes down to money, given TfL’s status as a public sector body this comes down to political decisions as do interventions such as low-traffic neighbourhoods, extensive cycling networks, clean air zones, car-free city blocks, increased parking costs, congestion charging, reduced speed limits and pedestrian-friendly enhancements. TfL warns that while many of the initiatives are funded, others can only be guaranteed if its financial future is secured.

Ultimately, fairness is a philosophical concept. Within the transport arena it has been argued that providing a fair system is less about ensuring efficiency and operational excellence and more about providing as many as possible with adequate transportation and so mitigating social inequalities in cities such as London. While that is an admirable goal, making it happen will still come back to political choices.