Low carbon transport for people on low incomes

The way we travel is changing, but is the shift to low-carbon transport leaving some people behind? As we move towards greener travel options, the question of transport poverty—where people struggle to access jobs, education, and essential services due to limited transport choices—becomes more urgent. To explore these challenges, we’ve asked 2 experts for their insights: Professor Karen Lucas from the University of Manchester and Hirra Khan Adeogun from the climate charity Possible. 

Can the transition to net zero and the push for greener transport also make travel fairer and more accessible for those on low incomes?

How does transport policy impact low-income households?

Professor Karen Lucas (KL): 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.

It is therefore unsurprising that electric vehicle (EV) adoption is core to the current green transition agenda. 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 that would most benefit the poorest households. Grassroots innovations and social enterprises are rarely funded. Neither are these ‘overlooked’ voices heard or amplified within transport policy, and planning circles.

Hirra Khan Adeogun (HKA): While I agree that interventions encouraging walking, wheeling, and cycling would benefit those suffering from transport poverty across the UK, many people are initially reluctant to embrace these measures and are unaware of the benefits. A major finding from Possible’s Car Free Cities campaign is that change is hard, and opposition is inevitable.

For example, despite the constant media frenzy, poll after poll after poll show support for low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) – aiming to stop cars and lorries cutting through minor roads, facilitating more sustainable methods of travel, whilst also improving air quality. Even Rishi Sunak’s LTNs review, released as part of his ‘plan for drivers’, conceded that levels of support are high (45% supporting versus 21% opposing).

Support for LTNs is broad but shallow, whereas criticism from a minority can be loud and hostile.

Similarly, even with controversy in hotspots like Uxbridge and intense media attention, the popularity of Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) across Londoners is strong.

Social justice concerns raised against traffic reduction policies are intuitive and easily gain popular traction – but they are rarely supported by data. Perceived ‘victims’ are routinely weaponised in defence of the traffic-dominated status quo, despite these groups being more likely to benefit from traffic reduction. Possible’s research shows that initial fears about traffic reduction initiatives subside, and once the benefits are realised, people rarely want to return to car dominance.

Is investment in public and community-based transport the best solution?

KL: I think that buses are the most important 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. It would be great to see 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. 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 Government continues to cut local finance, so local authorities must develop new ways to subsidise services.

HKA: Subsidising free bus travel is not as costly as some think. Research by IPPR shows that it would cost approximately £2.3 billion to give every adult in England free bus travel; this is a fraction of the £27 billion the previous Government had planned as part of the Road Investment Strategy, which would have simply strengthened our existing carbon infrastructure. It is unclear where transport sits in Labour’s long list of priorities, and how much they are willing to invest.

Prioritising a transition to EVs under our current taxation system will see the Treasury lose billions of pounds in revenue, as EVs do not currently pay Vehicle Excise Duty or fuel duty.

Instead, I think we should reform our tax system by introducing a smart pay-as-you-drive scheme to both raise revenue and reduce congestion and emissions. A fairer scheme would account for vehicle metrics (emissions, size, and weight), road categorisations, changing congestion levels, and public transport access levels in local areas. This would be a progressive tax, charging the wealthiest and those driving the most polluting vehicles more, with any money raised invested into ​​public transport. It would tax behaviours deemed problematic, whilst funding those we want to encourage.

Why shouldn’t people in low-income households own a car?

KL: So why isn’t the solution to a fair transition to green transport 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.

There are also 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.

So, should we be reducing people’s overall mobility by retrofitting neighbourhoods, increasing access to key activities within walking/cycling distance? Is this simply a middle-class aspiration? What about people who can’t choose where they live? How do we positively affirm, reward or incentivise their low-carbon behaviour? These are some questions I am left with.

HKA: Cultural reasons for car ownership can more clearly be traced to the ‘motornormativity’ in society at large. Since World War II, cars have played a central role in British culture – car manufacturers and cultural producers have encouraged us to fall in love with these hunks of metal, associating cars with status, privacy, speed and freedom.

Pro-motoring politicians, such as Lutfur Rahman, dismiss the idea that British South Asian communities could cycle routinely for local journeys – instead using cultural reasons to explain car reliance, including living in multigenerational families and caring for elderly relatives. However, two-wheel travel is completely normal in vast swathes of South Asia – the home of the rickshaw – despite having similar family set-ups. So, what is really going on in Britain’s diaspora?

The British Transport Police recorded a 51% increase in racist hate crimes from 2016-2020. For Britain’s ethnic minorities, racism, hostility and harassment can lead to safety concerns and a self-consciousness about their (lack of) entitlement to public space. Cars therefore become a sanctuary for some racialised people.

This also means that those most engaged in local conversations about a better public realm are those most comfortable in claiming a right to public land – highly-educated, wealthier, white people. This feeds a negative cycle in which marginalised communities feel excluded from power-broking conversations about sustainable urbanism, further locking them into car ownership.

Thankfully, there is a growing ecosystem of grassroots organisations supporting minoritised groups to adopt more sustainable modes of travel.

For cycling, examples include Black Cyclists Network, Brothers on Bikes, Cycle Sisters, Joyriders and Nottingham’s Muslim Women’s Network. We must explore the ‘lost tradition’ of cycling in British South Asian communities, empowering us to reclaim and assert this part of our cultural identity, challenging the perceptions that cycling is only for certain demographics.

What are your thoughts on high-speed rail?

HKA: In the UK, 15% of people take 70% of all flights. ​In England, ​whilst less than 3% of trips are more than 50 miles (one way), they’re responsible for roughly 60% of miles travelled, and 70% of emissions. There is no politically viable way to reduce these emissions other than by offering sustainable alternatives like high-speed rail.

Whilst privatisation has played a significant part in Britain’s expensive, creaking train infrastructure, existing rail lines – especially those connecting major cities – are stretched beyond their limits due to growing passenger numbers.

Building high-speed rail is the best way to increase overall capacity, reduce congestions and bring down costs.

I don’t think it’s fair that some can travel 200 miles in around 2 hours from London to Manchester, while others spend roughly the same time travelling half that distance from Birmingham to Leeds. This deepens regional inequalities, locks people into car use, and shuts out whole populations from accessing jobs, relationships and culture beyond their home territories.

KL: I have no issues with increased spending on inter-city rail services, or arguments for high-speed rail. My problem lies with the Government investing in ridiculously expensive high-speed rail services like HS2, which only cuts twenty minutes off the London to Birmingham journey time and will most likely benefit business commuters. I can’t support the idea that it will stop people from flying – between London to Birmingham – who in their right mind would do that? Now that the proposed Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds part of the route has been abandoned, I see no environmental value to HS2 either.

I do think speeding up traditional rail services between Northern cities and with Scotland would have environmental benefits, if it could persuade people out of their cars for these trips. It might also help to stimulate the economy in the North, creating new jobs and training opportunities for people living there. This would seem to be a much better option to me than promoting elitist high-speed rail.

Are low-income households not engaged in the green debate?

HKA: It is a massive generalisation to say that people on low incomes are not engaged with climate debates. Those living in the Global South are already experiencing climate change, but the political class of the Global North does not even listen to the poorest in their own countries.

Many Brits are painfully aware of how the climate crisis is crippling energy bills, wreaking havoc on their grocery shops and increasing flooding for coastal communities.

Our Clean Cars for Carers campaign works with care workers, some of the lowest-paid workers who are most reliant on vehicles. We want the Government to establish a social leasing scheme for care workers, many of whom spend a fortune on fuel to drive for hours daily, offering them EVs at a lower cost and reducing emissions.

And of course, many grassroots campaigners, activists, and civil society workers come from low-income backgrounds, and their ongoing dedication has continued to pave the way to a green and just transition. Climate Reframe, the Working Class Climate Alliance and Round Our Way are just some groups leading the way.

KL: 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.