Transport is more than just getting from A to B. It is a means to accessing jobs, healthcare, education, and social life—the foundations of opportunity and quality of life. For decades, transport planning was shaped mainly by efficiency and infrastructure concerns, which are of course key. But, over time, the conversation has broadened to include equity, justice, and diversity. Yet, despite progress in research, practice still lags behind. Many communities continue to face transport poverty, while vulnerable groups often receive only afterthought solutions. So where do we stand, and what must change?
Equity in Theory vs. Practice
Researchers have long debated what a ‘fair’ transport system should look like. Two common approaches are horizontal equity—treating everyone the same—and vertical equity—recognising that some groups need more support than others. Theories of justice also matter. For instance, Rawls’ egalitarianism prioritises the needs of the least advantaged, while the capabilities approach focuses on expanding people’s real opportunities to participate in society. These frameworks must be valued and compared. And, locally, a decision on which to follow must be taken. However, in practice, most transport plans fail to clearly articulate their equity perspective. Too often, equity is mentioned as a generic principle but not translated into concrete policies or indicators.
The challenge of measuring equity
One reason the pursuit of equity in transport planning remains incomplete is that we do not really know how to measure it. Indicators such as Gini coefficients, accessibility measures, or supply–demand comparisons exist, but none has become a shared standard and there are no defined thresholds. If cumulative opportunities in a neighborhood are greater than the city average, can we be sure that accessibility is good? Of course we cannot. This issue makes it hard to compare across regions or to hold institutions accountable. Without robust and transferable tools and key performance indicators with clear thresholds, decision-makers often fall back on case-specific methods that cannot easily be adapted elsewhere. Developing agreed benchmarks for transport equity should be a top priority for researchers and practitioners alike.
Diversity: More than gender or income
Diversity in transport is often treated narrowly. Gender, age and income receive some attention, but other dimensions—such as disability, language, digital access, cultural background, or geographical issues—are frequently overlooked. This matters, because mobility challenges are rarely shaped by a single factor. Instead, disadvantages often intersect, creating complex barriers. However, inclusive planning is not only a desire: it requires richer data, better participatory processes, and methods that capture the varied experiences of real users. It also requires recognising and addressing institutional power imbalances that limit meaningful participation.
Unintended consequences and emerging risks
Even well-intentioned projects can have unintended consequences. In some cities, investments in green infrastructure have spurred gentrification, pushing out the very communities they were meant to help. The digitization of transportation saves a lot of time for some users, but discriminates against those without sufficient tech-skills. Emerging technologies such as automated vehicles could bring similar risks: while they promise efficiency and safety, their benefits may accrue mainly to wealthier groups unless equity principles are embedded from the start. Anticipatory governance is essential to prevent transport innovations from reinforcing existing inequalities.
Why context matters
There is no universal recipe. What works in one place may not work in another. Some studies in Latin America have demonstrated the benefits of transport subsidies for low-income earners[1], while in some European and American cities the introduction of free transport has not had the expected results. In some cultures, women are delighted to have exclusive means of transport, while others seek to make this unnecessary. Fifteen-minute cities may be feasible in some compact areas, but in others they are not viable in the medium term. This is, equity challenges in transport and mobility are global, but solutions must be adapted locally. What is needed is a pluralistic and context-sensitive approach that combines broad justice principles with local realities.
Moving forward
Transport systems face a decisive moment in their development. On one hand, we face technological transformations that could reshape mobility; on the other, persistent inequalities continue to limit access for many. We cannot miss this moment of change and allow transportation poverty to persist. Achieving socially just transport is not just a technical challenge but a political and ethical one. Researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and citizens all have a role to play. That means embedding equity, justice and diversity into policy from the outset, developing reliable indicators, and fostering genuine participation. It also means recognising the trade-off (we must be idealistic but also realistic): transport must be efficient and financially sustainable, but also fair in how its benefits and burdens are shared. If we get this balance right, we can build mobility systems that are not only sustainable and innovative, but truly inclusive for all.
Note: this blog contribution is based on the proceeding “In Search of Equity: Advances and Gaps in Transport Planning for Diversity” that will be presented at SUPTM 2026: 3rd Conference on Future Challenges in Sustainable Urban Planning & Territorial Management.
Author: Margarita Martínez Díaz
[1] Funding and Financing of Public Transport in Latin America and the Caribbean
