Mobility and transport justice T&M 2026

Lucas 2006 2019

Leading figure empirically mapping transport related social exclusion (TRSE) in a UK context. Later adds to research: time-based, fear-based, and spatial barriers. Also adds a growing concern that new tech (self-drive, platforms) will reproduce or even worsen TRSE

Mattioli et al 2016

Trasport Poverty, forced car ownership- global North context, rural exlusion, limits of private provision of transport

Kenyon et al 2003

Defines TRSE: Process by which people are prevented from participating in economic, political, and social life due to insufficent mobillity in a society built around the assumption of high mobility

Sheller + Urry 2006

New Mobilities Paradigm. Mobility is never neutral: it reproduces and is reproduced by social heirarchies. Social science assumes sedentarism- life rooted in fixed places- and movement between is a neutral background process. THey reject this and say moveemnt in constituitive of social lie. 5 mobilities: corporeal (bodies), physical (supply chains), imaginatives (media/tv), virtual (internet), Communicative (letters, phone calls).

Also acknowledges ‘moorings’ and rejects the romanticism of pure flow. Calls for new methods: go-alongs, video ethnography.

Cresswell 2006

Injustice at the level of the individual movement’s politics. 6 elemens of the politics of mobility: force, velocity, rhythm, route, experience, friction. Each opens a justice question. Is force coerced or voluntary (refugee vs elite travel). Velocity- whose movement is sped up/slowed down. Friction- whose made to stop (borders, fear, tolls)

Sheller 2018

Mobility Justice- must be theorised across scales: body, street, city, nation, planet. Introduces Kinopolitics: transport infrastructure as inherently political. e.g. Chile 2019 fare evasion protests → metro as a site of resistance. Sheller in dialogue with MAssey (2004) on power geomitries

Lubitow et al 2020

Even when phyical access to transport exists, the experience of that transit is shaped by gendered violence. This is fear-based exclusion. Mobility justice must address quality + safety of movement, not just distribution

Smeds et al 2020

London based night-time mobilities. Policy constructs a ‘mobile subject’ that is gendered, racialised, classed. Women’s legitimate right to nighttime mobility is conditioned by respectability politics and fear.

Parikh 2018

Mumbai based night time- constant negotiation for women of respectability, colonial-based assumptions about public space, and coass-intersected fear. Good G.S case

Pedroso + Aldred 2023

Cycling as women of colour. Draws on bell hooks ‘oppositional gaza’. Cycling world not built or advertised for them. Also excluded from any descision making about the future- creating a continuing cycle (ha)

Loopmans et al 2022

Transgender fear on public transport

Osei + Aldred 2023

Black men cycling: racial profiling + hyper visibility

Sen 2009

Capabilities approach: asks what people can actually do and be rather than just what resources are available

Rawls 1971

(Political Philosophy) Rawlsian difference principle. Inequalities are only just if they work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Karner et al 2023

We are better, in ‘mobilities justice’, at spotting injustice than actually proposing just alternatives

Perrotta 2017

Uses qualatative methods to assess fare affordability. Pushes back against abstract cost thresholds. Fare evasion as a question of justice, not criminality

Plyushteva + Boussaw 2020

Direct and indirect impacts of ‘foregone journies’. Trips someone did not take bacuse of cost, fear, inaccessibility, this is not considred in economic models, rendering them invisible. How can we progress if this is not considered

Soliz + Perez-Lopez 2022

Footbridges in Latin America. They seem to be, and claim to be, a safety measure, positive for pedstrians byt in reality, they function to preserve uninterrupted trafic flow

Cooke et al 2022

Focuses on vulnerable young ‘non-motorised transport users’ - people who depend on walking and cycling in Zambia, S.A, Rwanda. Argues that proximity does not equal usability. Draws from Sen (2019) on access