Does Public Transport Planning Consider Mobility of Care? A Critical Policy Review of Toronto, Canada

Abstract

The concept ‘mobility of care’ captures all the daily travel necessary for the upkeep of a household, including trips to grocery stores, health-related appointments, errands, and caring activities for dependents. Since it was originally coined in 2009, a handful of studies have shown how poorly mobility of care trips are captured in transportation surveys. These preliminary analyses also find that care trips comprise a substantial proportion of daily mobility. As women disproportionately engage in ‘mobility of care’ travel, the under-consideration of care trips is argued to result in a gender bias in transport planning. Despite this, transport policy related to mobility of care has received less attention. Given that transport policy shapes how transport systems operate, this paper explores the extent to which recent transport policies consider mobility of care. A critical policy review framework is used to systematically examine seven policy documents (435 pages) from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), the largest transit agency in Canada. Results indicate that mobility of care is rarely directly considered or significantly discussed. Instead, transport policy often uses the commute to work as the default trip. Mentions of care destinations and trip characteristics associated with mobility of care are more common in recent years and most frequently discussed in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic or specialized services for seniors and people with disabilities. Policies that likely facilitate mobility of care indirectly are also identified, including fare discounts, transfer windows, and accessibility policies. The review concludes with preliminary recommendations on how transit agencies can more directly plan for mobility of care.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.