Relatively many households live in Southeast Drenthe and may be vulnerable to policies aimed at more sustainable transport. This is the conclusion of research organization TNO.
The study looked at households with a fuel car, a (very) low income and little financial wealth, but who drive many kilometers and have high fuel costs. Their residential location is also poorly accessible by public transport.
TNO investigated to what extent this group can participate in the transition to more sustainable transport. The results show that an increase in so-called mobility costs can mean that certain journeys are no longer possible. This ‘car-related energy poverty’ can ultimately lead to unemployment, deterioration of health, or social isolation.
The southeast of Drenthe, together with North Friesland, among others, scores high when it comes to the risks of ‘transport poverty’.
Urban areas contain the most vulnerable households around Amsterdam (including Almere, Lelystad, Haarlemmermeer, Velsen, Zaanstad and Alkmaar). These areas can also be identified outside the Randstad (Leeuwarden, Drachten, Apeldoorn and the Bergen op Zoom – Oss line).
It is not only the place where you live that matters whether you are a high-risk household. The composition of the family also has an influence. For example, relatively many families with children are vulnerable to measures that should lead to more sustainable transport. Single-parent families in particular are overrepresented.
Furthermore, it appears that at-risk households relatively often have an income in the form of benefits. Nationally, between 113,000 and 270,000 households are at risk of transport poverty.
TNO advises focusing on alternative transport, such as electric bicycles, shared transport and public transport. Encouraging the purchase of an electric car, as currently implemented, does not benefit at-risk households because it often makes it possible to purchase cars in the ‘top segment’.
Compensating car owners with the introduction of a general reduction in excise duties is also not recommended, because this measure does not provide enough benefit to risk groups.