This is a big elephant-in-the-room. Is access to transportation equitable. I raise this issue as one that the usual green-transportation agenda (more efficient cars, intelligent highways, better transit at rush hours) ignores. The others that are ignored are: health/obesity; health/trauma; health/stress, sprawl, congestion, social/community capital.
I use the PED-CIVS acronym to identify those who the system ignores in favour of AAAs (active, affluent adults): It stands for poor, elderly, disabled, children, ill/infirm, visitors, and "simplicists" (this last eschews car-ownership). Your reference to the unemployed and under-employed suggests that I should add one: making it PED-CIVUS. The IVUs are really those temporarily in the PEDCS classes.
The total in this group at any one time must be close to 50% (and will be higher as the aging occurs).
In transit, the engineer-planners use the term "transit captive" to refer to those without the means to driver whenever the transit service "displeases" them. Their patronage, as a result, can be taken for granted. It is only the AAAs whose patronage they have to compete for. That is a distinction that is the opposite of what we need. [See Walker, Jarrett (2012), Human Transit, p. 44-45; or my essay: http://hearthhealth.wordpress.com/about/previously-published-works/feet-first-and-car-sharing-recent/transits-two-solitudes-%E2%80%9Cchoice%E2%80%9D-vs-%E2%80%9Ccaptive%E2%80%9D-riders-2009/]
So, count me in as part of your group you are organizing to monitor this important study.