The public's pragmatic attitude to transport and what it means for achieving net zero

Abstract

The new Labour government wishes to be seen as a global climate leader and has prioritised delivering greener transport. Among its commitments are measures to improve public transport and make streets more attractive for those walking, wheeling and cycling. These transport policies are welcomed by many, but have also attracted opposition from some politicians and media outlets, and been the focus of intense pushback in several communities. How can the government achieve net zero transport in a way that is publicly acceptable?

The UK has made limited progress in reducing emissions from transport over the past three decades and transport is now the country's largest emitting sector. In standard emissions calculations, surface transport currently accounts for more carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions than aviation, with car use responsible for 52 per cent of domestic transport emissions.1 While these accounts do not adjust for non-CO₂ impacts of aviation nor emissions from return flights, therefore underplaying aviation's role, reducing surface transport emissions must be central to the UK's climate commitments. Indeed, avoiding driving is frequently cited as the single most effective action that individuals can take to cut their carbon footprint, followed by switching from a petrol/diesel car to an electric vehicle (EV).2

The transport sector is also unsustainable in other ways, besides being a major greenhouse gas contributor. It is inequitable, unhealthy and inefficient. People with an annual income of more than £100,000 travel almost three times further than those with an income under £10,000;3 meanwhile 28 per cent of the poorest fifth of households do not have a car, compared with just 6 per cent of the wealthiest fifth.4 Dominance of car use has also contributed to rising obesity, accidents and air pollution. And road traffic is estimated to place costs equivalent to £31.9 billion a year on communities in Britain, equivalent to 1.6 per cent of GDP.5 Shifting to a more sustainable transport system would therefore bring environmental, health, social and economic benefits.

Technology alone cannot deliver this. Reducing emissions from transport requires profound behaviour change too. Indeed, behaviour change is needed for all levels of the ‘avoid, shift, improve’ sustainable travel hierarchy. Avoiding the need to travel by using digital alternatives is essential to decarbonise transport, and requires radically different ways of interacting and working. Shifting to more sustainable – public, shared and active – modes of travel means breaking car-use habits and reconfiguring travel choices. Even switching from petrol/diesel to EV requires consumers to choose greener cars, and to adapt vehicle-refuelling habits to engage with the growing EV charging infrastructure.

In fact, behaviour change is fundamental to achieving net zero in all sectors. According to the Climate Change Committee, more than 60 per cent of the measures needed to reach net zero will require behaviour change by consumers, and the remainder will involve behaviour change by businesses.6 However, in 2022, a House of Lords inquiry found that the UK government's approach to achieving sustainable behaviour change was ‘seriously inadequate’.7 There has been a preference for information provision to inform consumer decision-making (so-called ‘downstream’ measures), over incentives, regulations or infrastructure provision (‘upstream’ measures) that alter the attractiveness or availability of options for consumers. Yet, extensive evidence shows that information provision alone is ineffective in changing behaviour. One meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change found that information provision was 2 to 3 per cent effective, compared with interventions that alter choices (nudges), which are on average 25 per cent effective, and can reach 90 per cent effective. Moreover, informational approaches tend to exacerbate inequality, as they do not remove structural barriers (for example, cost or inconvenience) to behaviour change.8

Transport behaviours are particularly driven by physical and geographical factors, such as the availability of parking or public transport routes, and by economic factors (for example, income); whereas psychological factors (such as knowledge and values) tend to be less important.9 As alluded to above, information provision is likely to be particularly ineffective to change behaviours. Moreover, travel behaviours are highly habitual – regular trips, such as commutes, become automatic and routine, and less amenable to change through information.10 Changing car-use habits requires disrupting old routines as well as creating new ones; in this sense, ‘pull’ measures, like creating cycle lanes or increasing bus frequency, will not suffice; ‘push’ measures like congestion charges or road reallocation will also be required.11 Push and pull together are needed.

Cities across Europe have demonstrated how crucial push measures can be as part of an integrated plan to improve public transport infrastructure. London's congestion charge is credited with stopping three million additional journeys by car in 2019 and boosted bus travel by a third (33 per cent) on implementation.12 In Stockholm, congestion pricing achieved a 22 per cent reduction in the 10 years from its implementation in 2006, despite a growing population.13 Such initiatives defy the long-held maxim in transport policymaking that increasing numbers of people and a growing economy necessarily lead to more car use. Urban leaders who recognise the harms caused by traffic to their local economy, environment and communities have shown that an alternative path is possible.

Rural communities in the UK face different barriers in making changes to how they travel to their urban counterparts. Many feel that EVs, public transport and active travel are all currently out of their reach due to a lack of charging infrastructure, unsafe routes or inadequate bus and train services. In these areas, the focus must be on addressing the barriers to behaviour change, including working with rural authorities to revive the fortunes of towns that can act as anchors for local services and amenities and provide multi-modal transport hubs.14 In Cornwall, for example, car dependency is higher than in more urban regions, so the council there has been trialling shared mobility solutions, including providing credits and marketing for shared e-bikes.15 The Welsh government has also been trialling rural sustainable mobility solutions, including local working hubs and loans for e-bikes and e-cargo bikes.16

However, some policies, while highly effective in changing behaviour, can be controversial. Public backlash in response to Ultra Low Emission Zones and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods exemplifies how a vocal minority can politicise transport policy and challenge local authority efforts to promote alternatives to fossil-fuelled cars. This opposition is in part fed by the ‘democratic chasm’ that has opened up between communities and authorities,17 as local news services have closed and disinformation is spread online. Right-leaning media and politicians have gone as far as to call these (proposed) policies a ‘war on motorists’, implying that motorists constitute a definable demographic or identity group. But to what extent does this assumption reflect public views and behaviours?

Recent research commissioned by IPPR suggests that, for the vast majority of the UK public, transport is pragmatic, not ideological.18 Owning a car is not a marker of identity in any meaningful way and people are not especially attached to their cars. In fact, people want transport systems to change and public transport is actually valued more highly than cars. Across different social groups, and regardless of whether someone is a car owner or not, there is strong support for a wide range of policies that would support achieving net zero, reducing transport costs and delivering healthier, safer streets. Notably, schemes such as school streets (which see road space opened up to children travelling actively to school) are supported by all voter segments used in this analysis. Change is hard and can be disruptive to people's daily routines, but there is a clear consensus that transport at the moment isn't working, and there is an appetite for a new approach − as long as it takes the cost-of-living crisis into account.

The research also found that there is a lack of trust in decision-makers in relation to transport, although there is more trust in local leaders, including local authorities and mayors. It is clear that ‘fairness’ is a critical condition for the acceptance of transport policies – this includes distributional and procedural fairness (providing a voice for the public in decision-making). To win support for social change, authorities must listen to diverse perspectives, co-design policies that address people's concerns, and understand which narratives and language work best within their communities.

Taken together with wider evidence on behaviour change and public engagement, the research report concludes that a transition to a sustainable transport system requires upstream public engagement – early and substantive involvement of citizens and communities in transport policymaking. This engagement can not only help avoid backlash but also improve the quality and effectiveness of decision-making.19 This engagement should happen at two levels: strategic involvement in national net zero policy and in developing general principles for sustainable transport policies (for example, Climate Assembly UK and Welsh Government Net Zero 2035); and the co-development of local transport schemes through place-based engagement and community relationship building.

The Republic of Ireland provides a practical case study of how the UK government may approach strategic engagement of the public in the shift to sustainable mobility. The Irish government's department for transport has published its principles and practical actions to foster ‘public engagement on climate action and sustainable mobility’.20 This combines an awareness of the need for supportive mainstream media messages on sustainable travel alongside fostering a shift in how the state works – recognising that engagement is a two-way process, in which government must listen and learn. The UK is long overdue a public engagement strategy for net zero,21 and should urgently adopt the best practice being set by its nearest European neighbour.

Importantly, public engagement is not a replacement for political will and leadership. Major changes in transport norms and the redesign of public spaces have only been achieved through the willingness of leaders to engage with the evidence of what is and isn't working and make the case for trying something new. In Janette Sadik-Khan's Streetfight she details the approach taken during her time as New York's commissioner of transportation under Mayor Bloomberg. During this period, road space in the city was reallocated to social, commercial and public or active transport at a rapid pace, often using temporary materials, such as planters, with the ability to make adaptations quickly if things didn't go to plan. A clear vision, backed up by a politician willing to spend political capital, drove a culture change in what was seen as within the remit of a transport department and what was considered possible in reshaping city streets. The engagement of communities in this process, and active sharing of data on the impact of trials, helped smooth the notorious ‘Goodwin curve’ of public opinion – where public support drops prior to implementation but rises when benefits are realised.22 Unfortunately for New Yorkers, they are still waiting to see this approach applied to congestion charging.23

The climate crisis requires us to change, at an unprecedented pace, how we travel. This does not mean changes should be rushed. The British public are pragmatists and their views on transport are shaped by what they see and experience as they go about their lives. Winning the case for change means making greener transport choices possible for more people and urgently addressing the stresses caused by many people's attempts to engage with public transport. Action must be practical, fair and rooted in empathetic engagement of the public. Delivering on the government's goals requires a new relationship between communities and transport decision-makers, and a willingness to ‘move fast, and fix things’ – together.