IPPR Progressive Review最新文献

Decarbonisation pathways for UK transport 英国交通的脱碳途径

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12410

Professor Jillian Anable

While other sectors of the UK economy have made some progress in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions1 since 1990, the transport sector, taken to include both air and surface modes as well as domestic and international movements from the UK, has yet to do so (figure 1). In 2019, emissions were 11 per cent above 1990 levels compared to the 53 per cent reduction achieved by the rest of the economic sectors.2 Emissions from transport finally fell below the baseline level in 2020, due to the impacts on travel activity posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, only to bounce back again since. The latest figures (2023) show transport, including international movements, standing at 151 MtCO2e, essentially still at the 1990 baseline.Without some specific policy instruments used over recent decades, the situation would have been even worse. The mandatory CO2 vehicle emissions performance standards for cars and vans since 20094 and the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation since 20085 brought continuous attention to the carbon intensity of the light duty vehicle fleet in use. However, the benefits achieved by these efforts have been more than negated by the cumulative impact of a combination of trends, many of which still prevail today. These include discrepancies between vehicle test-cycle and real-world performance, the growth in the size and weight of new cars, the slow uptake of pure battery electric vehicles, the increase in light goods vehicles (or ‘van’) traffic, minimal progress in efficiency improvements in heavy goods vehicles, and the immense rise in air passenger demand.Thus, any discussion of UK transport decarbonisation pathways must begin with the hard truth that the sector's entire emissions reduction challenge will have to be achieved in less than half the allotted 60-year period set down by the UK Climate Change Act to achieve ‘net zero’ (1990-2050). In this next phase, the easier wins already secured in the rest of the economy will no longer be available to compensate for transport's failure. Any limited carbon sequestration options that may come online to allow the UK to still emit greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 (as defines the ‘net’ aspect of the target) are reserved for aviation in this sector; therefore, all surface transport modes must achieve ‘absolute zero’ emissions.6Consequently, accounting for 36 per cent of UK emissions in 2023, if transport decarbonisation fails, net zero will also fail. Moreover, 2030 is the year designated by the UK for its legally-binding nationally determined contribution (NDC) towards meeting the UN goal under the Paris Agreement. This requires at least a 68 per cent fall in territorial emissions7 which translates into a quadrupling of the rate of emissions reductions outside of the power sector.8 A radically different decarbonisation pathway for transport is now an imperative to start to make deep cuts over the next half a decade. But what might this consist of an

在另一项分析中，Marsden 比较了 CBDP 和 CCC 第六次碳预算（至 2037 年），发现即使雄心勃勃的零排放汽车授权（ZEV--见下文）和其他一些已确认的小规模行为改变措施得到充分实现，仅国内部门就有 1.82 亿吨碳的累计超额排放14。马斯登强调，这相当于 10 年的道路交通碳减排量，而这些减排量来自于 Covid-19 封锁期间被压制的活动。这两项分析都是对大量工作的补充，这些工作一致发现，与英国地方、区域、次国家和国家范围内的碳预算相比，已确认的政策严重不足。值得注意的是，尽管采用了不同的方法、碳预算期、地理和时间尺度以及系统边界，这些研究仍然得出了基本一致的明确结论：即使实现了雄心勃勃的电气化，也必须大幅减少汽车的使用。霍普金森等人对 2020 年前的一系列不同建模分析进行比较后发现，到 2030 年，平均汽车总里程数必须比约 2019 年的水平至少减少 20%。15 鉴于自这些研究使用的基准年以来，时间已经过去了一半左右，但汽车里程数仍然只是略有下降，电动汽车的普及速度也比预期的要慢，16 我们可以假设，现在至少要下降 50%。鉴于在短期内实现汽车二氧化碳排放量的大幅减少势在必行，本文的其余部分将探讨如果在 2025 年 5 月之前通过的英国修订战略中包括这种需求减少水平，那么交通脱碳的途径将会是怎样的。ZEV 要求汽车制造商每年销售越来越多的电动汽车 (EV)，到 2035 年达到 100%，占到 2032 年国内交通部门确认政策的 80%（1.13 亿吨 CO2e）。因此，上述政策缺口的规模很可能被低估了，因为它假定已确认政策的减排量将在累积的基础上全部实现。在电动汽车的销售稳固步入所需的轨道之前，对未实现目标进行规划将是对预防原则的应用，尽管该原则在交通去碳化的治理中一直缺乏失败的记录。鉴于 ZEV 已代表了商业、实践和政治上可实现的最快电动汽车普及率，18 任何剩余的技术改进都必须从非电池电动汽车车队中获得。成功与否取决于从现在到禁止销售期间新车效率的提高速度19 以及整体报废率。汽油车、柴油车和非插电式混合动力车的平均尾气排放量在十多年间逐年略有减少，但从 2017 年左右开始增加，尽管汽油车的尾气排放量最近趋于稳定20 。SUV （"运动型多用途车"）目前是最受欢迎的乘用车，2023 年将占英国新车注册量的 60%。21 其中五分之四以上是汽油车、柴油车、混合动力车或插电式混合动力车 (PHEV)，它们的平均排放量比普通中型车高 20%。这意味着在未来 15 年或更长时间内，由于这些汽车在车队中所占比例仍然很高，特别是新车的使用时间更长，排放量将大幅增加。电动汽车的尺寸和重量都有增加的趋势，其较大的能源需求可能会阻碍可再生电力系统以许多模型中假设的速度扩展。23 这种 "流动性 "流行病还涉及更广泛的物质影响，包括土地使用、健康、安全和货币资源。24 因此，"供应方 "的一个明确选择是立即开始限制销售碳密集度最高的汽车。目前还没有任何地方通过法规限制这些车辆进入车队。不过，也有人试图抑制这些车辆的使用，如法国和挪威基于重量征收汽车税，巴黎最近也将 SUV 的停车费提高了三倍。汽车的尺寸和重量减小得越多，人们就越少需要通过价格或物理限制来限制汽车的使用，尽管根据模型情景，后者仍然是必要的，但这两种措施都有。英国气候大会 (CAUK) 成员在权衡利弊时，"尽快停止销售污染最严重的汽车 "获得了最多的第一选票--86% 的人表示基本同意，仅次于增加公共交通投资26。在新近当选的工党政府的第一份预算（2024 年 10 月）中，第一年就根据尾气排放增加了汽车流通税27 ，尤其是针对最大的豪华车型。28 但最重要的是，与苏格兰和威尔士的分权地区不同，目前还没有根据碳预算限制减少汽车行驶距离的明确目标。工党的第一份预算几乎没有迹象表明工党正在考虑这个问题，工党延长了燃油税的冻结期，并维持了每升 5 便士的降幅，即使在燃油成本相对较低的情况下也是如此。英国交通部的交通脱碳计划包含近 80 项 "承诺"，其中包括重申公共汽车和积极出行的目标（到 2030 年，城镇中 50% 的出行将通过步行、轮椅或自行车完成）。这些目标已经偏离了轨道，但还是被新政府采纳了。首先，公共交通乘客量、步行和骑自行车的改善本身只能在所需范围的边缘替代汽车出行。29 非常有力的证据表明，只有在通过定价、道路封闭和停车限制等措施限制汽车使用的同时，改善替代出行方式，才能有效减少汽车出行。31 即使在公共交通免费或票价明显降低的地方，汽车出行的替代作用也微乎其微，大部分都来自于以前步行或骑自行车的出行。32 第二个主要缺陷是只关注汽车出行的比例，而不是理论上可以转移到替代模式的汽车里程数。瓦杜德 (Wadud) 等人对不同距离段和不同交通方式（包括航空）的个人交通排放源进行了广泛分析，提出了一个令人震惊的统计数据：在英国个人旅行中，只有 2.7% 是长途旅行（单程 50 英里），但却占了 61.3% 的里程数和 69.3% 的乘客旅行二氧化碳排放量。人们经常大力重复这些统计数据，声称通过模式转换可以带来巨大的碳减排机会。然而，瓦杜德等人的分析表明，即使所有 8 英里以下的 74% 汽车出行都转为零排放的主动模式，也只能使整个交通部门的排放量减少 9.3%。相比之下，如果所有 50 英里以上的汽车出行都转为铁路出行（占所有出行的比例不到 2%），那么交通部门的排放量将减少 5.2%。除了缺乏同步的汽车限制措施外，上述统计数据还解释了为什么从脱碳的角度来看，所谓的 "良好实践 "在很大程度上是失败的。例如，"荷兰的自行车出行水平"--即在当地出行时不使用汽车，特别是骑自行车--经常被作为实现气候目标的一个重要愿望。在荷兰，29% 的出行是骑自行车，而在英国，这一比例还不到 2%。34 因此，尽管英国居民平均乘坐飞机更多，但两国人均交通碳排放量几乎相当（图 2）。简单地说，这是由于荷兰缺乏对拥有和使用汽车的限制或抑制，再加上长途旅行的距离，尤其是休闲和商务旅行。其次，如果不通过其他方式，包括通过目的地转移来鼓励短途旅行，有意义地阻止和满足较长距离的汽车旅行，那么传统上对短途旅行，主要是城市旅行的关注，往往狭隘地集中在通勤和上学途中，只能维持现状。我们必须关注实际产生碳的地方，以及是什么在支撑着汽车的拥有和使用。因此，如果不改变这些以休闲和家庭为主的活动，我们就无法实现交通脱碳。现实情况是，目前还没有很好的例子表明，这些较长距离的汽车出行已被转移到其他方式，或被重新配置为大规模的短途出行。考虑到这一挑战的规模，规划失败并探索同时适应和减缓方案之间的协同作用，以创建一个灵活、有弹性和低碳的系统，似乎是规划新交付战略的唯一真正有意义的途径。

{"title":"Decarbonisation pathways for UK transport","authors":"Professor Jillian Anable","doi":"10.1111/newe.12410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12410","url":null,"abstract":"While other sectors of the UK economy have made some progress in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions1 since 1990, the transport sector, taken to include both air and surface modes as well as domestic and international movements from the UK, has yet to do so (figure 1). In 2019, emissions were 11 per cent above 1990 levels compared to the 53 per cent reduction achieved by the rest of the economic sectors.2 Emissions from transport finally fell below the baseline level in 2020, due to the impacts on travel activity posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, only to bounce back again since. The latest figures (2023) show transport, including international movements, standing at 151 MtCO2e, essentially still at the 1990 baseline.Without some specific policy instruments used over recent decades, the situation would have been even worse. The mandatory CO2 vehicle emissions performance standards for cars and vans since 20094 and the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation since 20085 brought continuous attention to the carbon intensity of the light duty vehicle fleet in use. However, the benefits achieved by these efforts have been more than negated by the cumulative impact of a combination of trends, many of which still prevail today. These include discrepancies between vehicle test-cycle and real-world performance, the growth in the size and weight of new cars, the slow uptake of pure battery electric vehicles, the increase in light goods vehicles (or ‘van’) traffic, minimal progress in efficiency improvements in heavy goods vehicles, and the immense rise in air passenger demand.Thus, any discussion of UK transport decarbonisation pathways must begin with the hard truth that the sector's entire emissions reduction challenge will have to be achieved in less than half the allotted 60-year period set down by the UK Climate Change Act to achieve ‘net zero’ (1990-2050). In this next phase, the easier wins already secured in the rest of the economy will no longer be available to compensate for transport's failure. Any limited carbon sequestration options that may come online to allow the UK to still emit greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 (as defines the ‘net’ aspect of the target) are reserved for aviation in this sector; therefore, all surface transport modes must achieve ‘absolute zero’ emissions.6Consequently, accounting for 36 per cent of UK emissions in 2023, if transport decarbonisation fails, net zero will also fail. Moreover, 2030 is the year designated by the UK for its legally-binding nationally determined contribution (NDC) towards meeting the UN goal under the Paris Agreement. This requires at least a 68 per cent fall in territorial emissions7 which translates into a quadrupling of the rate of emissions reductions outside of the power sector.8 A radically different decarbonisation pathway for transport is now an imperative to start to make deep cuts over the next half a decade. But what might this consist of an","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"187-196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12410","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142860984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Disabled people's access needs in transport decarbonisation 残疾人在交通脱碳中的通行需求

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12414

Dr Harrie Larrington-Spencer

Decarbonising transport is essential for achieving net zero. Transport is the largest contributor to UK domestic greenhouse gas emissions – responsible for 27 per cent in 2019, even excluding emissions from international aviation and shipping.1 Simply electrifying private vehicle stock at existing levels of ownership and use will not be sufficient to achieve climate goals,2 and will fail to address the public health epidemics of road deaths and serious injuries, physical inactivity, and air pollution, all enabled by private car ownership.3

Transport decarbonisation, then, necessitates increasing levels of active travel, as well as increasing public transport use – also recognising that most public transport journeys will start and end with active travel. Within this paper, active travel is understood as walking, wheeling, and cycling, with wheeling including fully-powered mobility aids such as electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters – reflecting the infrastructural needs of such modes, as well as acknowledging disabled people's often non-normative forms of physical activity.4

Active travel targets have been established across the UK, recognising the necessity of increasing mode share. For example, 50 per cent of trips in England's towns and cities to be walked, wheels, or cycled by 2030,5 a mode share target of 45 per cent for public transport and active travel in Wales by 2040,6 and a reduction in car use by 20 per cent in Scotland by 2030.7

To increase levels of active travel, reallocating road space away from private vehicles and making space for and investing in safe, accessible, and dedicated walking, wheeling, and cycling infrastructure is essential. In a systematic review of a decade's worth of research on active travel interventions, Roaf et al demonstrate how active travel interventions with infrastructure change have the greatest positive impact upon levels of active travel, whilst social and behavioural interventions without infrastructure change have little impact.8 Safe and dedicated infrastructure is also important for extending the diversity of people travelling actively. For example, women9 and disabled people10 often have a strong preference for dedicated cycling infrastructure, and such infrastructure has been demonstrated to increase the number of women cycling.11

Access frictions are emerging as new infrastructure with an evidence base for positive impacts upon levels of active travel, for example dedicated and segregated cycle tracks and low traffic neighbourhoods,12 is being implemented.13 Such frictions occur when nuanced and individualised embodiments of disability mean that the access needs of some disabled people, ie the things one needs to be able to fully and meaningfully participate within a space or activity such as travel, are seemingly incompatible with the access needs of other disabled people. Access friction between disabled people has also been discussed as ‘conflicting’ or ‘compet

交通去碳化是实现净零排放的关键。交通是英国国内温室气体排放的最大贡献者--2019 年占 27%，甚至不包括国际航空和海运的排放量。1 仅在现有的拥有和使用水平上对私家车进行电气化不足以实现气候目标，2 也无法解决因拥有私家车而导致的道路死亡和严重伤害、缺乏运动和空气污染等公共卫生流行病。因此，交通去碳化需要提高积极出行水平，同时增加公共交通的使用--也要认识到大多数公共交通出行的起点和终点都是积极出行。在本文中，积极出行被理解为步行、轮椅出行和骑自行车出行，其中轮椅出行包括电动轮椅和代步车等全动力代步工具--这反映了此类出行方式对基础设施的需求，同时也承认残疾人的体育活动形式通常并不规范。例如，到 2030 年，英格兰城镇中 50%的出行将以步行、轮椅或自行车代步；5 到 2040 年，威尔士的公共交通和积极出行的模式份额目标为 45%；6 到 2030 年，苏格兰的汽车使用量将减少 20%。7 为提高积极出行水平，必须重新分配道路空间，不再使用私家车，为安全、无障碍、专用的步行、轮椅和自行车基础设施留出空间并进行投资。Roaf 等人对十年来有关积极出行干预措施的研究进行了系统回顾，结果表明，改变基础设施的积极出行干预措施对积极出行水平的积极影响最大，而不改变基础设施的社会和行为干预措施影响甚微。例如，妇女9 和残疾人10 往往对专用的自行车基础设施情有独钟，而且此类基础设施已被证明可增加妇女骑车出行的人数。11 随着有证据证明对积极出行水平有积极影响的新基础设施（如专用和隔离的自行车道和低交通流量社区12）的实施，出现了准入摩擦。当残疾的细微和个性化体现意味着一些残疾人的无障碍需求，即一个人能够充分和有意义地参与一个空间或活动（如出行）所需要的东西，与其他残疾人的无障碍需求似乎不相容时，这种摩擦就会发生。残疾人之间的无障碍摩擦也被讨论为 "相互冲突 "或 "相互竞争 "的无障碍需求。然而，由于将残疾人的无障碍需求对立起来，这种框架排除了超越这种僵局并制定更具包容性的解决方案的可能性。这也是对残疾人团结和大多数残疾人满足他人无障碍需求的愿望的不公，即使这些需求似乎与自己的需求不相容。正如 Piepzna-Samarasinha 所反映的那样："我经常看到，当我们无法满足朋友的某些需求时，瘸子专用空间充满了背叛感和无助感"。14 为了展示新的积极出行基础设施中的通行摩擦，我将在下文讨论公交站旁路的案例。公交站旁路是指在公交站后方设置专用自行车道，保持自行车道使用者与道路上机动车的隔离（图 1）。公交站旁路是满足残疾骑车人通行需求的重要基础设施，对他们来说，不与机动车共用车行道通常是能够骑车的重要便利因素。15 这种旁路也能让使用 2 级或 3 级代步车和电动轮椅的残疾人受益，他们可以合法使用自行车道。16 对于一些行动不便者和电动代步车使用者来说，自行车道（如果有的话）可能比人行道更容易到达，因为路面通常更平整，而且在通过路口时，路缘石掉落也不那么令人担忧。然而，由于新出现的通行摩擦，特别是来自盲人和视障人士以及皇家全国盲人协会 (RNIB)、全国盲人联合会 (NFB) 和导盲犬慈善机构等代表组织的反对意见也一直存在。 30 现在被认为是最佳做法的进一步迭代，是在过街点使用触线与路缘石相结合，允许轮椅使用者从人行道上通过过街通道，同时也提醒盲人和视障行人注意道路与人行道的交汇处31。在开发这种基础设施的过程中，我们必须认识到它并不 "完美"。对于坐轮椅的人来说，路缘石可能会让他们感到疼痛，对于行走不便的人来说，路缘石也会给他们带来绊倒的危险，32 而针对盲人和视障行人的行动能力培训也必须发展到能在建筑环境中导航路缘石的程度。35 与其追求无法实现的 "完全无障碍"，这种 "完全无障碍 "掩盖了无障碍的摩擦，并将与残疾交织在一起的其他形式的差异非物质化。打造这样的集体通道并非易事，需要在有不同缺陷和看似不相容的通道需求的残疾人之间进行持续而艰难的对话，同时还要确保种族、性别和阶级形式的差异也得以实现。虽然我们有必要按残障类型来了解新的积极出行基础设施的具体体验，但积极出行基础设施的设计和开发必须是泛残障的。残疾人在积极出行基础设施的集体无障碍建设中的作用不能是象征性的，这不仅是因为残疾公正的基础是 "我们与我们无关"，还因为正如 Piepzna-Samarasinha 所说："如果你不知道如何进行无障碍建设，那就去问残疾人。36 残疾人是专家，也是日常生活的设计者。尊重我们的技能和知识，向我们学习。让我们从一开始就参与进来，但要记住，集体参与是一个过程。对发展和变化、持续的洞察力和改进持开放和灵活的态度（不仅在思想上，而且在资金上）。作为残疾人，无论多么令人沮丧，我们也需要尊重他人的使用需求，因为这些需求可能与我们自己的需求并不一致，并致力于 "建立一种实验模式，看看效果如何，然后进行调整 "38 。

{"title":"Disabled people's access needs in transport decarbonisation","authors":"Dr Harrie Larrington-Spencer","doi":"10.1111/newe.12414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12414","url":null,"abstract":"Decarbonising transport is essential for achieving net zero. Transport is the largest contributor to UK domestic greenhouse gas emissions – responsible for 27 per cent in 2019, even excluding emissions from international aviation and shipping.1 Simply electrifying private vehicle stock at existing levels of ownership and use will not be sufficient to achieve climate goals,2 and will fail to address the public health epidemics of road deaths and serious injuries, physical inactivity, and air pollution, all enabled by private car ownership.3Transport decarbonisation, then, necessitates increasing levels of active travel, as well as increasing public transport use – also recognising that most public transport journeys will start and end with active travel. Within this paper, active travel is understood as walking, wheeling, and cycling, with wheeling including fully-powered mobility aids such as electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters – reflecting the infrastructural needs of such modes, as well as acknowledging disabled people's often non-normative forms of physical activity.4Active travel targets have been established across the UK, recognising the necessity of increasing mode share. For example, 50 per cent of trips in England's towns and cities to be walked, wheels, or cycled by 2030,5 a mode share target of 45 per cent for public transport and active travel in Wales by 2040,6 and a reduction in car use by 20 per cent in Scotland by 2030.7To increase levels of active travel, reallocating road space away from private vehicles and making space for and investing in safe, accessible, and dedicated walking, wheeling, and cycling infrastructure is essential. In a systematic review of a decade's worth of research on active travel interventions, Roaf et al demonstrate how active travel interventions with infrastructure change have the greatest positive impact upon levels of active travel, whilst social and behavioural interventions without infrastructure change have little impact.8 Safe and dedicated infrastructure is also important for extending the diversity of people travelling actively. For example, women9 and disabled people10 often have a strong preference for dedicated cycling infrastructure, and such infrastructure has been demonstrated to increase the number of women cycling.11Access frictions are emerging as new infrastructure with an evidence base for positive impacts upon levels of active travel, for example dedicated and segregated cycle tracks and low traffic neighbourhoods,12 is being implemented.13 Such frictions occur when nuanced and individualised embodiments of disability mean that the access needs of some disabled people, ie the things one needs to be able to fully and meaningfully participate within a space or activity such as travel, are seemingly incompatible with the access needs of other disabled people. Access friction between disabled people has also been discussed as ‘conflicting’ or ‘compet","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"243-249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12414","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142860990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Transport's role in creating a fairer, healthier country 交通运输在建设更公平、更健康的国家中的作用

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12416

Angela Donkin, Mike Childs, Michael Marmot

Transport can enable everyone, across the social gradient, to benefit from access to schools, colleges, and jobs. It is also critical to enable people to engage with essential services such as doctors, dentists, and hospitals, and to interact with friends and family. However, it is not equally available and can promote, or damage, health. This article explores four key areas where we believe better transport can play a key role in creating a fairer, healthier country.

The 2010 Marmot Review described how having access to transport enables access to work, education, social networks, and services that improve people's opportunities and overall community functioning.1 Conversely, not having good transport access increases inequalities in a range of the social determinants of health.2 Yet, in the Marmot review 10 years on,3 we noted the under-investment in a crucial part of our transport system: bus services. The quality of bus services has the greatest effect on the day-to-day travel experience of those without access to a car. In 2021–22, one in four (28 per cent) of the poorest fifth of households did not have access to a car, compared with just 6 per cent of the wealthiest fifth of households.4

In 2018, analyses of the National Travel Survey found that 19 per cent of unemployed people in England either turned down a job or did not apply for a job due to transport problems, compared with 6 per cent of people who were already in employment.5 This followed a sustained decrease in national funding for buses, with a 35 per cent drop in funding between 2008/09 and 2019/20; financial support for buses then increased over the pandemic, but has now fallen back.6 A report published this year notes that bus services outside London, in rural and urban areas, have now halved since 2008, with some areas having reductions of greater than 80 per cent.7 In addition, the cost of bus and coach fares has risen by 69 per cent since 2015, more than rail fares, and average wages, which have increased by 46 per cent.8 Noting the unaffordability of travel, in 2021 the government stepped in with a £2 limit on bus fares, which will rise to £3 in 2025.9

For those needing to travel outside of peak times, there has been a significant drop in the frequency and reliability of services. This particularly impacts shift workers without a car, for example those working in the NHS. It also impacts those without a car wanting to travel to socialise or access cultural services.10 Given that lack of quality, affordable transport is a barrier to employment, this will be exacerbating economic and health inequalities and holding back growth. Over half of the working-age population (57 per cent) live in areas with low public transport access to employment opportunities, ie within reach of 45 minutes travel time. Lack of transport does not only impact the ability to engage in work; 66 per cent (7.8 million) of elderly people cannot reach a hospital within 30 minutes by

交通可以使社会各阶层的每个人都能从上学、上大学和就业中受益。还必须使人们能够获得医生、牙医和医院等基本服务，并与朋友和家人互动。然而，它并不是同等可用的，可以促进或损害健康。本文探讨了四个关键领域，我们认为更好的交通可以在创建一个更公平、更健康的国家中发挥关键作用。《2010年旱獭评论》描述了交通便利如何使人们能够获得工作、教育、社交网络和服务，从而改善人们的机会和整体社区功能相反，没有良好的交通便利会加剧健康的一系列社会决定因素中的不平等现象然而，在10年后的Marmot评估中，我们注意到我们交通系统的一个关键部分：公共汽车服务的投资不足。公交服务的质量对那些没有车的人的日常出行体验影响最大。2021 - 2022年，最贫穷的五分之一家庭中有四分之一（28%）没有汽车，而最富裕的五分之一家庭中只有6%没有汽车。2018年，英国国家旅游调查（National Travel Survey）的分析发现，由于交通问题，英国19%的失业者要么拒绝了工作，要么没有申请工作，而在已经就业的人中，这一比例为6%此前，国家对公共汽车的资金持续减少，2008/09至2019/20年度的资金下降了35%；在疫情期间，对公共汽车的财政支持有所增加，但现在已经回落今年发表的一份报告指出,伦敦巴士服务外,在农村和城市地区,自2008年以来已经减少了一半,削减一些地区有超过80 / cent.7此外,客车票价成本自2015年以来上涨了69%,超过铁路票价,平均工资,也增加了46 / cent.8指出,发泄着对旅行,在2021年,政府介入£2限制公交车费,对于那些需要在高峰时段以外出行的人来说，服务的频率和可靠性都大大下降了。这尤其影响到没有车的轮班工人，例如那些在NHS工作的人。这也影响到那些没有车却想去参加社交活动或获得文化服务的人鉴于缺乏高质量、负担得起的交通工具是就业障碍，这将加剧经济和卫生不平等并阻碍增长。超过一半的工作年龄人口（57%）生活在公共交通难以获得就业机会的地区，即45分钟车程之内。交通工具的缺乏不仅影响了从事工作的能力；在英国，66%（780万）的老年人乘坐公共交通工具无法在30分钟内到达医院。11然而，有理由乐观地认为，服务可以得到改善。认识到公共汽车服务的私有化并没有为大多数人起作用，运输部正在计划《更好的公共汽车法案》，赋予地方当局新的权力，以便他们可以决定当地公共汽车服务的“细节”——即它们在哪里运行，何时运行以及服务的标准在此之前，大曼彻斯特成功地接管了他们的公交网络——蜜蜂网络，这使得第一年的出行次数增加了5%，并有能力向16-18岁的人提供免费交通，使他们有可能接受教育和工作地方当局应该利用这些新权力来制定公交服务的最低标准。如果公共交通工具因为太贵或缺乏覆盖而无法使用，人们要么使用汽车，要么使用积极的交通方式，要么变得孤独/孤立。研究表明，孤独或感到孤立的人患慢性病、认知能力下降、无法完成日常生活任务和过早死亡的风险更高。社会孤立（很少或没有社会接触）是身体衰退和早逝的有力预测因素。孤独（孤独或孤立的感觉）甚至比社会孤立更能预测心理健康问题，如抑郁或生活没有意义的感觉。了解当地的需求很重要，还应考虑到人们交往的不同方式。例如，研究发现，收入较低的人更有可能与家庭成员互动，社交互动更频繁、更密切，而收入较高的人更有可能与朋友互动。在这项研究中，低收入家庭中较高水平的社会互动将有助于减轻贫困的破坏性影响，因此这是一个真正积极的发现。然而，值得注意的是这种差异。收入较低的人可能更需要连接他们与其他当地家庭的服务，例如，这可能与连接郊区和城镇中心的公共汽车服务不一致。在健康公平研究所（IHE），我们正在支持英格兰大约六分之一的地方当局改善其所在地区健康的社会决定因素。我们也支持苏格兰和格温特。在这些“土拨鼠”地区，特别是那些较为农村的地区，交通问题不是孤立地提出的，而通常是在当地服务减少的背景下提出的。对于那些依赖公共交通的人来说，当地服务的减少和公共交通的减少正在造成相当大的痛苦。有关邮政、银行和牙科服务损失的问题有充分的记录。还有更广泛的影响，缺乏其他服务，如家庭虐待服务。路线规划工作可以告知需要提供新服务的地方，我们鼓励地方当局跨界合作，确保为所有公民提供服务和路线。与用户协商，同时保持健康公平的视角，将是一个明智的地方做法。如果它是基于需求的，改进后的服务将首先推出给那些连接最差的人。一些组织已经呼吁制定某些标准。例如，CPRE要求保证每个200-300人的村庄从早上6点到午夜至少有一小时的公共汽车服务，每周七天。16 .空气质量差危害健康，包括增加死亡和发病的风险。大多数与空气污染有关的死亡是由于心脏病、中风和慢性阻塞性肺病，空气污染还与癌症、儿童和成人哮喘有关平均而言，贫困程度最高的地区的污染程度比贫困程度最低的地区更严重。18旨在减少车辆排放的政策，如促进使用电动汽车和投资公共交通，与空气污染水平的显著下降和改善居民健康状况有关，应予以扩大然而，重要的不仅仅是这些局部地区的影响。在实现净零排放的过程中，减少交通运输的排放至关重要。国内运输排放（即温室气体）——地面运输加上国内航空——自1990年以来下降了14%。气候变化委员会（Climate Change Committee）建议，到2050年，逐步减少汽车总里程的17%，到2035年，减少9%的汽车里程（例如通过增加在家办公）或转向低碳模式（如步行、骑自行车和公共交通）。他们主要将转向电动汽车视为交通运输脱碳的途径。更大的转变显然会进一步减少碳排放，对空气质量、城市地区的宜居性和减少拥堵产生更大的有益影响。然而，国内运输排放量的下降几乎完全被国际航空和航运排放量的增长所抵消，这两项排放量目前比1990年的水平高出66%，而且还在继续上升。与这种增长有关的因素有很多，答案超出了本文的范围，但有一些有趣的问题——我们是否在减少国内飞行里程，以牺牲全球商品送货上门为代价？可能需要一种更综合的方法来减少我们的总“航空里程”。主动出行作为使用汽车的替代方式，可以减少碳排放，这对减缓气候变化非常重要，还可以减少空气污染。积极的旅行还可以改善身体健康和心理健康，因为身体活动。促进积极旅行增加的行动是可以奏效的。例如，综合土地利用和交通规划与身体活动水平的显著提高和健康结果的改善有关。另一项系统审查还发现，优先考虑行人和骑自行车者安全的政策，以及公共交通便利的混合用途社区的发展，与体育活动水平的显著增加和健康状况的改善有关。例如，在伦敦沃尔瑟姆森林（Waltham Forest），一项迷你荷兰计划包括减缓住宅街道上的车辆，并增加受保护的自行车空间。一项为期一年的分析发现，与非迷你荷兰地区相比，居住在迷你荷兰地区的人们在前一周骑过自行车的可能性要高出24%。更重要的是，不同社会经济群体骑车人数的增加是一致的此外，研究表明，20英里/小时的限速区可以将最贫困地区和最贫困地区之间的交通伤亡不平等减少14%。24在设计主动出行计划时，关注公平是至关重要的例如，最初的伦敦自行车共享计划（London Bike Sharing Scheme）增加了富裕人群骑自行车的数量，而非富裕人群；只是在把自行车放在比较贫困的地区之后，骑车才开始在穷人中增

{"title":"Transport's role in creating a fairer, healthier country","authors":"Angela Donkin, Mike Childs, Michael Marmot","doi":"10.1111/newe.12416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12416","url":null,"abstract":"Transport can enable everyone, across the social gradient, to benefit from access to schools, colleges, and jobs. It is also critical to enable people to engage with essential services such as doctors, dentists, and hospitals, and to interact with friends and family. However, it is not equally available and can promote, or damage, health. This article explores four key areas where we believe better transport can play a key role in creating a fairer, healthier country.The 2010 Marmot Review described how having access to transport enables access to work, education, social networks, and services that improve people's opportunities and overall community functioning.1 Conversely, not having good transport access increases inequalities in a range of the social determinants of health.2 Yet, in the Marmot review 10 years on,3 we noted the under-investment in a crucial part of our transport system: bus services. The quality of bus services has the greatest effect on the day-to-day travel experience of those without access to a car. In 2021–22, one in four (28 per cent) of the poorest fifth of households did not have access to a car, compared with just 6 per cent of the wealthiest fifth of households.4In 2018, analyses of the National Travel Survey found that 19 per cent of unemployed people in England either turned down a job or did not apply for a job due to transport problems, compared with 6 per cent of people who were already in employment.5 This followed a sustained decrease in national funding for buses, with a 35 per cent drop in funding between 2008/09 and 2019/20; financial support for buses then increased over the pandemic, but has now fallen back.6 A report published this year notes that bus services outside London, in rural and urban areas, have now halved since 2008, with some areas having reductions of greater than 80 per cent.7 In addition, the cost of bus and coach fares has risen by 69 per cent since 2015, more than rail fares, and average wages, which have increased by 46 per cent.8 Noting the unaffordability of travel, in 2021 the government stepped in with a £2 limit on bus fares, which will rise to £3 in 2025.9For those needing to travel outside of peak times, there has been a significant drop in the frequency and reliability of services. This particularly impacts shift workers without a car, for example those working in the NHS. It also impacts those without a car wanting to travel to socialise or access cultural services.10 Given that lack of quality, affordable transport is a barrier to employment, this will be exacerbating economic and health inequalities and holding back growth. Over half of the working-age population (57 per cent) live in areas with low public transport access to employment opportunities, ie within reach of 45 minutes travel time. Lack of transport does not only impact the ability to engage in work; 66 per cent (7.8 million) of elderly people cannot reach a hospital within 30 minutes by ","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"174-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12416","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142860055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

How car finance is holding back a just transition 汽车金融是如何阻碍公平转型的

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12411

Tom Haines-Doran

Studies on how to decarbonise our transport system usually focus on technical solutions, and economic, social and political barriers. Very few have investigated the relationship between consumer finance and car dependency. This article focusses on how new retail car financing models have deepened car dependency and indebted consumers, to the benefit of a crisis-ridden car industry, and to the detriment of everyone else. It suggests that recognising the importance of car consumption financing is an important step in building the necessary political coalitions to achieve a ‘just transition’.Most progressive commentary on transport and the environment recognises that we need to reduce car use, in order to reduce carbon emissions to safer levels and tackle social inequality. Although electric vehicles (EVs) undoubtedly play an important role in a just transition, the wholesale electrification of the car fleet would require enormous energy resources, a wholesale upgrade to the energy grid, and would deplete global lithium supplies. Moreover, the electrification of vehicles has enabled consumers to buy bigger and heavier cars; EVs – whether full EVs or hybrids – make heavier cars cheaper to drive, because electricity is cheaper than petrol or diesel. Maintaining high levels of car ownership and car usage, and allowing vehicles to increase in size, would have a detrimental impact on more vulnerable road users, especially those that, whether by choice or economic necessity, move around much more sustainably by walking and cycling.1Recognising many of these factors, governments have made some limited policy decisions to prioritise active travel modes in recent years, whether through segregated bike lanes and ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’, or experiments in pollution charging with clean air zones.2 In many cases, these have generated considerable opposition. While these movements have not necessarily reflected the majority of public opinion, they have been sufficient to reduce the scope of schemes both locally and in terms of national policy.3 This has resulted in ‘culture wars’, seemingly dividing the population with motorists and the car industry on the one side, and environmental crusaders on the other.Such patterns reveal the persistence of a strong ‘culture of car dependence’ in society, where support for car use, whether through, for example, tax breaks on consumption or increasing road capacity for cars, is commonsense and is broadly supported. As Mattioli et al argue, explaining the strength of this culture requires a deep understanding of the car industry.4 They show that car manufacturing is characterised by its huge economies of scale and high capital intensity. This gives the car industry considerable political clout. The increased provision of road capacity by politicians, and the travel habits that car owners establish, lead to ‘lock in’ mechanisms that continually reinforce car dependency and its political apologists.

关于如何使我们的交通系统脱碳的研究通常侧重于技术解决方案，以及经济、社会和政治障碍。很少有人研究消费金融和汽车依赖之间的关系。本文关注的是新的零售汽车融资模式如何加深了消费者对汽车的依赖和负债，对危机缠身的汽车行业有利，对其他人不利。它表明，认识到汽车消费融资的重要性是建立必要的政治联盟以实现“公正过渡”的重要一步。大多数关于交通和环境的进步评论都承认，我们需要减少汽车的使用，以将碳排放减少到更安全的水平，并解决社会不平等问题。尽管电动汽车（ev）无疑在转型过程中发挥着重要作用，但汽车的大规模电气化将需要大量的能源资源，需要对能源网络进行大规模升级，并将耗尽全球锂供应。此外，汽车的电气化使消费者能够购买更大、更重的汽车；电动汽车——无论是纯电动汽车还是混合动力汽车——使重型汽车的驾驶成本更低，因为电力比汽油或柴油便宜。保持高水平的汽车拥有量和汽车使用率，并允许车辆增加规模，将对更脆弱的道路使用者产生有害影响，尤其是那些出于选择或经济需要，更可持续地通过步行和骑自行车出行的人。认识到这些因素，政府近年来做出了一些有限的政策决定，以优先考虑积极的出行方式，无论是通过单独的自行车道和“低交通街区”，还是在清洁空气区进行污染收费的实验在许多情况下，这些都引起了相当大的反对。虽然这些运动不一定反映大多数公众意见，但它们已足以在地方和国家政策方面缩小计划的范围这导致了一场“文化战争”，似乎把人口分成了两派，一方是驾车者和汽车工业，另一方是环保斗士。这种模式揭示了社会中强烈的“汽车依赖文化”的持续存在，在这种社会中，支持汽车使用，无论是通过消费税收减免还是增加汽车的道路容量，都是常识，并得到了广泛支持。正如Mattioli等人所说，解释这种文化的力量需要对汽车工业有深刻的理解它们表明，汽车制造业的特点是巨大的规模经济和高资本密集度。这赋予了汽车行业相当大的政治影响力。政治家提供的道路通行能力的增加，以及车主建立的出行习惯，导致了“锁定”机制，不断强化了对汽车的依赖及其政治辩护者。但该行业也趋向于生产过剩和低利润率，这意味着制造商必须不断寻找扩大消费的方法。2019年，我在生态经济学家朱莉娅·斯坦伯格（Julia Steinberger）的领导下，与马蒂奥利（Mattioli）和他的合著者一起开展了“适度生活”项目。大约在那个时候，有大量媒体报道了个人合同购买（PCP），它很快取代了分期付款购买（HP），成为英国新车零售交易融资的主要方式。pcp已经成为一种新的汽车消费方式。在惠普的融资下，消费者在三年或四年的合同中偿还销售价格加上利息的余额，在合同到期时获得完全所有权。对于pcp，在类似期限的合同下，消费者只偿还大约一半的购买价格，但与惠普不同的是，除非他们支付“可选的一次性付款”，即购买价格的另一半，否则他们不会获得车辆的所有权。这使得新车的每月还款成本大大降低，消费者可以购买更高价值的汽车（见图1，PCP和惠普购买22,000英镑汽车的图解比较）。绝大多数消费者不愿一次性支付这笔绝大多数人负担不起的费用，而是选择将车辆退还给制造商而不受经济处罚，以换取另一笔PCP交易中的新车。pcp的兴起与汽车消费中的一种新的短期主义相对应。商业报刊和报纸文章倾向于参照更广泛的消费文化来解释这些消费模式。一个流行的比喻是与手机相关的一次性文化，在这种文化中，消费者在续签合同时参与了无休止的“升级”。换句话说，pcp的框架是响应消费者的偏好，而不是塑造消费者的偏好。但我对这样的解释并不满意。另一个是二手车价格的降低。pcp旨在提高新车购买率。然而，今天的新车很快就会变成明天的二手车。新车销量的增加增加了进入二手车市场的近新车的供应量，在其他条件相同的情况下，这应该会降低二手车的成本。这是一个问题，因为制造商依靠PCP融资的车辆的价值不会低于合同开始时预测的贬值率。换句话说，从长远来看，解决制造商盈利问题的“PCP解决方案”可能会损害自身，更不用说对消费者违约水平的担忧了。当然，考虑到汽车工业对经济的重要性，任何此类行业风险的增加也意味着公共财政的风险：政府倾向于保护被认为“太大而不能倒”的行业，如汽车工业和金融业。那么，我们能做些什么呢？在这里，人们很容易主张“更好的监管”，尤其是为了保护消费者。但那只是膏药。制造商及其金融支持者有明显的物质动机迫使消费者负债，而加强监管只可能使他们在这样做的尝试中更具创新性，因为监管通常落后于金融工程。核心问题是一个政治问题：大多数人需要或认为需要使用自己的汽车。更激进的消费者教育可以帮助扭转“文化战争”的局面，让消费者明白，汽车行业是在通过让最忠实的消费者遭受财务损失来拯救自己。对公共交通和自行车基础设施的投资，与其被认为是浪费金钱，比如，这些投资本可以用于修补坑洼和下一轮高速公路拓宽计划，还不如被视为金融安全网——公共基础设施可以帮助我们所有人出行，而不必担心如何满足汽车行业对我们辛苦挣来的工资的贪得无厌的胃口。反过来，这将有助于建立公众对政府救助的反对，如果汽车行业继续扩大消费金融，政府救助肯定是必要的。普通人并不愚蠢：他们可以看到周围环境的崩溃，他们了解全球变暖的基本原理，他们意识到大公司的行为方式往往只服务于他们自己的利益。如果“公正的过渡”不仅仅是环境活动家和进步的公民社会机构传播的模因，而是演变成一场足以改变我们政治方向的运动的战斗口号，那么我们就需要一种超越个人权利的消费者教育，一种阐明既得利益和脆弱性的教育，并授权创造共同的策略来克服它们。

{"title":"How car finance is holding back a just transition","authors":"Tom Haines-Doran","doi":"10.1111/newe.12411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12411","url":null,"abstract":"Studies on how to decarbonise our transport system usually focus on technical solutions, and economic, social and political barriers. Very few have investigated the relationship between consumer finance and car dependency. This article focusses on how new retail car financing models have deepened car dependency and indebted consumers, to the benefit of a crisis-ridden car industry, and to the detriment of everyone else. It suggests that recognising the importance of car consumption financing is an important step in building the necessary political coalitions to achieve a ‘just transition’.Most progressive commentary on transport and the environment recognises that we need to reduce car use, in order to reduce carbon emissions to safer levels and tackle social inequality. Although electric vehicles (EVs) undoubtedly play an important role in a just transition, the wholesale electrification of the car fleet would require enormous energy resources, a wholesale upgrade to the energy grid, and would deplete global lithium supplies. Moreover, the electrification of vehicles has enabled consumers to buy bigger and heavier cars; EVs – whether full EVs or hybrids – make heavier cars cheaper to drive, because electricity is cheaper than petrol or diesel. Maintaining high levels of car ownership and car usage, and allowing vehicles to increase in size, would have a detrimental impact on more vulnerable road users, especially those that, whether by choice or economic necessity, move around much more sustainably by walking and cycling.1Recognising many of these factors, governments have made some limited policy decisions to prioritise active travel modes in recent years, whether through segregated bike lanes and ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’, or experiments in pollution charging with clean air zones.2 In many cases, these have generated considerable opposition. While these movements have not necessarily reflected the majority of public opinion, they have been sufficient to reduce the scope of schemes both locally and in terms of national policy.3 This has resulted in ‘culture wars’, seemingly dividing the population with motorists and the car industry on the one side, and environmental crusaders on the other.Such patterns reveal the persistence of a strong ‘culture of car dependence’ in society, where support for car use, whether through, for example, tax breaks on consumption or increasing road capacity for cars, is commonsense and is broadly supported. As Mattioli et al argue, explaining the strength of this culture requires a deep understanding of the car industry.4 They show that car manufacturing is characterised by its huge economies of scale and high capital intensity. This gives the car industry considerable political clout. The increased provision of road capacity by politicians, and the travel habits that car owners establish, lead to ‘lock in’ mechanisms that continually reinforce car dependency and its political apologists. ","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"221-227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12411","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142859922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A just transition for transport 运输的过渡

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12412

Shavanah Taj, Nisreen Mansour

引用次数: 0

Mobility, emotion and political will 流动性、情感和政治意愿

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12413

Filip Watteeuw

引用次数: 0

A sustainable transport system needs to address inequities like transport poverty 可持续的交通系统需要解决交通贫困等不平等问题

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12406

Mari Martiskainen

Imagine a situation where you have been offered an interview for a new job. You are excited about the potential new opportunity, but quickly realise that your chances of getting the job may be diminished by the fact that you will likely arrive at the interview all hot and flustered, perhaps even sweaty. This is because you will have to walk two hours to get to the interview. You are not walking because you want to be active in your daily life, but because you cannot afford the bus fare to get there. Similarly, imagine a situation where you keep cancelling medical appointments because you have to rely on expensive taxis to get to the hospital due to the lack of public transport, and while you can claim expenses for those costs, the process feels too complicated.1 Lastly, how would you feel if you had a beautiful national park near your home, but could not go there as it would require owning or having access to a car, both out of your reach as you do not drive due to a health condition? These are some of the real-life examples of transport inequities, as told by people who took part in our UKRI-funded research on transport poverty in the UK at the University of Sussex.2Simcock and colleagues use a wider definition of transport poverty: “the inability to attain a socially- and materially- necessitated level of transport services”.4 There are various reasons why someone may experience transport poverty, but it is mainly due to a lack of access to transport, high transport costs and/or the unavailability of transport services. A person facing such inequities cannot easily meet their regular travel needs as transport services – such as local buses – may be too expensive, services may not take them where they want to go at the time they want to go or there may be no services available at all.Initial research findings from follow-on research by colleagues at the Energy Demand Research Centre (EDRC) indicate that there are also safety aspects, as, for example, women, people from ethnic minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer plus (LGBTQ+) people are more likely to receive abuse or experience harassment on public transport, possibly discouraging some people to use those services.6 In terms of who is at risk of transport inequities, it is important to note that people often have intersecting vulnerabilities, which may mean that they are even more at risk.In our research, we have also uncovered large regional differences in the UK in terms of public transport availability. For example, there is a limited rail network in Northern Ireland and there are limited bus services in many rural areas across the UK. Furthermore, local bus services were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and overall usage remains below pre-pandemic levels.7 Transport inequities in urban areas also persist. Many of the sociodemographic groups who are at risk of transport inequities often live in urban areas (for example, people on low incomes, peo

想象一下这样一个场景：你得到了一份新工作的面试机会。你对潜在的新机会感到兴奋，但很快意识到你得到这份工作的机会可能会减少，因为你很可能会燥热不安地去面试，甚至可能出汗。这是因为你要走两个小时才能到达面试地点。你走路不是因为你想在日常生活中活跃起来，而是因为你付不起去那里的公交车费。同样，想象一下这样一种情况，你不断取消医疗预约，因为由于缺乏公共交通工具，你不得不依靠昂贵的出租车去医院，虽然你可以报销这些费用，但这个过程感觉太复杂了最后，如果你家附近有一个美丽的国家公园，但你不能去那里，因为去那里需要拥有或有一辆车，而这两者都超出了你的能力范围，因为你的健康状况不佳，所以你不开车，你会怎么想？这些都是现实生活中交通不平等的一些例子，正如参与我们在英国苏塞克斯大学资助的交通贫困研究的人们所说的那样。simcock和他的同事使用了一个更广泛的交通贫困定义：“无法获得社会和物质上必要的交通服务水平”有人可能遭遇交通贫困的原因有很多，但主要是由于缺乏交通工具、运输成本高和/或无法获得运输服务。面对这种不平等的人不能轻易满足他们的日常旅行需求，因为交通服务——比如当地的公共汽车——可能太贵了，服务可能不能在他们想去的时候把他们带到他们想去的地方，或者根本没有服务可用。能源需求研究中心（eddrc）的同事进行的后续研究的初步研究结果表明，还有安全方面的问题，例如，女性、少数民族以及女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人、酷儿+ (LGBTQ+)人群更容易在公共交通工具上受到虐待或骚扰，这可能会使一些人不愿意使用这些服务就面临交通不平等风险的人群而言，重要的是要注意到，人们往往具有交叉的脆弱性，这可能意味着他们面临的风险更大。在我们的研究中，我们还发现了英国在公共交通可用性方面的巨大地区差异。例如，北爱尔兰的铁路网有限，英国许多农村地区的公共汽车服务有限。此外，当地公交服务受到Covid-19大流行的影响，总体使用率仍低于大流行前的水平城市地区的交通不平等现象也依然存在。面临交通不平等风险的许多社会人口群体往往生活在城市地区（例如，低收入者、少数民族和移民背景的人、租房者或住在临时/不稳定住房中的人以及有幼儿的家庭）公共交通费用、服务不可靠或缺乏跨城镇和跨社区服务等问题，对生活在城市地区的人来说可能是一个重大的不利因素，特别是对那些面临住房不确定或轮班工作等挑战的人来说。因此，交通不平等有一个非常重要的空间方面，城市和农村地区的人们都受到影响。交通贫困的影响远远超出了从A地到b地的交通能力。对于那些面临交通不平等的人来说，这种影响可能对生活机会和生活质量都是有害的。如果没有足够的交通服务，人们可能会错过生活的关键方面，包括能够前往学习或工作地点，预约医疗，休闲和娱乐活动或家人和朋友。我们的研究参与者强调了交通贫困如何阻碍了他们所认为的“美好生活”。人们谈到了它对他们健康的影响，例如，如果他们不得不在寒冷潮湿的天气里到处走，拎着沉重的购物袋。同样，无法去当地的公园、休闲中心或电影院，更不用说家人和朋友等亲人，也被认为对心理健康产生了负面影响。一位父亲说，他想为孩子们提供在餐馆吃饭的体验，但由于全家乘公共汽车去餐馆吃饭的费用很高，他只好自己去，把饭带回家给孩子们吃。事实上，许多家长都在反思由于出行选择有限而导致孩子错失的机会，以及这对他们造成的影响。例如，许多年轻人担心缺乏负担得起的公共交通会影响他们的教育机会。英国的目标是到2050年成为一个净零社会。交通部门是该国最大的排放部门；2023年，国内运输（不包括国际航空和航运）占温室气体排放量的29.1%因此，必须紧急解决交通排放问题。交通方式，如电动汽车，低碳公共交通和步行，骑自行车和骑自行车等积极的出行方式都是低碳出行方式的例子。2024年7月，新任交通大臣路易斯·黑格（Louise Haigh）提出了五项关键的战略重点，其中之一是改造基础设施，使其适用于整个国家，促进社会流动性，解决地区不平等问题为实现这一目标，我们必须确定旅行的对象和方式，以及如何使该系统更具包容性。在英国，最富有的0.1%的人的交通排放至少是收入最低的人的22倍，而且英国大部分的汽车行驶里程都是由收入最高的人驾驶的由于许多交通系统脱碳的解决方案都集中在汽车的电气化上，这导致了对富人的补贴和支出。此外，并不是每个人都有机会获得电动汽车的物理空间和充电基础设施，更不用说购买、保险和使用电动汽车所需的财务资源了。虽然主动出行在可持续交通系统中发挥着关键作用，但并非每个人都能步行或骑自行车，其他人可能无法使用自行车道或人行道等主动出行基础设施。如前所述，公共交通并非人人都能到达。这些基础设施的不平等可能使人们更容易陷入交通贫困。许多人呼吁，向净零排放过渡应该是包容和公平的，这样每个人都能在净零排放社会中以更可持续的方式生活和行动。包容性方法承认交通贫困等不平等现象，其根源在于基础设施和社会经济不平等，以及如何解决这些问题。我们需要更好的数据来了解谁受到了交通不平等的影响，但政策制定者也必须倾听人们的故事。生活体验研究可以帮助突出更细微的方面，例如交通贫困对健康、教育和就业的长期影响。一个完全包容的交通系统是所有人都能负担得起的，并且可以使用的，这意味着更好的公共交通，更便宜和更简单的票价，以及改善步行和骑车的环境（以及那些可以骑自行车的人）。向净零的过渡提供了一个机会，让交通更好地为每个人服务。这一点至关重要，因为良好的交通服务是高质量生活的关键。

{"title":"A sustainable transport system needs to address inequities like transport poverty","authors":"Mari Martiskainen","doi":"10.1111/newe.12406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12406","url":null,"abstract":"Imagine a situation where you have been offered an interview for a new job. You are excited about the potential new opportunity, but quickly realise that your chances of getting the job may be diminished by the fact that you will likely arrive at the interview all hot and flustered, perhaps even sweaty. This is because you will have to walk two hours to get to the interview. You are not walking because you want to be active in your daily life, but because you cannot afford the bus fare to get there. Similarly, imagine a situation where you keep cancelling medical appointments because you have to rely on expensive taxis to get to the hospital due to the lack of public transport, and while you can claim expenses for those costs, the process feels too complicated.1 Lastly, how would you feel if you had a beautiful national park near your home, but could not go there as it would require owning or having access to a car, both out of your reach as you do not drive due to a health condition? These are some of the real-life examples of transport inequities, as told by people who took part in our UKRI-funded research on transport poverty in the UK at the University of Sussex.2Simcock and colleagues use a wider definition of transport poverty: “the inability to attain a socially- and materially- necessitated level of transport services”.4 There are various reasons why someone may experience transport poverty, but it is mainly due to a lack of access to transport, high transport costs and/or the unavailability of transport services. A person facing such inequities cannot easily meet their regular travel needs as transport services – such as local buses – may be too expensive, services may not take them where they want to go at the time they want to go or there may be no services available at all.Initial research findings from follow-on research by colleagues at the Energy Demand Research Centre (EDRC) indicate that there are also safety aspects, as, for example, women, people from ethnic minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer plus (LGBTQ+) people are more likely to receive abuse or experience harassment on public transport, possibly discouraging some people to use those services.6 In terms of who is at risk of transport inequities, it is important to note that people often have intersecting vulnerabilities, which may mean that they are even more at risk.In our research, we have also uncovered large regional differences in the UK in terms of public transport availability. For example, there is a limited rail network in Northern Ireland and there are limited bus services in many rural areas across the UK. Furthermore, local bus services were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and overall usage remains below pre-pandemic levels.7 Transport inequities in urban areas also persist. Many of the sociodemographic groups who are at risk of transport inequities often live in urban areas (for example, people on low incomes, peo","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"197-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12406","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142862233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The public's pragmatic attitude to transport and what it means for achieving net zero 公众对交通的务实态度及其对实现净零排放的意义

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12403

Lorraine Whitmarsh, Stephen Frost

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).2The 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

欧洲各城市已经证明，作为改善公共交通基础设施综合计划的一部分，推动措施是多么重要。12 在斯德哥尔摩，自 2006 年实施拥堵费以来的 10 年间，尽管人口不断增长，但拥堵费却减少了 22%。13 这些举措打破了交通决策中长期坚持的格言，即人口增加和经济增长必然导致更多的汽车使用。认识到交通对当地经济、环境和社区造成危害的城市领导者已经证明，另辟蹊径是可行的。英国农村社区在改变出行方式方面面临着与城市社区不同的障碍。许多人认为，由于缺乏充电基础设施、路线不安全或公共汽车和火车服务不足，电动汽车、公共交通和积极的出行方式目前都与他们无缘。在这些地区，重点必须放在解决行为改变的障碍上，包括与农村当局合作，振兴城镇的命运，使其成为当地服务和设施的支柱，并提供多模式交通枢纽。例如，在康沃尔郡，人们对汽车的依赖程度高于城市地区，因此该郡议会一直在试验共享交通解决方案，包括为共享电动自行车提供信贷和营销。15 威尔士政府也一直在试验农村可持续交通解决方案，包括地方工作枢纽以及电动自行车和电动货运自行车贷款。公众对超低排放区和低交通流量街区的反弹说明了少数人如何将交通政策政治化，并挑战地方政府推广化石燃料汽车替代品的努力。随着地方新闻服务机构的关闭和虚假信息在网络上的传播，社区与当局之间出现了 "民主鸿沟"，17 这在一定程度上助长了这种反对声音。右倾媒体和政客甚至将这些（拟议中的）政策称为 "对驾车者的战争"，暗示驾车者构成了一个可定义的人口或身份群体。但这一假设在多大程度上反映了公众的观点和行为？IPPR 委托进行的最新研究表明，对于绝大多数英国公众而言，交通是实用的，而非意识形态的。事实上，人们希望改变交通系统，而公共交通实际上比汽车更受重视。在不同的社会群体中，无论是否拥有汽车，人们都强烈支持一系列有助于实现零排放、降低交通成本以及提供更健康、更安全的街道的政策。值得注意的是，学校街道等计划（为积极上学的儿童开放道路空间）得到了本分析中所有选民群体的支持。变革是艰难的，可能会扰乱人们的日常生活，但人们有一个明确的共识，那就是目前的交通方式行不通，而且人们希望采用新的方式--只要这种方式考虑到了生活成本危机。研究还发现，人们对交通方面的决策者缺乏信任，尽管人们更信任地方领导人，包括地方政府和市长。很明显，"公平 "是交通政策能否被接受的关键条件--这包括分配公平和程序公平（在决策中为公众提供发言权）。为了赢得对社会变革的支持，政府部门必须倾听不同的观点，共同设计解决人们关注的问题的政策，并了解哪些叙述方式和语言在其社区内最有效。结合有关行为改变和公众参与的更广泛证据，该研究报告得出结论，向可持续交通系统的过渡需要上游公众参与，即公民和社区尽早实质性地参与交通决策。这种参与不仅有助于避免反弹，还能提高决策的质量和有效性。19 这种参与应在两个层面上进行：战略性参与国家净零政策和制定可持续交通政策的一般原则（例如，英国气候大会和威尔士政府净零 2035）；以及通过基于地方的参与和社区关系建设共同制定地方交通计划。

{"title":"The public's pragmatic attitude to transport and what it means for achieving net zero","authors":"Lorraine Whitmarsh, Stephen Frost","doi":"10.1111/newe.12403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12403","url":null,"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).2The 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 ","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"208-213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12403","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142861754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Designing for equity: A public realm that works for all 公平设计：为所有人服务的公共领域

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12408

Zoe Banks Gross

引用次数: 0

Why 20mph? Why not? is a better question 为什么是 20mph？为什么不呢？

Q4 Social Sciences

IPPR Progressive Review

Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI: 10.1111/newe.12404

Phil Jones

引用次数: 0