<p>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 MtCO<sub>2</sub>e, essentially still at the 1990 baseline.</p><p>Without some specific policy instruments used over recent decades, the situation would have been even worse. The mandatory CO<sub>2</sub> 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.</p><p>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.6</p><p>Consequently, 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
{"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":"<p>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 MtCO<sub>2</sub>e, essentially still at the 1990 baseline.</p><p>Without some specific policy instruments used over recent decades, the situation would have been even worse. The mandatory CO<sub>2</sub> 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.</p><p>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.6</p><p>Consequently, 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}
<p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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
{"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":"<p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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","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}
<p>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.</p><p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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
{"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":"<p>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.</p><p>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</p><p>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</p><p>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 ","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}
<p>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’.</p><p>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.1</p><p>Recognising 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.</p><p>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.
{"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":"<p>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’.</p><p>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.1</p><p>Recognising 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.</p><p>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}
{"title":"Mobility, emotion and political will","authors":"Filip Watteeuw","doi":"10.1111/newe.12413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12413","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"214-220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12413","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142862187","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}
<p>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.2</p><p>Simcock 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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
{"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":"<p>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.2</p><p>Simcock 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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}
<p>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?</p><p>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 (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions than aviation, with car use responsible for 52 per cent of domestic transport emissions.1 While these accounts do not adjust for non-CO<sub>2</sub> 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</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>In fact, behaviour change is fundamental to achieving net zero in all sectors. According to the Climate Change Committee, more than 60 per cent
{"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":"<p>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?</p><p>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 (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions than aviation, with car use responsible for 52 per cent of domestic transport emissions.1 While these accounts do not adjust for non-CO<sub>2</sub> 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</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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}
{"title":"Designing for equity: A public realm that works for all","authors":"Zoe Banks Gross","doi":"10.1111/newe.12408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12408","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37420,"journal":{"name":"IPPR Progressive Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"250-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/newe.12408","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142861789","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：