Our response to the Scottish Government’s 20% Car reduction route map consultation

It is particularly encouraging that this route map encourages the modal shift to walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport where possible.

Reducing car kilometres will offer opportunities to:

• Reduce air pollution
• Improve health
• Shift away from private vehicles
• Reduce car dependency

 

However, Sustrans Scotland believes that some areas could be improved:

• Electrification will not solve everything

The use of electric vehicles is a good way to reduce emission from cars. However, using more sustainable cars does not mean driving less, and replacing one form of congestion with another will not solve the core issue: technological solutions cannot solve the problem alone. Moreover, electric cars could potentially encourage an increase in driving as they are perceived to be less polluting.

• Reducing the convenience and attractiveness of car driving

If we want the strategy to be successful, there is a need not only to promote active travel, but also to reduce car use, reduce the convenience and attractiveness of car driving, for example by limiting car access to some roads, or by implementing road pricing solutions. Expanding Low Emission Zones and more widely implementing schemes that already exist such as Workplace Parking Levies could help reach the goal of 20% reduction in car use.

• Unintended consequences of some of the policies proposed

Despite the promising approach, the route map needs to avoid unintended consequences of behaviour change policies such as “reducing the need to travel”. The risk of adverse effects needs to be considered, in particular sedentarism and its negative effects on health.

 

Read our full response to the consultation below.

 

Part 1 – The Route Map

1. Do you agree with the overall behaviour change approach, and do you have any comments on the four behaviours outlined above?

Agree

Please explain your answer

The approach to focus on behaviour change and demand management is promising, and it is appropriate to mention that people need to be offered options to make healthier and safer travel choices.

It is encouraging to see that one of the four areas in which behaviour change is encouraged is to “switch to walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport where possible”. Research shows that, taking into account individual travel patterns and constraints, walking or cycling can realistically substitute for 41% of short car trips, saving nearly 5% of CO2e emissions from car travel.

Still, Sustrans notes the use of the term ‘Where possible’, that could give an opt out the reduction of car use. Given the carbon emissions reductions needed in transport, Sustrans would highlight that unless living in remote areas, or if someone is disabled or a blue badge holder, we need to get to a situation where the sustainable transport hierarchy is the preferred travel option for all able-bodied people living in urban areas.  Active travel and local buses should be the default option for shorter journeys (under 8kms), medium distance journeys (8km – 55km) should be possible to be undertaken by bus or regional train.  Indeed, the 8-15km journeys could be undertaken by electric bike. 

Despite the promising approach, the route map needs to avoid unintended consequences of behaviour change policies such as “reducing the need to travel”. The risk of adverse effects needs to be considered, in particular sedentarism and its negative effects on health. The proposal could benefit from re-phrasing this as “journey shortening” or “reducing the need to travel long distances”. This should be linked to the policy “Choose local destinations to reduce the distance travelled”.

 

2. What are the key opportunities of reducing car kilometres?

Reducing car kilometres will reduce not only carbon emissions but will also have the co-benefit of reducing air pollution emissions from exhaust pipes and tyres (particulate matters and nitrogen dioxide). It is encouraging to see that the route map includes electric vehicles in the car use reduction, as these are still emitting air pollutants mentioned above.

Reducing car kilometres should have a positive impact on health. Reduction in CO2 emissions will have the co-benefit of leading to a reduction in air pollutants and particulate matters, which will improve respiratory health in urban areas.

The policy will encourage a modal shift away from private vehicles to public and shared transport and walking, wheeling and cycling. Reducing car kilometres will also improve safety on roads and allow reallocation of road space from private cars to public and shared transport and active travel modes. This should encourage the take up in active travel modes (walking wheeling, cycling) that are low in carbon emissions and will improve physical health. The greater number of people using active travel modes will also increase driver awareness of these groups, making our streets safer for all. This shift, in addition to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, will have the additional benefit of improving health and air quality.

Finally, reducing car kilometres will lead to reduced car dependency, particularly in an urban environment. This has the added benefit of reducing traffic congestion in our cities and towns, thereby supporting local business, making neighbourhoods more pleasant to walk, wheel and cycle in, and crucially, freeing up road space for public transport and for those who have no choice but to drive. 

 

3. What are the key challenges faced in reducing car kilometres?

The main challenge to encouraging behaviour change is to ensure that people have the choice to move to alternative transport modes. One of the main deterrents currently to switching transport modes is lack of access to alternative transport modes. Lack of access includes both availability and affordability. 

Delivery of the route map needs to ensure that everyone has access to public transport and active travel infrastructure:

• Public transport needs to be accessible, affordable and reliable
• Integration of public transport and active travel will allow people to choose the best mode of transport, and to combine long journeys with shorter active travel journeys.
• Cost of private car use must reflect the true cost of motor travel: the health, environmental and social impacts need to be factored in.

Another challenge is the delivery of infrastructure at pace if the goals must be reached by 2030.

 

4. Are there any further actions you would like to see included in future to support behaviour change 1) - reducing the need to travel?

It is very positive that the route map includes the need to reduce travel by car, and behaviour change by encouraging other transport choices.

Reducing the need to travel may have unintended adverse effects such as an increase in sedentarism, inactivity and its associated negative health effects. Reducing the length of travel, or reducing the need to travel by car, would be a more appropriate way to reduce car kilometres. This should be linked to the development of 20-minute neighbourhoods and the need to encourage healthy habits as well as supporting local economies. The proposed switch to home deliveries and online shopping is not necessarily backed up by research: e-commerce delivery vans are an important part of the traffic mix, although not a dominant one.

Improving the digital infrastructure would be beneficial for all. However, it is a solution that does not take into account other potential effects it could have: deliveries could create another kind of congestion and pollution that needs to be addressed, and the an increased reliance on the digital infrastructure could increase inequalities.

 

5. Are there any further actions you would like to see included in future to support behaviour change 2) - choosing local options?

The route map correctly identifies the need for local options as a driver of car journey reduction: being able to access essential services, businesses and leisure activities within walking distance will encourage people to reduce their car use. However, it is fundamental that people have the opportunity to choose local options and can access services locally.

Ensuring that people can still access services, amenities, education, and employment is paramount to phasing out car travel and replacing it with alternative modes of transport. To ensure this, planning frameworks should prevent car-dependent developments and include active and public transport infrastructure. NPF4 is cited as the main tool for delivering this, but the route map would benefit from detailing how the new framework will make the reduction in car use happen.

Sustrans believe that NPF4 has the potential to reduce car use: it includes the principles of developing local living and the development of the vision for 20-minute neighbourhoods. It also highlights that connectivity and active travel links are important infrastructure that will support sustainable forms of development. Research shows that new greenfield housing developments are for the most part entirely car-based, locking the next generation of homeowners in car dependency. Local options and services, as well as public transport, need to be developed to avoid this.

 

6. Are there any further actions you would like to see included in future to support behaviour change 3) -switching to more sustainable modes of travel?

Encouraging people to switch to more sustainable modes of travel is positive and an efficient way to reduce car use. It is also positive that the route map refers back to Programme for Government’s objective that “all appropriate roads in built up areas will have a safer speed limit of 20 mph by 2025”, which will make roads safer and encourage people to switch to active travel modes. It is also very positive that the route map relies on demand management and encourages to switch to more sustainable and healthier transport modes.

However, the 20% car use reduction route map should encourage to switch modes rather than simply encouraging an uptake in less carbon intensive vehicles. Technological substitution via electrification will not be sufficient or fast enough to transform the transport system and electric vehicles have considerably higher lifecycle carbon emissions per passenger than bicycles or public transport (assuming electrification of trains and buses).  In addition, an uptake in electric vehicles will still create congestion and air pollution. The strategy’s goals may not be reached by 2030 if it replaces one type of congestion by another. Furthermore, while outside the scope of the 20% reduction in vehicle km roadmap, it is important to always consider the lifecycle emissions of electric vehicles.

If we want the strategy to be successful, there is a need not only to promote active travel, but also to reduce car use, reduce the convenience and attractiveness of car driving, for example by limiting car access to some roads, or by implementing road pricing solutions. Expanding Low Emission Zones and more widely implementing schemes that already exist such as Workplace Parking Levies could help reach the goal of 20% reduction in car use.

The Element Energy report (2022) outlines policies that will encourage behaviour change and encourage the switch to more sustainable modes of travel:

• Encouraging the use of active, public and shared transport
• Defining walking and cycling as preferred modes of transport
• Modal shift away from cars that will require a major increase in investment in public transport and active travel

In order to develop these policies, it will be important to integrate public transport with active travel modes: better links between the two modes will be an incentive to take up active travel.

It is very encouraging that one of the main behaviour changes explored is to switch to more sustainable modes of transport. Delivery now needs to be up to the scale of the challenge, as most of the policies explored do not yet have a delivery strategy or timeframe.

 

7. Are there any further actions you would like to see included in future to support behaviour change 4) -combining or sharing journeys?

 -

 

8. Do you have any comment to make on any of the specific policies contained within the route map?

The route map is very ambitious, and it is positive to see a commitment to reduce car use in Scotland.

Relying on the digital infrastructure to reduce the need to travel will be helpful but will meet limits. Improving the digital infrastructure and broadband will only produce results if it is delivered to all communities, and especially the ones that are the most remote and less connected to the network. Encouraging online shopping is one way to reduce car journeys, but it is important to bear in mind that deliveries by car or truck will still create traffic and congestion.

The use of electric vehicles is a good way to reduce emission from cars. However, using more sustainable cars does not mean driving less, and replacing one form of congestion with another will not solve the core issue: technological solutions cannot solve the problem alone. Moreover, electric cars could potentially encourage an increase in driving as they are perceived to be less polluting. This could have the impact of reducing the convenience and reliability of public transport, and reducing the safety of walking, wheeling and cycling for day-to-day journeys.

 

Part 2 – Social and Equalities

1. Do you think that the proposals set out in this plan could have positive or negative impacts on any particular groups of people with reference to the listed protected characteristics?

Yes

Please explain your answer

The plan to reduce car journeys will impact on people relying on their cars for a number of reasons (accessibility, safety, etc). However, the route map rightly mentions that the goal of 20% car reduction is a Scotland-wide target and not an individual one.

 

1a If you think the proposals will have a particular impact on certain groups due to protected characteristics, what measures would you suggest to maximise positive impacts or mitigate negative impacts?

In order to ensure that everyone has the option to shift transport mode away from car transport, the delivery of transport infrastructure needs to be accessible and safe.

For example, protected cycling infrastructure must make cycling the easy and obvious choice for less confident and more vulnerable road users, such women, older people, children, and disabled people. 

Measures to improve walking and wheeling must also take account of the needs of visually impaired people, people with hearing loss, wheelchair users, and other disabled people.  It must also be recognised that the needs of visually impaired people and those with hearing loss will in some instances differ from those of wheelchair users. 

 

2. Do you think that the proposals set out in this plan could have a particular impact (positive or negative) on island communities?

-

Please explain your answer

-

 

2a If you think the proposals will impact on island communities, what measures would you suggest to maximise positive impacts or mitigate negative impacts?

-

 

3. Do you think that the proposals set out in this plan could have a particular impact (positive or negative) on people facing socio-economic disadvantages?

Yes

Please explain your answer

The reduction in car use can have a positive impact on people facing socio-economic disadvantages. when private car travel is prioritised, it contributes to increased health inequalities:

• The benefits of car travel are denied to some social groups. These benefits are mainly collected by more affluent people who can afford a car, excluding groups such as young people, older people, disabled people, women, ethnic minorities etc.
• Lower socioeconomic groups are the ones that are the most affected by the negative impacts of car driving (noise pollution, less access to green spaces etc).

The reduction in car use has the potential to reduce the creation of inequalities and health inequalities.

However, it also has the potential to increase inequalities as less socioeconomically advantaged groups are more likely to rely on poor quality cars, and to suffer from transport poverty or forced car ownership. They are therefore more likely to be affected by measures to increase the cost of driving that focus on the most polluting cars. In order to mitigate the creation of inequalities, we need quality public transport alternatives that are reliable, affordable and accessible to all.

 

3a If you think the proposals will have a particular impact based on socio-economic factors what measures would you suggest to maximise positive impacts or mitigate negative impacts?

To mitigate negative impacts and maximise positive impacts on disadvantaged groups:

• Price can be a deterrent to a change in mode use. There needs to be enough support for other transport modes to make them accessible and affordable to all.
• Access to services need to be ensured: people need to be able to still access services, amenities, education and employment is paramount to phasing out car travel and replacing it with alternative modes of transport.
• It will be important to vary the mix of policy interventions to achieve the target in different places, and to recognise their different issues and needs. This means improving the quality of local places and supporting access to services without the need to travel, eg through the development of 20 minute neighbourhoods.
• Funding: there is a need to provide adequate funding and investment for alternative modes of transport, as well as focusing on measures that discourage driving.

 

Part 3 – The Environment

1. Do you think the actions proposed in the route map are likely to have an impact on the environment? If so, in what way? Please be as specific as possible in your reasoning.

Yes

Please explain your answer

Reducing the use of cars will have a positive impact on the environment:

• Reduction of greenhouse gas and air pollutants emissions linked to driving (petrol, diesel and even electric vehicles).
• The reallocation of road space will allow for more green spaces to be created in our towns and cities. A placemaking approach that diverts from cars will improve local communities, encourage better health outcomes, and promote biodiversity. However, policy makers and planners need to ensure equitable access to green spaces and ensure that benefits are received by all.