Transport Just Transition Plan: Consultation Analysis

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Scottish Government developed a draft Transport Just Transition Plan, which was subject to a public consultation to gather feedback. The consultation was structured around five key sections, including:

• The draft vision and outcomes for transport;
• People and communities;
• Workers;
• Businesses and organisations; and
• Monitoring and reporting.

The consultation ran for twelve weeks, between 24 February and 19 May 2025.

A total of 123 substantive written responses were received and analysed. This included 55 (45%) individuals and 68 (55%) organisations. In addition, 10 sets of summary notes from engagement events were included in the analysis. Finally, 12 reports from a previous public participation programme (conducted in 2023) were analysed for comparison purposes.

Vision and Outcomes

Just over half (52%) of the respondents agreed that the draft outcomes reflect what the Plan should be aiming to achieve. Slightly less than two thirds (61%) agreed that the Plan was accessible to them, however, far fewer, at just over one third (36%) agreed that the Plan was easy to use.

The main qualitative feedback in relation to the vision and outcomes was that there were several gaps or areas for improvement. Issues included the need for:

• Greater consideration and support for improvements in public transport;
• Greater consideration and support for active travel;
• Greater consideration of Powered Two Wheelers (PTWs) and motorcycles;
• Greater consideration of rural issues;
• Greater consideration of a range of vulnerable groups;
• More information on funding and resourcing for delivery;
• An integrated approach between transport and other policy and economic sectors;
• Established partnership working;
• Communication and engagement with different communities and stakeholders moving forward;
• More detailed actions to outline ‘how’ the Plan will be achieved; and
• Clear messaging around the need for the transition.

The length of the draft Plan was also considered excessive and to contain too much jargon. Respondents felt it may not be accessible to members of the public and young people in particular.

People and Communities

Support for proposals to reduce car use varied, with ‘better use of space for active travel and public transport’ supported by 70% of respondents, while less than half (45%) supported ‘increasing costs to make driving a less attractive option in some circumstances’. Fewer than half agreed that the Plan considered the societal impacts of decarbonising transport, with 44% agreeing that it considered the impacts ‘on all groups in society’, and 39% agreeing that it considered the impacts on ‘people like me’.

Qualitative feedback at this section was largely consistent with feedback on the vision and outcomes, with only a few new issues raised. New topics included:

• Mixed views about demand management measures. Several supported implementing such approaches, while others did not;
• That funding and investment in infrastructure would be required to deliver the Plan;
• That the draft Plan focused too heavily on transitioning to EVs and should be rebalanced to prioritise sustainable travel;
• Support for the greater provision of online services (providing that support would be available to tackle digital exclusion and that in-person services continued to be available); and
• No clear consensus on an acceptable payment model for the just transition. The greatest level of support (at 39%) was expressed for ‘those who emit the most pay the most, with protections for low-income groups’. However, almost as many (37%) said that none of the payment options presented in the Plan were appropriate.

Workers

Respondents were reasonably supportive of all proposed actions to make transport jobs more attractive, ranging from 61% who supported actions to promote diversity and inclusion in the industry, up to 73% who supported programmes to encourage woman and girls to enter STEM courses. Mixed responses were provided in relation to who should lead diversity improvements, with 32% suggesting the public sector, 24% suggesting business, and 22% suggesting that none of the options presented in the Plan were suitable. Meanwhile, around a third supported each of the proposed priorities for workers to address workforce and skills challenges.

The key qualitative feedback in relation to workers was the perceived need to:

• Focus on workplace planning, including growing the number of workers in the transport sector to address shortages and addressing skills gaps;
• Retrain and reskill existing transport workers, both to support the move to greener jobs, and to be competent in emerging technologies;
• Encourage greater diversity in the transport workforce;
• Make transport jobs more attractive. Education was said to have a key role in both training and awareness raising. Meanwhile, developing inclusive workplace practices, and improving pay and conditions were seen as key;
• Provide funding and support for businesses, education and training providers;
• Pursue continued engagement with businesses, along with partnership working among stakeholders;
• Provide clear information and support for workers throughout the transition process;
• Offer support for adaptations to reduce commuting and for workplace interventions; and
• Focus on and prioritise sectors and areas which are currently experiencing challenges or difficulties.

Businesses and Organisations

While two thirds (66%) of respondents felt that a just transition in transport was important, less than half (46%) noted that just transition planning was currently happening in their organisation, and slightly more than one third (38%) said their organisation needed more support in this respect. Mean ranking scores also showed that ‘reliable infrastructure for vehicles’ and the ‘cost of replacement vehicles needs to come down’ were seen as the top two most important priorities (from the list provided) to support transitioning to zero emission vehicles.

Key qualitative feedback at this section included:

• That certain opportunities could be better reflected in the Plan. This included the decarbonisation of heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs); the development of charging infrastructure; and the development of sustainable aviation fuel;
• That funding and support for businesses would be needed to make the required changes - indeed, cost related issues were top priorities for businesses;
• The need for partnership and cross-sector working;
• More consideration of how to achieve behaviour change and modal shift for journeys to work;
• More consideration of the freight and ferry sectors and improvements in related infrastructure;
• Greater focus on the costs, challenges and opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);
• Greater focus on the challenges for rural and island specific businesses; and
• That reliable infrastructure (e.g. charging infrastructure) and consistent policies would be needed to support businesses to transition.

Many organisations also highlighted positive steps they were taking in relation to decarbonisation, or set out a range of practices which could inform future planning.

Monitoring and Reporting

The final section of the consultation sought feedback on monitoring and reporting in relation to the Plan’s outcomes. Half (50%) of the respondents who answered the question agreed that the indicators set out would help to measure progress. However, several gaps and issues were outlined, as well as suggestions for improvements. The main feedback included:

• That the indicators needed to be measurable and more specific;
• Consistent metrics would be needed to allow disaggregation;
• The indicators relied too heavily on survey data and existing measures, but new data sources and qualitative measures may be required; and
• The Plan lacked information on funding and actions needed to achieve the indicators.

A wide range of specific additional indicators and measures were suggested, including environmental, economic, health, business and workforce indicators, as well as aspects linked to the use of different modes, and for different populations.

Respondents also outlined a wide range of potential data sources that could support progress monitoring. Common sources included the Scottish Household Survey; national, regional and local authority level data; and a variety of relevant research reports, evaluations, and other monitoring activities that had either been undertaken by the respondents’ own organisations or others.

Comparison with Previous Participation Reports

Analysis of the previous participation reports suggests that there has been little change in stakeholders’ priorities, and little progress in achieving these since 2023. In particular, key topics that were raised across the two strands of engagement included:

• The importance of prioritising alternatives to car use, and for viable alternative options to be in place before introducing disincentives for driving;
• Support for transitioning to EVs, but not as the priority or only approach;
• Reducing the need to travel through the provision of online and local amenities, while realising that this would not be possible in all cases (and so car use would remain vital for some);
• Encouraging behaviour change via education, consistent messaging and awareness raising;
• A preference for more supportive approaches to behaviour change, such as improved public transport and active travel options, rather than disincentives to reduce car use;
• No clear preference in relation to a fair payment system to pay for the transition;
• That the transition will have impacts on workers. This included the need to attract new workers, and to retrain and upskill existing workers. Increased awareness of the sector was seen as necessary, along with good pay and conditions, job security, and the adoption of fair and inclusive work practices;
• For there to be greater consideration of rural issues and vulnerable groups; and
• Concern about the resilience and the need for investment in digital connectivity and transport infrastructure.

Conclusion

Across the consultation (and consistent with 2023 findings), the key feedback included:

• That the Plan should be much more action focused, outlining how change will be achieved, lines of responsibility, and timescales;
• The need to improve public transport to make this a viable, accessible and attractive option;
• The need to improve active travel opportunities and infrastructure, as well as ensuring better integration between active travel and public transport;
• More focus was needed on the sustainable transport hierarchy;
• More detailed consideration was needed of different vulnerable groups and those in rural areas;
• Greater support was expressed for ‘carrot’ rather than ‘stick’ approaches, although a few did support the use of disincentives and traffic management approaches;
• Ensuring that policies provide targeted support and mitigations where needed to avoid any unintended consequences;
• Ongoing meaningful engagement with stakeholders and collaborative working approaches as being key to successful design and delivery;
• That other policy areas and economic sectors will need to be considered and included for the Plan to be successful; and
• The need for financial and other support for individuals, communities, and businesses, as well as the public sector, third sector, and education providers to deliver the required changes.

Several respondents were resistant to any changes which may negatively impact vulnerable groups and those with no other transport options outwith private car use. In addition, several individuals were sceptical of the draft Plan or the need for climate change actions. This illustrates the importance of positive communication and messaging with the general public to secure support and buy-in.

This feedback will inform future just transition planning in the transport sector.