Transport Just Transition Plan: Consultation Analysis

2. Vision and Outcomes

2.1 Draft Outcomes

Note: additional respondents answered ‘don’t know’ so percentages may not add up to 100%

Overall, most respondents who answered the question agreed that they understood the draft outcomes (76%, n=73), with just 15.5% (n=15) disagreeing and 8.5% (n=8) neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Meanwhile, just over half (52%, n=49) agreed that the draft outcomes reflect what the Plan should be aiming to achieve, while a third (33%, n=31) disagreed. 14% (n=13) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Q1b. Is anything missing from the draft outcomes in the Plan?

Some respondents (largely organisations) noted issues or suggested changes to specific outcomes. This included changes to wording, consideration of expanding or being more specific in the wording, and suggestions for new outcomes to be included. Other respondents discussed the outcomes in more general terms, highlighting support for specific elements or suggesting other issues which they felt required more consideration.

2.1.1 Sustainable Transport

The main issue discussed by respondents was the need to give greater consideration, support, and specific coverage to sustainable transport, particularly public transport. This type of transport was seen as crucial in the journey towards net zero:

“…there is no clear outcome related to the availability of sustainable transport methods and this represents a significant gap.” (Public Sector - Other Organisation)

Several organisations discussed the sustainable transport hierarchy, and were keen for this to be specifically mentioned and supported in the Plan:

“The Plan makes no reference to the sustainable transport hierarchy that is a key part of the National Transport Strategy. The aims and outcomes should be framed with reference to that hierarchy - with walking and wheeling at the top. We consider this to be a major weakness in the Plan.” (Third Sector - Transport Organisation)

A few respondents also highlighted a desire for publicly or community owned bus and train companies to be supported in the Plan. The success of Lothian Buses was highlighted, along with a desire for greater support for other areas to adopt similar models.

Most of the individuals that mentioned public transport in their response, complained about the poor quality, frequency, routes and prices, and noted that car use was more convenient. Meanwhile, organisations highlighted that public transport was often not accessible for people with disabilities or in rural areas. Both individuals and organisations indicated that public transport needed to be improved if people were expected to switch to these modes, although individuals also wanted to see greater recognition, support and investment for cars and road-based transport:

“Quite simply, we need to have more bus[es] and more trains and more trams, running more often, to more places, and fares to be reasonable.” (Individual)

2.1.2 Active Travel

Linked to the focus on sustainable modes, some respondents suggested that greater consideration and support was needed for active travel options, such as walking and cycling:

“I would like to see focus on more active transport links, greater bike/walking and multi modal path network including in rural areas.” (Individual)

One organisation, however, cautioned against over-reliance on active travel. They noted that most active travel journeys were unlikely to be able to substitute car based journeys. It was felt that active travel was more appropriately linked to accessing the public transport network as part of multi-modal journeys. It was also stressed by several respondents that active travel options are often not suitable for some people with disabilities, and therefore do not offer a viable alternative.

2.1.3 Powered Two Wheelers (PTWs)

A few advocated for the inclusion of powered two wheelers (which includes motorcycles, scooters and mopeds). Indeed, the lack of consideration of motorcycles within the Plan was considered to be a “glaring omission” (Third Sector Transport Organisation) which needed to be addressed. Respondents (including three organisations with a focus on motorcycling) stressed that motorcycles and PTWs were more environmentally friendly and healthier transport options compared to traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars:

“Motorcycling represents an accessible, affordable, cleaner, and greener transport option than other powered modes of transport. If properly supported, it will foster social mobility, economic growth and improved safety… With zero-emission models on the marketplace and the motorcycle sports sector at the forefront of eFuels development, motorcycles have an important part to play in reaching net zero… Motorcycling also plays a positive role in social mobility and quality of life, not just in urban areas, but also in those rural locations where public transport is inadequate and walking/cycling are not realistic options.” (Third Sector Transport Organisation)

2.1.4 Consideration of Rural Issues

Another common issue for respondents was rurality and the consideration of rural areas more broadly. While it was noted that the specific consideration given to island locations was positive, some respondents were keen that remote and rural areas were also given specific and dedicated consideration in the Plan. It was felt this needed to separate to the islands (and urban areas) to ensure the issues are not conflated or overlooked. A range of different issues were identified, including:

• The lack of public and sustainable transport options and the need for greater consideration of the experience of rural transport poverty;
• An emphasis and support for community transport which is important in rural areas;
• Safety issues on rural roads;
• Challenges associated with the recruitment and training of transport staff in rural areas; and
• Concerns about the cost of the transition for those in rural areas.

2.1.5 Consideration of Vulnerable Groups

In addition to rural areas, some respondents expressed concerns about the impacts of the proposals on specific demographic or vulnerable groups. It was felt there needed to be greater consideration of these groups throughout the Plan, and for them to be specifically mentioned within the outcomes. In particular, respondents discussed disabled people, older people, and those on lower incomes.

Key to this was consideration of how the proposals would impact on these groups, if the proposed changes would be accessible to them, whether they would be further excluded or discouraged by the proposed changes, and/or what tailored supports would be put in place to assist these groups in the transition:

“The Plan needs to include a) what action is going to be taken to make transport more accessible to disabled passengers, and b) where disabled people need to be exempt from action to create just transition, as they are with Low Emission Zones for instance.” (Public Sector Transport Organisation)

While it was acknowledged that the Plan and outcomes referred to “inclusive”, “vulnerable” and “accessibility” needs, it was felt that these terms were too broad and open to different interpretations. As such, a few third sector organisations wanted more explicit reference to disabled people and older people to ensure clarity and that these groups were not overlooked.

In relation to people on low incomes, the main concerns were that the transition would be costly and unaffordable for many and that there was not enough focus on low income households across the outcomes and throughout the Plan. As such, a few questioned how ‘just’ the transition would be:

“The outcomes fail to fully address socio-economic inequality and poverty while, from the Plan’s foreword, it is understood that tackling inequality and injustice are central to achieving a ‘just transition’.” (Local Government Organisation)

2.1.6 Funding and Resourcing Issues

Another common issue raised across the different respondent groups was how the transition would be funded and resourced. It was noted that the Plan and outcomes did not mention financial challenges for delivery, which was felt to be a gap. Indeed, it was suggested that the Plan should recognise the challenges and barriers to outcome delivery, and set out possible solutions. Some respondents stressed that funding would need to be put in place to ensure the outcomes could be delivered.

Various sectors and transition elements were noted to require additional funding to be made available. This included for local government and regional transport partnerships to invest in infrastructure and delivery; to develop and improve the sustainable transport network; for rail to be able to offer greener passenger and freight options; for the electrification of freight; for staffing, recruitment and retraining of transport workers; and to consider new technologies.

A few did, however, offer suggestions that money raised in certain areas (such as road user charges) could be reinvested in sustainable transport and infrastructure.

2.1.7 Other Sectors

Several respondents acknowledged that decarbonising transport alone would not solve the problem or lead to a net zero solution in Scotland. They discussed the need for an integrated approach between transport and other sectors. In particular, respondents (including the Just Transition Commission) highlighted the importance of the planning system and the built environment. They noted how these interact with transport, and stressed that all sectors needed to work together to reduce non-sustainable travel as well as the overall need for travel:

“In addition to improved transport and digital connectivity, there is an acknowledgement that land-use decision making should also be optimised alongside infrastructure and public transport service connectivity to improve sustainable outcomes, especially to reduce numbers of car miles.” (Cross-Sector Organisation)

Several organisations also discussed the positive attributes of “20-minute communities”. They were supportive of planning communities where people live in close proximity to employment, education, shopping and leisure facilities, and health facilities. It was argued that this would reduce the need for transport or long journeys to access necessities:

“Planning reform is essential to support clustered, connected settlements and new townships that align with sustainable transport outcomes.” (Public Sector Transport Organisation)

2.1.8 Lack of Clarity and Actions

Several respondents felt that the Plan’s purpose was unclear, and that the outcomes (or the wider Plan) were confusing and lacked substance. In particular, individuals felt that there were too many outcomes, which lacked clarity and detail about how they would be achieved. A few also considered them to be unrealistic and unachievable. A few organisations and one individual also felt that it was difficult to see how the Plan fitted with other policies^[1]:

“I don't really understand what the real achievements are supposed to be as the descriptions are woolly and idealistic and not representative of real-world situations.” (Individual)

A few organisations also felt that greater clarity could be provided. In particular, it was suggested that some of the outcomes needed to be made more specific to ensure consistency in interpretation and actions. It was also felt that some outcomes did not align with one another, or that issues flagged in the outcomes were not further explored in the rest of the Plan. As such, respondents felt it was unclear how these would be achieved or prioritised.

In addition, several respondents noted that the Plan lacked information on how the outcomes would be delivered. They urged the Scottish Government to include more detail on the actions that would be taken to achieve the Plan. It was also felt that the Plan should set out who would be responsible for particular actions or changes. Including a timetable for delivery would also be helpful.

The Just Transition Commission agreed with this sentiment. They stressed that more detail was needed around how the Plan would be delivered, the impact it would have, and how the process will be managed to ensure the transition is just. They also advocated for the use of a high quality and realistic ‘road map’, as well as a detailed and credible risk assessment. The lack of clarity around mitigations meant it was difficult to evaluate how just the transition would be:

“The outcomes and vision proposed by the Plan are positive, but the revised Plan should detail what new policies will be implemented to reduce the sector’s emissions, how much carbon they will save, when they will be taken, how they will be paid for, and how the distributional impact on key groups, principally workers and transport users, will be managed and assessed so as to achieve just transition outcomes.” (Just Transition Commission)

2.1.9 Other Issues

A wide range of other issues were also discussed by a smaller number of respondents. A few suggested that a more radical approach to tackling the issues and thinking about travel and transport was needed, while several suggested more specifically that the Plan needed to consider new technology and innovation. There was also a sense, among several respondents, that the proposals would make travel more difficult or costly for particular groups, and/or that there was a need for greater consideration of and support for car use generally.

Several respondents provided comments either directly related to messaging, or raised concerns that would need to be addressed by consistent and effective communication. Several advised that the Plan needed to convey the scale of the climate emergency and the sense of urgency. A few others urged the use of positive and educational messaging so that people understand the difference that can be made. There was also concern among a few individuals that any transition made in Scotland would not be impactful on the global scale.

Other issues discussed included the need for greater consideration of freight; to better consider, engage and involve people; and to more explicitly acknowledge the relationship between transport and health (beyond active travel).

Consistent with several of the above points, the Just Transition Commission also suggested there was a need to quantify and communicate the social and economic benefits of the transition, as well as the cost of inaction or delay. This would be important in building public understanding and buy-in, and to counter or contextualise any negative perceptions related to short-term costs and inconvenience.

2.2 Engagement Event Consideration of the Vision

Across the engagement events, participants were asked to comment on the vision and outcomes for transport, both in general and specifically in relation to Q1a, whether the draft outcomes reflect what the Plan hopes to achieve, and Q1b, whether there was anything missing from the outcomes.

2.2.1 General Feedback

In general, most event participants felt that the vision was positive, ambitious, and was to be welcomed. One group specifically shared the view that the future priorities outlined in the Plan could have positive impacts on health by reducing vehicle emissions, improving air quality and reducing noise from vehicles. They stressed that it was important to communicate these positive benefits effectively. However, event feedback also raised concerns related to the achievability, interpretation and credibility of the vision and draft Plan.

Achievability: There were a lot of questions around implementation and practicality. Some event participants felt that the challenge with the vision would be persuading the public that it was achievable. This was considered a particular challenge in areas of high car dependency and where cost and connectivity of public transport was an issue. Young people also felt that some of the ideas in the Plan would be difficult to apply to remote rural and island communities. In particular, many were doubtful as to whether the vision could be achieved by 2045 (particularly in relation to public transport). There were doubts around whether the funding needed to support the changes would be made available. One group discussed the fast pace at which the Plan was proceeding and raised concerns that it may “leave people behind”. Meanwhile, young people felt that significant changes would be required in people’s mindset and behaviours, and therefore the Plan did not seem to be achievable currently (but may feel more realistic in the future).

Interpretation: Comments were also made that the vision was “very broad” and could be interpreted differently by different people (consistent with feedback from written consultation respondents). Several groups also posited the need for more consideration of factors linked to inclusivity, accessibility and affordability. However, some of the language used in this respect was also seen as being vague. It was suggested that terminology could be more precise, for example, participants questioned what words such as ‘inclusive’ really meant in different contexts. Having tight and clear definitions of the values reflected in the vision was seen by one group as being necessary to help with holding the government to account.

Another concern was around how the Plan would be perceived. Participants at one event queried who the main beneficiaries of the Plan would be, i.e. citizens or the manufacturers who will profit from the transition? Those attending other events raised distrust for the government based on missed or changing recent climate targets and felt this may impact the way that the Plan was received.

Credibility: One group, representing trade union voices expressed strong disapproval of the Plan. This group suggested that, while the draft Plan gestured toward long-term goals of net zero emissions and skills development, it fell short of offering a coherent or credible pathway to a truly just transition in Scotland’s transport sector:

“The Plan is perceived as underdeveloped, lacking meaningful actions, overly focused on electric vehicle (EV) adoption, and disconnected from the immediate realities facing workers, communities, and local authorities. Unions noted a lack of ambition, poor integration with Scottish Government’s existing policy work, and insufficient attention to public transport, worker protections, or structural inequalities.” (Summary Feedback from Engagement Events)

Q1a. Do the draft outcomes reflect what the Plan should be aiming to achieve?

General views were expressed that, while welcomed, the outcomes were very broad and some event participants that worked in the transport sector felt that the indicators lacked depth.

Some comments were made by just a small number of individuals that there was insufficient detail in the report to allow them to give reliable feedback on the outcomes.

Only a small number of engagement events commented on specific outcomes, mainly focussing on the agreed need for improvements around accessibility, connectivity, affordability, planning and safety (discussed in more detail under subsequent questions that were asked).

While not addressed by many under this specific question, there was also feedback across events on the importance of Outcome 8 (communities being actively involved in decision making). Event participants viewed this as key to ensure that policy makers remained in touch with those using transport systems.

Q1b. Is anything missing from the draft outcomes in the Plan?

Several events discussed gaps in the draft vision and outcomes. They also raised a number of areas where it was felt insufficient attention was currently contained in the Plan, but which would be important for ensuring its success. These included:

• Lack of accessibility, affordability, reliability and integration of the current public transport system;
• Challenges around increasing island connectivity whilst also making options ‘cleaner’, more affordable, and more attractive to consumers;
• Concerns about lack of electric vehicle charging (especially in rural areas), risks attached to EVs, and the environmental impact of batteries and replacing vehicles;
• Discussion around the impact of weather-related disruption to all transport and travel options;
• Cultural and behavioural factors that impact travel and the need for more emphasis on changing attitudes towards car use;
• Housing and education and how these interact with the Plan’s vision;
• Scotland’s impact globally, including in relation to vehicle production and the importance of reducing emissions;
• The role of businesses, i.e. some felt that the Plan focused too much on the role of individuals , despite businesses holding much of the power to curb emissions;
• Cross border travel (both within the UK and beyond); and
• Failure to consider the general and unique needs/challenges of vulnerable groups, such as disabled people (women in particular), and asylum seekers.

With the vision and outcomes set for 2045 there was a recommendation from one event that milestones with shorter term priorities could help. They suggested that interim milestones could demonstrate how action was being taken, and help to ensure that the wider vision was on target. These milestones could be included within the monitoring and evaluation section of the Plan.

2.3 Extent to which the Plan is User Friendly

Note: additional respondents answered ‘don’t know’ so percentages may not add up to 100 %

Over half of the respondents who answered each of the questions agreed that the Plan was accessible to them (61%, n=57), that the information in the Plan was relevant to them (57%, n=54), and that the Plan was easy to understand (54%, n=52). Meanwhile, slightly less than half agreed that the information in the Plan was helpful (49%, n=47), and just over a third agreed that the Plan was easy to use (36%, n=35).

Additionally, 16% (n=15) disagreed that the Plan was accessible with 23% (n=21) neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Just under a third disagreed that the information in the Plan was relevant (n=27) and that the Plan was easy to understand (n=26) with 14% (n=13) and 19% (n=18) respectively neither agreeing nor disagreeing. While just over a third disagreed that the information in the Plan was helpful (n=34) and the Plan was easy to use (n=31). 16% (n=15) and 29% (n=28) retrospectively neither agreed nor disagreed with these questions.

Respondents were also asked to provide comments to support or further explain their answers. While organisations often provided mixed feedback, both outlining their support for the Plan and identifying areas of concern, individuals almost exclusively provided negative feedback at this question.

2.3.1 Positive Feedback

Several organisations offered support either in general terms or to specific elements of the Plan, and then elaborated on areas of concern or elements which they felt could be improved. In terms of the positive feedback, organisations described the Plan as “helpful”, “useful”, “relevant”, “accessible”, and “easy to understand”. A few also noted that the Plan aligned well with their own goals.

Only one individual offered overall positive comments, as follows:

“We have been aware for many years that this transition is of great importance as we aim to reach net zero yet our progress is disappointing when it comes to action and progress. I do hope that this will change and these excellent, carefully considered plans will promptly be put into action.” (Individual)

2.3.2 Does not Represent a ‘Plan’

The most common feedback, however, was that the document was not set out as a ‘plan’. In particular, respondents noted that it had no actions, no details about resource allocation, no targets, no timescales for delivery, and no clearly defined lines of responsibility for delivering the different elements. It was felt that the document lacked detail about ‘how’ the Plan would be achieved. As such, these respondents suggested that the document set out more of a policy direction or strategy, rather than a plan. Respondents also feared that this lack of action setting would result in the Plan being ineffective at delivering change:

“At this stage there is little detail on how any of this Plan will be achieved. This work needs to move beyond aims and outcomes and step up to delivery.” (Private Sector Transport Organisation)

2.3.3 Greater Clarity Needed

Some individuals felt that the Plan was too “vague”, “aspirational” or was “ideological”. It was felt that the real world application was missing. A few individuals also suggested that more data was required in the document to support and justify the proposals.

Similarly, several organisations argued that the Plan lacked clarity. Again, this was in relation to the targets and actions (similar to the concerns above), as well as budget allocations and the scale of funding required. In particular, a few local government organisations were concerned about this lack of detail, as it was unclear what their responsibilities would be going forward. Organisations in other sectors were also disappointed that roles and responsibilities had not been clearly assigned:

“Clarity on targets throughout would be welcomed - for example the 20% reduction in car use by 2030 from the Scottish Government is still referenced, despite this being recently reviewed as unachievable. Clarity on new targets and timescales for achieving these would be welcomed… Clear reference to any new expectations for local authorities in the delivery of the Plan would be welcomed…” (Local Government Organisation)

2.3.4 Accessibility of the Document

A few respondents suggested that the Plan was too overwhelming, contained too much information, and was too long. It was suggested that it needed to be shorter, or contain summaries to fully engage both lay readers and busy professionals:

“The Plan is very comprehensive and detailed and contains very relevant and important guidance and information, although at nearly 100 pages long (including annexes) it can be time consuming to fully digest and to navigate to relevant areas of the guidance. The index is very helpful, but it would benefit from a short summary statement for each section for easier and quicker reference.” (Local Government Organisation)

In addition, a few respondents suggested that the document was not accessible to the lay reader due to the way it had been written. Rather, they felt it had been written for people who were already familiar with the issues. It was felt that the document contained too much “jargon”, as well as too much content that would not be well understood by younger or lay readers. This view was confirmed by the engagement event with young people themselves, where feedback indicated that the draft Plan was “too long and hard to understand without an explanation”.

A few organisations also suggested that, while they themselves had understood the Plan and had found it accessible, they were concerned about members of the public and lay readers. They felt that the content needed to be revised to ensure it was accessible and understandable to all.

2.4 Group Consideration of Just Transition Issues

Q3a. Are you involved in any organised groups (for example a campaigning group, industry working group or public sector forum, which does not have to be climate-related) that considers how the transport sector is changing or could change in the future?

Slightly less than half of the respondents who answered the question (46%, n=44) indicated that they were involved in an organised group that considers how the transport sector is changing or could change in the future.

Q3b. Are you involved in any type of organised group which considers how the transport system is changing, or could change in the future?

In total, 36 respondents identified the group that they were a member of, with several being a member of more than one. To protect anonymity, the groups have not been named here, but they covered a range of types, interests, and purposes. This included groups focused on transport and mobility issues, the environment or climate, community and voluntary groups, and activity-based groups.

Q3c. How could existing transport groups consider just transition issues?

Overall, 48 respondents provided a response to this question, most of which were organisations (n=39).

Many organisations outlined their own role and remit in relation to transport or climate change, as well as the range of policies and actions they had taken in this regard. Some also indicated the extent to which just transition principles were embedded within their work. Others represented the voice of key stakeholder groups and communities. A few organisations offered to engage further and/or to provide practical support to the Scottish Government on the proposals. This included organisations that were keen to be engaged on actions to take forward and deliver the Plan, as well as offers to engage with key stakeholders and communities.

The key themes that emerged from organisations’ responses were:

• The need for partnership working: Some highlighted that they already had effective partnerships in place related to transport and just transition measures. Others (including the Just Transition Commission) stressed that a partnership approach was needed between the Scottish Government, public bodies, the third sector and private organisations to engage stakeholders, disseminate information, and implement change;
• The importance of involving all communities and stakeholders: This included transport workers; elderly and disabled people; rural and isolated communities; and local communities more generally. It was stressed that engagement needed to be effective and meaningful, and that these voices should help to develop policy and any changes;
• Existing communications networks could be used to disseminate information and messages to ensure widespread coverage. These networks could also be tapped into and used to inform policy and practice;
• Messaging should show why change is needed and the relevance of the proposals to all stakeholders, communities and members of the public. This was considered to be necessary to ensure good understanding of the need for and purpose of the work, and encourage people to be supportive; and
• Provision of support, funding and training to community groups was necessary to help them to engage effectively with the issue and to implement local changes.

Nine individuals also provided comments at this question. The only recurring theme to emerge from individuals’ responses was that the views of local people needed to be listened to and taken on board. Individuals also suggested that the communication networks of existing groups could be used to engage with local people and specialist groups, and that group discussions and meetings would be helpful in achieving meaningful input.