Transport Just Transition Plan: Consultation Analysis

3. People and Communities

3.1 Priority Actions

Q4. Are there any gaps in our priority actions to support people and communities in the transition of the transport sector?

Of the respondents that answered the question, over three quarters (78%, n=76) felt that there were gaps in the priority actions to support people and communities in the transition of the transport sector.

When asked to elaborate on these gaps, organisations discussed a wide range of issues and suggestions, most of which were mentioned with reasonable frequency. Meanwhile, individuals outlined a greater range of unique topics and suggestions, with only a small number being repeated by more than two respondents.

3.1.1 Public Transport

Overall, the provision of public transport was the single biggest issue raised. Many complained about current public transport provision and noted a range of barriers, challenges and reasons for limited use or the potential to increase usage. Problems included availability and accessibility, the price of fares, frequency, reliability, limited routes and provision, limited integration and connectivity, and perceptions of poor cleanliness and safety. It was stressed that investments and improvements were needed across the public transport offering to support a just transition:

“Bus services need to be cheaper and to connect more areas more efficiently. Even in Glasgow there are many places that I cannot practically get to by bus because it takes at least eight times as long as by car. For many people a car is still a cheaper overall method of travel than public transport, both because fares are too high and because, however committed one is to public transport, it just does not work for so many journeys.” (Individual)

While respondents supported the current inclusion of public transport in the priority actions, they generally wanted this to receive greater priority than was provided in the draft Plan. It was noted that many vulnerable groups do not have access to private vehicles and rely on public transport. Therefore, this is a vital element in achieving a fair and equitable transition. Further, it was argued that encouraging modal shift, away from car use and towards sustainable modes of travel, was paramount. This would be necessary in achieving a just transition, and to help achieve all aspects of the National Transport Strategy vision^[2]. As such, a few organisations argued that the Plan should be rebalanced to include public transport as the top priority:

“Bus services are central to the achievement of JTP [Just Transition Plan] given the reliance placed on them by people on lower incomes, those without access to a car and people with mobility challenges. This requires action to address the lack of investment in bus services in rural, island and urban areas and to rebalance investment from new road building towards investment in sustainable travel options.” (Public Sector Transport Organisation)

A few organisations discussed the pilot which scrapped peak fares across the Scotrail network. The pilot had been welcomed, however, disappointment was expressed at the reintroduction of peak fares again at the end of the pilot phase. These respondents advocated for them to be scrapped permanently^[3]. A few also argued for public transport, and particularly buses, to come back into public ownership. These respondents wanted local authorities or Regional Transport Partnerships (RTP) to be given the power to plan and operate services locally.

3.1.2 Vulnerable Groups

The next most important issue for all respondents was the consideration of vulnerable groups. Several groups were specifically highlighted, including:

• Children and young people;
• Older people;
• Those with disabilities and cognitive impairments;
• Women;
• Ethnic minorities; and
• Low income households.

It was argued that the Plan needed to give further consideration to the issues and challenges faced by specific vulnerable groups, and that actions needed to be included to address these. In particular, it was argued that certain groups should be prioritised within the Plan, and measures included to protect them. This included ensuring that those who rely on car travel as a necessity are not negatively impacted by any changes or demand management measures:

“Actions to disincentivise car use should not just ‘ensure fairness’, but actively ensure that older people who rely on private car use are not in any way worse-off, and that actions do not further exclude and isolate older people from essential services and communities by making car journeys more expensive, complex, or onerous.” (Other Third Sector Organisation)

Many of the challenges and limitations in travel and transport choices for vulnerable groups were set out. These included: fixed incomes; limited ability to buy newer vehicles or electric vehicles; limited/no ability to use active modes such as walking to cycling; greater reliance on public transport; limited ability to access public transport; limited provision of demand responsive transport (DRT) and community transport options; and taxis not being adapted to accommodate wheelchairs. It was felt that the issues and challenges facing these groups needed to be made explicit, and should be addressed in any future actions.

A range of organisations argued that specific vulnerable groups also needed to be mentioned more explicitly throughout rather than maintaining a general focus on equality and inclusion. A few wanted greater consideration of children and young people, including making the links between reduced car use and children’s health, safety and wellbeing more explicit. Others wanted the issues faced by women when travelling to be reflected in the Plan. This included their greater reliance on public transport, greater likelihood of travelling with children, ‘trip-chaining’, for journeys to be across town rather than into the centre, and safety and affordability issues. A few also highlighted the lack of consideration of ethnic minorities within the Plan, and noted their lower levels of car ownership.

Generally, it was suggested that the Plan should set out any dedicated support that would be available to vulnerable groups, or mitigation measures that would protect them from any negative impacts such as increased costs, reduced travel opportunities, or disproportionate effects of disincentives.

3.1.3 Support for Other Measures

In addition to support for the improvement of public transport, there was support for other transport options. This included the improvement and promotion of active travel, community transport and DRT, car clubs and shared vehicle schemes, and for motorbikes.

Active Travel and Cycling: Of the other transport options discussed, active travel received the most attention. While most respondents were supportive of the inclusion of active travel in the priorities, it was again felt that there were issues with the current active travel network which needed to be addressed to encourage usage. This included:

• Safety issues for both pedestrians and cyclists;
• The lack of suitable active travel infrastructure in many areas;
• That networks are often isolated from one another and lack connectivity; and
• The lack of active travel interchanges with the public transport network.

The benefits of active travel were highlighted, with respondents arguing that walking and cycling should receive more attention, as well as greater prominence at this section of the Plan:

“…there is insufficient focus on walking and wheeling as key parts of the Sustainable Transport Hierarchy. Sustaining national and regional walking and wheeling delivery programmes is vital to addressing some of the most formidable challenges of our time and can contribute to improving outcomes across diverse spheres of public policy. Walking is the easiest and most cost-effective way to achieve modal shift from private cars to active travel and support more people powered journeys. Pound for pound, investing in walking delivers a high return - £6 for every £1 invested. Walking protects the most vulnerable in society and delivers a lot more for a lot less. Good walking environments mean fewer pedestrian deaths and safer school runs.” (Third Sector Transport Organisation)

A few, however, did stress that active travel was not a suitable option for everyone. In particular, this was not viable for some older or disabled people, for those travelling with dependents, and for trip-chaining journeys where multiple activities are completed within the one trip. Therefore, it was felt this should not be promoted as the main alternative for private car use.

Community Transport and DRT: Several respondents flagged community transport and DRT, and the particular importance of this in rural areas where public transport is not available or commercially viable. They argued that this needed greater consideration and focus within the priorities. However, a few also stressed the need for community transport to be properly supported and appropriately funded. Current difficulties were also highlighted. This included a lack of co-ordination across boundaries, and limited availability of such services, with demand outstripping supply, making this an unreliable option for some at present.

Car Clubs and Shared Vehicles: Several respondents also discussed car clubs as an important element in supporting a just transition. It was argued that car clubs and rideshare schemes should be included within the priorities and actively supported and rolled out more widely.

Motorbikes: Three organisations also stressed the importance of motorbikes as a lower emissions alternative to ICE cars. They advocated for their specific inclusion within the priorities for ‘People and Communities’ (and throughout the Plan more generally).

3.1.4 Demand Management Measures

Some respondents felt that the priorities needed to focus more on disincentive measures designed to inhibit car use. These respondents argued that both the ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ approach was required, but felt that the current approach focused too much on incentives and rewards.

Respondents who supported demand management wanted to see more disincentive measures being proposed and included within the priorities. Specific suggestions included Low Emission Zones (LEZs); congestion charging or road user charging; strengthening parking legislation; measures to tackle the increased propensity for individuals to buy larger vehicles such as SUVs; reduced speed limits; and reduced spending on the capacity of the road network.

It was argued that such measures were needed in order to make driving more costly and less convenient. It was felt that this would push people towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternatives and reduce overall car usage:

“…sustainable travel is made the preferable choice under all circumstances. This can only realistically be achieved by using methods of dissuasion rather than persuasion, such as road pricing at a national level, which if adopted will more strongly discourage private car use, especially single person car use.” (Local Government Organisation)

3.1.5 Actions Needed

Consistent with responses at earlier questions, some respondents again argued that the priorities did not constitute actions. They urged the Scottish Government to set out more specific commitments and detail ‘how’ the priorities would be achieved.

Individuals again felt that the priorities were “too aspirational” and “unachievable”. They also suggested that the draft Plan focused on policy rather than actions.

While organisations were more positive about the content of the Plan, they also wanted to see specific commitments being made. They wanted delivery mechanisms to be outlined, especially in relation to how sustainable transport options would be improved.

3.1.6 Rural Issues

Several respondents discussed rural issues, and in particular the difficulties in moving away from private car use and the lack of availability or unsuitability of alternative travel options. A few were concerned about the ability to provide a ‘just’ transition in such areas. Others advocated the need for alternative approaches to facilitate modal shift. This included the provision of effective public transport, community transport, car clubs, effective and safe active travel links that connect with the public transport network, and park-and-ride facilities.

While respondents acknowledged that the Plan did include coverage of rural and island issues, there was a sense that it did not go far enough. These respondents felt that the Plan did not consider the issues in enough detail or with sufficient nuance. As such, they argued that more targeted focus and interventions were needed:

“The proposed priority actions do not necessarily resonate with the reality many communities experience and, subsequently, underestimate the issues relating to non-urban and rural areas and the difficulty in delivering the change required within this context.” (Public Sector Transport Organisation)

3.1.7 Other Issues

Several organisations (both public and third sector) discussed funding. It was noted that the budgets of public and third sector organisations had been cut. Therefore, it would be increasingly challenging to implement changes and fund local initiatives. As such, funded delivery mechanisms would be needed to achieve a just transition. This would need to include funding and support for public bodies, third sector organisations and community groups; investment in public transport and active travel provision; and incentives and grants to support fleet transition.

In addition, several respondents suggested that there was a need for new infrastructure, and investment in infrastructure to support the transition. This included, but was not limited to, infrastructure to support public transport, active travel, and EV charging (and in particular consideration of charging infrastructure for those currently unable to charge vehicles at home).

Several respondents also suggested that there needed to be greater engagement and communication with the public. This included specific groups of interest, equality groups, and local communities. Respondents felt this was necessary to ensure that the Plan and priorities reflected experiences, to inform any changes, and to promote the benefits.

A few organisations (both public and private sector) also noted or advocated for greater partnership working between the various delivery partners. This was seen as necessary to deliver the required actions and changes. Systems would also need to empower local decision making and facilitate flexibility for localised initiatives and solutions.

Several organisations also felt that the ‘People and Communities’ section could:

• Be reworked to better outline and address the current barriers and challenges to transition; and
• Explore and include consideration on how to do things differently, in particular making links with planning and the built environment, encouraging 20 minute neighbourhoods, and supporting digital connectivity to reduce the need for travel - although there was caution that local services may not be accessible to, or meet the needs of disabled people.

Finally, a few respondents commented that:

• The priorities were too focused on EVs and needed to be rebalanced to prioritise public transport and/or active travel. It was noted that transitioning to EVs alone would not reduce car use nor reduce emissions quickly enough;
• More focus was needed on flights;
• More focus was needed on leisure based travel (mentioned by organisations);
• The Plan appeared to “penalise” car owners and the better off, which was considered to be unjust and short sighted (mentioned by individuals); and
• There would be a lack of impact on global emissions (mentioned by individuals).

3.2 Engagement Event Feedback

Rather than being asked to comment on the priority actions and any gaps, engagement event participants were asked a more general question about how to reduce emissions from car use in a fair way. While the topics discussed were similar to those above, the different focus of the question needs to be borne in mind.

Q4. How do participants think we should reduce emissions from car use in a way that’s fair to everyone?

The key groups that were discussed in relation to ensuring ‘fairness’ were disabled people, ethnic minority groups, those living in remote and rural areas, and those affected by poverty.

EVs: Cross-cutting issues raised across groups included perceptions that an unfair or unjust transition would be one in which people were ‘forced’ into choices that they could not afford. This concern was focussed in particular on EVs, which people did not see as affordable or accessible to many. Similarly, existing inequalities in EV charging infrastructure were flagged, including availability, pricing between home and public charging, and a lack of wheelchair accessible charging points. The overall cost of owning and running an EV were noted as prohibitive, including maintenance and insurance costs (which were said to be higher than for ICE vehicles). One group also highlighted unique challenges for older people to transition to EVs. This could include difficulties in understanding new technologies, refuelling, the use of apps to pay for charging, and difficulty changing habitual driving behaviours. It was felt that these issues needed to be addressed and/or that more support was needed for people to transition to EVs.

More targeted comments and suggestions were also made in response to this question across different groups. This included the need to:

• Maximise use of LEZ in cities;
• Make EV cars more reliable by design;
• Better understand and mitigate potential risks to other road users from EVs (e.g. quieter vehicles may increase the risk of collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, particularly people with visual or hearing impairments);
• Explore the economic benefits of installing EVs for businesses as well as potential negative impacts of displacement from town centres; and
• Explore how the transition to EVs would increase demand on the electricity grid and how resilience of the network could be ensured.

Consistent with the views of several written respondents (including the Just Transition Commission), participants in one group were also concerned that improving EV infrastructure, while welcomed, could help to encourage car dependency. This was highlighted as being counter to the overall Plan. This same group noted potential for the transition to EVs to divert attention and use of space away from more sustainable transport and other uses. This could include the loss of greenspace, space for recreation and play, and public space, which may have both physical and mental health benefits. Public space could also be dominated by EV infrastructure. This was seen as a particular issue if positioned on pavements, potentially obstructing pedestrians. It was stressed that opportunities to realise health, climate and equity co-benefits of the transition may be missed if the transition replaces private ICE vehicles with private EVs, without considering placemaking.

Public Transport: Again, making public transport more accessible and affordable was discussed at several events. Consistent with written comments, a number of problems and necessary improvements were highlighted. Requirements included:

• Better connections for rural communities into central hubs;
• That public transport could be much ‘smarter’ in meeting travel needs - e.g. more shuttle buses to education, large employers, and retail parks;
• More accountability in the system (e.g. what happens if a bus doesn’t turn up, how is reliability incentivised and unreliability disincentivised);
• Recognising that information accessibility is equally as important as physical accessibility; and
• That integrated ticketing would support use of public transport.

One group felt that a fundamental issue was that public transport is often not a viable alternative to private car use. They noted it often takes longer, there are infrequent services, poor connections, patchy rural coverage, and a lack of early morning or late evening options. Until public transport is fast, reliable, and accessible enough to compete with car travel, participants felt that meaningful change would not occur.

Other Issues: Several groups highlighted that the cost of transport in the islands and in rural areas was much higher, relative to income, than in the rest of Scotland. Similarly, people in rural and island communities were particularly vulnerable to climate-related disruptions to the transport network and this could make plans unfair for those affected.

The safety of both public transport and active travel was also raised across different groups. This included fear of becoming the victim of ‘hate crime’ which acted as a deterrent to using public transport options for some. Addressing issues of safety was seen as particularly important for those from visible minority groups, as well as those living is isolated areas.

3.3 Reducing Car Use

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

The chart shows that ‘Better use of space for active travel and public transport’ was the most supported statement (70% rated as helpful, n=62; 24% as unhelpful, n=21; and 4% as neither, n=4). The least supported option was ‘Increasing costs to make driving a less attractive option in some circumstances, especially where there will be other benefits such as reducing pollution and congestion’ (45% rated as helpful, n=38; 47% as unhelpful; n=39; and 6% as neither, n=5).

For the remaining priorities, the chart shows that ‘Availability of demand responsive transport for some areas e.g. dial-a-bus’ was the second most supported statement (61% rated as helpful, n=52; 24% as unhelpful (n=21); and 12% as neither, n=10). The priority ‘Access to car clubs which allow people to hire cars/vans for shorter trips’ was rated as helpful by just over half of respondents (56%, n=48), unhelpful by 28% (n=24) and neither by 14% (n=12). Finally, ‘More access to online services so people don’t need to travel unnecessarily was rated as helpful by just under half (n=42), as unhelpful by 22% (n=19) and as neither by 27% (n=23).

Respondents were also asked to provide qualitative comments at this question. Some focused on their reasons for supporting or not supporting the proposed options. A few simply outlined what they were already doing to reduce car use. This included the use of public transport, cycling, and utilising online meetings by individuals, and a range of policies and initiatives implemented by organisations.

Nearly half of the individuals who commented provided negative feedback at this question. These respondents either highlighted the existing problems and shortcomings of different modes of sustainable transport (as reasons for continuing car use), or expressed resistance towards the proposal to increase the costs of car use. Organisations were again, more supportive overall, either highlighting which options they supported most, providing discussion of each of the proposed options, and/or offering suggestions and caveats for further consideration.

3.3.1 Providing Attractive Alternatives to Car Use

The provision of realistic alternatives to private car use was considered crucial. In particular, consideration of how accessible these alternatives are was needed, particularly in rural areas and for specific groups of people. This included the need for:

• Better public transport provision;
• A safe active travel network;
• Consideration of e-bikes, improved cycling infrastructure (e.g. cycle storage), bike hire and shared micromobility (SMM) schemes;
• The ability to combine active travel and public transport (such as good links, and better access to take bikes on buses and trains);
• The availability of park-and-ride facilities (which include long-stay parking for those leaving the area to visit other areas using public transport);
• The availability of car clubs, particularly when combined with incentives to convert fleets to EVs;
• Cheap car rental, car sharing and car club access at transport hubs for visitors;
• Allowing motorbikes to access bus lanes and free parking; and
• The provision of DRT where appropriate, particularly for disabled people, in areas without public transport options, and in rural and island locations.

While a few organisations indicated support for the ‘better use of space for active travel and public transport’, it was also stressed that flexible solutions were needed. These should be targeted to different needs, demographics, locations and situations where they can have the maximum impact. It was felt that a one-size-fits-all approach would be neither appropriate nor successful.

A few organisations also cautioned that unintended consequences would need to be borne in mind. For example, that the introduction of DRT or community transport options could impact on the viability of taxi and private hire companies. Where this was introduced to replace public transport, it could have an adverse impact and increase car trips.

A few other organisations highlighted that changes would be needed in policy and procedures to support travel and transport changes. These changes would need to be implemented quickly. This included changes to the requirements for active travel improvements (such as not being based on accident statistics), and streamlining design and decision processes. In relation to car clubs, it was suggested that the availability of affordable insurance products needed to be addressed as this was currently a major barrier to provision. It was also suggested that public sector support may be needed for car clubs in non-urban and rural areas, and that public charging costs for EVs must also be considered. It was suggested that funding decisions currently appeared to contradict the priorities set out in the Plan, with funding for bus services, DRT and school transport options having been cut. These would need to be addressed if the just transition plan was to be successful.

3.3.2 Digital Connectivity

Although digital connectivity was not discussed by individuals, several organisations commented on this option. Most were supportive of this overall, noting it would bring advantages by both reducing travel and increasing access to vital services for some people. However, some also strongly cautioned against reliance upon this or switching to online only provisions. They stressed that this could encourage further social isolation and the exclusion of vulnerable groups from such services. For example, some older people and disabled people who may be digitally excluded due to a lack of access to technology, connectivity issues, or a lack of confidence. Therefore, it was stressed that programmes and coaching would need to be factored in to improve digital connectivity. However, it was also considered very important that online services did not replace local in-person services. In-person provision would remain essential in maintaining accessibility for all.

3.3.3 Increasing Costs for Car Use

Some respondents supported the proposal to increase costs to make driving less attractive, albeit to differing degrees. Several (typically, but not exclusively individuals and third sector organisations) fully supported the use of disincentives and saw this as key to driving modal shift and the reduction in car journeys. These respondents advocated for the introduction of road user charging, road tolls for CO2 and NOx emitting vehicles, and the inclusion of associated costs, such as parking and parking permit fees:

“The lack of disincentives to private car use is a major barrier to modal shift and reducing carbon emissions from transport. These interventions need to be at a local (i.e. reducing car parking spaces, increasing parking charges, enforcement of pavement parking ban), national (i.e. road user charging, expanding Low Emission Zones) and UK (i.e. higher fuel duty, restrictions on 'autobesity') level.” (Third Sector Transport Organisation)

A few respondents stressed that, while they were not averse to options which would increase the cost of car based travel, the creation of more accessible alternatives needed to come before the introduction of disincentives. Alternatively, both needed to be undertaken together.

Other respondents (consisting of individuals, local government and third sector organisations), supported increasing the cost of private car travel only in certain circumstances. For example, increasing costs in areas where good public transport links exist but not for those in areas poorly served by alternatives to private car use. Indeed, most organisations who commented on this issue were concerned that costs should not be increased for vulnerable groups, where no viable alternative transport options exist, or where this could have a detrimental impact on the local economy due to demand reduction. It was argued that this would require careful consideration before such changes were implemented. Due consideration would need to be given to potential detrimental social or economic impacts as this could exacerbate transport poverty and unfairly impact those with no alternative options.

3.3.4 Against Discouraging Car Use

Many individuals and several organisations (largely but not exclusively third sector organisations) were expressly against increasing the cost of car use and trying to force people out of their cars.

Individuals stressed that car use was essential for certain groups. This included people with disabilities, those in very remote areas, and where public transport and active travel options are inaccessible or impractical. They noted that car use also provided personal safety benefits when travelling at night. These respondents felt that none of the options presented would enable people in these situations to move to an alternative mode.

Similarly, third sector organisations stressed that such an approach would disproportionately and detrimentally impact certain groups. These included older and disabled people, those living in rural areas, those who rely on their cars due to health conditions, those living in areas with a lack of viable alternatives, and where services have been centralised rather than provided at the local level. It was argued that, if such disincentives were introduced, then significant exemptions, support and viable alternatives would be needed to mitigate the impact on vulnerable groups:

“Increasing costs would not encourage older people who rely on their car, particularly if they do so because of rurality, health conditions, caring responsibilities, or work, to use other forms of transport… If car use became even more expensive, it risks becoming unaffordable for those who need to use it most. This would only serve to further isolate some of the most vulnerable older people, increase loneliness, contribute to poor physical and mental health outcomes, cause people to cut back on other essentials to afford necessary car use, and exacerbate existing inequalities around access to services.” (Other Third Sector Organisation)

Others (largely individuals) were against the proposal to increase the cost of car use as they either considered it generally unrealistic or to be in opposition with the principle of personal choice. One individual also stressed that raising the cost of car use would be counterproductive in promoting the green transition, as this could be hijacked as negative marketing.

One private sector organisation was also against increasing costs of car use due to concerns that this could impact on business delivery and restrict expansion into new areas.

3.3.5 Other Comments

A few respondents felt that all options that had been outlined were sensible and should be implemented in tandem. Similarly, they argued that all means possible should be used to discourage car use.

Beyond the proposed options, a few organisations expressed support for the introduction of behaviour change initiatives. They noted that wider culture change would be required for the desired modal shift and net zero targets to be met. A few also again expressed support for 20 minute neighbourhoods.

3.3.6 Engagement Event Feedback

Engagement events asked the same question in the same way.

Participants (like written consultation respondents) stressed that there was no ‘one size fits all’ approach. It was felt that a clear understanding of the research about what supports behaviour change was needed. In addition, identifying research gaps to be addressed would also be important to inform decision making.

Better use of road space: This was seen as particularly useful for urban communities. Participants in one group pointed out that this would only support low-income groups if it was also accompanied by a ‘just’ public transport system and enhanced public transport infrastructure. Integration between active travel routes and public transport was also flagged as important. Another group discussed the need to reduce parking availability to help achieve this goal. Others simply supported this as a positive option without elaborating why.

Access to online services: This option prompted a variety of different viewpoints. Very different perspectives were expressed depending on the extent to which people could currently access face-to-face services. Issues raised included:

• That this would require broadband to be seen as a basic utility everyone needs;
• Concerns about resilience, i.e. what happens when the internet goes down?;
• Questions about who defines what is ‘necessary’, for whom and how?; and
• Recognising that some online services are positive but there is also a real desire to reverse the shift to online in some spaces.

A few different groups noted issues, including those representing women and asylum seekers. This included that not everyone has access to Wi-Fi or the required IT so work would be needed to tackle digital exclusion. Additionally, it was noted that a greater move to online services could be exclusionary for some, and have mental health impacts (especially for those who already work or study online). As such, retaining a choice between online and in-person services was key.

Demand Responsive Transport: Participants were positive about this option. Some groups shared positive experiences of DRT services, as well as disappointment where such services had been lost. The flexibility of these services was valued, as was their role in supporting older people. Some suggested that broader access to these services would be valuable, rather than a focus on particular groups.

Car clubs: Questions and concerns around the accessibility of car clubs were raised. Participants in some groups had good experiences of car clubs or car sharing schemes. However, there was also a lack of knowledge across the events more generally as to how schemes work and different models available. Some participants in one group were concerned about affordability, and worried about ‘borrowing’ someone else’s car. Some groups simply did not see this as a realistic or viable option for the majority. Others noted that this was not inclusive (e.g. car clubs do not accept disabled drivers, older people, and people without driving licenses). The idea appeared to be welcomed in principle, but was not seen as a standalone solution suitable for all.

Increasing costs to make driving a less attractive option: This option appeared to be less well supported overall among event participants. One group expressed that fees would not be welcomed at a time when everything else was increasing in cost. Participants in some groups were not clear on how this approach would help people on low incomes. They were concerned that it would actively make life more unaffordable for people who may rely on driving out of necessity rather than choice. Questions were also raised around the mechanisms by which costs would be increased e.g. through taxation or use of tolls. In some groups, this option was not welcomed at all and was seen as overly controlling. Potential for this to displace traffic as people try to avoid fees was also raised. Young people also felt that this was unfair for people living in rural areas and who need to use a car. In another group, participants felt that this option may also undermine or negatively impact on people’s support for the wider net zero policy.

In more general terms, some participants felt that the options listed were limited. One group suggested that investment to transform the public transport system was conspicuous by its absence. Approaches also needed to be individually and community led (and avoid being urban centric). Overall, a combination of some elements of each of the options presented was seen as necessary to meet different people’s and communities’ needs.

3.4 Taking Account of All Groups in Society

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

Responses to both statements within this question were split with no clear consensus emerging. At the first statement, ‘The Plan considers the impacts of decarbonising transport on all groups in our society’, 44% (n=40) either agreed or strongly agreed and 40% (n=36) strongly disagreed (12% neither agreed nor disagreed n=11). Similarly, at the second statement, ‘The Plan considers the impacts of decarbonising transport on people like me’, 39% (n=30) either agreed or strongly agreed while 39% (n=30) strongly disagreed (19% neither agreed nor disagreed, n=15).

Respondents were also invited to provide qualitative feedback at this question.

3.4.1 Rural and Island Locations

While several organisations acknowledged that the Plan provided a focus on rural and island locations, it was felt that the issues facing these communities were not fully addressed. Both organisations and individuals suggested that more detail, nuance and specific consideration of locational issues was needed:

“More explicit focus on the specific challenges faced by remote and island communities would ensure that all groups are adequately considered. Tailoring solutions to the unique needs of these communities is essential for achieving equity in the transport system.” (Public Sector Transport Organisation)

Several specific issues related to the experiences of rural areas were highlighted, including that:

• The proportion of household budgets spent on transport are often higher in rural and island areas;
• Car travel is often essential, with public transport either non-existent or involving longer journey times than driving;
• Public transport is often unreliable;
• Towns and villages are not linked to one another by public transport, with routes typically only heading into the nearest urban area; and
• There are often experiences of social isolation and poor access to services.

3.4.2 Disabled People

Again, while a few organisations acknowledged that the Plan did consider people with disabilities, it was felt that it treated them as a largely homogenous group. Instead, they suggested that much greater detail, nuance and focus was required to reflect the different needs and experiences across different travel options. It also needed to outline the impact that changes might have on different groups. In particular, it was highlighted that people with different disabilities, of different severities, the impact of multiple conditions, and the different types of mobility aids required, all impact on travel and transport choices. It was also suggested that the intersectionality of disabled people and other personal characteristics needed to be taken into account.

Respondents again stressed how and why disabled people are often reliant upon car use, and highlighted the lack of accessibility or difficulties they faced in using alternatives. They felt that the Plan did not take account of these issues, or the impact that the proposals would have on disabled people.

A few organisations also flagged concerns not highlighted in the Plan, in relation to safety, particularly of older and disabled people. They noted that the ability to move around public spaces could be compromised as a result of a move to EVs or active travel infrastructure. For example, EVs tended to be quieter and can therefore pose a risk to those relying on auditory cues for safety^[4]. Also, the charging infrastructure can limit pavement space and require people to manoeuvre around it, while cables can create trip hazards. Meanwhile, floating bus stops (located beyond cycle lanes) were said to pose a safety hazard for all pedestrians and bus users, but especially for the visually impaired and those with mobility issues.

A few organisations suggested that specific priorities, actions and measures for disabled people (as well as older people and other vulnerable groups) was needed. Further, organisations advocated for co-design approaches to be taken, engaging and involving disabled people and other vulnerable groups, to ensure inclusivity is built into all initiatives and transport design going forward.

3.4.3 Other Groups

The main other group highlighted by respondents (again, both individuals and largely, but not exclusively, third sector organisations) as not being fully taken into account was older people. Comments were largely consistent with those related to disabled people, i.e. the challenges of using public transport and other modes, the lack of consideration of their needs and the impacts on this specific group, and the need to consider intersectionality.

Other groups that were highlighted as not being fully considered included:

• Car users and the impacts of the proposals on them, including those who rely on car use for work, due to age or disability, for transporting dependents, and due to the impracticality of public transport;
• Workers and the issues facing those trying to get to work, particularly in rural areas, those working shifts, those accessing industrial areas, and those required to transport goods or equipment for work;
• Low income households and those experiencing poverty;
• Carers needing to support other people’s travel needs and make multiple journeys, often at short notice;
• Parents and consideration of the school run;
• Motorcyclists and PTW users;
• All those living with protected characteristics; and
• Safety concerns for all (not just women and girls).

A few individuals also felt that people with higher financial means were not taken into account, although opposing views were expressed. A few felt that more needed to be included in the Plan to tackle the travel behaviours (and particularly air travel) of those with higher incomes. Meanwhile, others felt that this group was being targeted with disincentives and that the likely impacts were not fully explored or taken into account.

3.4.4 Other Comments

Several organisations stressed the need for greater nuance within the Plan, priorities and actions needed to deliver a just transition. As noted above, this included providing greater nuance related to the needs and impacts on different groups. It was also suggested that the gaps (discussed at Q1 and Q4) would have implications for the different groups that would need to be considered. Again, it was stressed that different approaches and interventions, as well as monitoring methods would be needed at a local level. Therefore, the Plan (and any subsequent funding) needed to support such flexibility.

3.5 Additional Accessibility Considerations

Q7. Is there anything else you would like to see in the draft Plan for people who are more likely to face challenges accessing affordable, convenient and safe travel options?

This question sought free text feedback only - no closed question element was included. Overall, 69 respondents provided substantive feedback, including 27 individuals and 42 organisations. Despite the question focusing on additional elements that should be added to the Plan for people more likely to face challenges in accessing transport options, many respondents provided broader feedback. This often identified other things which respondents felt could be added to, or addressed by, the Plan. Suggestions for additional considerations and mechanisms needed for the overall success of the Plan were also outlined. This broader interpretation made the identification of themes and recurring topics difficult as responses covered a very wide range of issues with little consistency.

Respondents largely focused their answers on topics already covered above. This included highlighting the need for improved public transport options; improvements to active travel provision; the provision of support for DRT and community transport options; and more thought being needed in relation to specific population groups and geographic areas. A few organisations reiterated the need to develop effective partnerships; to acknowledge that actions outwith the transport sector would be needed; for a fully costed and funded delivery plan to be provided; to consider shift workers; promote motorcycling; and to fully consider and tackle safety concerns. Among a few individuals, there was again a resistance towards either reducing car usage or net zero policy generally.

3.5.1 Feedback from Individuals

Only a few new elements were identified by more than one individual, as outlined below. However, most were only discussed by two or three respondents each:

• More maintenance and upgrading of the road infrastructure to improve safety;
• Consider the role of taxis and private hire to support private car use, including providing discounted taxi fares for older and disabled people;
• Improved behaviour and safety on public transport and active travel routes, as well as at stops and stations;
• Focus on increasing the charging network and providing standardisation in structures, apps and costs, which should be comparable with home charging rates to ensure equality; and
• A desire for data to confirm the climate emergency and expected impact of the proposals.

3.5.2 Feedback from Organisations

Only one topic was discussed by organisations with any frequency. This was the need to undertake consultation, meaningful engagement, and co-design. In particular, there was a need to target specific groups in order to understand needs, to ensure solutions are suitable, and to encourage change. These groups included older people, disabled people and other vulnerable groups, those on low incomes, those in different geographic and urban/rural/island areas, residents and businesses.

Very few other new issues were discussed by organisations. A few suggested greater focus on affordable transport options for low income households, in areas of multiple deprivation, in rural areas and in the planning of large scale residential or mixed use developments. A few others felt that the Plan should consider transport’s role in access to healthcare.

3.6 Making Public Transport More Accessible

Engagement event participants were not asked what they would like to see in the draft Plan for people who are more likely to face challenges accessing affordable, convenient and safe travel options. Rather they were asked more specifically, what could be done to make public transport more accessible.

Q7. What else should be done to make public transport more accessible to people? (more available, affordable, safer, easier to use)

Across events, the main issues raised were very similar and were all linked to “ensuring the basics” were covered in relation to public transport. The following elements were considered as being optimal:

• Accessibility (including for those with protected characteristics);
• Frequency (including regular service in both rural and urban areas and running services later at night and more often during off peak hours);
• Availability (including better intercity connections and more direct routes);
• Reliability (again, in both urban and rural areas, and consequences for lateness);
• Affordability (including stability in fares; consistency in ticket prices in different areas; more options for free or subsidised travel; and removal of cost barriers);
• Accept a variety of payment methods (e.g. cash, card and online);
• Connectivity and integration between different services and different modes;
• Facilities and cleanliness (both on board and at transport hubs);
• Safety (especially on board and at interchanges, including adequate staffing); and
• Provision of more and better information on the public transport system.

Across different groups, in addition to the “basics” above, very specific additional suggestions were also made for:

• Clearer and more modern interchanges and bus stops (with shelters and digital displays);
• More spaces for wheelchairs on public transport;
• The use of smaller vehicles on rural routes where large buses may not be used to capacity;
• Specific employer transport-to-work schemes;
• Better bike and bus integration, including allowing bikes on buses;
• Promoting buses (and shared cars) for commutes;
• Establishing convenient, low-cost high-speed rail connections to major cities;
• Making bus drivers more welcoming as well as encouraging more diversity in the driver workforce; and
• Bringing transport back into public hands to improve accountability, reduce costs, and expand access.

Unlike one individual who submitted a written response calling for the under 22s free bus travel to be scrapped, young people who were consulted gave unanimously positive feedback on the under 22s free bus pass. Indeed, there were calls for it to be expanded to cover travel by train, tram and ferry, as well as to offer discounts for flights. Young people also supported expanding the scheme to all young people under the age of 26.

3.7 Guiding Principles

Base: n=87

Of those who answered the question, over a third (39%, n=34) supported the option that ‘Those who emit the most pay the most, with protections for low-income groups’. However, similar numbers did not support any of the options (37%, n=32). Only small numbers chose the remaining answer options, 15% (n=13) answered ‘Costs shared through taxation and incentives, such as reduced costs, will support low-carbon choices’ and 9% (n=8) that ‘Those who earn the most pay the most, without disadvantaging middle-income groups’.

3.7.1 Those Who Emit the Most Pay the Most

Overall, 21 respondents provided further feedback on this option.

Several agreed explicitly with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Meanwhile, others outlined their agreement with the concept more generally, and argued that this would be the fairest approach:

“To get the change needed to tackle emissions, actions should be focused on those causing the most pollution.” (Individual)

A few respondents specifically advocated for the protection of low-income households in order to avoid disproportionately impacting vulnerable groups. However, a few others suggested that there may not need to be protections for low or middle-income groups, or those in rural areas, as they should also be encouraged to reduce their emissions.

A few respondents indicated that they supported both polluters and high earners paying the most. This was largely because high earners tend to also be the highest polluters.

The Just Transition Commission response also considered this approach to paying for the transition. They suggested that a weakness in the draft Plan was that it did not set out how this would be achieved, or how existing carbon inequality informed the overall strategic approach. It was felt that a stronger definition of transport poverty was needed, along with consideration of how to address this and how to close the gap between those at the top and bottom of the scale.

3.7.2 Cost Shared Through Taxation and Incentives

Only nine respondents provided further comments about sharing costs via taxation and incentives.

Most of those who commented expressed general support for this option. Some considered it to be the most appropriate or palatable option. Others outlined suggestions for the types of incentives (or disincentives for car use) they thought would be helpful. These included incentives to switch to EVs or other low-carbon alternatives; a reward or loyalty scheme for public transport use; moving the public transport network into public ownership to ensure profits are reinvested into services; reduced parking supply; increased parking costs; workplace parking levies; and road user charging.

A few third sector organisations provided more reticent support, however. One felt that none of the options presented were desirable, but that taxation and incentives was the least objectionable. Another caveated their support by stressing that protections would be required for those on low and modest incomes, vulnerable groups, and those with higher costs of living.

3.7.3 Those Who Earn the Most Pay the Most

Only three respondents provided further comments on this option. Two were concerned about raising costs where public transport options are not suitable, while one suggested that a combination of income-based payments and incentives to encourage sustainable transport choices would be most effective.

3.7.4 None of the Above

Overall, 30 respondents provided further comments about why none of the options were appropriate.

Again, some respondents were concerned about negative impacts on those beyond low-income groups. This included disabled people, older people, those in rural areas, those with caring responsibilities, those with health issues, and those that have no other choice than to use their car. It was felt that the options presented did not address their needs and could unfairly impact them. Individuals noted that the cost of EVs was often beyond the means of many people, and therefore any incentives to support moving to such vehicle types would only support the better off (a view supported by the Just Transition Commission). It was also considered unrealistic to expect large scale modal shift towards active travel and public transport, as people were reliant upon their cars.

A few also identified potential unintended consequences and negative issues associated with the promotion of EVs. The size and weight of many EVs was seen as a negative issue, with respondents suggesting these should not be promoted as positive alternatives. In addition, safety concerns were highlighted, including the quieter operation of EVs being a risk to other road users, and the increased risk of fires from e-battery vehicles^[5].

A few respondents highlighted the problems and shortcomings with each of the options offered. This included that higher income households are likely to be a smaller percentage of the population to target, they are more likely to already have more modern and lower emission vehicles, or they may still face transport poverty or be in situations where alternatives to car use are not available. Paying to emit, taxation and incentives could also have unintended consequences. For example, taxing those who are unable to afford newer and cleaner vehicles, incentives only being accessible to the better off, and paying to emit only be a deterrent where it risks pushing households into poverty whilst allowing the better off to pay to continue as before.

A few organisations noted that they supported more than one option, which they thought could be used in combination. Others suggested introducing road user pricing as a funding mechanism.

Again, a few individuals were sceptical about the need for climate change action, or the overall impact that Scotland alone could have as a result of any net zero measures. Others were against tax increases, restrictions on choice and car use, or felt the changes and options to finance them were impractical.

3.7.5 Viable Alternatives Required

Regardless of the option chosen, some respondents again stressed that viable alternatives to private car use needed to be available to encourage and facilitate modal shift. This would require improvements to public transport and active travel options, addressing the lack of alternative options in rural areas, and ensuring services are available locally. Otherwise, it was felt that people would still not be able to switch away from cars:

“It is those that drive the most (individuals and businesses) that will be asked to change their habits the most. This will require considering what mechanisms can discourage car use, but this can only be done where there are reasonable and effective alternatives to the car that cater for the range of a household needs.” (Public Sector Transport Organisation)

3.8 How to Make Things Greener and Fairer

Again, rather than asking engagement event participants about the fairest payment system model to deliver a just transition, the question was reworded resulting in a slightly different focus and potentially different interpretation.

Q8. Which of the following ideas do you think would make things greener and fairer? 1. Those who pollute the most pay the most; 2. Those who earn the most pay the most; 3. We could all share the cost - e.g. through taxes (and rewards for using greener forms of transport); and 4. None of the above

General views were expressed that options needed to be progressive and affordable in order to support a just transition. There was also recognition that investing in areas such as active travel would hopefully reduce costs in other areas, such as health. Similarly, investing in certain transport infrastructure may generate new income to support economic growth.

Comments were also made that the current options focused only on the individual and placed responsibility on them to change their behaviour. Meanwhile, it appeared that businesses (some of whom are big polluters) can continue to do what they want.

Feedback in relation to specific options are outlined below.

Those who pollute the most pay the most: There were mixed views across sessions depending on the profile of participants. In general terms, event participants were supportive of this principle when applied to organisations, corporations and businesses (acknowledging that those in industry emit the most). However, they were less supportive or unsure about its relevance to individuals and households.

For individuals, the principle of the ‘polluter pays’ was seen as too simple. This was especially true in relation to minority groups (including disabled people) and those in low-income households, who rely on ICE cars through necessity. It was felt that there was an inherent ‘presumption of choice’ with this approach which would not reflect reality for many individuals. Others were more supportive of the idea that people should pay more for driving ICE vehicles, but this was not unanimous. Some felt that wealthier individuals who could afford EVs and could afford to fly should pay a bit more. However, others felt that caveats may need to be applied when considering rural communities and where choices were constrained. The main sense to emerge was that those who pollute through choice should pay, whereas those who do so out of necessity should not.

Those who earn the most pay the most: On the whole, participants were not positive about this option, perceiving it as too simplistic and potentially unfair. Groups felt that emissions should be directly rather than indirectly targeted. They also suggested that calculations should include a combination of income and emissions (rather than earnings alone). Again, a more tailored approach that factored in individual circumstances was urged. For example, those who earn the most and have good access to alternatives without reasonable excuses to make the shift were most culpable.

Again, the importance of targeting corporations and businesses rather than individuals was raised, as well as the need to frame this in terms of benefits not costs.

We could all share the cost: Some participants responded positively to the idea of collective responsibility, whereas others felt that options which targeted behaviour were more appropriate. There was interest in the idea of ‘rewards for using greener forms of transport’. However, some groups felt unable to comment without more detail on what this would mean in practice, and there was scepticism about what this would look like at scale. Young people in particular appeared to welcome sharing of costs, as long as there was protection for low-income groups.

Overall, participants felt that the framing of options primarily around increasing costs and creating disincentives meant there was not enough of an emphasis on incentives and positively changing behaviour. It was identified that narrative and framing would be key so as not to appear punitive. In particular, they felt it would need to be clear and explicit how any increased costs were being used to invest in alternatives. Across different groups, participants were not clear on what any revenue raised from car use would be used for.

Crucially, many felt that none of the options were ‘greener and fairer’ unless people were provided with meaningful alternative options and choices. Ensuring a reliable and affordable public transport system was again seen as a key requirement.

Again, as with written consultation responses, a range of other possibilities were also raised in relation to generating money. Suggestions included: use of subsidiarity models; workplace parking levies; private businesses providing their own transport services; increased taxation on private planes; wider taxation (e.g. tourist taxes); and encouraging modal shift.