Transport Just Transition Plan: Consultation Analysis

6. Monitoring and Reporting

6.1 Indicators to Measure Progress

Note: a further 1% of respondents at this question answered ‘don’t know’

Of the 83 respondents that answered the closed part of this question, half (50%, n=41) either agreed or strongly agreed that the draft indicators would help measure progress towards delivering the just transition outcomes. Conversely, less than a third (29%, n=24) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Additionally, 20% (n=17) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Respondents were also invited to comment on specific indicators or to outline issues with specific indicators. Several, however, outlined their reasoning for either supporting or not supporting the indicators more generally.

A wide range of very specific and unique comments were provided on individual indicators, along with suggestions for additional indicators, which were not possible to summarise. The more general comments and feedback are outlined below.

Regardless of respondents’ level of agreement with the indicators, much of the qualitative feedback focused on shortcomings, issues, gaps and additional elements that should be included. Similar to some earlier questions, however, a wide range of concerns and suggestions were raised with little commonality between respondents.

6.1.1 Shortcomings and Issues

The main issues identified, included:

• That the indicators were not measurable or quantifiable;
• Some indicators lacked clarity and specificity, while others were too specific and would miss important information, or would be meaningless on their own without further context;
• Consistent metrics were needed for disaggregation, including for socio-economic and demographic groups, geographic disaggregation, and to capture local context;
• Limited effectiveness due to the simplified urban/rural distinctions adopted;
• Heavy reliance on survey data, national datasets with small sample sizes at the local level, and on previous surveys which may not be repeated;
• Focus on existing measures which may not be best suited to the outcomes in the Plan;
• Lacking information on the funding and actions that will be needed to achieve the indicators and priorities; and
• Failure to align to the National Performance Framework (NPF) outcomes, the Transport Scotland Active Travel Framework (ATF) outcomes and indicators, or the indicators being developed for the Climate View tool for use by all local authorities in Scotland.

6.1.2 Gaps and Suggestions

Elements felt to be missing were very wide ranging, and again typically only identified by one or two respondents each. These tended to focus on socio-economic, environmental, and health based issues, as well as monitoring use of different modes. Specific indicators and measures suggested included:

• Consideration of cost issues, such as affordability and transport poverty, value for money, the economy, funding and support provided, distribution of total public sector expenditure by transport types, and household expenditure on transport and public transport;
• Explicit tracking of traffic volumes, car kilometres, average trip distance and levels of congestion;
• Uptake and use of EVs, zero emission vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles for businesses and households, as well as availability, reliability and costs of EV charging facilities (including for HGVs);
• Public transport perceptions and use, public transport network connectivity and integration, quality of public transport, accessibility, availability, efficiency, frequency, reliability, safety, and the number of active, new and cancelled public transport services;
• Shared bikes, e-bikes and e-scooter use, bike thefts, and perceptions of safety;
• Behaviour change and/or modal shift to public and active travel modes;
• The experiences of, and barriers faced by, disabled people, and the removal of barriers; and
• Environmental impact measures.

A few respondents (largely organisations) also suggested that new data sources and qualitative measures would be needed to monitor progress.

6.1.3 Engagement Event Feedback

Engagement event participants were not specifically asked about the monitoring and reporting elements of the main consultation document. However, one event summary (representing feedback from two focus groups) did raise points about the evaluation and monitoring of the Plan. These included:

• A general sense of disappointment with the indicators and a feeling that this was an important section of the Plan to get right; and
• A suggestion to engage more with the academic community to understand what will be done with the indicators and data and why, as well as a need for more thinking behind the indicators.

Overall, there was disappointment that this section was very output focused. Participants felt there should be more wellbeing indicators, and a focus on whether actions taken had improved people’s lives.

6.2 Additional Data for Monitoring Progress

Q17. If you are aware of any other data being collected that could be used to monitor progress towards any of the outcomes set out in this Plan, please share details.

Overall, 26 respondents provided a substantive response to this question. Of these, 21 identified or suggested possible data sources that could be used to monitor progress. A further five respondents provided other comments much more general and overarching in nature.

All specific data sources and links to websites outlined by respondents were collated and provided to the Scottish Government under separate coverage. However, commonly mentioned sources included:

• The Scottish Household Survey;
• National, regional and local authority level data; and
• A variety of relevant research reports, evaluations, and other monitoring activities that had either been undertaken by the respondent’s own organisation or others.

Other comments largely reiterated previous feedback.