Summary of evidence

The current transport system drives inequalities by prioritising car ownership at the expense of other transport modes. It is clear that, at present, we live in a society which is motonormative (Motonormativity: how social norms hide a major public health hazard, Why do cars get a free ride? The social-ecological roots of motonormativity) and increasingly dependent on private car use (Trapped Behind the Wheel: How England's new builds lock us into car dependency). The complexity of travel behaviour, the interdependencies between transport, planning, and environmental systems, and broader economic factors present challenges in achieving a shift away from car dependency (The political economy of socio-technical transitions: A relational view of the state and bus system decarbonization in the United Kingdom).

Transport Habits

Car Use

Those on lower incomes are less likely to have access to cars. Households with annual incomes of less than £10,000 were significantly less likely to have access to any car, with 56% of those in this bracket reporting they had no cars available for private use, compared with only 4% of households with annual incomes over £50,000 (Scottish Transport Statistics 2024). As a result, frequency of car use increases with income.

A lack of reliable transport alternatives means that some people cannot easily access key services that others with a car can. This can push people into poverty as they need to own a car they cannot afford. A lower percentage of disabled people possess a driving licence (56% vs 78%), and a lower percentage have household access to a car (56% vs 80%) (Disability and Transport 2023). Lower income households, minority ethnic communities, women, older, and disabled people are less likely to own or use a car, however, the negative effects of car use – air and noise pollution, road danger, community severance, and congestion – fall disproportionately on these same groups (Health and Transport: A Guide, Transport, health and wellbeing: An evidence review for the Department of Transport). We also know bus is the mode of public transport most used by lower income groups.

Walking

There are similar rates of walking amongst all income groups, with 17% of those with annual household incomes under £10,000 walking for transport 6 to 7 days per week, compared with 20% of those with annual household incomes over £50,000 (Scottish Transport Statistics 2024). However, people on lower incomes are more likely to walk to work, with 17% of people in the lowest income bands doing so in 2023, compared to just 6% of the highest income band (Scottish Transport Statistics 2024).

Cycling

Those on lower household incomes are less likely to cycle. In 2023, those with annual household incomes under £10,000 2% cycled as a means of transport in the past 7 days, and 3% as a means of keeping fit compared with those with annual household incomes over £50,000, of whom 4% cycled as a means of transport and 6% as a means of keeping fit (Transport and Travel in Scotland 2023). A similar pattern is seen in relation to access to cycles, with 17% of households with annual incomes less than £10,000 having one or more cycles, compared with 60% of households with annual incomes over £50,000 (Transport and Travel in Scotland 2023).

Public Transport

Those on lower incomes are more likely to use bus than those on higher incomes, with 50% of those with household incomes up to £10,000 per annum having used the bus in the past month, compared with 32% of those with household incomes over £50,000 per annum (Transport and Travel in Scotland 2023). The trend is reversed for train use, with 21% of those in the lowest income bracket having used train in the past month, compared with 40% of those in the highest income bracket (Transport and Travel in Scotland 2023).

Health and wellbeing

The negative health impacts of car use, including from poor air quality and road danger are recognised as disproportionately affecting those living in more deprived areas (Health and Transport: A Guide). General levels of health and wellbeing are also lower in more deprived areas, with higher prevalence of disease such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease (Long-term monitoring of health inequalities). People with these conditions can disproportionately benefit from reduced exposure to poor air quality as well as from increased opportunities for physical activity through active travel. Socio-economic disadvantage also increases people’s risk of social isolation (Trapped in a Bubble: An Investigation into Triggers for Loneliness in the UK, Alone in the Crowd: Loneliness and Diversity), and this can be compounded by transport poverty (Transport Poverty in Scotland). Accessible, affordable transport can be important to help overcome this.

Employment

Lack of affordable transport can act as a key barrier to employment, and most importantly as a barrier to accessing good-quality employment. There can be additional challenges for those whose work involves non-standard working hours (i.e. standard public transport services may not be provided during anti-social hours and walking/cycling may be perceived to be unsafe during hours of darkness, or times of day when few other people are travelling). ‘In-work’ or working poverty is of particular concern in tackling poverty and the availability of affordable transport to work can be a key part of overcoming this (What do we know about in-work poverty in Scotland? Interim Findings).

Qualitative evidence from consultation feedback

Consultation responses cited benefits to those on lower incomes as a result of improvements to active travel and public transport infrastructure and services, as well as benefits from concessionary or reduced fares and improved access to cycles. It was also cited that improved access to alternatives, including online access could reduce the reliance on private cars, thereby ‘reducing the costs of forced car ownership’. Benefits of improved access to social and employment opportunities for those who could not afford cars were also cited, as were health benefits from reduced air and noise pollution and reduced road danger; improved local services and amenities as a result of investment in 20 minute neighbourhoods.

Consultation feedback also cited potential negative impacts, however these were largely impacts that would result from car use being prohibited, such as the cost of public transport, or isolation of those for whom a non-car alternative was not available. The route map does not contain any interventions that will prevent car use amongst those who have no alternatives, instead it includes a range of interventions to support those who are able to reduce their car use to do so.

Potential barriers to engaging with the support offered in the route map were however identified, including the fact that those on lower incomes may work in jobs with a lower degree of flexibility, which may mean they are less able to benefit from home working or flexible hours. Barriers to use of online services and lack of secure storage for cycles were also highlighted.

Mitigations proposed in consultation included support with the cost of public transport; increased public transport services to ensure that those who work non-standard hours are provided for; increased provision of secure cycle storage; further support to access cycles; reduced-cost internet connectivity; increased promotion of existing support for sustainable travel; and targeting of future car use disincentives at those in higher income groups, e.g. through targeting of more expensive models of vehicle.