Additional Comments and campaign responses

The final question asked:

A total of 283 respondents opted to provide comments in response to this question, many of whom reiterated issues raised in response to earlier questions.

A small minority of respondents focused on a need for public transport provision to be improved in rural areas, with a few comments that the route map, as it currently stands, is not suitable for rural areas. An allied need to consider rural transport policy was identified by some of these respondents.

A need for regular, low carbon, affordable and reliable public transport was cited by a small minority of respondents, so as to provide competent and reliable services across Scotland that are a suitable alternative to car usage. There were a few comments that public transport should be free for all. A few respondents also mentioned rail travel specifically and wanted to see improvements in train services and expanded rail services.

As in earlier questions, a significant minority of respondents commented that there is a need to have viable alternatives to the car in place. A similar number of respondents suggested the introduction of disincentives to car use. Examples provided included:

• removing cars from city centres;
• removing parking spaces;
• increased taxes for drivers with the example of France where there is additional tax for cars over 2000kg;
• introducing ‘one car, one household’ policies and penalties for a second or more cars;
• increasing tax on vehicles and road pricing structure.

There was a degree of criticism of the route map. Again, a few respondents commented on the need for further evidence to demonstrate the benefits of the route map, along with more detail on baseline data and targets to be achieved. It was also felt that the route map needs greater vision and transparency. Conversely, a similar number of respondents also noted their support for the route map.

Other issues raised at this question and echoing points made at earlier questions included:

• The desire for investment in public transport and funding to local authorities.
• More provision of active travel routes, including separate cycle routes.
• A greater focus on green vehicle alternatives and incentives to help bring about behavioural change.
• Consideration of initiatives being introduced in other countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark or Finland.
• Concern that cars are an integral part of peoples’ lives and will continue to be used at the same level as present.
• Concern that an uptake of cycling is not seen as a serious alternative to car usage because of the Scottish weather, individuals’ ability to cycle and safety concerns.
• Offer incentives to drivers to, for example, increase car sharing or EV usage.
• A need for collaboration across all stakeholders to bring about the behavioural change outlined in the route map, as well as engagement with communities and educational campaigns.
• A focus on other issues that impact the environment, such as planning policy, access to services and having a holistic approach that works across a range of policy areas.

A number of respondents provided additional comments, some of which reiterated points made at earlier questions. Additionally, a total of 73 respondents – almost all individuals – responded to a campaign; some of these respondents referred to their personal experience of using bus services to illustrate the issues they raised.

Some of the respondents welcomed the opportunity to respond to the consultation and provided background information on their organisation to provide context for their response. Some also noted their keenness to be involved in further discussions in this area and work with Transport Scotland.

A few comments were made regarding the needs of disabled people. These included a need for adaptive vehicles and concerns over the affordability and accessibility of public transport (such as dropped kerbs at bus stops or places for wheelchairs). Rail travel was perceived to be better for disabled people than buses.

An organisation involved in the provision of mobility solutions noted that, while it will not be possible to remove the need for cars entirely, car club and rental vehicles can offer a solution, particularly as they are cleaner and newer than many private vehicles. They also suggested that Transport Scotland should work with shared mobility providers who have demonstrated expertise in delivering shared mobility solutions. This organisation also referred to mobility credits which help to ensure that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are not unfairly impacted by any of the proposed interventions. These schemes allow consumers to trade in their old cars in return for credits which can be used on a variety of locally available sustainable transport modes.

The campaign responses focused on a number of specific key issues. These were:

• Agreement that the route map for achieving 20% traffic reduction is right to focus on behaviour change, although there is a need for significant improvements to the infrastructure for non-car road users.
• The National Planning Framework should give councils the powers to reject unsustainable planning developments such as out of town retail parks and drive-through coffee shops. Out of town developments that require extensive car use should be constrained. This would also help to rejuvenate town centres.
• The Scottish bus service should be nationalised as per the rail network, with councils allowed to start publicly-owned bus companies to provide essential routes.
• Services should be moved closer to where people live as part of creating 20 minute neighbourhoods.
• The Scottish Government should work with the UK Government to address the costs of public transport which are more expensive, relative to inflation, than the costs of motoring. Consideration should be given to the introduction of road user charging.